Where do you start?
POSTED BY: citizen
UPDATED: Wednesday, January 8, 2025 02:57
VIEWED: 8803
PAGE 2 of 8
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
For those of you who have unqualified faith in science
Faith in science. Hmmm. I frequent a lot of discussion boards, and usually that's one of the first strikes of a creationist in disguise. You claim to not be one, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt; however, given the fact that in an earlier post you also used the term "macroevolution," something no one with a real understanding of the process would use, I'm skeptical right off the bat (no offense intended, just an observation).
Quote:
Until reading this, I was under the impression that radiocarbon dating was a much more... Ummm... How shall we say... Scientific process than it really is.
And what scientist has ever claimed that it is 100% accurate? None that I am aware of. What do you want them to do, given periods of thousands of years, break it down to the exact minute? That's another sticking point the anti-science crowd leaps on. "Aha, you say this is from about 5500 years ago, but the histories say it happened 5600 years ago - carbon dating is wrong!" What a crock. "Aha, you used isometric dating to show that this fossil is from 250 million years ago, but you're only accurate to within 2 or 3 million years - what if the earth really is 6000 years old?" I mean, seriously, do you know how silly that sounds?
Quote:
Fact 2) Radiocarbon dating works by assuming the amount of carbon-14 absorbed by a life form.
Fact, there are all different types of dating methodology, and not all of them use carbon-14. Also, let me bold this so people can see it - you have cited an article from 1997. That's 10 years of advancement in technique and usage in the field. In modern science, that's an eternity.
Quote:
Could that be as much as a ten percent variance, just on recent objects?
I cited this above, but I'll rehash it just for my own amusement. Ten percent? So for something 11000 years old, that's + or - 1100 years. Wow. 10000 vs 12000 on an 11000 year old object. I'm impressed by the scientists, not critical; they got it to within a couple thou years? Awesome.
Quote:Last time I checked, scientists took no position on how we were "created." As far as I'm aware, the answer is "we're still trying to figure that one out."
a rather odd term, since both scientists and bible adherents believe that we were created... But merely by different means
Quote:Just like you were doing? But you aren't a creationist, right?
'Creationists' would seem to have plenty of room to throw stones at the radiocarbon dating process.
Quote:
I mean, if I took a California pine that is 5,000 years old, chopped it into firewood, threw it in my fireplace, and kept warm all winter... What would the radiocarbon date of the charcoal be? Could it be used to accurately date my DVD player, which is found in the same strata?
Again, what do you want from them? If, 12000 years from now, a group of scientists says, hmm, we think this DVD player may be from @the year @2000, plus or minus 50-100 years, you'd consider them to be poor scientists? Your argument is absurd.
Quote:
It sounds to me like archaeology is more 'educated guesswork' than it is science. And if that's the case, I don't think that historians and archaeologists should throw stones either. There's plenty of room for reasonable doubt.
No. Not really. Your disdain for science oozes out of your whole post, even though you are trying to sound reasonable. You're casting scientists as a bunch of blokes who sit around in a room all day and make things up.
Quote:
I think it's a healthy bit of skepticism to wonder at figures of billions of years bandied about by someone who can't accurately date something from 12,000 years ago.
Again, I defy your claim of inaccuracy. Ask a statistician, just because something's off by a few percentage points doesn't make it dismissable.
Quote:
Let's all be skeptical together. Both of the priest and of the scientist.NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Until reading this, I was under the impression that radiocarbon dating was a much more... Ummm... How shall we say... Scientific process than it really is.
No, it's always been a way of getting a rough ball park figure. Discrepancies of a hundred years are common in any dating method for events or artefacts from thousands of years in the past.
Quote:
Fact 4) By studying the strata of a tree growing in one place in the world, scientists have obtained what they believe to be accurate representations of the amount of carbon-14 found in the atmosphere during different years, thereby correcting the errors of Fact 3, back to about 11,000 years ago. (They were able to do this, mysteriously, even though the oldest tree of this type is in the 5,000 year range.)
Tree ring records go even further back. Fossilised and dead tree rings will closely match the rings of living trees from the same area so it's possible to go further back where dead and fossilised tree growth overlaps that of living trees.
Quote:
After reading this information, I can see why 'creationists' (a rather odd term, since both scientists and bible adherents believe that we were created... But merely by different means.) where was I? Ah. 'Creationists' would seem to have plenty of room to throw stones at the radiocarbon dating process. (But they shouldn't throw stones. 'Let he who is without sin throw the first stone' and all that.)
Not really, creation in this context implies a creator. Many of the 'stones' thrown by creationists against radiocarbon dating are logically fallacious, as they say since carbon-14 dating can't give an exacting date, if Carbon-14 says something is significantly older than 6000 years then it must be wrong. Doesn't follow at all.
If I say something happened in March last year but I can't give an exact date it doesn't logically follow that if I say I'm over 24 years old then I must be wrong.
Quote:
If radiocarbon dating can be off a century for something a thousand years old, how far is it off for things 'hundreds of thousands' or 'millions' of years old?
