Science is the application of the scientific method. We had technology before this, and the approaches of science were partly adopted throughout history in different cultures, but it wasn't until after the enlightenment it started to become more widely applied.

Science boosted technological achievements significantly by allowing us to test systematically. It not as though it was never done in the past, just called different things (like natural philosophy) and was more isolated and somewhat less rigorous.

and Soren ?? 

as for 'observation'... are you referring to the sign that lead the wise men to the Jesus child??


seems 'schooling' hasn't done you much good.... 

Watch Phil Robinson, who appears to be Yadda's theological/creation doppelgänger.                   

Listen carefully to Phil Robinson's 'point by point', in his opening presentation.

Evolutionists Get Owned By Creationists on BBC TV Show                        13m
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sP63mfn0gg


Radioactive dating 'proves' an old earth, supposedly - But if in the first instance, rd is a flawed process, then relying upon rd must result in a flawed conclusion. And relying upon such a process would be unlikely to ever result in a correct conclusion.

The process of 'evolution' of the species found on earth, relies upon 'Natural Selection' - But the problem is, that in a 'selection' process, you can only select from what you already have. Where does the new [extra] biological information come from ?

Without a reliable dating process;
The age of rocks - IS NOT CONCLUSIVE
The age of dinosaur fossils - IS NOT CONCLUSIVE
The age when dinosaurs lived - IS NOT CONCLUSIVE

And 'Natural Selection';
How can we get more information, from less information, gene wise ?



Richard Dawkins stumped by creationists question
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g

Yadda wrote on Nov 8^th, 2012 at 11:04pm:


Exactly how is radiometric dating flawed?

Yadda wrote on Nov 8^th, 2012 at 11:04pm:


Oh wow, that hurt my brain. Lots of claims, little evidence to back them. Also other things such as I think this is wrong (let's say it is for the sake of the argument) that adds absolutely no credibility to religious explanations at all.

Kytro wrote on Nov 8^th, 2012 at 11:52pm:



Kytro,

Thank you.

I can not argue against the information that is presented.

Yadda wrote on Nov 9^th, 2012 at 10:05am:



If scientists know that inconsistent results are likely and common [in the radiometric dating of rocks], isn't it unprofessional and even 'unscientific', to keep using, and, to keep relying upon the results of a process, of who's integrity has been widely questioned ?

If real scientists, really do have confidence in [the potential of] radiometric dating, shouldn't they present/develop a 'foolproof' methodology of applying that process, so as to obtain consistent results ?

Interesting avatar yadda. Is it your cat?

SOB