Radioactive dating basics

[Jbuza]

gone

[sandy_mcd]

If the plants grew real fast, then there was no need to create anything old.

Occasionally there are reports of "living fossils" being found. Perhaps some relics of these fast growing plants are still with us. Some bamboo can grow up to 6" a day, but that is still relatively slow. Here is a much faster growing species first "scientifically described in 1893 by the German botanist Professor Ferdinand Grünspann".

Science on the March
The Schuss-Yucca
Gustav Albrecht
The Scientific Monthly, Vol. 75, No. 4. (Oct., 1952), pp. 250-252.
Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0096-3 ... 0.CO%3B2-N
NOTE: This article contains high-quality images.

and

Letters
Documenting the Schuss-Yucca
August P. Beilmann; E. E. Sloman; E. E. Stanford; I. Tinkeyiss Offenzieknutz; Gustav Albrecht; G. H. Beazley
The Scientific Monthly, Vol. 76, No. 1. (Jan., 1953), pp. 51-53.
Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0096-3 ... 0.CO%3B2-P
NOTE: This article contains high-quality images.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

I would add these questions, Felgar, in respect of the appearance of age:
1. What Scriptural support do we have?
2. We are currently seeing the light of starts reaching the earth. Right now the scientifc explanation is that if the speed of light is constant in a vacuum, these stars are millions of lightyears away. If they were created with the appearance of age, where does the light come from that we observe?

Are you only adding to the discussion, or does this signify a fundamental change in your own ideology from OEC back to YEC?

[August]

I would add these questions, Felgar, in respect of the appearance of age:
1. What Scriptural support do we have?
2. We are currently seeing the light of starts reaching the earth. Right now the scientifc explanation is that if the speed of light is constant in a vacuum, these stars are millions of lightyears away. If they were created with the appearance of age, where does the light come from that we observe?

Are you only adding to the discussion, or does this signify a fundamental change in your own ideology from OEC back to YEC?

Lol, I fail to see how these questions can signify a change in ideology. Since you say "back to YEC", can you point out where I ever was YEC? Care to elaborate on how these questions show a change in philosophy??

[Jbuza]

gone

[August]

Yes. I think there is an element of faith or at least assumptions in all these areas. Frankly, since these factors are in fact observable and evident now, the onus lies upon the one claiming such differences in the past to present evidence within the same framework to demonstrate the consistency of that claim, and if not the cause of such changes, at least demonstrate the effects in such a manner in a framework of theory or hypothesis that makes the assertion viable or at least plausible.

To put it crudely, for me to claim that God can do all things, Therefore God can make monkeys fly out my butt, is hardly just reason to expect someone to buy shares from me in Simian Airlines.

Right, and as we argue in other aspects of God, God cannot do what is contradictory to is nature. That means that God cannot decieve or lie, for example, and God can also not do the illogical.

Obviously because we live in a universe created by God to evidence laws and consistency and therefore we place great faith that assuming all else is equal, this desired result will come to pass.

Right, but this is not consistent with a YEC position. They require the suspension of belief in the cause/effect propositions that have been formulated.

Obviously a YEC or OEC framework may yield a different framework on this. There are even variances within each camp on these issues. I can answer only for me. I believe God created the laws of nature first that govern the universe and broguth forth his creation primarily within those laws. As a progressive creationist, I have no problem with believing God can and did directly intervene with direct creative acts and frankly I believe He can and does at times still do this in the context of miracles etc. When He does this, that is precisely what it is, an intevention or creative act. An overall change of the laws of nature, requires more evidence than mere conjecture.

We agree on this.

:
2. Did God give us a reasonable ability to understand, manage and use His creation?

This begs the question that if he did not then why did he make us stewards? I believe you can argue attributable confusion to the marring of the image which leave us less able to function in this role than we were originally created to be.

I don't think this begging the question. If it was, then we would not be having the YEC/OEC debate. The YEC position relies heavily on inserting metaphysical assumptions that questions our ability to reasonably understand creation.

True as far as it goes. Science is inductive when it is based upon direct observation and testing. It can also be deductive. Inductive is more reliable than deductive. Deductive often provides the hypothesis that science will test.

Ah, ok, I touched on this before with Bgood in another thread too. Unless you subscribe to the fact that science can provide absolute answers, it can never be deductive.

I know this is a topic that raised some heated discussion before, so let's try and settle it:
From the Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
"A deductive argument is an argument in which it is thought that the premises provide a guarantee of the truth of the conclusion. In a deductive argument, the premises are intended to provide support for the conclusion that is so strong that, if the premises are true, it would be impossible for the conclusion to be false.

An inductive argument is an argument in which it is thought that the premises provide reasons supporting the probable truth of the conclusion. In an inductive argument, the premises are intended only to be so strong that, if they are true, then it is unlikely that the conclusion is false.

