Posted on 11/11/2004 12:30:18 PM PST by TChris
I have pondered at great length the recurring alarmism of environmental scientists as one shocking discovery after another have each, in their turn, posed planet-altering threats to humanity. I have also wondered at the rampant atheism of the scientific community as a whole. While each of these subjects is worthy of lengthy discussion, I have found what I believe is a common flaw in many of the methods of both, and other, camps.
It seems that a common follow-up to the discovery of a phenomenon or development of a theory is an over-extrapolation of observable, solid facts. To wit: Observable microevolution is extrapolated into macroevolution and vehemently defended in the presence of a terrible dearth of evidence. Empirical atmospheric measurements are extrapolated into the "global warming" causality chain: Human activity produces CO2, CO2 insulates the atmosphere, insulating the atmosphere causes temperatures to rise, rising temperatures cause changes in weather patterns, everyone will die if humanity doesn't immediatly stop producing CO2. The fact that there are chemicals which destroy ozone is extrapolated into humanity's causation of changes in the size and duration of the ozone hole. Etc..
Whether these summaries are accurate or not, they are not my main question. I would like to know if anyone has dealt with the question of carbon dating, and how it can be proven accurate? As I understand it, carbon dating is based on the premise of the constant decay rate of Carbon-14. Is this another case of over-extrapolation? If the decay rate of Carbon-14 can be directly measured over the course of years, even centuries or millennia, how can this measurement be meaningfully extrapolated into the millions of years?
My question stems from the memory of parabolic equations in trigonometry class. I wonder if there is a possibility that the measured decay rate could appear to be constant, within the margin of error, for hundreds, even thousands of years, only to quickly change at some point beyond the threshold of observation/measurement. Am I completely off the path, or is this a legitimate concern?
"If the decay rate of Carbon-14 can be directly measured over the course of years, even centuries or millennia, how can this measurement be meaningfully extrapolated into the millions of years?"
For 'millions of years', other elements are used for radioactive dating, as they have longer half-lives, and thus a greater degree of accuracy for dating objects that are potentially millions of years old.
Speaking of ideas that are difficult to prove and have no observable data to support them other than words in a book, how about that whole Creationism idea? Talk about requiring a huge leap of pure faith, as there's no evidence to support a 7-day period of creation that occurred only a few thousand years ago.
What I mean is they don't believe in the book of Revelation or anything like that, but have the same sort of underlying longing so they believe in a secular apocalypse such as global warming, environmental destruction etc...
It is the same sort of psychological dynamic. Christians will talk about the end of the world as foretold in the Bible, whereas secular people don't believe in the Bible so they come up with their own apocalyptic myths which take the form of environmental disaster etc...
Exponentials can produce overwhelming analogies. It's probably more meaningful to understand the numbers with respect to exponential variables than in absolute years.
You are correct in your assessment. Creationism doesn't have the evidence supporting it that a scientist would recognize. The evidence of God is a personal thing. The only proof a person can ever receive of God is a personal experience with Him. Once that happens, the proof is there for you, but it can't be given to another directly.
There is, however, pesuasive evidence for creation in our own experience. In our observable world, complicated, orderly, sustainable systems are difficult to produce. They require intelligent direction and control if they are to succeed. That is a well-known fact in every facet of life. For example, it takes a great deal of intelligent input to create a computer operating system. Nobody in their right mind would suggest that a working operating system would be produced by random changes to and compilation of code over millions of years. Yet, this would be an infinitely simpler task than for higher life forms to have been produced by the same mechanism.
Jumping for a moment to the related topic of The Big Bang theory, it seems to me that the proponents of it are, in effect, declaring chaos to be the Creator. This is the god given credit for our current state. But doesn't the Big Bang directly collide with the second Law of Thermodynamics? Things left to themselves ALWAYS degenerate to a lower, more chaotic, order. Is there any observable instance where this has been disproven? If so, why is the second law still a law?
You're right, that was presumptuous of me. However, it seems to me that most of the published material, and scientific textbooks in particular, come from that point of view.
Nice response.
I saw only one item to discuss and that was..
" But doesn't the Big Bang directly collide with the second Law of Thermodynamics? "
The 'classic' Big Bang probably does, but most modern physicists don't really buy into the Big Bang as you & I probably learned it in school. String theory and others are now being looked into, for some of the very reasons you point out. There's also the whole anti-matter thing too.
To quote Cheney on this topic: "We don't know what we don't know. These are known unknowns."
I loved that quote.
That's exactly the way I felt in Biology 1010 while in college. The staggering intricacy and complexity of living things only served to cement my faith in a living God. His works are truly amazing.
There are about fourty dating methods with overlapping ranges. If you were actually curious about this you could have found the details with google.
But I think you miss my point. How do you confirm the accuracy of any method that goes so far beyond our ability to measure it? How do you go about proving that the half-life of any particular atom is really in the millions of years? Isn't it a mathematical extrapolation?
No, but again, you are just trolling. The answers you seek are in science books and science web sites. But you are not interested in learning science, or you would have been reading appropriate source material before posting a high school level science question on a ploitical site.
Um, yeah, sure. (I'm not a scientist, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night).
thanks for the post. this statement about sums up the liberal philosophy.
let me cite one example, albeit slightly off the topic at hand. kerry/edwards said that 44 million people did not have health insurance in 2003. fact is, 44 million people did not have coverage for the entire 365 days. about half (22 million) let coverage lapse when they left current employment to find another. of the remaining 22 million, 2/3 chose not to have insurance. that leaves about 7 million, and about half of those are covered under gov't programs and choose, for whatever reason, not to take advantage of them. so about 4 million people do not have coverage (less than 2% of the population) -- liberal extrapolation: socialized medicine, 100% coverage for all.
this is done over and over by liberals. liberal "scientists" too.
I'm not a scientist either, but by golly I am enjoying this discussion and learning too.
you are asking if the decay rate of radio active materials is relative to time. i think you are questioning a fundamental axiom of quantum mechanics. i am able to refute of acclaim that.
on the other hand, there are many other dating mechanisms. it is true that there is more co2 in the air today than a hundred or two hundred years ago. the implication is that carbon dating is less precise than it once was and its results must be viewed with a greater tolerance for variance.
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.