Assuming ten percent for a million years you're talking about 100,000 years. Still doesn't lay the margin of error in the 6000 year range.
Quote:
While I don't think the Earth is 6,000 years old, I think it's a healthy bit of skepticism to wonder at figures of billions of years bandied about by someone who can't accurately date something from 12,000 years ago.
Because the margin of error reduces in significance as the time frame increases.
Quote:
Let's all be skeptical together. Both of the priest and of the scientist. We might learn something.
Great idea I agree wholeheartedly
. This is how science is supposed too, and on the whole does operate. I'm not about to say science or scientists are perfect, they're not, but by comparison creationism and it's 'scientific' variants such as ID in no way shape or form operate on this principle.Quote:
Either viruses are alive, or they are amazing little gadgets, and probably the best evidence for 'intelligent design' there is. (Be interesting if creationists turned their logic bombs on the issue of the virus.)
This is not true at all. The ID debate has nothing to do with whether Viruses are alive or not. By this reasoning Viruses being alive or not proves ID whatever the outcome, which it doesn't.
Viruses are either Alive or they are a complex chemical constructs and reactions that show some aspects of life.
Fire is a chemical reaction that grows, reproduces, consumes and moves. At a stretch you could even say it reacts to stimuli, but no one says fire is alive. The existance of fire is also not proof of an intelligent creator. Fires can occure due to Human action, but they also occure naturally.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity. But I know none, and therefore am no beast.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Citizen- very interesting post.
I heard a speaker several years back trying to promote his proof of a young Earth and the reality of a Noah's ark flood. It was a little surprising that people were taking him seriously, but at the time it didn't bother me too much.
Stuff like this bothers me so much more now. I think because I'm much more aware how unscientific thinking is getting entwined with public policy. And that can be pretty scary.
I also wanted to mention one more thing about the Earth's age. Yes, there is uncertainty in radioactive dating, but the age of Earth and solar system is not obtained using 14-Carbon. The generally accepted 4.5 billion years comes using isotopes with much longer halflives such as 238-Uranium (4.5 billion year half life) or 40-Potassium (1.3 billion years), among others. So we can say with some certainty that the Earth is at least 4.5 billion years old. Radioactive dating of lunar rocks and meteorites also show a 4.5 billion year old solar system. And models of the Sun's interior give it an age of about 5 billion years, plus or minus 1.5 billion 
. I will shut up now.
Trust me, I'm a scientist!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
7%
the current crop of assholes running the show is ridiculously anti-science
They are, but I think the problem goes beyond that.
They get traction because culturally, the US has been anti-education for at least two centuries, with only brief interludes. Think of all the disdainful comments about those w/ education: artsy-farty, hi-fallutin', 'evil scientist' types. Compare that to the plain spoken wisdom of the hard-working 'common man' who doesn't know much about art, but knows what he likes. He also knows his Bible and sets the standard for truth and decency.
The US was shocked out of its complacency by Sputnik and Yuri Gagarin, but that lasted perhaps a decade.
After that science, particularly chemistry, became associated with industry and toxic products.
Americans are uncomfortable with education, with educated people, and with science in particular. There needs to be a cultural change, IMHO, for this to change.
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Faith in science. Hmmm. I frequent a lot of discussion boards, and usually that's one of the first strikes of a creationist in disguise. You claim to not be one, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt; however, given the fact that in an earlier post you also used the term "macroevolution," something no one with a real understanding of the process would use, I'm skeptical right off the bat (no offense intended, just an observation)."
No disguise here. We know from the other thread that I believe in God. We can presume that I believe God made things. But that's neither here nor there. I'm not trying to prove that the Earth or the universe is 6,000 years old, nor do I believe it to be. Even if we take the Bible at face value, there are many many interpretations of how old IT says the Earth is. (Quite frankly, I don't put much faith in those sorts of vague interpretations from a book that has been re-assembled multiple times, and doesn't adequately address the question of who Caine was getting on with.)
Macroevolution is the evolution of one type of creature into another type of creature, as taught to me by Biology teacher in High school. I didn't make it up. You know, like when a fish becomes a gerbil over the course of X millions of years.
Microevolution is the provable evolution. Natural selection at work. The example from High School was that when a forest turned black due to pollution, the moths there also turned black. (The light colored ones got eaten, I guess, and the dark colored ones all had kids.) This is the same kind of process we interfere with in order to breed types of flowers and types of dogs. Because of the speed of results, microevolution (you know, changes within a creature type) is 100% provable. People use microevolution to assume macroevolution, and use fossil evidence to support their theory. (A good sound theory, by the way. If a type of moth can become black over 10 years, who knows what changes it might see over a million years, thanks to random mutation and natural selection?)
By the way: "you also used the term "macroevolution," something no one with a real understanding of the process would use"
Be sure to correct my understanding of evolution in your next post. We'll call it -
TALKING POINT ONE - HOW ANTHONY HAS NO REAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS.
