the case against evolution

[BGoodForGoodSake]

i didnt really have tome to look at the links, but it now seems taht there is more antireliability c14 arguments. as ive read from previous posts, it has been said that the one for c14 reliabiloty (mammoth trumpet) is quite old and has been abandoned and so on and that the authors said the opposite.

it again, shows that science doesnt really lead to truth but rather changes views often and this is i think one of the leading reasons why some people are mad at it as it changes what it says, doesnt keep constant and people are justified to be upset and confused . dont they??

Well, no. Not really. If you truly understand science and it's methods you will quickly realize that the conclusions are based on best available evidence. And so it is expected in many cases for there to be modifications or even reversals or prevalent theories. Science is a way to explore creation, not to tell you or anyone dogmatically the truth.

It can be dificult for the laymen to understand which theories are in flux and which are based on more stable foundations. Increase you're general knowledge and you will be better fitted to analyzing the latest scientific findings.

Scientific progress can in many cases have social and political repurcussions. Many times a lack of a proper foundation prevents one from reaching the required comfort level. That is why science education is so important in this and any post industrial nation.

On to C14 dating. It will do you no good to read articles pro or con for this technique. I suggest you try to understand how it works. Imagine applying the technique yourself. Imagine using similar techniques in your own day to day life or imagined scenario. Understand why the scientists have come to the conclusions they have. Armed with this knowledge you can then see whether the technique is valid or not.

Here is a good site to start you off.
Then you can read this.
And perhaps you will be comfortable enough to read this.

[Forum Monk]

it again, shows that science doesnt really lead to truth but rather changes views often and this is i think one of the leading reasons why some people are mad at it as it changes what it says, doesnt keep constant and people are justified to be upset and confused . dont they??

One would expect an almost steady progression toward revelation of the truth as science advances, but instead there are often complete reversals, abandonment of theories and counter-claims and counter theories. Either truth is a moving target or it is untainable by conventional scientific methodologies.

[sandy_mcd]

One would expect an almost steady progression toward revelation of the truth as science advances

Why would one expect that? Consider a crime scene. Do the investigators show up, deduce the identity of the perpetrator, and then it is just a question of obtaining more evidence? Look back at the development of air-travel - balloons, planes, dirigibles, jets, helicopters - the automobile, electronics, power generation - what field of human endeavor isn't subject to the false starts, misdirections, competing philosophies, etc? Why should science be the exception?

[sandy_mcd]

I could ask the same of you in reverse.

Well, just in case you do, I at least will answer.
For me to accept a young earth scientifically, it would require a new model which explain all the presently known dating data at least as well as the current model. There would have to be data to support whatever exciting new physical claims are made. Merely pointing out examples where present methods don't work (especially when there are valid reasons for the failure) is not sufficient - the majority of the known cases where the data are consistent would have to be explained - and this is the more important component. I would have to look up a list (some have been posted here) of all the many different lines of scientific knowledge which support an old earth. For example: dendrochronology, all the different types of radioactive dating (this would require some new model of basic physics where decay rates are wildly variable), lack of short lived isotopes, plate tectonics, planetary formation, coral rings, etc, etc. For example, Dr Baumgardner's paper only deals with C-14. It would have to post a more complete model covering all C-14 dates, not just really old samples, and also have a model (quantitative at that) for why a cataclysmic Flood changed radioactive decay rates of C-14, U, etc. We're talking 20-50 Nobel Prizes. It would be an incredibly exciting time for science; there really aren't that many huge basic discoveries being made nowadays. Unfortunately, I haven't seen anything which comes remotely close.

[zoegirl]

nicely said

[sandy_mcd]

by the way Dr. Firestone, hasn't gone away, you may have recently read about the find of tiny diamonds being found in strata 10-13kbp which he claims corroborated the comet impact theory as well as massive megafauna extinctions

Curiously enough, I just did.

ACAPULCO, MEXICO--A headline-grabbing proposal that an exploding comet wreaked havoc on man and beast 13,000 years ago got its first full scientific airing at a meeting here last week.* Many geoscientists who attended nearly a day of talks and posters on the putative impact called the idea "cool." But they're not dashing off to rewrite the textbooks yet.

