|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 503 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: An honest question for creos regarding dates and dating | |||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The point I would abandon my faith is if you could prove something beyond a doubt. As a Christian I really hate seeing folk say something like that. The reason is that sooner or later you will be forced to admit that the issue of an old earth, and even the issue of Evolution, have long been proven way beyond a doubt. There is simply too much evidence for any sane, rational, honest individual to ever doubt either. But when you reach that point, and hopefully you are sane, rational and honest, why should that cause you to give up your faith? There is no conflict between Christianity and either the billions of years old universe or Evolution. The vast majority of Christian Churches accept both Evolution and the Old Earth. They do not see any conflict, any dicotomy between the two. So maybe you should be asking, what is it that is different between the Creationists and all the other Christians out there in the world? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1732 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: So, it must be absolutely proven? I have a feeling that Johnny Cochrane would like your phone number.
quote: Care to be more specific?
quote: So, it is all a coincidence, eh?
quote: Sure would like to hear them. You have made an assertion. Can you back it up?
quote: Not really. There would be evidence that is truly unexplainable. Unfortunately for all YECs, this is not the case.
quote: Could have?? What is the evidence for this?
quote: Okay.
quote: That would be the simplest explanation.
quote: Because they must deny the radiocarbon evidence. I suppose to you it is just a coincidence that there is a very good correlation.
quote: Not sure why this is important. THere are thousands of details in the study of evolution. However, we don't really have even a basic theory when it comes to YEC.
quote: What are the disagreements here?
quote: Have you looked at the evidence for the different theories? There might be a clue there.
quote: Good. Evolution says nothing about morals, for instance. For some reason, YECs seem to think that it does or should. If you look up the definition of theory, you will note that there is nothing about will or ethics etc., just an explanation.
quote: True. The problem is that YEC explains virtually nothing.
quote: Nonsense. It shows that science is alive and well. And you will notice that the 'controversies' are often manufactured by YECs anyway. You really should read some mainstream stuff.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
fredsbank Inactive Member |
quote: Thanks. I’ve read some other threads where neither side is nice. To me, any conversation like this is pointless if you can’t be civil and/or stick to the point. Too often I see people get sidetracked on a non issue during a debate like this.
quote: quote: I’m starting to see the same arguments over and over again. Even AIG doesn’t seem to have much information that doesn’t have an objection somewhere. I was hoping to find a good refute to ar40-ar39 dating, but it’s hardly mentioned in the creationist circles. I haven’t given up. I think I need to change my tactics for searching..
quote: I did find a mention of this lab and the 3 million year limit reference. This page said they don’t even do k/ar dating anymore but when they did, there was a limit listed on their web page. I don’t remember where it was, but I figured since it supported your statement, you wouldn’t plague me a link request.
quote: Your yardstick scenario gives me an analogy. Tell me if I have this right. Let’s say I believe that nothing can exist that is longer than 12 inches. You give me an object 24 inches long to measure. I take out my ruler (a 12 ruler) and tell you it’s 12 inches. Furthermore, I tell you the rest of the material being measured doesn’t really exist since nothing is longer than 12 inches. Does that sum up your opinion of the YEC argument? If so, I can see why you are so incredulous. I admit that reading some of your material makes me think that’s what my argument adds up too. But I’m not ready to concede yet.
quote: quote: There are some names that are completely blackballed in the non-creationist circles. I think the favorite is Austin, and the RATE group is getting slammed a lot too. I need to sit down at a library and look at some material that isn’t trying to disprove creation claims, or visa versa. Some objections are so riddled with obvious disdain that I can’t say their arguments are objective. One thing that comes to mind are letters to the editor about something Tas Walker submitted to TAG: http://www.uq.net.au/~zztbwalk/TAG.html. Instead of objecting to the content, they resort to ridicule and personal attacks. Not very helpful from my perspective.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
fredsbank Inactive Member |
Sidelined:
quote: Since the people at AIG and ICR would consider themselves peers of each other, and they mostly agree with each other, they think they are right? I know that doesn’t make them right, but it helps solidify their position in their mind.
