Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8984 total)
54 online now:
jar, Tangle (2 members, 52 visitors)
Newest Member: Jerry Johnson
Post Volume: Total: 877,397 Year: 9,145/23,288 Month: 160/1,544 Week: 435/518 Day: 15/88 Hour: 1/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Uranium Dating
Inactive Member

Message 21 of 153 (573276)
08-10-2010 5:31 PM

this is my first post and i am trying to figure out how your system works so bear with me please... i am used to having a quote button as it makes things easier when quoting multiple people but i do not see one here so look for the "".

"I really like this analogy. Your digital watch might be wrong, your friend's analog watch might be wrong, your other friend's watch synchronized to the signal from the National Bureau of Standards time signal might be wrong, your computer clock might be wrong, your grandfather's wind-up watch might be wrong, everyone else's watch in town might be wrong, but what would be the odds that they all give the same wrong time?"

This position fails because it does not take into account the possibility that all people from the same towncould set their watch by one central time piece. let's say the town square clock, for sake of argument.

if everyone set their watches and clocks to the clock in the town square each day, but did not know that the town clock was wrong then yes everyone would have the same wrong time and not be aware of it.

"To add to what Percy said, you could do a statistical analysis of all the clock and watch times in the city, and develop a high degree of confidence that the average value was close to the real time, certainly within the bounds of the standard deviation of all the times."

statistical analysis means nothing for it does not exclude the possibility that everyone can have the wrong time

"And yet we can use watches to be very certain of the time by comparing our watch with the watches of others, and with clocks in the area. Even though each of these 'dating' methods require assumptions, we can be very certain of the correct time by correlating them together."

the problem with this idea is that this does not guarantee that the dating systems are still correct and provide the correct dates. i have been in rooms where 5 different people had 5 different times on their watches and the reasons for that vary, some purposefully set their clocks ahead or behind for personal reasons, others have bad mechanisms and so on.

to say one has the correct time because other dating systems say it is correct doesn't mean the dates given are correct. with time, we have an ultimate govenor who regulates time and against which we can verify if our watch pieces go off. it never changes BUT with dating systems there is no ultimate regulator and there is no way of knowing how far off each dating system is from the correct date.

in other words scientists ASSUME they have the correct date because all dating systems tell them what they want to hear and there is no objective, superior unfailing system to make corrections thus the scientists can place any date they want to an item to fit their theory and unbelief, then synchronize that date with similar dating systems because they are in control of the systems and no one can correct them.

basically the dating systems are manipulated to fit the bias of the scientist doing the dating. they are too subjective to be reliable.

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Dogmafood, posted 08-10-2010 6:59 PM archaeologist has responded
 Message 27 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-10-2010 9:06 PM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 28 by crashfrog, posted 08-10-2010 9:46 PM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 29 by Coyote, posted 08-10-2010 10:37 PM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 38 by Percy, posted 08-11-2010 9:35 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

Inactive Member

Message 23 of 153 (573292)
08-10-2010 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Dogmafood
08-10-2010 6:59 PM

the sundial wouldn't make a difference with dating systems. it may with watches and clocks but not radioactive isotopes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Dogmafood, posted 08-10-2010 6:59 PM Dogmafood has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Dogmafood, posted 08-10-2010 7:12 PM archaeologist has not yet responded

Inactive Member

Message 30 of 153 (573342)
08-10-2010 11:13 PM

I am no scientist but I ASSUME that there is a rate of radioactive decay and that it can be known.

there is butfor most dating systems the half-life is too long to know if they are correct or not.

The important point is that each method is independent of the others so it is not like everyone comparing watches

being independent doesn't mean they are all accurate or support the others' results and i disagree with your statement that they are accurate. recently there was an article out on the revision of egyptian dates and the bottom line was the +/- ratio was a hundred years effectively destroying the revised dates. they are not accurate at all.

But unlike the original analogy, this has no analogue in the real world, does it?

doesn't matter and is not germane to the point. the point is that to get the exact correct time there has to be one governing mechanism that states the correct time and if the users have problems with their time pieces then everyone will have the incorrect time.

But the facts do exclude that possibility.

no, the facts INCLUDE that possibility

And why can't we calibrate our dating systems against that

did you actually read what i wrote? there is no mechanism that governs the decline rates that could be the called upon to correct any errors. and i didn't make stuff up,

We don't do that, though. Sure, it's easy to suggest that there's some kind of vast conspiracy

but how doyou know? so people use different time pieces to synchronize their clocks and watches but if those sources get their time from one that is wrong then everyone will still have the wrong time. it is possible and facts do not exclude this possibility. even radio stations get it wrong and do not agree with each other and there are a multitude of reasons for that and conspiracy is but one.

