Posted on 07/08/2015 8:48:19 AM PDT by fishtank
Carbon-14 Found in Dinosaur Fossils
by Brian Thomas, M.S. *
New science directly challenges the millions-of-years dogma scattered throughout the blockbuster movie Jurassic World. The spring 2015 edition of the Creation Research Society Quarterly (CRSQ) is a special issue that focuses on the investigation of dinosaur proteins inside fossil bones. The last article in the issue presents never-before-seen carbon dates for 14 different fossils, including dinosaurs. Because radiocarbon decays relatively quickly, fossils that are even 100,000 years old should have virtually no radiocarbon left in them.1 But they do.
Jurassic World characters repeatedly mention "million years ago" in the context of their dinosaurs. In the movie, fictional scientists essentially resurrect and genetically redesign dinosaurs, pterosaurs, and even a giant mosasaur—creatures supposedly extinct for 65-75 million years.
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
With a hundred thousand years of research to back that opinion up? Like the "settled science" of AGW, or the "Earth is flat" scientists from hundreds of years ago?
Full disclosure: I believe God created Heaven and Earth, and all else. But evidence seems to point to time frames outside of those espoused by some Creationists. "A day with God is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as a day". Written when millions, billions and trillions would have only confused the folks.
“Knowledge is your friend. Faith is for your own personal peace.”
Do you have faith in that knowledge?
“With a hundred thousand years of research to back that opinion up?”
I’ll freely admit that the estimates of decay rates of different kinds of tissue are based in part on extrapolation.
However, if you reject science based on that kind of extrapolation, then you must logically also reject the theory of evolution, since it is based much more heavily on extrapolation, over even greater time periods that prevent scientists from using the scientific method to verify their hypotheses.
So, take your pick. Either you can reject evolution because it is based on extrapolation instead of the scientific method, or you can reject evolution because soft tissue in the fossil evidence falsifies the hypothesis.
Why should we be concerned with the “image of Christianity”?
I hate to break it to you, but if the world doesn’t hate you, you ain’t doing “Christianity” right.
As to creationism not being good science, that would depend on how good science is defined. I contend that non-creationism suffers from the same charge for the same reasons that many use against creationism. To admit matter and energy exist and then to limit reality to matter and energy is neither warranted nor logical, but it is a philosophical/religious meta physic. When science is limited to those things that are observable, repeatable and verifiable it must remain silent on origins.
Further, to contend that God could not create a universe with the appearance of age is not science but a theology that limits the omnipotence of God.
As to your contention that creationism is not an essential doctrine to salvation, does nothing to refute the contention of creationists that is an essential doctrine for fulfilling the dominion mandate and the advancement of the kingdom. If you will not believe the words of the king, it will be difficult to trust His propitation, follow His law or walk in His Word. Perhaps not an essential to salvation, but a determinate for a fruitful life.
It’s truly unbelievable. I am constantly amazed that creationists eschew science except when it affords them conveniences such as electric lights, motor vehicles, modern medicine, and computers.
Well the alternative to your viewpoint would infer that you can’t trust the God revealed in the Bible. His words would have to contain falsehoods and be untrustworthy for your millions and billions of life and death before mankind to ring true.
My two favorite links from my years of participation here at FreeRepublic ~ enjoy!
101 Evidences for a Young Age of the Earth...And the Universe
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth
Center for Scientific Creation - In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html
Thanks. Those links are perfectly hilarious.
Creationism claims that it is scientifically valid. You seem to be arguing that there are NON-scientific reasons for supporting the idea of creationism.
Creationism claims to be scientifically valid. If the only reason for supporting it are non-scientific reasons than this argument itself undermines Creationism. It’s either scientifically valid or it isn’t. If it isn’t scientifically valid and you nevertheless accept it as an article of faith then it doesn’t really do for us what Creationists claim it does, does it?
I appreciate your position but I think it’s problematic.
Jesus never said a word about a young earth, or an old earth, or anything else involving the sciences.
Everything in science indicates an old earth, etc... Why would God perpetrate a hoax on people?
Maybe he didn’t.
I see your point, but I think you may be missing my point.