A loose consortium of more than 25 scientists is arguing that a massive comet exploding in the atmosphere over North America wiped out the mammoths, terminated the founding Paleo-Indian culture, and triggered a millennium-long reversion to an ice age climate. "We're quite sure there was an impact," says analytical chemist Richard Firestone of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California, one of the consortium's two leaders.

Not so fast, say veterans of decades-long wrangling over how cosmic collisions have affected Earth and the life on it. "There is some interesting evidence that deserves study," says cratering researcher Peter Schultz of Brown University, a member of the consortium who did not attend the meeting. But the evidence for an impact is too new and unconventional to be conclusive. ...
The consortium got its start in 1999 when retired archaeologist William Topping of Deming, New Mexico, approached Firestone with unusual mineral grains from sediments at Gainey, Michigan. The grains came from the base of a black layer rich in organic matter left during the Younger Dryas, a cold snap that began 12,900 years ago and lasted 1000 years. The "black mat" lies just above the last arrowheads and spear points crafted by the Paleo-Indian Clovis people, as well as the last bones of the mammoths the Clovis hunted. ...
Most listeners at the meeting gave the Younger Dryas impact a polite, sometimes welcoming reception. But the one specialist in impact markers who heard out the presentations isn't so sanguine. "It's similar to the situation with the Permian-Triassic" impact proposal, says David Kring of the Lunar and Planetary Institute in Houston, Texas. "The proposed signatures for an impact event shouldn't be dismissed, but they need to be tested. Until they are, one has to look at them a little skeptically." Iridium, for example, might have been concentrated by slowed sedimentation or even by algae. The charcoal could well be from Clovis fire pits. And Kring says the extreme titanium levels and the nanodiamonds embedded in melted carbon make no sense to him.

A paper in review at the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences may answer a few key questions about the comet clash--and perhaps lure combat-weary impact specialists back into the fray.

But what does any of this have to do with invalidating C-14 radiometry as a technique, which is what your other references claimed?

[Forum Monk]

For me to accept a young earth scientifically, it would require a new model which explain all the presently known dating data at least as well as the current model...

I understand what you're saying. I am sure you are aware, for example, that Dr. Baumgardner's principle area of expertise is not C14 or other dating systems (that work came from the RATE study). He is a geophysicist who has helped develop some excellent 3-D computer models for simulating plate tectonics. As an extension of that work, he has developed some interesting ideas on the feasibility of the global flood based on a dynamic he calls "runaway subduction". Further, he postulates cataclysmic geophysical changes as a result which have far reaching implications in the way geology is interpreted today. Now I am not saying all this to endorse his theories because needless to say, they are controversial and not without criticism. What I find most fascinating is how science can take a new look at existing data and derive a totally different conclusion and one which is compatible, in this case, with a young earth theology.

Again, my purpose in this post is to point out how one man with impeccible credentials working with a new mind set can generate totally new theories from existing evidence which if further worked and developed can potentially represent a major challenge to existing ideas. We're not talking about creation museums, here, and other such public displays of questionable science. The problem is, very few scientists, even christian scientists, are willing to put their careers at risk by undertaking such research. The work goes where the money is, and as a result, science is not free to explore all possibilites. It can only explore those which corporations, universities, and organizations are willing to fund. (and I would rather my church help the poor and underprivledged than pay for science research).

[zoegirl]

Well, its go to know you're checking up on me, and reading the links even if the purpose is to discredit them.

Personally, I'd like think that we are reading your links to evaluate the data given in the links, not checking up on you or trying to discredit the information sight unseen. That's a pretty critical distinction.
1) What scientific evidence would it take to convince you (FM) that C-14 dating is usually reliable? Would any amount be sufficient?
2) We have read your links. Have you looked at any posted in response, in particular the overview that zoegirl supplied?