But consider for a moment how that's impossible for something like Tiktaalik. When Tiktaalik was discovered in 2004, nobody had ever seen one before. That was a completely new discovery of a lobe-finned fish nobody had ever seen before. How would they have known when to date it, if the various dating techniques don't actually work and agree with each other? Who could they have called to find out about what date to lie about? Nobody had ever seen a Tikaalik before.

they can't date it even with the help of the dating systems as too many mitigating factors apply.

Let me explain how dating works

i already know how the dating systems work and you left out much information.

Sorry to have to disagree with another archaeologist, but that isn't the way I learned it in graduate school (archaeology Ph.D.).

disagree all you want

Scientists don't have "beliefs." They have data and explanations for that data. If new data comes to light, the explanations may have to change.

sure they do, even dever acknowledges that there is no such thing as objectivity and quotes others who feel the same way.

If one is relying on "beliefs" one can't change to accommodate new data. This is where religions run into problems with science

this is why secularists and atheists have so many problems, they think the truth changes but it doesn't. new data does not change the truth which is why so many scientists have problems with religion, they want to keep discoverying something that does not need discovering but lies in front of them all the time.

But we can propose a test

not germane to the discussion and destroys your scientists have no beliefs theory. you show your bias by proposing such a test as you think my intellectual capibilities diminish with certain beliefs. you just proved that you cannot be objective and will only listen to those who agree with you.

you lose. there is no 'overwhelming evidence' against those beliefs but keep on deceiving yourself it may prove interesting during the discussion

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix quote boxes -Close, but you need [/qs] at the end, not [qs].

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Coyote, posted 08-10-2010 11:54 PM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 32 by bluescat48, posted 08-11-2010 12:01 AM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 33 by crashfrog, posted 08-11-2010 12:12 AM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 34 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-11-2010 12:43 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

Inactive Member

Message 35 of 153 (573378)
08-11-2010 8:00 AM

you are a religious apologist

which means that you only listen to people who tell you what you want to hear? there is nothing wrong with my point of view, it just doesn't agree with yours.

"I was hoping to have another archaeologist here."

i'm not professional but i have my share of legitimate degrees in the field.

"No one thinks truth changes, but what is thought to be truth can when evidence shows the truth is false. ie; Phlogiston was thought to be truth but was shown to be false by oxidation-reduction."

which is why you are not supposed to follow science, it cannot give the truth when you need it. it also isn't fair or just. you see that is what mkaes God and the ible so much better. what was true 5,000 years ago was still true 2,000 years ago an dis still true today. everyone has a chance of chooising and learning it and it is not in the hands of the elite few (scientists) it is accessible to everyone and one does not need advanced degrees to find it.

"Yes, it does. The degree of freedom of a dating technique, after all, is all of the universe's past."

but you miss the point, with time there is an ultimate govenor which does not fail in its duties and we can get the correct time even if all the time pieces in the world are wrong.

we cannot do that with the dating systems and their is no ultimate governor to synchronize with to obtain the correct dates.

being independent does not guarantee correctness nor support for other dating systems for each have their own vulnerabilities which come into play often.

"But when everybody's timepiece is shown to be keeping the same time, and everybody is known to have set their timepieces from different sources, that's a considerable weight of evidence for the current time."

right BUT that does not guarantee that their sources were fixed to the correct time or were in perfect working order and leaves the possibility that all time pieces can be incorrect at the same time.

"But they don't get it from one"

anyways this is getting off the track a bt, the analogy fails because the possibility of all clocks and watches being wrong is very real and possible which means that all dating systems can be wrong at the same time.

"Nonsense. Tikaalik has been reliably dated by multiple, convergent lines of evidence - stratiography, radiometric, and molecular"

please you include systems that are subjective which means very little when it comes to dating. oh i got it now, you are talking about the half fossil that some scientists claim could walk... ha ha ha that is a very bad example to use as i get a good laugh out of that one. talk about manufacturing a species to fit one's beliefs.

i do not like using wikipedia but it was handy:


they have about 3-6 inches of a skull and from their imaginations they have created this whole species. what a joke.

{i am trying to learn how to use this system but it seems complicated and time consuming so i may go back to the old fashioned way and just use quotes}

Edited by Admin, : Fix quotes, click on "Peek" to see how it is done. Open quote is [qs] and close quote is [/qs].