quote: Thanks. I was already reading on other subjects, but got sidetracked trying to keep up all the posts on this thread. This website you mention is from someone that has written off religion. I'm not so sure his comments about religion are going to be objective. One of the first things I read was his disdain from YEC. But there is more stuff I want to look at on there before I write it off completely.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
fredsbank,
Thanks for all of the replies. If you read the opening post in this thread you will notice that we have strayed away from the intended purpose. Hopefully I can ask some honest questions of you that are not intended to trap you into picking one side or another, but instead as a way of investigating what evidence you are using to gauge the age of the earth. 1. What is the solid evidence that first led you to believe that a the earth was young and not old? 2. What piece of evidence would falsify a young earth in your opinion? 3. What procedures should we use for measuring the age of the earth? I will not debate the validity of your answers (at least I will try not to) and instead try to better understand your position. Just as an aside, you might want to check out Radiometric Dating . The title of the web page is "Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective" by Dr. Roger C. Wiens. His qualifications are as follows: "Dr. Wiens has a PhD in Physics, with a minor in Geology. His PhD thesis was on isotope ratios in meteorites, including surface exposure dating. He was employed at Caltech's Division of Geological & Planetary Sciences at the time of writing the first edition. He is presently employed in the Space & Atmospheric Sciences Group at the Los Alamos National Laboratory." Being a former christian, I know how important it is to have possibly anti-religious (but not anti-christian) perspective explained by someone who is also a christian. I am not intending this as a refutation of anything you have written, only as a suggestion on future reading. Have a good day.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
fredsbank Inactive Member |
Ned: Thank you for the nice post. I'm not insulted. I feel I'm doing you a disservice by not commenting more on your post, but I just can't keep up with the volume. I do have two comments:
quote: In creationist circles the core is agreed on. That would be the Bible.
quote: And the point is that popular science today is so indoctrinated with old earth, that even if concrete proof of a young earth existed, science wouldn't be able to recognize it. In my opinion, this thought has scared some people. Otherwise you wouldn't have the vast amount of criticism of YEC. I mean, if the science is so bad, why are so many people dedicating time to attack it (therefore feeding the controversy)? This web site is a prime example. In addition, when people feel cornered, they tend to resort to personal attacks, which I’ve seen in abundance. One of my last posts have a link to an example. (I tried to make a really long, multi-subject paragraph just for you!) As for the rest of your article, I can't refute your science. I just don't have the knowledge. I can appreciate what you are saying though, and I appreciate your time in writing it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5934 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
fredsbank
Since the people at AIG and ICR would consider themselves peers of each other, and they mostly agree with each other, they think they are right? I know that doesn’t make them right, but it helps solidify their position in their mind. Actually the idea of peer review is to present before experts in the field and allow them to mercilessly hack it to bits your work if they can do so.This serves two purposes: 1}it gets the positions out there where they can be checked by experts to determine its worth and 2}It forces the writer of the position to check his work thoroughly and in this way produce better work. That a person has written or not written off religion should not be anm issue. Rather does his/her position on a subject have evidence to back it up? In order to do this it is necessary on your part to have some idea of the means by which science is able to know what it knows by understanding how a branch of science comes to arrive at the position that it does. If you want to get a good idea of the power of science and the disconncet between the layman's view of the world and the scientists understanding of it I believe you would enjoy the following website. http://www.explorepdx.com/gates.html Here you can see for yourself how science is a great adventure that,when understood properly, reveals things you never suspected were there.Have fun and I will be back again soon.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: The opinion of many christian scientists is that we should study God's creation to allow us to accurately interpret the Bible. Creationists tend to ignore God's Creation and instead focus on their interpretation of the Bible. It seems like a very egotistical point of view to me, but it really isn't for me to judge. However, I am able to judge other people's representation of God's Creation through the scientific method, which is what I attempt to do with each post.
quote: Because creationists want to insert their work into public school curiculum. It is like inserting the teachings of the Aryan Nation Church into History class. I, for one, don't want my children taught that the Holocaust was faked. Not because I disagree with the thought of the Holocaust being faked, but because it has no place in an HONEST and FACTUALLY based course within History. For the same reason, I don't want my children (of which I have none at the moment) or anyone else's children taught false and disproven scientific theories in science class. Creationism is a political movement under a facade of pseudo-scientific theories. Creationists will latch onto anything as long as it gets God introduced in public schools. Also, it is just plain fun to talk about science with other people.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
At the POTM I declared #68 to be part of an off-topic series. Now, after again looking at message 1, I may have to give it a greater "on-topic" rating.
