Evidence for God from Science

Canuckster1127 wrote:I think we are reasonably close and agreed in general, although it appears we are of different opinions in terms of the conclusions of this approach, as I am an Old Earth Creationist and it appears to me (and please correct me if I am not reflecting your position accurately) that you believe correct Biblical exegesis demands a Young Earth position.

It is not necessary to say that correct Biblical exegesis demands YEC, rather correct exegesis denies a progressive creation. The work of creation was completed.

First, I don't necessarily believe science is an appropriate means to exegete scripture. The scientific method itself is de facto materialistic and I don't believe that only that which is physical and subject to that method is the sum of all truth. In fact, I believe a great deal of the age of the earth debate is the result of lifting scripture out of the context of its original human authorship, the understanding of its original audience, and in fact seeks to force some elements of Genesis into a context it was never intended to reside.

Correct - except remember, the human authorship was 'inspired'.

The context of Genesis when I look at it is not to give a scientific discourse. I believe the overriding context and message of Genesis is found in the original author (Moses under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) is addressing the Nation of Israel in the early stages of the Exodus to reintroduce them to the history and their nation and covenant relationship with God. Genesis 1 - 11 provides a the backdrop and preparation for chapter 12 - 50 which focus on Abraham, Isaac and Joseph.

I disagree. The intent of all scripture is to reveal God, not the nation of Israel. The first part of Genesis has the purpose of establishing God's omnipotence. God is established as the "first cause". After the creation we are brought to the knowledge of sin and receive the first prophecy of salvation. All the while the focus is on God, His works and His purpose.

I believe there are scientific claims present that are relevant to examine but their are important things to be aware and important to any Christian whether young earth or old earth or some other variant.

1. Hebrew at that time was not a language designed or specialized to give technical precision to the degree read in (in my opinion) by those seeking to find scientific specificity.

I disagree. If in fact Hebrew was the original language, Hebrew did not contain words such as 'evolution' or 'uniformatarianism' but is more than adequate for expressing the full power of God and describing what he made. Early languages were not primitive and inadequate. Look at the work the egyptians accomplished using early language.

2. The Hebrew culture would not have asked the question in these passages as to the time periods covered. The primary point they were deriving from this narrative was along the lines of "We are God's people, created for a purpose by God which ties into His plan which was present from the very beginning of this world."

The Genesis Rabbah written in the fifth century espouses the uniqueness of the hebrew people who were looking forward to salvation. Christians have the benefit of hindsight and can now see that Gods true purpose in scripture was to set aside a people for himself (not just hebrew) with Him at the head and the whole of creation was for this cause.

3. That said it is reasonable to believe that God's purpose and inspiration may have extended beyond the context of the immediate time, language and culture and therefore included us. It is dangerous however, to push that to a degree that overrides or goes beyond the original text and context and when moving in that realm, dogmatic interpretation is going to run a large risk of overstating positions.

This is true when examining the whole of scripture. And yet with respect to Genesis, this is exactly what many post-modern christians are doing when they squeeze unintnended meanings from the text to support their world-view.

Modern scientific understanding is by its very nature fickle and subject to change as more data is accumulated and more theories devised to explain it. It certainly is an unreliable means to attempt to meld Scripture to for the reasons cited.

So how is scripture served by linking it to fickle human knowledge?

That said, when we attempt to utilize Scripture to predict scientific conclusions there are some things that bear some analysis.

God is the author of Scripture as well as the creator of the universe. Therefore where truth lies in both areas, addressing a common element, the two should be in perfect accord. Where it is not, there are only a few options to consider.

1. Scripture may be incorrect. As a Christian who believes in inspiration, I cannot entertain this option and I do not.

Ok neither can I.

2. Our interpretation or exegesis may be incorrect. This is not the same as option 1. Unfortunately, some Christians fail to make that distinction and in so doing they actually elevate their theology to the level of Scripture itself which is dangerous and wrong and in a subtle way equates to a form of arrogance and spiritual pride.