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Theodoric, posted 08-11-2010 9:56 AM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 40 by Coragyps, posted 08-11-2010 10:03 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

Inactive Member

Message 36 of 153 (573380)
08-11-2010 8:04 AM

as an aside concerning the example of the fish which has beenused by one of the posters who disagrees with me, here is where the scientists and efvolutionists fail:

"Tikaalik roseae is a intermediary form between fish and modern amphibians."


they cannot make the claim that this fish is an intermediary simply because all they have is a partial skull and no observation of it being produced by a lesser form and no observation of it changing into a superior form.

in other words all evolutionists have is the scientists' conjecture that this is a intermediary and no proof they are correct and no way to prove that they are correct.

this is what sinks evolution, it is built upon hearsay and wishful thinking and not by following the scientific priniciples held dear by secular scientists.

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by jar, posted 08-11-2010 9:02 AM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 41 by bluegenes, posted 08-11-2010 10:30 AM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 42 by crashfrog, posted 08-11-2010 11:42 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

Inactive Member

Message 43 of 153 (573494)
08-11-2010 5:29 PM

Speaking to you as one Christian to another,

your post denies this claim. i never claimed to be a great typist or editor so lay off the typos.

no Bible existed 5000 years ago or even 2000 years ago. Second, even today there is no universal Canon, no such thing as "The Bible

this shows your unbelief and limitation in thinking. God's word has always been around and did not need to be put into a 'canon' to be in effect. how do you think God wouod be able to punish cain if His words were not already known?

to not use the brains god gave you and instead rely on an anthology of anthologies as an explanation of the world we see is an act of supreme hubris and a denial of god's gifts. It is nothing more than inflicting ignorance on our children

using one's brain does not entail deciding to follow after secular teachings that contradict the Bible and claim things that Jesus and the disciples did not teach. in fact the Bible is very clear about not following secular people as they are deceived and being deceived. no true christian would accept any secular teaching especially when it calls the God they love a liar.

So how is the real world like your analogy where everyone in town sets their clocks and watches according to one central clock? In the real world, what is the central clock for the many types of radiometric dating, geological layers, fossils, lake varves, glacial ice layers and tree rings?

as i said there is no central governor for the dating systems and no ultimate time piece to synchronize their works. let's try another example. independent countries do not synchronize their governments with other nations if they want to remain independent. they run according to their beliefs and theirs alone. if they so happen to agree on one international statement that does not mean the statement is true or that their method is without error.

As of yet no Christian apologist has provided any evidence for their points on dating and evolution.

actually we all have the problem lies with the fact that you all do not accept what is presented or attribute it to something else. i have already presented the nursery evidence and someone has already attributed that to nature, so the problem does not lie with the christian but the unbeliever who rejects the evidence presented.

your insult is ignored as it shows your lack of integrity and character and does nothing to me. i just put it down that you are all typical americans.

We still are excused from a murder conviction if we strike our slave but he lives a little while before dying? Lobsters are still an abomination?

don't use examples that you do not understand nor are willing to listen to the correct explanation.

You don't know what a half life is, do you,

if i had a dime for every one of these comments i read i could retire. actually i do andif you noticed i said 'most' not 'all' as , for example, c-14 has a half-life of 5,600 years approx while another has a lot less. others have millions of years and i will say this for most of these half-lifes people do not live long enough to see if they are correct.

oh and if you want to refute me, post a link to libby's papers which talk about his analysis of the half life in c-14.


if you looked at the link i had posted you would have seen the pictures of what i had to deal with when i made those comments.i had forgotten about your picture but still it is incomplete and does not show what you think it does.

They have preceding fish "forms", and later amphibian "forms" like Ichthyostega.

Tiktaalik has fins with wrists and simple digits. Fin/legs are a good illustration of transition.

you can read anything you want into old bones but nothing in the fossils indicates that there was a transformation in progress. all evolutionary transformation is purely eisogetic, the scientist reads into the artifact what he wants to see yet he/she cannot prove that those differences were the result of the evolutionary process. it is all conjecture and wishful thinking not observation.

the only observation going on is seeing a fossil that had a different structure than another fossil which is not evidence for evolution for it could be evidence that God created different fish with different designs, just like we have today.

Realising that the topic is dating, I'll add that the discoverers of Tiktaalik were deliberately looking for such a creature in rocks that they knew were dated to the right period, demonstrating the validity of the dating

and they dfound what they were looking for whether it really is one or not. let me quote dr. ratzsch again:

Human perception seems to some degree to be active and science does not seem to be immune to that aspect of the human condition...In the 1880s Thomas Huxley...worked on a newly discovered entity sort of halfway between dead matter and living organism known as Bathybius haeckelii. Huxley and others believed that there had to be such an organism and its discovery was no particular surprise...There were numerous observational confirmations concerning this organism. Its existence was not even controversial in some circles. But other scientists with the same equipment and techniques, but without Huxley's mindset, could see nothing like an organism at all and indeed categorized it as purely mineral...
pg. 123

there are more examples on that page by the way. evolutionists see what they want to see even if it isn't there.