Anyhow, as a "what is the topic refresher", in message 1, Lam said:
I would honestly like to know how the creationists on this site explain what appear to be many scientific evidence that point to an old earth rather than a relatively young one. Moose This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 08-24-2004 01:16 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Lysimachus Member (Idle past 5216 days) Posts: 380 Joined: |
Note: The following post(s) are in response the C14 discussion in "Theory: Why The Exodus Myth Exists"
PaulK,
quote: And this I do not deny. You are approaching the terminology from child’s perspective, without really investigating the technicalities. You remain surfacy and refuse getting to the bottom and distinguishing the differences between the ranges I mentioned. C14 is used for dates UP to 50,000 years to give us estimated results period, however we cannot expect the results to be 100% accurate beyond c. 3000 years. To expect 100% accurate results, we must not go beyond c. 3000 years. To get any results at all, we must not go beyond 50,000 years. One doesn’t virtually get any interpretable readings beyond 50,000 years. Can you see the difference here? I believe this is what is meant by Jonothan Gray's statement regarding Geochron Labs. You just want to call him a liar--instead of accepting that his statement is based on various attempts by archaeologists to get Geochron labs to do testing. They will perform dating up to 50,000 years, as long as you don't expect them to hold their word and make a claim the the results are reliable. They will, however, confidently rely on the outputted data from anything up to 3000 and safely make a claim. This should answer the rest of the points you raised. Same answer applies to the points jar raised. But once again, let us not lose focus that regardless how far this argument may extend regarding C14, no sincere debator can honestly expect to get any reasonable results on 3000+ year old coral encrusted chariot parts, or any parts that have been sitting in high-salt content waters--as we know that salt water--after an extended amount of time--leeches out the carbon 14 molecules. That is the main argument presented regarding C14 dating the chariot remains at the bottom of the Gulf of Aqaba. Unfortunately, however, both Jar and PaulK keep trying to divert the attention and argue on C14 SOLELY without wanting to take into consideration any of the good points I have made regarding the circumstances of why C14 dating would be USELESS in this instance. If the topic had remained on dating the chariot wheels, I wouldn't have had to switch this discussion to this topic. This message has been edited by Lysimachus, 08-29-2004 04:02 PM ~Lysimachus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Lysimachus, you, your brother, Buz, WILLOWTREE, whatever, NOTHINGNESS and the rest have not provided one shred of evidence in any thread that you have participated in. In addition, when others have presented firm, hard evidence that pointed towards a different conclusion, you have simply attacked the poster.
Once again, you are only making bare assertions with no evidence whatsoever to support your position.
C14 is used for dates UP to 50,000 years to give us estimated results period, however we cannot expect the results to be 100% accurate beyond c. 3000 years. To expect 100% accurate results, we must not go beyond c. 3000 years. To get any results at all, we must not go beyond 50,000 years. One doesn’t virtually get any interpretable readings beyond 50,000 years. Can you see the difference here? That is a nonsense statement since all dating is done within a margin of error. There is no such thing as 100% accurate dating.
I believe this is what is meant by Jonothan Gray's statement regarding Geochron Labs. You just want to call him a liar--instead of accepting that his statement is based on various attempts by archaeologists to get Geochron labs to do testing. They will perform dating up to 50,000 years, as long as you don't expect them to hold their word and make a claim the the results are reliable. They will, however, confidently rely on the outputted data from anything up to 3000 and safely make a claim. That whole statement is simply gibberish and whithout meaning. Jonothan Gray, like the rest of the Ron Wyatt crowd, at best doesn't know what he's talking about. Reliable results are always given with a margin of error.
That is the main argument presented regarding C14 dating the chariot remains at the bottom of the Gulf of Aqaba. No, the main argument against the claims is that there is no evidence. So far there is nothing to show that Ron and successors have ever found even one chariot wheel in the whole Arabian Penninsula. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1732 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Actually, I wouldn't trust an analysis on anyything that was encrusted by coral, regadless of the date unless there was some independent supporting data. I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Are are you just splitting hairs on when radiocarbon dating error becomes unacceptable? Certainly, in instances where the technique is applicable it can be quite accurate up to about 50ky. THis obviously involves some judgement, but that is why we don't usually let YECs do this at home.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Lysimachus Member (Idle past 5216 days) Posts: 380 Joined: |
Jar,
quote: If you think this is true, then I will turn it on you and say that you have not provided one shred of evidence against our claims. You still have not listed to me the campaigns I asked for that you claim took place in the Nuweiba area. You also outright attack people. At one point, you fumed with anger to the point where you just took my data and scribbled it over andwhereas other critics gave an honest answer and said our evidence was very convincing. As old as you are, you are very limited in knowledge and understanding. You disappoint me Jar, as your life is set against any science that may support the Biblical record. You claim to be a Christian, but not once have I ever read anything from you that supports the Bible. You cannot be a Christian and not believe in the Bible, as all Christianity stems from the Biblical teaching. A Christian is one who proclaims the name of Christ, and where do we learn of this Christ? From the Bible alone. But you believe in Evolution. The Bible does not support Evolution, so therefore, you cannot claim to be a Christian and an Evolutionist at the same time. You go around attacking people’s claims of having evidence, yet you yourself do not provide one shred of evidence yourself. Hopefully one day you will see the merit to the discoveries I have presented. The discovery of Noah’s Ark, Sodom and Gomorrah, The Red Sea Crossing, and Mt. Sinai have provided compelling evidence, and I have letters showing that many atheists have been converted. However, these were sincere atheistslike doubting Thomas’s, who needed to see evidence before they believed. They saw it finally, and they believed. You on the other hand, see the evidence and continue to deny it as evidence. So sad. But these discoveries will continue to manifest themselves, and they will forever torment you as long as you live. The evidence for these discoveries has been escalating ever since Ron Wyatt died in 1999, and the more evidence that is brought forth, the more humiliation the staunch critics will have to experience. Since you have been so staunchly against these discoveries, I see very little hope for you.