**************
**************
"And what scientist has ever claimed that it is 100% accurate? None that I am aware of. What do you want them to do, given periods of thousands of years, break it down to the exact minute? That's another sticking point the anti-science crowd leaps on. "Aha, you say this is from about 5500 years ago, but the histories say it happened 5600 years ago - carbon dating is wrong!" What a crock. "Aha, you used isometric dating to show that this fossil is from 250 million years ago, but you're only accurate to within 2 or 3 million years - what if the earth really is 6000 years old?" I mean, seriously, do you know how silly that sounds?"
Well, I can't think of any scientist worth his salt that says anything is 100% accurate. But I do hear them talk about margins of error. If 5,000 years ago I cut down a sapling and burn it, you can date my sword to 5,000 years ago. If 5,000 years ago I cut down a 5,000 year old tree and burn it, you can date my sword to 10,000 years ago. If 5,000 years ago I used some million year old coal in my fire, you can date my sword to 1,000,000 years ago. None of this suggests that the Earth is 6,000 years old. It does tell us that the margin of error on carbon dating can be really far off. (Like, really super far off.) And this is just the obvious stuff. Carbon dating things found close to things should be one of many ways to date something, and perhaps even the least important evidence. Unfortunately, carbon dating was invented as a consequence of there being no other valid way of dating certain things and sites. So, something that can be way, way, way off is sometimes the only thing used to da
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If I can ask a stupid question why 6000 years? It bothers me because the bible doesnt actually list how long ago something was. It implies that creationist types have taken the supposed age of the oldest human civilization, added 1000 years and set that as the upper limit. Which means that they do accept at least biblical archeology.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Fletch,
I don't know how they came up with the 6,000 year figure, though I can take a stab at a guess.
The bible goes on and on about who begat who and how long they lived. I think you're supposed to be able to trace the entire lineage of Jesus back to Adam. That might provide Bible scholars with an estimate. I don't know if the 6,000 year advocates use the 7 day forging of the world as literal or metaphorical. I also don't know how long they give Adam and Eve credit for living in Eden. (Where presumably there was no aging, since there was no death.) From a Biblical point of view, I don't know that it says 'Adam and Eve lived in eden for 17 years before they blew it' and while I think an age for Adam is given upon his death, I'm not sure if that includes Eden or is considered post-eden.
Then again, I also don't know who Cain was shacking up with later on. It's always felt to me like a lot of the story is missing.
What I am interested in knowing is how you date a moon rock. Any scientists in the crowd please explain the process.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
In a similar vein:
The National Geographic channel just put on "Robin Hood: Prince of Theives" as part of it's "fact on film" season...
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity. But I know none, and therefore am no beast.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
If I can ask a stupid question why 6000 years?
The time going back to the establishment of the kingdom of Israel is the only part which can be ascertained with any sort of fairly acceptible dating. These dates are readily ascertained as we know that Jerusalem fell to Nebuchadnezzar in 586BC, and the Bible records the length of the reigns of all the kings (of both Judah & Israel) from the Babylonian captivity back to the establishment of the kingdom. Therefore, we can ascertain that Saul probably became first king of Israel c.1050BC (David in 1010BC, etc.).
The period of the judges (prior to the establishment of the kingdom) isn't quite as specific, but can be determined from time periods given in scripture to be in the neighborhood of 300 years.
However, going back prior to the period of the judges, one starts to run into dating problems -- which is why I don't think anyone should speak of biblical dating prior to this with any dogmatism.
I think the 6000 year number comes from an approximation of the time when Abraham lived (c.2000BC), then incorporates the Adamic genealogy (which lists how old Adam was when Seth was born, how old Seth was when Enosh was born, etc.), and goes backwards from Abraham to Adam (which is approximately another 2,000 years).
Of course, in order for anyone to believe dogmatically that the earth is approximately 6,000 years old, it would have to assume firstly, that no generations were skipped over in the geneaologies (which aparently was something done in the case of some ancient genealogies), then secondly, that the seven "days" mentioned in Genesis were literal, 24-hour days (with Adam having been created on the 6th day, thus the earth having been created 6 days prior to Adam's creation), then thirdly (as AnthonyT eluded to above), that Adam & Eve were in the garden only a short time before the birth of Seth.
Could God have done all this in 6,000 years? Yes, I have no doubt. Did God do it all in 6,000 years? I haven't a clue, and wouldn't want to speculate whether He did or didn't.
I believe that if the Lord wanted us to know how old the earth was, He would've told us. As He hasn't (at least as far as I know), I think it's foolish to speculate.
Anyhow, that's how I think the 6,000 year figure was likely derived.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:For the most part it is the same with Carbon-14 dating, just using different, longer lived species. Uranium-235, for instance will decay until it eventually becomes lead-207 with a half life of something like ~billion years. Most rocks contain minerals that have at least one decay series. I think maybe Rubidium-87/Strontium-87 decay series may be used for moon rocks, which has a half life of maybe ~50 billion years. Moon rocks tend to be old.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
What I am interested in knowing is how you date a moon rock. Any scientists in the crowd please explain the process.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME