Posted on 05/01/2006 8:29:14 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
You didn't answer me vary clearly. Do you think that some chemical or physical process will cause the ratios of the various isotopes to vary within the minute volume of lava that forms a single zircon crystal? This is the assumption you're questioning, right? Where can I read about these processes?
I give up. Why wouldn't it?
LOL! Good one.
Hahahahahahaha King Prout! On this "might versus right" question, we can both save ourselves a lot of time were I to point out to you the desirability of reading Plato's magnificent dialog, Gorgias, and you were actually to read it.
THEN I imagine we'd both be "on the same page," and actually be able to have a fruitful conversation.
In this dialog, Plato not only utterly lays waste to the "might makes right" argument, but also the "man is the measure" argument.
You might find it interesting. Plus you'd get a huge bonus: The dialog is a world-class drama. (Plato was, among other things, a world-class literary artist.) Polus is a simply uproarious comic figure. And Callicles is a very dangerous, ambitious man with a libido dominandi that just won't quit. His mortal threat to Socrates in the end is profoundly chilling.... (Though we have to wait for the dialog Apology to find out how that plays out.)
I wonder why this amazing "screenplay" has never been staged.
But if you don't feel like reading Gorgias, you can always ask me what the dispute was about, and what happened. I've already indicated some of the main themes.
Thanks for writing, King!
blowfish,
You may have thought you were being "clever", but...your statement deserves a "Gen. Honore Award"...
"Gen. Honore Award": sounds nice! Thanks!
I have never understood how one can claim the age of the earth to be x amount of years based on the bible. Perhaps I've missed that section, but I never could find it.
"After 68 million years in the ground"
I never knew there were so many YEC'ers here. The IDers like to pretend you guys don't exist.
"If it was carbon dating, I was taught in high school that carbon dating is inconsistent. That is what I question..."
What I question is how you can hope to be taken seriously when you wonder if carbon dating was used to date something to 68 million years. You've already shown you lack the basic knowledge of the subject.
Well said, hosepipe! I've noticed that, too!
Yet drilling down a bit, I would suggest that "infinity" and "eternity" are not the same things. That is, they are not synonyms. One is a mathematical construct eminently useful in the prosecution of scientific problems. The other deals with the "where we live" (so to speak): consciousness - experience - language.
God is utterly, absolutely "beyond" both spacetime and all categories of human thought. The Greek nous (human reason, mind -- if the word had a capital "N," it would denote divine reason, mind) cannot penetrate the mystery of God. But we can know Him in Spirit. This is our faith, in search of its reason. Indeed, He invites us to take up this search, this quest.
Thank you for your excellent observations, dear hosepipe!
Do you think all dinosaur bones have soft tissue in them and it just hasn't been found yet?
If more bones were tested and none found with soft tissue, what would you conclude from that?
that the discovery of soft tissue in B. rex wasn’t just a fluke
But even if it was a fluke it had to have been one really neat platyhelminthes.
Being that fossils are pretty rare to begin with, not too many paleontologists have sawed fossils into thin slices and dropped them into acid baths. I'm willing to bet there's more of that type of thing going on now, though.
If soft-tissue in a dino bone proves dinos aren't that old, then all of the other dino bones should be only partially fossilised like this one. Am I right?
I never knew there were so many YEC'ers here. The IDers like to pretend you guys don't exist.
They change hats often. Since the Dover decision, they put their favorite hat back on. They never really liked the other one that much. But it was very fashionable and got a lot of attention for awhile.
You were not taught very well. You do not date 68 million year old fossils with radiocarbon dating, as the upper limits of that method are in the 50,000 year range.
The method also is not inconsistent. It is well calibrated against historical documents and artifacts (from Egyptian tombs, for example) and by tree ring dating. The calibration curve for tree rings extends past 12,000 years in 10 year increments.
If you are actually interested, here is a series of good links:
ReligiousTolerance.org Carbon-14 Dating (C-14): Beliefs of New-Earth CreationistsAlso, I do quite a lot of radiocarbon dating, and would be happy to answer any questions you may have.The 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.
Precisely what I wrote, "This evidence should not be noteworthy, but it is."
This is to be viewed in light of the charge that ID is non-falsifiable. I contend that Darwinism is also non-falsifiable. Any evidence contrary to the dogma will be marginalized and ridiculed. Yet this evidence is noteworthy in the eyes of many and not due to any reason of its expectation.
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.