Comments on: Happy Birthday, Charles

By: Andrew W

Andrew W — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 09:42:06 +0000

People who argue that claims of a 4.6 billion year old Earth is wrong, don’t really (or don’t want to)understand how the sciences are all connected, and how they support each other, not out of some sort of human motivation of loyalty, but through the strength and demands of the scientific method.
One of the books on my shelf is Darwin, A Life In Science by John Gribbin and Michael White, the book describes the conflict that occurred between Geology and Evolution by natural selection on the one hand, and Physics on the other, I’ve found an outline of that dispute here:

http://bearcastle.com/blog/?p=1417

What It illustrates is that when you dispute the age of the Earth, you’re actually challenging many different scientific disciplines, disciplines that have in the past been in dispute but that have, through the advancement of science, reached agreement.

By: Andrew W

Andrew W — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 06:37:25 +0000

Kiwi Polemicist, Regarding your first link, the fossils in question are dated at 500 MY BP, presumably you dismiss this dating as I would assume that it doesn’t fit with your creationist beliefs.

It’s suggested that the 7 layers of fossilisation occurred over a million years, I guess that doesn’t fit with one great flood so the writter of the article dismisses this also.
I haven’t read the paper referred to in the article but a couple of things that occurred to me are, assuming the other claims made are correct, there are things called submarine avalanches, these can occur repeatedly (over periods of millions of years) at the same location (Hawaii has had some and will have more). While a swarm of jellyfish caught in the avalanche would be chewed up and not fit the find as described, jellyfish killed by the clouds of sediment released, which could settle over a huge area, perhaps would.

Sorry, but I’m not interested in trawling through all the Q&A of your second link, if there’s something profound there let me know.

I don’t know enough of the background to your third link to comment (is it quote mining?), and as it’s just one mans opinion it doesn’t bother me.

I agree with your comments about Coddington’s changeable political beliefs, and you probably realise that in terms of economic and political views, there’s not much distance between you and I.
On the topic of AGW I’m sympathetic (if that’s the right word)towards an ETS (don’t like this one though) because not externalising costs ie. user pays, fits with my economic views.

I didn’t see your above comment earlier – perhaps the links resulted in it being held up for moderation?

By: Andrew W

Andrew W — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 22:12:28 +0000

Sorry, KP = Kiwi Polemicist

By: Ken

Ken — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:49:10 +0000

Darin = Darwin
Ken´s last blog ..Peer review – an emotional roller coaster

By: Ken

Ken — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:08:28 +0000

Andrei, you don’t get it, do you? I actually don’t “believe” in global warming. As a scientists I will accept facts and draw m=y own conclusion – or trust those of experts when I don’t have the expertise. As this is not “belief” I can easily alter my conclusions as new data come in. All this is normal experience for an active scientists.

The unfortunate thing about “belief’ is that it usually comes with emotional and ideological commitments. This means that facts get cherry picked, selected and distorted to fit in to the preconceived belief. Exactly the opposite to science – more like religion.

I think the current attacks against NIWA are part of an essentially dogmatic religious approach. They certainly aren’t science.

And this also goes for the current attacks on Darin and evolutionary science.
Ken´s last blog ..Peer review – an emotional roller coaster