Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
67 online now:
PaulK, vimesey (2 members, 65 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,122 Year: 4,234/6,534 Month: 448/900 Week: 154/150 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Best evidence for Creation
Tusko
Member (Idle past 187 days)
Posts: 612
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 166 of 176 (486571)
10-22-2008 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Brian
07-29-2008 9:02 AM


Moon Coincidences?
The things that are most impressive as far as I'm concerned are a couple of moon-based coincidences - that the moon covers the sun so well during a total solar eclipse, and that 28 days give or take is the moons orbit round the earth and that 28 days is a human menstrual cycle, give or take.

This isn't evidence for an Abramic creator - in fact it isn't evidence for any kind of creator really - but I think its the best evidence there is that there might be a creator rather than just boring blind chance.

I accept that there are a hundred cool coincidences related to just about anything you care to name - but I think there is some special resonance here that links the sun, the moon, human biology - that is pretty impressive.

As an aside, does anyone else know any cool moon-related coincidences that might sit along side these nicely?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Brian, posted 07-29-2008 9:02 AM Brian has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Huntard, posted 10-22-2008 3:37 PM Tusko has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 1527 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 167 of 176 (486573)
10-22-2008 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Tusko
10-22-2008 3:14 PM


Re: Moon Coincidences?
Tusko writes:

The things that are most impressive as far as I'm concerned are a couple of moon-based coincidences - that the moon covers the sun so well during a total solar eclipse, and that 28 days give or take is the moons orbit round the earth and that 28 days is a human menstrual cycle, give or take.

This isn't evidence for an Abramic creator - in fact it isn't evidence for any kind of creator really - but I think its the best evidence there is that there might be a creator rather than just boring blind chance.

I accept that there are a hundred cool coincidences related to just about anything you care to name - but I think there is some special resonance here that links the sun, the moon, human biology - that is pretty impressive.

As an aside, does anyone else know any cool moon-related coincidences that might sit along side these nicely?


Right here we go...:

The moon used to be closer to the earth then it is today, it didn't "fit so well" over the sun then, and in the future it will be too "small" to cover the sun entirely.

The menstrual cycle is also easily explained. In the old days (I'm talking way back here, think 100.000 year and more) When the moon was full, the men would go out hunting, because, well, there's more light and all to see the prey and stuff. Hunts in those days could take a whole week or so. During this time, they could of course not impregnate their females. They could do this when they were there, so, due to natural selection, the beneficial act of going into menstruation during the full moon was selected for and the negative act of going into menstruation when there wasn't a full moon was selected against, and that's how we ended up with it today.

As for cool moon coincidences, I've heard it said there are more murders during a full moon. This is of course also easily explained. Again, during a full moon there is more light, thus it is easier to kill someone. :D


I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Tusko, posted 10-22-2008 3:14 PM Tusko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Tusko, posted 10-22-2008 3:48 PM Huntard has replied

  
Tusko
Member (Idle past 187 days)
Posts: 612
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 168 of 176 (486574)
10-22-2008 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by Huntard
10-22-2008 3:37 PM


Re: Moon Coincidences?
Hey, that's fun. Your first points are both very good - however, I don't think either of them necessarily puncture the moon-related fun. The fact that the moon is only the "perfect" distance away from the earth when there is sentient life on board to enjoy it doesn't necessarily mean that it is necessarily dismissable as just blind chance.

Also the evolutionary narrative for menstrual cycles is ultimately just that isn't it, a narrative?

Thanks for getting back to me with good points - I've been away for ages and its nice to post again.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Huntard, posted 10-22-2008 3:37 PM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Huntard, posted 10-24-2008 9:20 PM Tusko has taken no action

  
wardog25
Member (Idle past 4785 days)
Posts: 37
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 169 of 176 (486637)
10-23-2008 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by Coyote
10-22-2008 1:40 PM


quote:
I don't think anyone will be upset that it is a Christian website.

My problem with AiG is that it lies, misrepresents, and distorts a lot of the data, or ignores the data entirely. Its track record in terms of both science and accuracy is abysmal.

Here is a link that might serve you better:

Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.


This article seems like a very wordy way of saying that since dating methods basically agree with each other, they must be right.

Well if I set all the clocks in my house to the wrong time, they might agree, but they are still wrong. The original question remains. Why do samples that we know the age of give incorrect results when tested? I couldn't care less if that guy can list 500 more dating methods that agree. If you test one method and it gives a wrong answer, all that does is bring every one of those dating methods into question.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Coyote, posted 10-22-2008 1:40 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Chiroptera, posted 10-23-2008 10:49 AM wardog25 has taken no action
 Message 171 by Coyote, posted 10-23-2008 11:27 AM wardog25 has taken no action
 Message 172 by obvious Child, posted 10-24-2008 4:31 PM wardog25 has taken no action
 Message 173 by bluescat48, posted 10-24-2008 6:06 PM wardog25 has taken no action
 Message 175 by Huntard, posted 10-24-2008 9:33 PM wardog25 has taken no action
 Message 176 by RAZD, posted 10-24-2008 11:05 PM wardog25 has taken no action

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 170 of 176 (486643)
10-23-2008 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by wardog25
10-23-2008 9:48 AM


Well if I set all the clocks in my house to the wrong time, they might agree, but they are still wrong.

If I went into your house and saw all the clocks were the same, then I would assume that they gave the correct time. If the time they gave were consistent with other information I had that gave an estimate of the time, then I would be more likely to accept the time as correct. Why wouldn't I? The only way I could find out otherwise is

(1) through another, independent check on the correct time, or

(2) a theory of why the clocks are all wrong in exactly the same way, a theory that I can test through independent means.

As far as (1) goes, there isn't an independent check of the absolute time scales in geology, so that presently isn't possible. Well, there is one check: the radiometric dates are consistent with the geologic time scales worked out by geologists before radioactivity was discovered, so why wouldn't we accept the radiometric dates?

As far as (2), the only testable proposals that would explain why the radiometric dates would be wrong are a decrease in the decay rates of the materials, or the gain or loss of isotopes in the crystals; not only do tests not bear these out, but these mechanisms wouldn't explain why the radiometric dates are wrong in the same way.

So, to sum up: we accept the dates as correct because they agree with what we already know from other fields of science, and there is no explanation of why they should be wrong and wrong in exactly the same way.

-

Added by edit:

I couldn't care less if that guy can list 500 more dating methods that agree. If you test one method and it gives a wrong answer, all that does is bring every one of those dating methods into question.

But this isn't how you act in real life. To use the analogy you brought up, if you ask 500 people for the time, and 499 tell you that it's 2:15 and one person says that it's noon, I bet you don't assume that there is no accurate way to tell time. I bet you admit that the time is most likely 2:15. You know that occasionally a watch will be wrong, but most watches that are being used will be right most of the time.

Why else would you even have a clock if you couldn't generally rely on it? You use a clock because use of clocks are generally far more reliable than guessing the time, even if you do see a wrong clock once in a while.

Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.


Speaking personally, I find few things more awesome than contemplating this vast and majestic process of evolution, the ebb and flow of successive biotas through geological time. Creationists and others who cannot for ideological or religious reasons accept the fact of evolution miss out a great deal, and are left with a claustrophobic little universe in which nothing happens and nothing changes.
-- M. Alan Kazlev

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by wardog25, posted 10-23-2008 9:48 AM wardog25 has taken no action

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1338 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 171 of 176 (486646)
10-23-2008 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by wardog25
10-23-2008 9:48 AM


Dating
The original question remains. Why do samples that we know the age of give incorrect results when tested? I couldn't care less if that guy can list 500 more dating methods that agree. If you test one method and it gives a wrong answer, all that does is bring every one of those dating methods into question.

This is properly addressed in one of the Dating threads.

One of my fields is radiocarbon dating (primarily sample collection and interpretation), and I know a couple of others here are pretty good at the mechanics of the method.

Bring your objections to a dating thread and we'll be happy to show you where you are wrong.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by wardog25, posted 10-23-2008 9:48 AM wardog25 has taken no action

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 3348 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 172 of 176 (486793)
10-24-2008 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by wardog25
10-23-2008 9:48 AM


Because creationists like Snelling violate known issues such as testing non-cogenetic samples. And then they lie about testing homogeneous ones. A simple understanding of basic testing rules can easily show why a few examples of testing are deviant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by wardog25, posted 10-23-2008 9:48 AM wardog25 has taken no action

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 3422 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 173 of 176 (486807)
10-24-2008 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by wardog25
10-23-2008 9:48 AM


If you test one method and it gives a wrong answer, all that does is bring every one of those dating methods into question.

Not necessarily, which is why scientists use different methods of dating. If the date would seem suspect, other methods should not give the same date. At this point corrective measures would be instigated such as searching for contamination.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969


This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by wardog25, posted 10-23-2008 9:48 AM wardog25 has taken no action

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 1527 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 174 of 176 (486839)
10-24-2008 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Tusko
10-22-2008 3:48 PM


Re: Moon Coincidences?
Tusko writes:

Hey, that's fun. Your first points are both very good


Why, thank you!

however, I don't think either of them necessarily puncture the moon-related fun. The fact that the moon is only the "perfect" distance away from the earth when there is sentient life on board to enjoy it doesn't necessarily mean that it is necessarily dismissable as just blind chance.

The moon will be to far away in the future (looking at the lifespan of this planet, it won't even be too ling into the future) I'm guessing sentient life will still be here then. Does it still fit so perfectly?

Also the evolutionary narrative for menstrual cycles is ultimately just that isn't it, a narrative?

Perhaps, I seem to remember reading about it in a scientific sense thoug. But, since I can't recall for certain, I won't hold you to that. However, you'll have to admit it is a possible explanation.

Thanks for getting back to me with good points - I've been away for ages and its nice to post again.

Glad I could be of service :D


I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Tusko, posted 10-22-2008 3:48 PM Tusko has taken no action

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 1527 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 175 of 176 (486841)
10-24-2008 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by wardog25
10-23-2008 9:48 AM


wardog25 writes:

This article seems like a very wordy way of saying that since dating methods basically agree with each other, they must be right.


Well, if independent sources agree wih eachother, it's a strong indication they ARE right. Like for example, f you ask 100 people what colour your eyes are, an 95 of them answer blue, and 2 answer green, and 3 answer brown, what would you conclude your eye colour to be?

Well if I set all the clocks in my house to the wrong time, they might agree, but they are still wrong.

Yes, but if you had no further information, how would you go about testing if they were wrong? You wouldn't, you would assume the clocks are right.

The original question remains. Why do samples that we know the age of give incorrect results when tested?

Because the wrong tests are applied to them. Carbon14 dating is only successfull up until abbout 50.000 years old. Any older, and the dates will be incorrect.

I couldn't care less if that guy can list 500 more dating methods that agree. If you test one method and it gives a wrong answer, all that does is bring every one of those dating methods into question.

So, if 500 people told you you're eyes are blue, and the 501st person told you they were brown, you'd go with the last person you talked to, instead of thinking, well, the chances of the one opinion that is not shared by the rest to be wrong is far greater then those 500 people being wrong?

Edited by Huntard, : No reason given.


I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by wardog25, posted 10-23-2008 9:48 AM wardog25 has taken no action

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 637 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 176 of 176 (486848)
10-24-2008 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by wardog25
10-23-2008 9:48 AM


honest evidence?
Hey wardog25,

The original question remains. Why do samples that we know the age of give incorrect results when tested?

There are a number of specific ways that the various dating methods are known to give wrong results because of special circumstances. Scientists know this and identify these ways to prevent misuse of the dating methods. These are also published for general reference.

The way carbon-14 works, for instance, is that solar radiation interacts with the 14N (stable) in the atmosphere converting it to 14C, which is radioactive, with a half-life of ~5730 years. This solar process keeps making 14C in the atmosphere, which is then constantly decaying, so there is a rough equilibrium level (rough because the solar activity keeps varying over long term cycles).

http://www.howstuffworks.com/carbon-14.htm

What this means is that any organism that takes in air or carbon from the atmosphere is taking in 14C in the same proportion to 12C (the "normal" stable version) that is in the atmosphere, and when that organism dies, this replenishment of 14C ceases, and the relative level of 14C to 12C then is related to the decay of 14C in the dead organic material left behind.

This is basically how 14C dating works. But there are instances where it is not appropriate: one such is where you have marine organisms that acquire carbon from another source, such as the sea (which has a different level of rough equilibrium between 14C and 12C than the atmosphere). Scientists call this the reservoir effect, and publish locations where various different starting 14C/12C ratios are found:

http://www.c14dating.com/corr.html

quote:
One of the most commonly referenced reservoir effects concerns the ocean. The average difference between a radiocarbon date of a terrestrial sample such as a tree, and a shell from the marine environment is about 400 radiocarbon years (see Stuiver and Braziunas, 1993). This apparent age of oceanic water is caused both by the delay in exchange rates between atmospheric CO2 and ocean bicarbonate, and the dilution effect caused by the mixing of surface waters with upwelled deep waters which are very old (Mangerud 1972). A reservoir correction must therefore be made to any conventional shell dates to account for this difference. Reservoir corrections for the world oceans can be found at the Marine Reservoir Correction Database, a searchable database online at Queen's University, Belfast and the University of Washington. Human bone may be a problematic medium for dating in some instances due to human consumption of fish, whose C14 label will reflect the ocean reservoir. In such a case, it is very difficult to ascertain the precise reservoir difference and hence apply a correction to the measured radiocarbon age.

Spurious radiocarbon dates caused by volcanic emanations of radiocarbon-depleted CO2 probably also come under the category of reservoir corrections. Plants which grow in the vicinity of active volcanic fumeroles will yield a radiocarbon age which is too old. Bruns et al. (1980) measured the radioactivity of modern plants growing near hot springs heated by volcanic rocks in western Germany and demonstrated a deficiency in radiocarbon of up to 1500 years through comparison with modern atmospheric radiocarbon levels.


Link in the original.

Now, when a creationist presents evidence of erroneous 14C dates, and when you look at the information you see (a) they are dating marine organisms and (b) the dates are off by the known correction factor, but the creationist somehow fails to mention this fact (especially when they claim to be scientists with sufficient credentials to know better), what do you think their evidence really shows? Certainly it would be easy for a dishonest person to go to one of the posted sites, gather samples that he knows beforehand will wrong when calculated based on atmospheric 14C/12C ratios with no reservoir correction, and such a dishonest person can publish this false information on websites designed to fool gullible and ignorant (don't know better) people eh?

I hope your references are not like that.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by wardog25, posted 10-23-2008 9:48 AM wardog25 has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022