When this happens we call it heresy. It is common practice in the kingdom of the cults. But what about when we elevate our cosmology or scientific understanding to the level of scripture. It is equally dangerous, arrogant, and prideful. And some would say, heretical.

3. Science may be incorrect. This is always possible and history demonstrates it in many instances. That said however, it is a cop-out to simply argue it must be wrong when there is a disagreement with Scripture or more likely, the applicable theology or exogesis, (eisogesis maybe even ) in question.

When science disagrees with scripture, it is not the job of the christian to justify the error, it is the job of the scientist to correct his error. Even St. Augustine, whom you love to quote in your signature said this:
But when they produce from any of their books a theory contrary to Scripture, and therefore contrary to the Catholic faith, either we shall have some ability to demonstrate that it is absolutely false, or at least we ourselves will hold it so without any shadow of a doubt. And we will so cling to our Mediator, "in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge,"

The greater the preponderace of data and work done in science that confirms something, the more basis there is to consider that it may be reflecting a truth found in nature which also finds its source in God as creator and the process sorted out.

Error begets error and lies lead to more lies. This is not saying that all of science is error or lies, but we must not assume that as precept builds upon precepts it is attaining more truth.

It's an uncomfortable process but a profitable one if it is worked through by the Christian without compromise to the inspiration and inerrency of Scripture but also extreme care to not try and apply that standard to our interpretation of the text which may need to be adjusted.

This approach places the theory as a superior knowledge and makes it master over our interpretation of scripture.

In terms of scientific age of the creation, as I believe that is a very minor part of the whole purpose and context of the Genesis account anyway, I think we've overall (myself included) really strained at some gnats and perhaps have swallowed some camels and missed the main point.

Then why not accept it for what it says rather than try to stuff so much more meaning and intention into it?

So I think we have a lot in common here, but I think maybe these are the areas where there is some difference of approach.

What do you think?

Based on your own statements, we know that science is materialistic, and focused entirely on the physical. Science can not prove the existence of God and therefore can not attribute any causation to God. Therefore when one attempts to explain how God did something by using a methodology that can not accept God it is oxymoronic.

Welcome to the forum, Leonov.
Looks like you were anxious to go from registration to this thread. So lets get started discussing.

Leonov wrote:...Whilst I agree with you that some things need to be created "with age" to make it all work it is fallacious to extend that to everything that exists.

So God sometimes does it one way and sometimes another, and some in their wisdom are able to discern the difference? I think God is consistent.

There is no reason why God needs to create a universe in which the light appears to have been travelling from other galaxies for more that a million years. If we never saw those galaxies what would it matter?

Maybe because he knew one day we would deploy a space telescope?

What then does it mean to deceive if not making someone believe something that is contrary to other evidence or beliefs? Are magicians any the less deceptive because the people in the audience don't understand how it was done? As far as I can see, if you set out to make someone believe something contrary to what they would otherwise believe then you are deceiving them and hence a deceiver.

But why, as in your first quotation, would you think it is OK for some things to be created with age. Doesn't your standard of deception also apply to these?

I believe in God but I cannot see how we can retain the idea of Creation at the same time as believing that God does not lie. If that is the case then I would rather let go of a recent creation than a truthful God.

Maybe it can help you retain the basic premise of creation and a truthful God, if you remember man does lie, the devil deceives, and God makes foolishness of the wisdom of the wise.

Best regards.

Canuckster1127 wrote: I think your post catches some of the conflict in this area. God is not a deceiver in the negative sense of that word, but there certainly are consistent themes within Scripture that show that God chooses to hide things and not make them evident. I tend to believe that this is in the area of Spiritual truth and not the physical creation but others can have other views about it I'm sure.

I am unaware of a positive sense of the word "deceiver" (see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/deceiver) .

God may hide some things from us but that is a very different concept to actively misleading. What do you think that God has hidden from us that if revealed would explain all of this? I can't conceive of anything which might explain it.

L

Forum Monk.

I appreciate the responses. Here are mine.

It is not necessary to say that correct Biblical exegesis demands YEC, rather correct exegesis denies a progressive creation. The work of creation was completed.

I would respectfully disagree. The work of creation being "completed" does not preclude continued progression after the fact if in fact, God's purpose and design was to include that. I believe the latter and find no exegetically reason to reject that possibility.

I disagree. The intent of all scripture is to reveal God, not the nation of Israel. The first part of Genesis has the purpose of establishing God's omnipotence. God is established as the "first cause". After the creation we are brought to the knowledge of sin and receive the first prophecy of salvation. All the while the focus is on God, His works and His purpose.

I don't see how appealing to a broader Bible-wide purpose denies the csetting of Genesis itself when placed in it's historical context. Moses was the human author, under inspiration. The immediate audience was the Nation of Israel which was in the midst of the Exodus of the time. The historic needs of the Nation of Israel at that time were influenced heavily by the recent 400 years of bondage. There was a clear need to remind and reestablish to the Nation of Israel their position as a unique Nation in unique Relationship to God. Genesis clearly follows a pattern and flow that supports those general observations. They are not necessarily exclusive of other more general observations to be sure. But I believe it would do the text an injustice to fail to recognize this.

I disagree. If in fact Hebrew was the original language, Hebrew did not contain words such as 'evolution' or 'uniformatarianism' but is more than adequate for expressing the full power of God and describing what he made. Early languages were not primitive and inadequate. Look at the work the egyptians accomplished using early language.

What other language do you propose here beside Hebrew? Perhaps you could give some examples within the Biblical text itself to demonstrate your point rather that a general anological appeal?

The Genesis Rabbah written in the fifth century espouses the uniqueness of the hebrew people who were looking forward to salvation. Christians have the benefit of hindsight and can now see that Gods true purpose in scripture was to set aside a people for himself (not just hebrew) with Him at the head and the whole of creation was for this cause.

Certainly this is true and ties into covenental theology (which is where I tend to come from in this regard.) In this context however, it begs the question, "So what?" Clearly at the time and in the context of the historical setting Genesis was written to the nation of Israel in the midst of the reestablishment of the covenent relationship after a period of 400 some years of bondage. You'll need to be a bit more specific I believe as to how this greater view of the flow of God's work establishes Genesis to provide a message that would not have been grasped or looked for by the original audience, I think.

This is true when examining the whole of scripture. And yet with respect to Genesis, this is exactly what many post-modern christians are doing when they squeeze unintnended meanings from the text to support their world-view.

It is a danger that is not unique to any position or time. Post-modernism certainly is the current raising and dominant view and examples abound within the Church of these types of eisogetical maneuvers. They are not unique to them however.

So how is scripture served by linking it to fickle human knowledge?

Scripture is written to fickle humans The absolutes that are being reconcilled with regard to the age of the universe are the Scriptures and the Creation. Fickle human knowlege is involved in interpretting both these revelations of God in the realm of Theology and Science and certainly both can be wrong and history abounds with examples where both have been wrong. Science has limitations for reasons stated before. It is limited to the materialistic and when you attempt to extrapolate science outside the realm of the physical and into the metaphysical there is baggage that comes with it which I believe we both see as detrimental.

I don't see this as a dichotomous, either/or situation. Truth is Truth, and where science and theology overlap, which is really not in all that many places, but where it does overlap it should be expected to agree. It often does not. Scripture and Nature are not wrong. Man's fallible approach in both Theology and Science are though not necessarily to the same degree. I start with Scripture and theology and if a reconciliation is needed (which will only be valid until more information comes available) then I look at it and try to determine the possible means while recognizing there may not be a perfect satisfactory answer. I can live with mystery and ambiguity just fine. That is called faith.

As it stands, with relationship to the age of the Earth, I believe the Scripture teaches an Old Earth and so it is not for me an issue of compromise, it is an issue of correlation, and while it is important to me and many others, it is not cardinal.

When this happens we call it heresy. It is common practice in the kingdom of the cults. But what about when we elevate our cosmology or scientific understanding to the level of scripture. It is equally dangerous, arrogant, and prideful. And some would say, heretical.

I'll grant that with the caveat that that issue is present only to the degree that both field address the same question or material. Each is perfectly fine within its own spectrum addressing the issues of its own field of knowlege and application.

When science disagrees with scripture, it is not the job of the christian to justify the error, it is the job of the scientist to correct his error. Even St. Augustine, whom you love to quote in your signature said this:
But when they produce from any of their books a theory contrary to Scripture, and therefore contrary to the Catholic faith, either we shall have some ability to demonstrate that it is absolutely false, or at least we ourselves will hold it so without any shadow of a doubt. And we will so cling to our Mediator, "in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge,"

Agreed. Although your framing in this regard seems to perhaps allude to a sense that the physical age of the universe is a dualistic either/or position. As I've stated elsewhere, I believe exegetically the indications beginning with Scripture are in favor of an older creation time and process. It also should be pointed out that where Science repeatedly can reevaluate and correct itself and indeed does and should based upon the scientific method, such changes do not mean the overall truth of presumption as to age is called into question.

This approach places the theory as a superior knowledge and makes it master over our interpretation of scripture.

No it does not necessarily do that. As stated before, Scripture and Nature by definition as delievered by the same God will be in agreement. It is a category error to imagine that tweaking understandings in either the realm of science or theology compromise Scripture or Nature. That's the source of a great deal of the confusion in my opinion.

Then why not accept it for what it says rather than try to stuff so much more meaning and intention into it?

You'll have to demonstrate to me where I've done that. I'm the one seeking to keep things simple and in historical and cultural context and it appears to me that you're seeking to widen the scope of scripture based on some of your statements to say more than I am.

Based on your own statements, we know that science is materialistic, and focused entirely on the physical. Science can not prove the existence of God and therefore can not attribute any causation to God. Therefore when one attempts to explain how God did something by using a methodology that can not accept God it is oxymoronic.

Your syllogism breaks down. Science cannot prove the existence of God but that does not preclude Scientific examination recognizing by its examination of the creation the nature or handiwork of God. Need I remind you of several passages within Scripture itself that alludes to such general revelation? Science has done some wonderful things in terms of better understanding this universe and for me, while it is not the basis of my belief, I find it marvelous to see the ingenuity and elegance of God at work in His creation and it doesn't diminish my awe and wonder surrounding it in the least. Maybe I'm unusual in that regard, but I don't see increased knowlege or understanding in that regard as a threat at all.

Blessings,

Bart

God may hide some things from us but that is a very different concept to actively misleading. What do you think that God has hidden from us that if revealed would explain all of this? I can't conceive of anything which might explain it.

Actually, you're the one who appears to be presenting God in the negative sense as a deceiver so I believe it is your responsibility to demonstrate your claim.

If I knew what God had hidden that would explain it all then it would no longer be hidden then, would it?

What would be sufficient for you in this regard?

As stated before, I don't believe God has deceived with regard to the age of this world and I gave a pretty broad answer and you chose to engage with it in a very limited manner. So, rather than repeating myself, I invite you to engage with my initial response.

Bart

Forum Monk wrote:

Leonov wrote:...Whilst I agree with you that some things need to be created "with age" to make it all work it is fallacious to extend that to everything that exists.

So God sometimes does it one way and sometimes another, and some in their wisdom are able to discern the difference? I think God is consistent.

That completely fails to answer the question. Can you not see the difference between creating a man and woman as adults so they can look after themselves and creating light in transit to make it look like a galaxy has existed for millions of years? It's not just a question of doing one thing one way and one in another.

Forum Monk wrote:

Leonov wrote: There is no reason why God needs to create a universe in which the light appears to have been travelling from other galaxies for more that a million years. If we never saw those galaxies what would it matter?

Maybe because he knew one day we would deploy a space telescope?

The fact that a space telescope exists does not change anything at all. The point is that God did not have to create the universe so that it looked like it is billions of years old or put anything out there which makes us think it is.

Forum Monk wrote:

Leonov wrote: What then does it mean to deceive if not making someone believe something that is contrary to other evidence or beliefs? Are magicians any the less deceptive because the people in the audience don't understand how it was done? As far as I can see, if you set out to make someone believe something contrary to what they would otherwise believe then you are deceiving them and hence a deceiver.

But why, as in your first quotation, would you think it is OK for some things to be created with age. Doesn't your standard of deception also apply to these?

I already explained this in the original post and above. There are good reasons to create some things in a mature state but there is no good reason that I can see to create stuff to pretend that the whole universe is older than it is.

Forum Monk wrote:

Leonov wrote: I believe in God but I cannot see how we can retain the idea of Creation at the same time as believing that God does not lie. If that is the case then I would rather let go of a recent creation than a truthful God.

Maybe it can help you retain the basic premise of creation and a truthful God, if you remember man does lie, the devil deceives, and God makes foolishness of the wisdom of the wise.

Is that a way of saying that you don't know the answer? I know that God confounds the wisdom of the wise but again that does nothing to answer the basic issue. I simply cannot pretend that because I can see no other way to resolve the question I should simply give up asking. As far as I can see either God deceived us by making the universe look old or creation did not occur in six days as described in Genesis and I find it easier to take the creation story as a polemic than accept that God is a deceiver.

Canuckster1127 wrote: Actually, you're the one who appears to be presenting God in the negative sense as a deceiver so I believe it is your responsibility to demonstrate your claim.

If I knew what God had hidden that would explain it all then it would no longer be hidden then, would it?

What would be sufficient for you in this regard?

As stated before, I don't believe God has deceived with regard to the age of this world and I gave a pretty broad answer and you chose to engage with it in a very limited manner. So, rather than repeating myself, I invite you to engage with my initial response.

Bart

I am afraid I see no answer in what you responded with. I have made my position plain. Either God created the universe to make it look old and therefore deceived us or the creation story of six days and the calculated age of ~6000 years is not true.

From what I can see your only answer is the you don't believe God is a deceiver (with which I agree) so are you saying that you also don't believe in the six day creation and ~6000 year age of the earth. If so we agree, if not I am totally unclear what you are saying.

L

Leonov wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote: Actually, you're the one who appears to be presenting God in the negative sense as a deceiver so I believe it is your responsibility to demonstrate your claim.

If I knew what God had hidden that would explain it all then it would no longer be hidden then, would it?

What would be sufficient for you in this regard?

As stated before, I don't believe God has deceived with regard to the age of this world and I gave a pretty broad answer and you chose to engage with it in a very limited manner. So, rather than repeating myself, I invite you to engage with my initial response.

Bart

I am afraid I see no answer in what you responded with. I have made my position plain. Either God created the universe to make it look old and therefore deceived us or the creation story of six days and the calculated age of ~6000 years is not true.

From what I can see your only answer is the you don't believe God is a deceiver (with which I agree) so are you saying that you also don't believe in the six day creation and ~6000 year age of the earth. If so we agree, if not I am totally unclear what you are saying.

L

I must have been misunderstanding.

We agree. I am an old earth creationist and I do not believe God is a deceiver.

Sorry for the confusion.

I am not an old earth creationist.

I am not a young earth creationist.

I do not believe God deceived us.

So where does that leave us?

Forum Monk wrote:I am not an old earth creationist.

I am not a young earth creationist.

I do not believe God deceived us.

So where does that leave us?

You'll have to answer that for yourself I guess.

While I have some serious issues with the YEC position and some of how it is promoted I don't necessarily believe that one has to concede that God is a deceiver to take a YEC position.

Bart wrote:While I have some serious issues with the YEC position and some of how it is promoted I don't necessarily believe that one has to concede that God is a deceiver to take a YEC position.

Thank you.

Forum Monk wrote:I am not an old earth creationist.

I am not a young earth creationist.

I do not believe God deceived us.

So where does that leave us?

We have a middle aged earth?

FFC wrote:We have a middle aged earth?

Ah, that explains the current state of events - just a mid-life crisis.

Canuckster1127 wrote:2. Our interpretation or exegesis may be incorrect. ...
3. Science may be incorrect. This is always possible and history demonstrates it in many instances. That said however, it is a cop-out to simply argue it must be wrong when there is a disagreement with Scripture or more likely, the applicable theology or exogesis, (eisogesis maybe even ) in question.

Good points.

Forum Monk wrote:C14 dating is proving to be highly unreliable as it is now being shown that many uncontrolled conditions can greatly effect the ratio of C12 to C14 and therefore skew the results. Forget the evidence of C14. It is soon to be abandoned even by secular science. Read this article: http://globalflood.org/papers/2003ICCc14.html

It's highly unlikely that C14 dating will be abandoned by science. The worst one can hope for would be minor corrections, similar to the relativistic correction to Newton's laws of mechanics. Any new theory would not only have to explain the few oddities Dr Baumgardner writes of but also the huge number of scientifically accepted dates. A few discrepancies at the extreme range of a technique does not invalidate the bulk of the results, with internal consistencies and correlations with other methods. Dr Baumgardner does not address known potential sources of C14. Just as C14 is produced by a nuclear reaction in the upper atmosphere, so too can C14 be produced underground if the appropriate radioactive elements are nearby. In addition, Dr Baumgardner's explanation requires large, sudden, concomitant changes in nuclear decay rates of a large number of elements which then all happen to give the same pseudo-age. This would completely overturn much of current nuclear physics, but no evidence is presented or explanation is suggested for such momentous revisions. It is one thing for someone who is ignorant of science to believe in a young earth because of scripture; it is another for someone with scientific training to write such a paper. It would much simpler for Dr Baumgardner to claim "creation with apparent age" (which would be indistinguishable from real age) than to have so many intertwined coincidences.

St Augustine also wrote:

(http://www.holycross.edu/departments/religiousstudies/alaffey/Augustine-Genesis.htm no longer works wrote: This excerpt is taken from St. Augustine, the Literal Meaning of Genesis. vol. 1, Ancient Christian Writers., vol. 41. Translated and annotated by John Hammond Taylor, S.J. New York: Paulist Press, 1982.):

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.” "

Here's the abstract of a 2005 paper which references the 2001 Nadeau paper that Baumgardner refers to [text may be available upon request]. Most of the data are very consistent:
Richard G. Fairbanks, Richard A. Mortlock, Tzu-Chien Chiu, Li Cao, Alexey Kaplan, Thomas P. Guilderson, Todd W. Fairbanks, Arthur L. Bloom, Pieter M. Grootes and Marie-Josee Nadeau, Radiocarbon calibration curve spanning 0 to 50,000 years BP based on paired 230Th/234U/238U and 14C dates on pristine corals, Quaternary Science Reviews, Volume 24, Issues 16-17, September 2005, Pages 1781-1796.
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... e75d3d93fa)
Abstract: Radiocarbon dating is the most widely used dating technique in the world. Recent advances in Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) and sample preparation techniques have reduced the sample-size requirements by a factor of 1000 and decreased the measurement time from weeks to minutes. Today, it is estimated that more than 90 percent of all measurements made on accelerator mass spectrometers are for radiocarbon age dates. The production of 14C in the atmosphere varies through time due to changes in the Earth's geomagnetic field intensity and in its concentration, which is regulated by the carbon cycle. As a result of these two variables, a radiocarbon age is not equivalent to a calendar age. Four decades of joint research by the dendrochronology and radiocarbon communities have produced a radiocarbon calibration data set of remarkable precision and accuracy extending from the present to approximately 12,000 calendar years before present. This paper presents high precision paired 230Th/234U/238U and 14C age determinations on pristine coral samples that enable us to extend the radiocarbon calibration curve from 12,000 to 50,000 years before present. We developed a statistical model to properly estimate sample age conversion from radiocarbon years to calendar years, taking full account of combined errors in input ages and calibration uncertainties. Our radiocarbon calibration program is publicly accessible at: http://www.radiocarbon.LDEO.columbia.edu/ along with full documentation of the samples, data, and our statistical calibration model.

sandy_mcd wrote:

FFC wrote:We have a middle aged earth?

Ah, that explains the current state of events - just a mid-life crisis.

Yes, and also the global warming...it's just a heat flash.