Posted on 08/03/2006 9:23:14 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
I disagree, as this IS the question. You have an unwavering faith in science, and mine is in the Bible. Therefore, you believe anything told to you by a science book, and I believe everything in my Bible Book. If they disagree (very seldom, actually), I defer to the Bible, and you defer to "archaeology science", who less than 100 years ago held that Troy was fiction, there was no hebrew King David, and Jerico was a fable, all since vindicated. Argument from silence is dangerous ground, as is trusting in the "histories" derived from archaeology, geology, paleontology, and astronomy, to name a few. We can look at the present, but we can't "look back in time" per se, only conjecture, guess and theorize based on our premesis and assumptions. NO ONE IS OBJECTIVE! It is a human impossibility, IMHO!
Several thoughts here:
Faith in one system vs. the other. Science is continually changing and improving, narrowing in on the workings of the natural world. It is no surprise that things are different, and more accurate, than a hundred or more years ago. You are using that as an argument against science?
What you are implying is that science, because it narrows in on the correct answers, is not trustworthy in any way. That is absolutely false and I believe you know it.
I think you're coming from a literal belief in the Bible so you have to deny any science that disagrees with your belief.
Perhaps you should admit that you are doing apologetics (defense of religion) and not try to bend the findings of science to try to fit your belief.
Or perhaps a catastrophic, worldwide flood covered them under torrential mud and silt. You assume slow and steady, LONG period of time, I assume fast and violent, short period of time. I simply believe the creationist theory holds a better explanation, espeially as I consider the fantastic engineering that created the hands (2 fingers, really) that I am currently typing with. Again, you assume LONG, slow, random chance, I assume instant creation on the 6th day by an infinite, omnipotent being.
I don't assume long slow random chance; I take the date of the flood from the vast majority of creationist websites. They agree on about 2350 BC. That is in modern times, not geological times. It is in the field of soils, not geology. It is the purview of archaeologists and sedimentologists, not geologists. It is also in the field of historians, linguists, and other specialists.
The only source for a global flood at this time period is the Bible and earlier local documents. Science has failed to find the evidence that should have been there; geologists (all creationists) gave up about 1830. The flood was most likely local, and archaeology has a good candidate. It just occupied the whole world of the folks who recorded it.
I did not denigrate science, or the Scientific Method, rather, I teach both! It's the conjecture sciences I have a problem with, esp. evolutionarily (is that a word?) driven paleontology, archaeology, astronomy, etc. Problem is, they are all filled with assumptions galore, and then their findings fit into the framework of those assumptions, e.g. millions/billions, increasing complexity evo, etc,.
Cool. So what discipline of science do you work in? And, what is the Scientific Method?
I am an archaeologist; I thought I mentioned that a few posts ago. I have 35 years of experience in the western US.
The scientific method, for the purpose of our discussion is: data and theory, follow it where it leads.
This is the opposite of creationism, creation "science" and ID, all of which bend data and theory to match the scriptures. The creationist websites are clear in this: their "science" must support the scriptures. Take a look!
What evidence would you expect to find, if you were looking? If the flood was local, why not just move? If the flood was local, why build that silly boat? If it was local, how did the boat lodge in a mountain. Don't you see, if the story is false in any way, the whole book is worthless! I mean, it purports to be... Oh, never mind.
You win. We evolved from rocks, which were the result of the explosion of a dot a few billion years ago! Supreme order, artistry and function from an explosion. Eat, drink and be merry, for tommorrow we die! My science book told me so.
We will contend again on another thread.
Night all!
Wow. Actually, the scientific method is:
1. Make an observation
2. Formulate a hypothesis
3. Test the hypothesis (must be reproduceable)
4. Draw conclusions
Your idea of the SM is odd, or convenient.
Are these true?
Here's a problem for "flood geology": how come there are no bones in the Burgess Shale, or in any other formation of that era? There are sponges, arthropods, various worms, mollusks, etc, lots of marine animals. but no fish, no birds, no whales, nothing with bones. How is that possible? corals, sponges, molluscs, shrimp- and crab-like animals, but no fish.
If I had to guess, I'd say the bigger animals could get away from immediate burial, e.g. the birds could fly, the fish and whales could swim, etc. Also, fish, whales and birds tend to float when they die, whereas the corals, sponges, etc. tend to stay at the bottom.
OK, but there are post Cambrian deposits that have a lot of essentially the same fauna, but with fish. What was different?
All the internal evidence of the Burgess deposit, and similar ones in China and Greenland, indicate that it was caused by an undersea landslide that trapped everything in its path. But there are no fish, no bones of any kind.
Getting information about science from AC is like getting military advice from France.
Were the more advanced plants better at running away too?
It appeared to work. The ignoramus abandoned the thread.
1. The material to be dated must be organic
2. The organism to be tested must have gotten its C-14 from the atmosphere
3. The sample has remained chemically and physically a closed system since its emplacement.
4. That we know what the atmospheric concentration of C-14 was when the organism lived.
Are these true?
Radiocarbon dating is one of my favorites. Here are some basic answers, followed by a list of good links.
1. The material to be dated must be organic
True. The method works by measuring C14 vs. C12. C14 is created in the atmosphere and begins to break down immediately. It does so at a fixed rate, so age can be measured based on the amount of C14 remaining. The C14, along with C12 and C13, are incorporated into living organisms--while they are alive. They obviously stop incorporating fresh C14 when they die, and the amount of that material begins to break down, with about half disappearing about every 5700 years.
2. The organism to be tested must have gotten its C-14 from the atmosphere
That is the only direct source for C14, as that is where it is created.
3. The sample has remained chemically and physically a closed system since its emplacement.
That is correct. Addition of more carbon from some outside source can result in dates which are either too old or too young. Examples; a dinosaur fossil is likely to be porous, and can absorb tiny amounts of ground water, which in turn contains disolved CO2. Although present in tiny amounts, that may be enough to give a date of >40,000 or some such to an object that by itself contains no carbon. Likewise, freshwater shells living in areas of very high limestone will incorporate that limestone into their shells; that limestone contains ancient carbon with the C14 long since gone. That can give those shells an artificially old age. (You see both of these examples on creationist websites as "evidence" that the radiocarbon method can't be trusted.)
4. That we know what the atmospheric concentration of C-14 was when the organism lived. There are a number of clues in the process to help identify faulty dates. For example, the C13 should be in certain ranges for different material' -25 is good for charcoal, and 0-2 is good for shell. Other materials have different norms. If you get a piece of "charcoal" with a reading of -2, something may be seriously wrong--it may not be charcoal at all. Other stable isotopes, such as N15, can also help determine the amount of marine organisms in the diet. Shell and bone affected by marine organisms have to be corrected for the old carbon (with less C14) coming from deep water. This again is a standard procedure.
One more misconception about radiocarbon dating. It is dangerous to rely on just one date, or just one method of dating. From a recent site we are currently writing up, we obtained 31 radiocarbon dates from a variety of proveniences, and on a number of different materials. At one point we had a date that was 1400 years older than the next oldest date. We submitted additional samples from that same provenience to try to verify that date, and three additional samples confirmed that age.
As in any other study, common sense should apply. This is particularly important in selecting samples and interpreting the results. The samples have to be good or you are throwing away money, and perhaps getting useless dates.
Anyway, hope this helps. Any questions, let me know.
ReligiousTolerance.org Carbon-14 Dating (C-14): Beliefs of New-Earth CreationistsThe American Scientific Affiliation: Science in Christian Perspective Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.
This site, BiblicalChronologist.org has a series of good articles on radiocarbon dating.
Are tree-ring chronologies reliable? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)
Tree Ring and C14 DatingHow does the radiocarbon dating method work? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)
How precise is radiocarbon dating?
Is radiocarbon dating based on assumptions?
Has radiocarbon dating been invalidated by unreasonable results?
Radiocarbon WEB-info Radiocarbon Laboratory, University of Waikato, New Zealand.
We could discuss the details of pattern-matching technique or the probability of error, but there is another, more quantitative way, to determine if the long tree-ring chronologies are accurate or not. One can use the amount of radiocarbon in the individual tree rings.