We as Christians constantly ask ourselves why Muslims seem to do NOTHING to improve their image across the world. Yet we seem unwilling to ask ourselves the same question. While regrettable, perception matters. A positive perception of Christians helps our cause. Doing the work of Christ helps our image. Claiming that the earth is 6,000 years old does not. It’s really that simple. We should make every effort to ensure we don’t look like complete fools to other people.
When the definition of science is expanded to empirical materialism, that allows for speculation and is built on unchallengeable presumptions, it is a philosophy that reinforces its own bias. Science, narrowly defined, is not sufficient to explain all knowledge, it is among the most useful ways to understand reality but it has limits. It is simple hubris to assume science is ne plus ultra.
Both the creationist and the non-creationist are looking at present reality and trying to make it fit into the framework of their worldview, but the worldview is a priori. Both camps interpret "evidence" a posteriori according to their presuppositions. Both become self-reinforcing simply because their methods are beyond the scientific method and synthesized with beliefs about reality that are not scientifically verifiable. When the evolutionist's and cosmologist's speculative hypothesis were accepted as valid science, consistency of method must allow for us embarrassing young earth creationists a seat at the table. I'm not embarrassed and I certainly will not be shamed for a consistency of thought that is antithetical to a increasingly secularized orthodoxy.
You want to unilaterally impose a requirement on evolutionary science that requires it to explain something that is not within the scope of the theory, correct?
I trust the Bible as God’s word and absolute truth. It is the ancestry that the Bible describes in great detail that allows for 4,000 years ascribed to Old Testament and 2,000 to the New Testament since Jesus Christ walked the Earth.
Besides Bishop Ussher, Sir Isaac Newton also calculated this lineage and these 2 highly historic Christians came within 10 years of each others’ calculations.
“A definition of science that is limited to the scientific method can not speak to origins, it fails all three tests of observability, repeatability and verifiability.”
The origin of what? Life? The universe? Earth?
“Science, narrowly defined, is not sufficient to explain all knowledge, it is among the most useful ways to understand reality but it has limits. It is simple hubris to assume science is ne plus ultra.”
I’m not making that claim. In fact, I don’t know of anyone that does. Science IS limited, no doubt. But anyone who claims it is the alpha and omega of all knowledge simply has no understanding of science (or epistomology).
“Both the creationist and the non-creationist are looking at present reality and trying to make it fit into the framework of their worldview”
No. Actual science frequently challenges and dramatically changes our world view. It’s happened many times. Galileo and Einstein are perhaps the best examples.
“but the worldview is a priori. Both camps interpret “evidence” a posteriori according to their presuppositions.”
If you are looking to invoke the analytic-synthetic distinction here I can only wonder why because it isn’t doing you any favors. It has only muddied your argument. All “evidence”, in the sense of that which can be observed and measured is, by definition, a posteriori. However, there is no reason whatsoever to state categorically, as you have done, that any worldview is a priori. You might argue that Jungian archetypes are a priori world views, but even those are ‘views’... they are just common objects in the unconcious.
“When the evolutionist’s and cosmologist’s speculative hypothesis were accepted as valid science,”
They are accepted because they use known, valid observation and measurement techniques, not because of the nature of the theory. And as we learn more we modify the theory. It’s a natural, self correcting and self policing process (assuming scientists are honest people). Creationism, on the other hand, begins from the opposite end of the candle... it presupposes an absolutely unchangeable truth/conclusion and then seeks to support the idea through known, valid observaions and measurements. But, because of it’s presupposed conclusion, it is forced to reject well established facts and measurements that might suggest an alternate conclusion. In the end it rejects far more than it accepts. That’s a weak position.
You’ve done a fine job cobbling together some entertaining sophistry here, but Creationism simply isn’t supported by actual measurements and facts.
Thanks and have a great weekend!
Exactly!
So you’re comfortable with dismissing the idea, supported by thousands of observations, measurements and calculations, that the earth is older than that?
You’ll have to dismiss giant swaths of science to do that.
If you actually study the science that ascribes long ages you’ll quickly see some circular logic and assumptions.
2 quickly come to my mind - the ratio of father/daughter elements when they assume the clock started and also assumptions for what events can alter the accuracy of measuring those element ratios.
Besides if it were as reliable as you assume then other natural clocks [see my link in prior post #48 iirc] would tend to back that up.
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.