ReligionDiscuss General Theology, Religions and Denominations, God's Attributes, Predestination and Free Will, Dispensationalism, Eschatology, Philosophy, Origins, Archaeology, Science, World History and other such topics.
Location: Foothills of the Berkshires. We is mountain folk.
Rep Power: 104562
Christian
More right than left
Slogan/motto:
"May you always know the truth and see the light surrounding you"
Reputation:
June 20th, 2012, 09:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HisServant
When I look at radiometric carbon dating there are numerous assumptions that science takes as accurate which are then used to extrapolate out huge time spans.
Do you have a methodology you feel is more accurate?
Can you give us two comparative figures for the margin of error for both methodologies?
Or are you just saying that science should throw the hat in and accept a literal interpretation of Genesis as the most accurate methodology?
Slogan/motto:
For as much as it depends on you, live at peace with others.
Reputation:
June 20th, 2012, 09:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by noguru
Do you have a methodology you feel is more accurate?
Can you give us two comparative figures for the margin of error for both methodologies?
Or are you just saying that science should throw the hat in and accept a literal interpretation of Genesis as the most accurate methodology?
Not saying either.. accepting Genesis should never come into a scientists mind when studying such things.
I'm saying that humans have limitations, and therefore science has limitations... when we conduct science we must always quantify that results are subject to unknown factors of error when we extend equations beyond our physical observations.
All we have now is a very educated stab in the dark.
Location: Foothills of the Berkshires. We is mountain folk.
Rep Power: 104562
Christian
More right than left
Slogan/motto:
"May you always know the truth and see the light surrounding you"
Reputation:
June 20th, 2012, 09:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HisServant
Not saying either.. accepting Genesis should never come into a scientists mind when studying such things.
I'm saying that humans have limitations, and therefore science has limitations... when we conduct science we must always quantify that results are subject to unknown factors of error when we extend equations beyond our physical observations.
I agree.
Although I think that when extrapolating out to things beyond our scope, it is wiser to use the evidence we have from what we can see. Rather than replace that with values which we have not seen ever through empirical evidence.
Slogan/motto:
For as much as it depends on you, live at peace with others.
Reputation:
June 20th, 2012, 09:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by noguru
I agree.
Although I think that when extrapolating out to things beyond our scope, it is wiser to use the evidence we have from what we can see. Rather than replace that with values which we have not seen ever through empirical evidence.
Extrapolating out is not science... unless eventually it can be observed and measured.
Location: Foothills of the Berkshires. We is mountain folk.
Rep Power: 104562
Christian
More right than left
Slogan/motto:
"May you always know the truth and see the light surrounding you"
Reputation:
June 20th, 2012, 09:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HisServant
Extrapolating out is not science... unless eventually it can be observed and measured.
Of course it is. Extrapolation is just another form of inferrance or prediction. Many of the variable of such extrapolation can be observed and measured. This is exactly why in statistics which is used in science they give you a margin for error or variance. When we calculate this margin for error or variance we look at what can be observed, then that margin for error also applies to the extrapolated figures.
The vast majority of cases in science are examples of where theoretical science (extrapolation beyond what has currently been observed) becomes applied science. A great example of this is that we did not have confirmation of Einstien's theory of relativity (except from a purely mathematical/theoretical and extrapolated model), until Oppenheimer and Fermi developed the first nuclear bomb.
Did you watch the video?
Did you notice that they gave those figures?
Do you have a methodology which has a lower margin of error or variance?
One tenth of one percent inaccurate, to be precise. A great video that shows how nonsensical the arguments against radiometric dating are. Creationists claim that scientists ignore anything that challenges their story, but it seems that scientists are constantly re-evaluating radiometric dating... and still getting pretty much the same numbers.
I assume you are not getting all of the information required to make a decision about your worldview from YouTube. Are you? Or do you just think that this would be a good starting point for creationists to rethink their position?
Here is what creationists need to make any changes to their well-thought out criticism of radiometric dating.
Assumptions made about the starting values for isotopes, contamination, and their decay rates in the distant past, based on present day measurements, are not valid. If geologists can show that these are not assumptions, we will be dealt a heavy blow. Until then, any assumptions, including our own, made about the past, are purely hypothetical.
Assumptions made about the starting values for isotopes, contamination, and their decay rates in the distant past, based on present day measurements, are not valid. If geologists can show that these are not assumptions, we will be dealt a heavy blow. Until then, any assumptions, including our own, made about the past, are purely hypothetical.
Dendrochronology or tree-ring dating can accurately confirm or complement radio carbon dates of over 11,000 ago.