In addition, the end of the article states Because the ratio of 14C to 12C in the atmosphere varies over time, raw radiocarbon "dates" are calibrated to obtain actual calendar dates using dendrochronology. This process of calibration is an essential part of the radiocarbon dating method, and eliminates assumptions about historical atmospheric radiocarbon concentrations and the constancy of the decay rate of radiocaron over time..
Sounds like circular reasoning. A rebuttal of the absolute trust one misplaces on dendochronology could be found here: http://www.icr.org/article/381/
Very interesting, in all of this, is that the oldest living tree, Methuselah, is about 4800 years old, within range of with the proposed date of the flood circa 2350 BC. Why no older trees, say 20,000 years?
We could discuss the details of pattern-matching technique or the probability of error, but there is another, more quantitative way, to determine if the long tree-ring chronologies are accurate or not. One can use the amount of radiocarbon in the individual tree rings.
In addition, the end of the article states
Because the ratio of 14C to 12C in the atmosphere varies over time, raw radiocarbon "dates" are calibrated to obtain actual calendar dates using dendrochronology. This process of calibration is an essential part of the radiocarbon dating method, and eliminates assumptions about historical atmospheric radiocarbon concentrations and the constancy of the decay rate of radiocaron over time..Sounds like circular reasoning. A rebuttal of the absolute trust one misplaces on dendochronology could be found here: http://www.icr.org/article/381/
Actually it is not circular reasoning. If you check back to the article and read more carefully, they are using the amount of radiocarbon in individual tree rings to compare bristlecone pines vs. fir vs. European trees. If they counted the rings correctly in each area, then, for example, year 8181 in each of the three sequences should have the same amount of radiocarbon. If they get significantly different amounts of radiocarbon, one or more ring counts is incorrect. So this is not a circular reasoning problem, but an independent check on the accuracy of the bristlecone sequence.
The ICR article you cite notes, "Dead wood, both on the trees and on the ground, have provided a tree-ring record going back to proposed dates of around 6800 B.C. or earlier. [6][7] This causes a little bit more problem for the Ussher dating, but it is not insurmountable. " Actually, the bristlecone sequence is now at 12,600 years. Glacial varves and other methods of correlating radiocarbon extend close to twice that old, but I don't know a lot of the details on those. Anyway, the 6800 B.C. would have to be stretched another 4,000 years to keep up with the bristlecone sequence.
Very interesting, in all of this, is that the oldest living tree, Methuselah, is about 4800 years old, within range of with the proposed date of the flood circa 2350 BC. Why no older trees, say 20,000 years?
Because the trees don't live that long. This is like asking why don't cats live to be 200 years old. They just don't.
How do you purport to know that? Tortoises can live for close to 200 years. Of course, since the oldest tree seems to back the flood chronolgy, it must be dismissed as "they can't live any longer.
Is not it odd that the oldest living tree is called the "Methusaleh" tree, after the oldest man in the Bible? Oh, and his name means "when he dies, it shall be sent", referring to the flood, which happened in the year of his death. Divine humor, methinks!
a. Methuselah trees don't "back up the flood chronology". They are yet another data-point that blows it out of the water, as they are 450 years too old.
b. Let's assume that the Bible writers got the chronology wrong and that the flood was 4800 years ago, not 4350 years ago as the Bible indicates. Further let's assume that Methuselah trees live for longer than 4800 years and the only reason we don't see any older than that is because of the flood. Now we have a testable hypothesis. What we'd expect to see (if the flood hypothesis were true) is a discontinuity in the curve of Methusaleh tree ages at 4800 years. (if 4800 years happens to be about as old as Methusaleh Trees are capable of living we'd expect to see a normal distribution of ages) Feel free to go out and do this research. Be warned however, that whenever flood hypotheses are tested in this way they invariably come up as a busted flush. Curiously repeated failures of tested hypotheses never seem to discourage the flood geology crowd. Actually it isn't curious; they already signed up to Biblical innerrancy so "the data must be wrong!"
Is not it odd that the oldest living tree is called the "Methuselah" tree, after the oldest man in the Bible? Oh, and his name means "when he dies, it shall be sent", referring to the flood, which happened in the year of his death. Divine humor, methinks!
No. Earthly humour actually. The people who named these trees knew that they were extremely old. Why should we be surprised that they named them after a long lived mythical character?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.