Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,057 Year: 5,314/9,624 Month: 339/323 Week: 183/160 Day: 0/19 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Best evidence for Creation
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1511 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 125 of 176 (477573)
08-04-2008 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by lyx2no
08-04-2008 10:27 PM


Re: I Concede
Brian, I think the best evidence for creationism is the scar I have over my right eye caused by a badly preformed trampoline stunt back in 1972.
Wow: I have a scar over my right eye caused by a screen door swinging open in ~1950-1955 ... ... (faint)
(cue apocalypse music)
Edited by RAZD, : .

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 122 by lyx2no, posted 08-04-2008 10:27 PM lyx2no has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1511 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 159 of 176 (485894)
10-12-2008 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by JungEinstein
10-12-2008 5:06 PM


Re: Evidence
Welcome to the fray JungEinstein, love the name.
The fact is, every account recorded in the Scriptures has multiple levels of meaning in some combination of the literal, figurative, physical, spiritual, physiological, and psychological”with the spiritual facet being by far the most critical to an understanding of God’s purpose.
So it's a matter of interpretation.
If we insist on a religious belief that contradicts nature, or if we insist on a scientific theory that contradicts the Bible, we insist on a version of “truth” that is found neither in the Bible nor in nature.
Reality does not play favorites for science or religion. What has occurred in the past is fact, it is our understanding that may be incomplete, and an open minded skeptic will consider any reasonable concept as a tentative model with reservations.
Science and religion contradict each other.
Not necessarily. The sun rises, the sun sets. Not all religions are at odds with science, just some beliefs.
If we really want the truth, we need to find an interpretation of the Bible and a theory about nature that agree, even if it means letting go of some cherished ... beliefs.
Agreed, no matter what those beliefs involve. The question left then is how do you test for the truth of the truth? Do you use the scientific method? What do you do outside the realm of science? Is there another method? If you have an interest in pursuing this question see Perceptions of Reality
... or theorized beliefs.
What is a "theorized belief"? In science a theory is a much more defined concept than general usage. In science a theory is based on evidence and logic, and it is critically developed to achieve two goals: (1) explain all the evidence known, and (2) make testable predictions. The theory is then tested to see if it stands up, and it is quickly discarded if invalidated by new evidence discovered either through the outcome of the predictions of found through other means. In science these theories are always held as tentative explanations, works in progress, always challenged by reality.
But I suspect agreement between science and religion will be never happen. Scientists make little room for God because He doesn’t always practice what they consider to be logic or science, and religionists make little room for theories that suggest God is not the person they have always believed Him to be.
It may not happen for some people, but that does not rule out the possibility for others. There are many scientists that are religious, from Ken Miller (catholic, biologist) to Robert Bakker (evangelical, paleontologist) to many others.
If we find ourselves in a debate over evidence and faith, it is not a debate between nature and the Bible, because these are always in agreement. At least one side of the debate is over what we perceive to be evidence, or over what we are personally willing to accept.
And what you are willing to test against reality, what you are willing to see falsified.
Enjoy
... as you are new here, some posting tips:
type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:
quotes are easy
also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window.
For other formating tips see Posting Tips

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 158 by JungEinstein, posted 10-12-2008 5:06 PM JungEinstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by JungEinstein, posted 10-13-2008 9:01 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1511 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).
How Carbon-14 Dating Works | HowStuffWorks
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:
Corrections to radiocarbon dates.
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 not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024