quote:quote: So you do not admit that the accuracy varies depending on the age of the material being dated? Sure there is a margin of error. Let me rephrase the 100% statement, since you are highly nitpicky. Though there may be a margin of error within the 3000 (some say 4000-4500)) years, it is generally accepted for one to claim the data as reliable in this range. Beyond that, the data is unreliable. Beyond 50,000 years (of course, we do not even believe that the earth is near that old, but this is based on the premise if it wasto play on under the Evolutionary turf), the results are virtually not interpretable.
quote:quote: Prove to me that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. I just explained to you the context he is referring to, and that is under the context that there is a difference between the 3000 and 50,000 range. Even ICR specifically states thus: Obviously, if half the C-14 decays in 5,730 years, and half more decays in another 5,730 years, by ten half-lives (57,300 years) there would be essentially no C-14 left. Thus, no one even considers using carbon dating for dates in this range. In theory, it might be useful to archaeology, but not to geology or paleontology. Furthermore, the assumptions on which it is based and the conditions which must be satisfied are questionable, and in practice, no one trusts it beyond about 3,000 or 4,000 years, and then only if it can be checked by some historical means. The method assumes, among other things, that the earth's age exceeds the time it would take for C-14 production to be in equilibrium with C-14 decay. Since it would only take less than 50,000 years to reach equilibrium from a world with no C-14 at the start, this always seemed like a good assumption. That is until careful measurements revealed a significant disequalibrium. The production rate still exceeds decay by 30%. All the present C-14 would accumulate, at present rates of production and build up, in less than 30,000 years! Thus the earth's atmosphere couldn't be any older than this.-- Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation Research And don’t start your spiel on me that I can’t trust ICR because they are Creationists, because I could just as easily accuse you of relying on a pro-evolutionary source. The scientific world involves both Creationists and Evolutionists. Evolutionists hate it when creationists rely on creation based sources, and creationists hate it when evolutionists rely on evolutionary based sources. So can you honestly say I am wrong for doing this?
quote: My response regarding C14 stemmed from ramoss’s original quote:
quote: My answer was to prove the assertion that the wheels can be carbon 14 dated as wrong. Thus, the main argument regarding C14 dating was that we should use it to date the wheels. I intern provided evidence why I believe this cannot reliably be done. edge,
quote:quote: The reason why you don’t understand what I’m getting at here is because you did not read my posts in Theory: Why The Exodus Myth Exists on the last couple pages. People are asking why C14 dating has not been done on the chariot remains found at the bottom of the Gulf of Aqaba, and I’m only giving them reasonable answers as to why I believe using C14 would prove rather uselessseeing they are coral encrusted and sitting in a high-salt content sea for over 3000 years. That is all. You understand my point now? This message has been edited by Lysimachus, 08-29-2004 05:42 PM ~Lysimachus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 760 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
ICR says, apparently:
All the present C-14 would accumulate, at present rates of production and build up, in less than 30,000 years! Thus the earth's atmosphere couldn't be any older than this. "Present rates of production and build up"! Meaning the boys at ICR aren't aware that there was above-ground testing of nuclear weapons back in the 1950's and 60's? And they haven't heard that lots of jungle is burning in the tropics? It's just astounding to me that they can be this pig-ignorant about things they pretend authority about. I would really prefer to think they're being deliberately deceptive.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
It's just astounding to me that they can be this pig-ignorant about things they pretend authority about. not if their purpose is to deceive.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024