You understand that it's a fossil, right? It's dead bones? It's not even bone anymore, it's the mineralized remains of bones.

Why would it change into anything? That makes no sense. Dead things don't evolve, living populations do.

well you totally missed the point and start talking about absurd things i never said so i will ignore you.

Edited by Admin, : Fix quotes.

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by bluegenes, posted 08-11-2010 5:49 PM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 45 by Dogmafood, posted 08-11-2010 5:53 PM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 46 by crashfrog, posted 08-11-2010 5:59 PM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 47 by subbie, posted 08-11-2010 6:02 PM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 48 by jar, posted 08-11-2010 6:05 PM archaeologist has not yet responded

Inactive Member

Message 49 of 153 (573513)
08-11-2010 6:50 PM

Close quote boxes with /qs, and preferably divide the post into separate replies to each of the posts you're replying to.

Could you please sort this mess out, archaeologist?
Close quote boxes with /qs, and preferably divide the post into separate replies to each of the posts you're replying to.

maybe alli was missing was the backwards slash. i asked a specific yes or no question but no one seems to be able to give a straight answer.

i am tryng to learn to do it correctly

Edited by archaeologist, : No reason given.

Edited by archaeologist, : No reason given.

Inactive Member

Message 50 of 153 (573515)
08-11-2010 7:10 PM

Maybe you get these comments because you deserve them. Maybe you get them because people who are actually experts in these fields notice that your posts are packed with errors even freshmen students don't make. Is it really so surprising that people accuse you of not knowing things when you make it obvious that you don't know them?

no i get them because people like you cannot accept the fact that others will disagree with them and their beliefs. the rest is just pure ignorance and aninsult which will be ignored.

You don't have to observe the entire duration of the half-life to verify the half-life

actually you do or it is all hearsay, assumption or conjecture.

so your claim that they're all getting the same false dates from a single fabricated source is false.

i am saying it is a very real possibility and a factual one. one cannot trust the human dating systems for they are a product of a fallible mind dealing with assumptions and incomplete data.

But of course that's exactly what it means

and you would be wrong. all it means is that those signing nations agreed to the statement not that it was or is true. orthey may think it is true when it is not.

It's the pattern of fossils that indicates the transformation.

the pattern still is not proof nor evidence but a result of eisogetic meanderings on the part of the scientists.

It's the trail of footprints, the pattern

footprints is a bad anaolgy because we can see them take place in front of our eyes when someone walks and know that they are indicating something whereas different items on different fossils are NOT observed and no real pattern is known. it is all conjecture that the claim is the actual pattern and there is no observation of the changes that confirms that conjecture.

alkl you are looking at are fossils who were preserved inthat condition for any numberof reasons and scientists assume it is evolution when it is not.

If it's not what they were looking for, how would they have known where to look for it?

please, it was a lucky guess not a prediction.

Did you write those words, or didn't you? They appear in your post. How did they get there if you didn't write them

yet you cannot prove it was me who actually wrote them. sure you may trace the computer connection but you still cannot prove that it was actually me who typed those words. you can assume but you will never really know now will you.

but with this example you require a confession; guess what, you will not get a confessionout of the evolutionary process, it is all assumption on your part based upon the rejection of alternatives to the theory of evolution.

Why is it that virtually the entire scientific establishment, many of whom worship the same god that you do, accepts the accuracy of everything that you are arguing against?

if science disagrees with the Bible then the science is wrong and all people have free choice what they want to believe. if they want to disobey God and follow science then they are wrong.

the truth does not require the majority to accept it to be the truth. the truth is the truth and it is up to all to either accept or reject it. majority rule is not part of God's kingdom.

jar is ignored as he assumes things he knows nothing about.

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Coyote, posted 08-11-2010 7:15 PM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 52 by subbie, posted 08-11-2010 7:16 PM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 53 by crashfrog, posted 08-11-2010 7:32 PM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 54 by Admin, posted 08-11-2010 8:00 PM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 55 by shalamabobbi, posted 08-12-2010 12:47 AM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 64 by Coragyps, posted 08-12-2010 9:59 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

Inactive Member

Message 56 of 153 (573591)
08-12-2010 5:11 AM

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

let me fix that for you: "scientific belief does not constitute religious evidence nor does it convey religious knowledge.

it is a two way street. unfortunately there are many creationists who do not educate themselves and cannot handle discussions on these type of forums but you need to remember that christians are not popped out of the womb with their faith and beliefs intact. we all have gone through what you go through and we have made a decision just like you have.

unlike you, our decision was for the truth not science and we are allowed to make that decision because free choice is a God given right nor a scientifically mandated one. you have freely chosen to accept evolutionary thinking.

so there is the common ground, just becaus eyou do not like my choice doesn't mean you are allowed to treat me like i am not human.

you know as well as i that science is too limited of a research field and is too subjective to be any standard at all. which is why you all have developed peer review, which is subjective as well.

if you want to do the following;

The goal of EvC Forum is to provide a venue for constructive discussion between creationists and evolutionists. Please help the forum achieve this goal. Thanks.

then you must keep in mind that 1. christians are not allowed to follow secularists or their ways, which means discussion with them will not be on your playing field; 2. christians follow God and their thinking will be based on the Bible which means you cannot disallow their resources for that would be a double standard and unfair.; 3. if you want your scientific papers, conclusions observations respected then you must respect the christian equivelant.

if you cannot be honest, along with doing those 3 things, among other discrepancies that arise in this discussions, then you will never fulfill what the powers that be of EvC desire.

discussion is not a one way street nor is it done on an uneven playing field. it is done properly without personal attacks, insults, et al and you can leave your generalities at the door and provide specifics.

According to the Bible the sun was created after the earth. It takes light about 8 minutes 20 seconds to reach the earth from the surface of the sun. But that light leaving the surface of the sun did not originate there. It is the result of nuclear fusion in the interior of the sun. That light is absorbed and re-emitted as it moves in a "random walk" and eventually reaches the surface of the sun. Most of this light takes 10,000 years on the low end and 170,000 years on the high end to do this. So on day one of the earth "6,000 years ago" the light striking the earth was already at least 10,000 years older even though the sun was created after the earth..

yes but you leave out one important fact, andlet me use an example of a table to illustrate my point. a carpenter builds a table out of 250 year old wood, and puts it into service by saying it is brand new. someone comes along and dates the table and sees that the wood is 250 years old and then complains to the carpenter that the table is not new but 250 years old.

do you see my point yet? when someone creates something they do not start from scratch, it is made and primed to work as designed from the get go even though later analysis doubts it.

Understanding nuclear fission, half lives, etc requires at least calculus math level. I don't know if you are that far along yet in your schooling.

you would be amazed at what i can understand. if you have links to libby's papers i would love to read them-just on the decline rate of the isotopes. also you have no idea what my schooling is or how high my intellect goes. as it dstands i have to simplify my writings so you all can grasp what i am trying to communicate to you.

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Admin, posted 08-12-2010 5:29 AM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 59 by Meldinoor, posted 08-12-2010 6:06 AM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 60 by shalamabobbi, posted 08-12-2010 6:06 AM archaeologist has responded
 Message 61 by Coyote, posted 08-12-2010 6:28 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

Inactive Member

Message 58 of 153 (573596)
08-12-2010 5:49 AM

i and we are getting to far afield in this topic and i will stop going off track as i want to see a link to libby's papers discussing the decline rates in his dating system.

i will remain against all dating sytems because they are too fallible to be reliable. notone of you have posted in a scientifc, objective manner but have responded emotionally like someone is trying to hurt your baby but i am not.

don't give me statistics because they can be manipulated, limbaugh illustrated that too well years ago. keep in mind that science may only be looking at part of the picture in order to hear what it wants to hear.

in other words, they look at only one portion of the equation, the length of time it takes for an object to reach point a from b and do not examine the set up factor.

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Taq, posted 08-12-2010 3:30 PM archaeologist has responded
 Message 67 by crashfrog, posted 08-12-2010 3:45 PM archaeologist has not yet responded

Inactive Member

Message 62 of 153 (573635)
08-12-2010 8:10 AM

Can one not study science and follow God as well?

but it depends. if one does science the secular way then they are not following God but the secular way which means omitting the supernatural and looking for natural answers. one cannot say they believe and follow God if they are following something not of Him.

Certainly, if one believes that God authored the universe one would expect the empirical evidence not to be misleading, but to reveal exactly how God went about creation.

but if the researcher attributes the empirical evidence to the wron g source then you have the problem faced today. it isn't a matter of what the empirical evidence says but how the researcher applies or interprets or attributes it.