Because deductive arguments are those in which the truth of the conclusion is thought to be completely guaranteed and not just made probable by the truth of the premises, if the argument is a sound one, the truth of the conclusion is "contained within" the truth of the premises; i.e., the conclusion does not go beyond what the truth of the premises implicitly requires. For this reason, deductive arguments are usually limited to inferences that follow from definitions, mathematics and rules of formal logic.

Inductive arguments, on the other hand, can appeal to any consideration that might be thought relevant to the probability of the truth of the conclusion. Inductive arguments, therefore, can take very wide ranging forms, including arguments dealing with statistical data, generalizations from past experience, appeals to signs, evidence or authority, and causal relationships."
Since science is the study of cause and effect, resulting in hypothesis and theories, which in turn are tested and evaluated, but never assumed to be true from the premises (otherwise why test?), science is inductive in nature.

So, I'm sorry to say, it seems that you had it exactly the wrong way round in your quote above.

It requires more than a dismissive flip of the wrist to dismiss science when it has come up with a premise that continually tests true. Too many times, in my opinion, the response of the YEC side is to simply play this card and then fail to demonstrate an alternative hypothesis that fits in the framework of their presuppositions. That is irresponsible in my estimation and speaks to the appearance of being contrarians and luddites. As Christians, we have to do more. We need to be in the fields working with the Data and findings and using good science as well as good hermeneutics and theology.

Agreed.

I may surprise you in this one.

God cannot change. He has changed His laws if not in spirit then certainly in application based upon the Finished work of Christ. I believe God could and God can change physical law if He so chose. It is not enough to simply claim that. There must be proof other than invoking His omnipotence (the monkeys are warming up for flight if you doubt this.)

You are going to have to explain this to me a bit more, since I seem to be too dumb to get what you are saying here. How has God's laws changed based on the finished work of Christ? What are the physical laws that you refer to?

[Felgar]

I again ask what makes the equating of each band to a six month period of time highly plausible?

Simply because the recent history of bands which can be compared to recorded weather and seasons show this behaviour. If the past 30 years makes 30 new layers in the ice despite there having been many storms and slight annual weather changes, then it's reasonabel to conclude that each year makes a layer. I don't know how to say it any simpler than that.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Lol, I fail to see how these questions can signify a change in ideology. Since you say "back to YEC", can you point out where I ever was YEC? Care to elaborate on how these questions show a change in philosophy??

I misread your post. I see now that you were adding to Felgar's list of YEC notions.

If you yourself have never changed ideologies, would it be fair to assume that you could not know how difficult this could be?

[August]

Lol, I fail to see how these questions can signify a change in ideology. Since you say "back to YEC", can you point out where I ever was YEC? Care to elaborate on how these questions show a change in philosophy??

I misread your post. I see now that you were questioning Felgar's YEC notions.

No harm done. Did you see my explanation on deductive vs inductive logic? I think that was one of our unresolved issues from an earlier discussion about the definition of science.

[dad]

If I may intervene for a second....

I think what is at work here is faith, by both parties. Yes, there is faith involved in science. For us to have a measure of trust in science, we must have faith in the fact that the laws of nature (created by God), are consistent.

But, of course we know they are not, if we believe the bible. This heavens and earth as is is temporary.

We also have to have faith in other things, such as the reliability of our observations, the uniformity of nature and our ability to understand the various phenomena in that context.

Comes in handy understanding how our present world operates.

In the case of the age of the earth, YEC proponents wish that we suspend our beliefs in the basic assumptions of science, and assume that the laws of nature functioned differently in the past. While they may appeal to the "God can do anything He wants" argument, that is nothing but question-begging, or assumption of the consequent, and does not serve as either an internal or external critique if the OEC position.

I say don't just suspend them, chuck them. When projecting them into the future or past, that is. After all, we have no reason to say the present really is the key to the past at all. And this is the core, the heart of the matter.

I will add a caveat here relating to origins science, and specifically the origin of life and mankind. I believe in special direct creation, but not that it happened in 6 days 6000 years ago. There is nothing in Scripture that necessitates that belief.

Or refutes it. Jesus did talk of the flood and Adam's day, as others in the new testament did. The records are there more or less, who was the somn of whom, all the way to Adam.

The questions we need to ask ourselves are:
1. What came first, creation or the laws of nature that govern it? Can nature come into existence exist without laws to order it? Did it happen at the same time?

That all depends on whether the creation was a different state than we are now in.

2. Did God give us a reasonable ability to understand, manage and use His creation?

I would say so, if we use His word as a guide.

3. What does the Bible explicitly say about the age of the earth? (How do we literally arrive at the conclusion that the six periods of creation necessarily followed one another immediately, or that the periods of creation necessarily happened 6000 years ago?)