You never answered her first question, while she answered yours

[Forum Monk]

Sorry for not answering.
I think C14 dating is reliable to about 10,000 years. Assuming the specimen is sufficienty free from contamination. In any case, the dating is never done on that basis alone. The contextul evidence must also be considered.

[zoegirl]

Sorry for not answering.
I think C14 dating is reliable to about 10,000 years. Assuming the specimen is sufficienty free from contamination. In any case, the dating is never done on that basis alone. The contextul evidence must also be considered.

What is your answer for all of the other pieces of evidence for the age of the earth (unless you are just saying apparent age)?

[Forum Monk]

What is your answer for all of the other pieces of evidence for the age of the earth (unless you are just saying apparent age)?

We are deceived.
Now, what is the independent proof that the observations cited are correct. Is anyone able to confirm the observations without relying on science alone? Can one confirm the obervations by scripture for example?

[zoegirl]

What is your answer for all of the other pieces of evidence for the age of the earth (unless you are just saying apparent age)?

We are deceived.
Now, what is the independent proof that the observations cited are correct. Is anyone able to confirm the observations without relying on science alone? Can one confirm the obervations by scripture for example?

Ok, so we could be deceived about ALL of the methods (by whom, Satan? or ourselves?) , or they could be accurate testimonies to God's creation.

ALL of them
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth ... verse.html

[Forum Monk]

Ok, so we could be deceived about ALL of the methods (by whom, Satan? or ourselves?) , or they could be accurate testimonies to God's creation.

ALL of them

If they were accurate testimonies of Gods creation then they should be attested in the scriptures. (not the indivdual methods, obviously, but the conclusions.) The only way I see to verify the evidence with scripture is to alter the traditional meanings of words in the scripture.

Also note that the geocentrism fiasco that many like to cite (which I claim was attributing scientific meaning to poetic language), never required a retranslation to correct. No one said, well our old english (or latin, or italian, or ...) bibles failed to properly translate the original hebrew.

And since I'm on this rant about misapplied and misquoted testimonies, the favorite quotation of science loving christians is of course: "Be on guard against giving interpretations of Scripture that are farfetched or opposed to science, and so exposing the Word of God to the ridicule of unbelievers" but this does not fully express Augustines opinion in this regard. So here is a much larger quote from the 20th chapter of his treatise on Genesis in which he clarifies his position:

Why does everything seem to lie hidden under questions? Adopt one of the many interpretations which you maintained were possible.” To such a one my answer is that I have arrived at a nourishing kernel in that I have learnt that a man is not in any difficulty in making a reply according to his faith which he ought to make to those who try to defame our Holy Scripture. When they are able, from reliable evidence, to prove some fact of physical science, we shall show that it is not contrary to our Scripture. 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,”75 that we will not be led astray by the glib talk of false philosophy or frightened by the superstition of false religion. When we read the inspired books in the light of this wide variety of true doctrines which are drawn from a few words and founded on the firm basis of Catholic belief, let us choose that one which appears as certainly the meaning intended by the author. But if this is not clear, then at least we should choose an interpretation in keeping with the context of Scripture and in harmony with our faith. But if the meaning cannot be studied and judged by the context of Scripture, at least we should choose only that which our faith demands. For it is one thing to fail to recognize the primary meaning of the writer, and another to depart from the norms of religious belief. If both these difficulties are avoided, the reader gets full profit from his reading. Failing that, even though the writer's intention is uncertain, one will find it useful to extract an interpretation in harmony with our faith.

1) Choose the interpretation which was intented by the author of the scripture or
2) Choose the meaning that is in context and harmony with our faith or
3) Choose the interpretation our faith demands.
The stress is on the norms of religious belief.

[zoegirl]

So who is doing the deceiving?

[Forum Monk]

So who is doing the deceiving?

Our wisdom deceives us:
1 Cor 3:18 Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a "fool" so that he may become wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: "He catches the wise in their craftiness";

Our passions and lusts deceives us:
Titus 3:3 At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another.

Others deceive us:
Col 2:2..in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ, 3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. 4 I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments.

The evil one deceives us:
2 The 2:9 The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, 10 and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie

Rev 20:10 And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.