Evidence for God from Science

madscientist wrote: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??

madscientist wrote: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??

Forum Monk wrote:One would expect an almost steady progression toward revelation of the truth as science advances

Forum Monk wrote:I could ask the same of you in reverse.

Forum Monk wrote: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

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/316/5829/1264 wrote: 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.

sandy_mcd wrote: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...

sandy_mcd wrote:

Forum Monk wrote: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?

Forum Monk wrote: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 wrote: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 wrote:

zoegirl wrote: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 wrote: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

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.

zoegirl wrote:So who is doing the deceiving?