Dr. Hawkins wrote years ago in his book A Brief History of Time about the scars in the universe and he thought that those scars were evidence for the big bang. i wrote him with the suggestion that those scars were probably evidence of God's creative power--same evidence two different attributions only 1 can be correct.

now if you take a hard look at the big bang it resembles God's creative power thus the empirical evidence is pointing to God but since people do not want to believe or prove the the Bible correct, they attribute that evidence to some other source.

but to reveal exactly how God went about creation

but we already know how God did it--hebrews 11-- God spoke and it was.

If the evidence strongly suggests that the Earth is old,

by whose calculations though? those who do not believe and do not want the Bible to be correct? how can we trust them for their bias is over-ruling the principle and objective of objectivity. I would love to throw in a lot of Bible verse about deceivement but unless you accept the existence of the devil you will not accept those verses.

isn't a true Christian going to trust the evidence that God put in the ground to not be misleading?

no. a true christian follows and trusts God first, because as i have shown how one reads the evidence determines the direction it is pointing and it takes people willing to be honest to read it right. age is meaningless here but evolutionists make it a vital aspect of their theory but as i have shown in my table example, age doesn't mean soemthing is not new. God put things into place and primed it to be ready for when allof creation was made.

imagine how long it would take to start a car if one had to wait for the gas to start from the gas tank and make its way up to the carbeurator. even though a scientist may say it takes 5 minutes (an example) for the gas to reach the carb from the tank that doesn't mean that gas wasn't in the line already, waiting fo the key to turn. reality, doesn't reflect scientific study because scientific study does not include all the data.

Could not a God-fearing scientist find truth through empirical study?

depends. are they open minded or are the set on looking for just one idea. if they look at the evidence and always attribute the results to evolution then no they won't but if they look at the predictin, the results, and see that many sources are not excluded and start to investigate then yes, they may be able to find the truth.

i remember sitting through one evolutionist lecture, it has been years and he goes (describing the experiment and th eprediction) if evolution is true then such and such will happen. the weakness of that predicitonis evolution may not have been responsible for the result but gets attributed it because of the way the prediction is worded.

The point is that they all agree, despite the different approaches the methods take. Carbon-dating agrees with dendrochronology for instance, yet the two methods of dating have nothing in common!

but just like my international example. all th enations signing could agree on a statement but that still doesn't make the statement true, it just means that they all agree on the statement. years ago, Neitzske claimed God was dead and many independent people jumped on and agreed with him. does that mean God was dead--no. it just means that many people agreed on the statement because they wanted God to be dead and they wanted to be free from His morality.

Say you're a detective attempting to solve a murder mystery. You have 10 independent witnesses claiming they saw the Butler did it. You find fingerprints on the crime scene implicating the Butler. You find DNA evidence implicating the Butler. You find a note implicating the Butler. Bloodstains on the Butler's fingers even turn out to be from the victim.

yet i can still have reasonable doubt here given those pieces of evidence. how? 1. eyewitness accounts are unreliable and could be coached or manipulated; 2. fingerprints could have been placed there at any time, the butler had access to the house or the crime scene due to his duties; 3. DNA can be faked (there were two articles on this recently) and DNA only indicates the presence of blood or the person possibly but doesn't prove the action of murder and doesn't remove the possibility that the DNA was planted; 4. notes canbe faked and part of a frame up; 5. the butler could have walked in and saw the victim and tried to save him/her thus getting bloodon their fingetips.

when you look at things closely you see they are not as open and shut as you think.

But the agreement between all the entirely separate lines of evidence point toward the Butler, giving us near certainty of the killer's identity. It is the same thing with dating methods.

but ou see that 'identitification' is nothing but an assumption based upon general evidence that are not conclusive so you still can be convicting the wrong person. same with dating an artifact except with artifacts there are so many mor emitigating factor sinvolved like corruptionof the sample, or planted items, a screw up in the machine(s). it is not as cut and dried as you would like it to be.

I'd be happy to accept a recent creation if only the physical evidence supported it.

you have to remember that God did ot state a date when He did creation for that is not important. it is the fact that He did it as He said that is. for if He didn't then He lied and sinned and could not be God. and we would not have to live by His teachings or Christ's. before following science think of the ramifications if God did lie, first.