Clearly imo various other dating methods aimed at longer range dating should be good enough at least to indicate the great age of the Earth even for those who distrust science. Even for those who don't/won't accept that faster decay rates would have produced excessive heat, as talked about in the video.
A heavy blow?
Heavy enough imo, but more importantly perhaps, it clearly contradicts a literal interpretation of Genesis with solid science. But for Young Earth Creationists anyway it only confirms that for them science can and will never be allowed to contradict a literal interpretation of Genesis, however rigorous and well supported it is. It is probably quite futile to even think that most dyed-in-the-wool YECs would even want to know let alone recognise any "heavy blow".
Dendrochronology or tree-ring dating can accurately confirm or complement radio carbon dates of over 11,000 ago.
Clearly imo various other dating methods aimed at longer range dating should be good enough at least to indicate the great age of the Earth even for those who distrust science. Even for those who don't/won't accept that faster decay rates would have produced excessive heat, as talked about in the video.
A heavy blow?
Heavy enough imo, but more importantly perhaps, it clearly contradicts a literal interpretation of Genesis with solid science. But for Young Earth Creationists anyway it only confirms that for them science can and will never be allowed to contradict a literal interpretation of Genesis, however rigorous and well supported it is. It is probably quite futile to even think that most dyed-in-the-wool YECs would even want to know let alone recognise any "heavy blow".
Once they go outside of counting rings on living trees, the dates are much less sure. And even on living trees, with the occasional multiple-rings in some years, the dates get less sure the more years the tree was alive. This again you should know if they were more up-front with their assumptions.
Good things come to those who shoot straight.
Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe
Creationism and God does not conflict with real science. The issue is there are no pre-requisties to being chrisitian, so when someone becomes a christian they are thrust into these debates that they really should not be engaging in without better education.
Scientists dont really care, they are just trying to get to the bottom of a given issue.
Where the problems occur is wanna be scientists and engineers who might even have a little back ground or a pesudo science degree who are arguing with christians who barely have a high school education.
There are thoes of us that are christian scientists and engineers and there is no conflict between us and other non chrisitan scientists and engineers.
The conflict comes from thoes that are making grand claims and did not do their homework (ie read the bible or pick up a REAL engineering/science degree from a highly respected program, biology does not count unless you had to take differential equations lol)
Creationism and God does not conflict with real science. The issue is there are no pre-requisties to being chrisitian, so when someone becomes a christian they are thrust into these debates that they really should not be engaging in without better education.
Scientists dont really care, they are just trying to get to the bottom of a given issue.
Where the problems occur is wanna be scientists and engineers who might even have a little back ground or a pesudo science degree who are arguing with christians who barely have a high school education.
There are thoes of us that are christian scientists and engineers and there is no conflict between us and other non chrisitan scientists and engineers.
The conflict comes from thoes that are making grand claims and did not do their homework (ie read the bible or pick up a REAL engineering/science degree from a highly respected program, biology does not count unless you had to take differential equations lol)
There is a conflict. You work from an assumption. I.E., God exists and the Bible is the only truth.
You cannot have it both ways, since there are an outstanding number of conflicts between science and the Biblical literalism.
And in what field do you hold a degree?
Calvin: (after a long pause) I can’t tell if that’s funny or really scary.
Anti-Death
2024 Life by Delmar: Homosexuality legal in all states; Government healthcare with abortion; Outlawing Bible by broadcast by hate crime laws
Slogan/motto:
Never be haughty to the humble; never be humble to the haughty.
Reputation:
June 20th, 2012, 07:20 PM
Quote:
I used to be a licensed professional land surveyor at one point in my life... the errors in observable observations been propagated throughout my surveys was always a concern with me. No matter how accurate you can measure, say a mile, there are conditions beyond your control that effect its relative accuracy.
When I look at radiometric carbon dating there are numerous assumptions that science takes as accurate which are then used to extrapolate out huge time spans.
Take half-life per se. Carbon-14 supposedly has a long half life, its calculable, but unobservable due to the short life span humans have. So they are taking that measurement they calculated and pushing it out millions or billions of years.. from a statistical point of view, its irresponsible.
Show us some scientist who has used C-14 to measure "billions of years."
Quote:
The biggest issue I have is that science assumes that radioactive decay is a constant... its something that cannot be proven when the rate of decay exceeds the time frame we have recorded existing rates. Gravitational pull and cosmic rays have all been proven to effect decay rates (albeit only very small changes have been observed so far).
In fact, conditions that would kill all living things on Earth change radioactive rates by a tiny fraction of one percent. Even if those temperatures could somehow be consistent with life on Earth, it would mean that instead of being four billion years old, the Earth is only 3.996 billion years old.
So it doesn't really help you. And do show us where scientists measured billions of years, using C-14.
Linear Mode
