[OT] Plato's Pub and Philosophical Society

[QuarianRex]

Originally posted by Chronon:
PS Cool new avatar QuarianRex (although I did like the historical one) - is that a particular character from fantasy or SF?

You would have to ask David Gervais (or maybe I will). I yanked it off of the avatar emporium. I liked the old one to, it reminded me of a monk or somesuch, but this one was calling to me.

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
My point was that Christian mythos are no more or less valuable to Christians than the mythos of other cultures are to that culture.

No argument here. The problem I had was in refering to the entirety of a religious text (of any religion) as myth, as opposed to pointing out the mythical elements of a text. I was never arguing for the dominance of the christian viewpoint. I was arguing against the implied triviality of religious texts.

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
That is wrong. The ages of rocks are calculated from the half-lives of and relative levels of Carbon, Uranium, and a few other substances in the rocks. This has nothing at all to do with the theory of evolution, and is in no way circular reasoning.

Having now double checked at my school's library, I find "most" is a sever exaggeration - however, it is used. Earth in Upheaval by Immanuel Velikovsky on page 215 says "Coal is found in layers that are ascribed to various ages mainly on the basis of fissils found in them" and in Dating the Past Fredrick E Zeuner says "Many forms of life existed for comparitively short persiod only and therefore afford valuable data for the correlation of strata in distant places" on page 307.

Oh, and Fyron, when you contradict someone outright, it is common courtesy to include a source.

[Phoenix-D]

"Dating the Past Fredrick E Zeuner says "Many forms of life existed for comparitively short persiod only and therefore afford valuable data for the correlation of strata in distant places" on page 307."

Simple method where this sort of thing can work.

You've found X fossil in several rock formations. They all date to approximately the same age. Now you find another X fossil in another rock formation. You can't date these rocks directly, because they don't have enough of the proper elements (dating based on nuclear decay doesn't work if there's nothing to decay). So you can say that the rocks are -probably- about the same age as the other rocks holding X fossil.

Immanuel Velikovsky- what I've heard of him was been..somewhat less than favorable. The words junk science comes to mind.

Phoenix-D

[CEO TROLL]

DAMN!!! I am not needed on this thread.

[Fyron]

QR:

I was arguing against the implied triviality of religious texts.

This would be another example of people putting words in my mouth. My Posts did not imply any such triviality.

Jack:

Having now double checked at my school's library, I find "most" is a sever exaggeration - however, it is used. Earth in Upheaval by Immanuel Velikovsky on page 215 says "Coal is found in layers that are ascribed to various ages mainly on the basis of fissils found in them" and in Dating the Past Fredrick E Zeuner says "Many forms of life existed for comparitively short persiod only and therefore afford valuable data for the correlation of strata in distant places" on page 307.

I never said that there were not scientists that get things wrong. But- esp. in the modern day- the vast majority of scientists do not do what you said they do, they date things in the most correct and accurate manner available to us.

Oh, and Fyron, when you contradict someone outright, it is common courtesy to include a source.

My contradiction needed no sources, actually. I could have spent time finding them, but they would not have contributed anything to my post in this case that my own words did not contribute. Extra verification would have been overkill, as it is a basic fact, not an obtuse one.

[ March 13, 2003, 23:45: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[Krsqk]

From what I understand of radioisotope dating, it rarely comes out with the correct date on samples of known age. We assume it works on samples of unknown age. There are dozens of examples of horrendously inaccurate dates published in scientific journals. Even parts from the Mt. St. Helens ordeal have been dated in the low millions.

Without question, regardless of the original denotation and connotation, myth has a negative meaning now. It is indelibly linked with "fairy tale" in the minds of English speakers. Maybe we should develop a new word here and try to get it into the OED.

[Fyron]

From what I understand of radioisotope dating, it rarely comes out with the correct date on samples of known age. We assume it works on samples of unknown age. There are dozens of examples of horrendously inaccurate dates published in scientific journals. Even parts from the Mt. St. Helens ordeal have been dated in the low millions.

The thing about that is a few million years of innaccuracy don't matter for dating things that are hundreds of millions of years old.

Radioisotope dating is not supposed to be relatively accurate for "newer" objects, only for "older" ones. It is never meant as an absolute indicator. People that use it as such are indeed using it incorrectly.

Without question, regardless of the original denotation and connotation, myth has a negative meaning now. It is indelibly linked with "fairy tale" in the minds of English speakers. Maybe we should develop a new word here and try to get it into the OED.

Only to people that think that the dictionary definition is the absolute authority. Dictionary definitions often do not address complex terms very well, and also tend to use (sometimes wrong) connotations as denotations. They also often completely miss some uses of more complex terms (most often literary terms- such as mythology).