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Meldinoor, posted 08-12-2010 6:05 PM archaeologist has responded

Inactive Member

Message 63 of 153 (573638)
08-12-2010 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by shalamabobbi
08-12-2010 6:06 AM

How many religions based on the Bible are there?
If a particular way of interpreting the Bible conflicts with known facts I can know that that interpretation of the Bible must necessarily be false..

this is the only point worth responding to in that whole post.

there are 2. Judaism for the OT, christianity for both the OT & NT. all the rest are based upon man's alterations with a little of the Bible thrown in to make sure the con works.

actually i will respond to one more:

So you are saying that creation is not ex-nihilo but re-organization of existing material, fine. But how does that explain the problem of light taking between 10,000 to 170,000 years to get from the center of the sun to the surface? Was the sun created approximately at the time the earth was created or not? Whether it was created from pre-existing matter or not is irrelevent to my point.

you build a car in 4 days and it is ready to go. all one has to do is turn the key and drive away. a scientist comes up who hates cars and says, you couldn't have built that in 4 days, for it takes 10 days to get the gas from the tank to the carb. who are you going to believe--the car builder or the scientist who hates cars and was not there at the time of construction?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by shalamabobbi, posted 08-12-2010 6:06 AM shalamabobbi has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Theodoric, posted 08-12-2010 10:17 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

Inactive Member

Message 69 of 153 (573811)
08-12-2010 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Meldinoor
08-12-2010 6:05 PM

So what's the difference between secular and godly science?

one, it doesn't omit the supernatural and look in the wrong places for answers.

two, it provides answers not more questions or theories

three, it does not bully, mock, lie, mislead, fabricate, et al.

should scientists insert God in the clouds to explain thunder?

no, it tells the truth and describes how it is made. God wants the truth to be told and He wants the glory for HIS work. He does not want the credit given to some imaginary process or explosion.

We don't use God to explain electricity, or nuclear power, or disease...

He created it all and the ways toproduce it on our own so in a sense yes we can use God to explain those things.

The source of nuclear power is the breaking up of atomic nuclei being barraged by neutrons". I just gave a natural explanation for the source of a natural phenomenon. Am I wrong because I did not include God in the picture?

that is not a natural explanation because if that is the way it can be done then God made that possible when He created it. so technically you are not wrong in the explanation, just in crediting the source.

If we attribute the Big Bang, 15 billion years ago, to God, are we then doing good science?

leave out the 15 billion year date and you would be on the right track. God doesn't tell us exactly when he created all things, He just simply said 'in the beginning...' meaning the when is not important.

But "the universe was formed at God's command" is not a detailed account of how it happened. I want to know how the universe works, and that means I also have to know what it's been doing up until now.

first off what details can you add to 'He spoke and it was'? learning HOW someone made soemthing is NOT the same thing as learning how it works.

you are free to learn how it works because God would want you to know that but how is already done. if you want to learn HOW HE didit, i donot have the answers for you for we are not given those specifics except 'He spoke and it was' or 'He formed...'

i cannot give you what i do not have.

When I read the evidence, I do my best to remain objective and honest, which is why I spend time going over creationist interpretations as well. I trust God not to have been trying to fool me when he left that evidence. After all, the physical world is God's first word and revelation for us.

be careful of 'interpretations' because we are not told to follow them. we are told that we will know the truth and that the Holy Spirit leads us to the truth. interpretations are merely someone's opinion and are not infallible nor the word of God thus they can be ignored, dismissed, criticized,etc. no matter which side of the fence they come from.

in thinking you are fooled may be a result of listening to a wrong 'interpretation' and not listening to God.

The only reason he'd make tree rings for the past 50,000 years, is if he wanted to fool us. He didn't have to make a bunch of extra tree rings in order to "prime" the world.

no, the tree rings made by His creative work would not fool you BUT their application by secular people may. there is a big difference between what God did and how man uses those items (most of the time)

What was the specific prediction? Your anecdote isn't worth much unless you can provide the details.

Yes i knew that but i was lazy because i would have to go to a website i haven't been to for a couple years and then search and search till i found it and i haven't been motivated to do that yet.

[qs]The ToE predicted feathered Dinos, Archaeopteryx, Tiktaalik, and much more of the fossil record.

Dating methods don't bow to peer pressure

um...do you really want to say that? i believe not too long ago the british museum had to recalibrate some c-14 dates because they came up younger than the scientists wanted.

How do you explain it if they do?

coincidence. everyone gets lucky. sometimes things do agree and get it right but such does not exclude or rule out manipulation, conspiracy, fudging, lying and so on. it is not as pure as you would like it to be.

But the butler would still be my main suspect in the analogy I gave you. I would, for instance, not go assuming the Colonel did it when all the evidence points to the Butler, unless new evidence, implicating the Colonel and absolving the Butler could be found.

i would agree with you and add that the butler remaining as a main suspect is still based upon assumption not fact. short of a confession you are still guessing, but it would be an educated guess.

if the Devil is deceiving anybody I suspect it must be your side. How else could a handful of intelligent but dishonest people lead such a successful campaign against science?

you would be wrong on all counts here. it is not science we are opposing but the methodology, the application, the philosophy that powers part of the scientific field.

science can be a good thing if used correctly but as it is designed today and probably for the past 200 years or so, it is not following its own principle of objectivity.

secular scince is completely biased and again i will refer you to dr. ratzsch's book, 'the battle of beginnings' and all of chapter 11 to support that statement. {there are many other examples but that book is handy right now}.