Some have done the math. Within a small margin of interpretation, we have a great idea about that.

Science is by its very nature an inductive process, which means that it will never give absolute answers. However, that does not prevent the reasonable approximation of answers within given paradigms.

I agree. I call that the fishbowl. In other words the temporary physical only universe we now live in, and it's limits.

Sometimes the paradigms change, as I believe we are currently seeing in the ID/evolution debate, and that leads us to better answers, and answers that will always conform to the absolute truth, od and His revelation.

OK.

As apologists, we are told to provide a reasoned defense of our faith, brought forth by loving God with our heart, soul and mind.

I am not one of those. I am more like Patton, who said 'It is not the duty of a soldier to die for his country. It is to make the other poor, da** bas**** die for his country!' In other words, I prefer to have the old age non bible believers aplologize to me for their lack of really knowing what they are talking about, concerning tha past and future. Perhaps some think this an unusual Christian attitude? That is, a winner, rather than a loser.

Therefore, believing firmly in a God that cannot change, should we not also believe that that which God conferred on creation at the time of creation, those laws that are immutable and transcendant, cannot change either?

Of course not, that is absurd. Adam was to live forever, something changed, no? We will live forever on this earth, something will change, no?

Can the laws of morality, the laws of logic and the laws which govern God's creation be changed?

Not laws of love, and eternal things, no. But this universe is sure gonna change, and that is beyond ANY possible dispute. No?

[dad]

Canuckster1127, These two statements appear to be at odds with each other, to me.

Precisely. If such physical laws were different in the past there ought to be observable records both in the physical creation and ALSO in the early written history and art that gives some indication direct or indirect of these different physical laws. Further, within reason, those records should collaborate each other.

If the change was more than physical. what changes would we look for?

[Felgar]

Luke 13:28-30
"There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out. People will come from east and west and north and south, and will take their places at the feast in the kingdom of God. Indeed there are those who are last who will be first, and first who will be last."

Proverbs 8:13
To fear the LORD is to hate evil; I hate pride and arrogance, evil behavior and perverse speech.

[Jbuza]

gone

[Felgar]

Here's a good article that shows the level of thought and analysis that goes into the science.
http://www.chem.hope.edu/~polik/warming ... Core2.html

From the article: "Hydrogen peroxide is created in the atmosphere by a chemical reaction that requires ultraviolet light. There is a lot less ultraviolet light in the winter than in the summer in Antarctica. Thus, measurements of hydrogen peroxide dissolved in the ice also provide a good annual cycle indicator."

But there are many other indicators used, and they are also able to correlate with known volcanic events, etc to validate their findings.

The key is that there's not a single method used and then research stops. Instead, many tests are done and when they are all found in agreement, then reasonably safe conclusions can be drawn.

[Canuckster1127]

Canuckster1127, These two statements appear to be at odds with each other, to me.

Precisely. If such physical laws were different in the past there ought to be observable records both in the physical creation and ALSO in the early written history and art that gives some indication direct or indirect of these different physical laws. Further, within reason, those records should collaborate each other.


Scripture does not explicitly say, nor is it reasonable in the context of the day, the language, the culture and the non-presence of a scientific mindset, to expect that it would.

--

DO you suppose the ones writing would say we better point this out so that when things behave differently the people in the future will know? For the record I don't put to much stock in changeable laws of nature, but I do wonder about Eden, The New Earth, our physical existence in our new bodies in heaven, etc.

The apostles warn not to go beyond the text, and it sure is going beyond the text when one interjects billions of years IMHO. IT doesn't matter much though, as it would appear that it has pretty much become accepted that the earth is OLD. So since that is known . . . .

Jbuza,

Such writings or indications would not have to be written directly to us.

If, there were significant changes or differences in physical laws, shouldn't that be evident in some manner? THere's written history in how many cultures. If gravity took a few days off maybe a little tidbit like a chiseled rock note that states at the edge of a canyon, "It may look like a long way but go ahead and jump! You'll get to the other side just fine!"

As for adding to the text, I don't get your point. I don't beleive the text indicates directly an age for either YEC or OEC. YEC infers an age based upon their interpretation of the text of creation of the earth in 6 days and then the counting back of the geneologies.

OEC simply states the text allows for a much older earth as the use of yom and the difficulties of reconciling some of the 6 day inconsistecies indicate the length of time variant of the Hebrew WOrd "Yom" is indicated.

When the text is silent on something relating to the creation itself, do you think that means we should not examine the creation itself and if possible find an answer?

How is that adding to the text?

The 4.7 Billion years on the earth is the best understanding at this time. It may change. Nobody here is claiming it as tied to the text in any stretch other than that the text allows for a much older earth.