You don't need to bother with the Bible verses.

i could say the same about you and your quoting scientific papers. it is a two way street and you cannot limit one person's sources while using your own.

I want to see some evidence. Where's your evidence that all dating methods are universally flawed?

1. the Bible is evidence and an ancient document whose qualifications i established in another post.

2. what evidence do you want to see that hasn't already been presented to ou by your reading, research and other discussions. keep in mind that the Bible and christianity require faith and there is not going to be a lot of physical evidence to show you.

i told others to go to the nurseries to see gen. 1 in action and they refused to accept it so i am not sure you will either.

3. the dating systems were created by humans, and it is general knowledge that humans are not perfect nor can they construct perfect items. if they could we would not need repairmen.

4. the dating systems all have vulnerabilities, they can't overcome.

5. as i established before, there is no ultimate over-ruling governor like time has to synchronize the dat systems against to make sure they are correct. it is all done on the human level, with the limited human knowledge and data obtained.

6. there is no real way to verify the length of most half-lives and no real way to verify the so called slow down at that half-life.

i hope thatis enough for you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Meldinoor, posted 08-12-2010 6:05 PM Meldinoor has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Taq, posted 08-12-2010 7:45 PM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 73 by Coyote, posted 08-12-2010 7:46 PM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 75 by bluescat48, posted 08-13-2010 1:38 AM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 76 by Otto Tellick, posted 08-13-2010 1:40 AM archaeologist has responded

Inactive Member

Message 70 of 153 (573812)
08-12-2010 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Taq
08-12-2010 3:30 PM

That is false. For example, when dating zircons with U/Pb techniques you can be very certain of the set up factor. When zircons form they exclude lead but incorporate uranium. This is due the different charges on U and Pb and how they fit into the growing crystal. This can be confirmed in the laboratory. Therefore, any Pb you find in the zircon is due to the decay of U. The decay of U is determined by the laws of physics.

leave it to the anti-creationist to change the example to make a point. the topic was the sun and light reaching the earth not zircons.

So a car's speedometer, or a policeman's radar gun, are "hearsay, assumption or conjecture?

you still have to assume that nothing went wrong with the speedometer or radar gun through usage, natural elements or faulty craftsmanship, to name a few things that could go wrong.

Edited by archaeologist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Taq, posted 08-12-2010 3:30 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Taq, posted 08-12-2010 7:39 PM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 74 by Coragyps, posted 08-12-2010 9:02 PM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 86 by jar, posted 08-13-2010 9:55 AM archaeologist has responded

Inactive Member

Message 77 of 153 (573911)
08-13-2010 4:55 AM

would like to learn what the original paper stated, not what some creationist wants us to believe they stated

1. it was a newspaper article and i am still looking for it
2. if you think i lie then do not engage me.

I do a lot of radiocarbon dating in my work as an archaeologist, and I have yet to see a young earth creationist present an honest assessment of radiocarbon dating.

you must have a lot of funding as c-14 dating is expensive and usually saved for the best candidates and i think i will stop looking for that article given your attitude.

but while i was searching i did find this:


More recently others have tried to duplicate Libby's measurements with more modern equipment and much greater accuracy. They concluded that the out-of-balance condition is real and even worse than Libby believed. Radiocarbon is forming 28% - 37% faster than it is decaying. [65]

i haven't read it all so i do not have any comments to make and i would like to get a link to libby's notes on the decay rate.

Why can't we find a single dinosaur fossil that is found above rocks that date to 60 million years before present

many reasons and the main one is the bad dating of the rock. i just watched a discovery channel show for kids and guess what, they found a dinosaur skeleton near the surface so i highly doubt your statement.

seems that they are above those rocks after all.

Which should speak wonders for your bible which was written by humans and it is general knowledge that humans are not perfect nor can they construct perfect items. Thus by your own admission the bible cannot be perfect

the Bible wasn't written by humans. sure they may have penned the words but they were not the authors

The bible is a combination of hearsay testimony & bronze age mythology

scientific prove please and be specific not general.

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Coragyps, posted 08-13-2010 9:16 AM archaeologist has responded
 Message 85 by Coyote, posted 08-13-2010 9:41 AM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 88 by Taq, posted 08-13-2010 1:01 PM archaeologist has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020