|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Best evidence for Creation | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tusko Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 615 From: London, UK Joined: |
The things that are most impressive as far as I'm concerned are a couple of moon-based coincidences - that the moon covers the sun so well during a total solar eclipse, and that 28 days give or take is the moons orbit round the earth and that 28 days is a human menstrual cycle, give or take.
This isn't evidence for an Abramic creator - in fact it isn't evidence for any kind of creator really - but I think its the best evidence there is that there might be a creator rather than just boring blind chance. I accept that there are a hundred cool coincidences related to just about anything you care to name - but I think there is some special resonance here that links the sun, the moon, human biology - that is pretty impressive. As an aside, does anyone else know any cool moon-related coincidences that might sit along side these nicely?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Tusko writes:
Right here we go...: The things that are most impressive as far as I'm concerned are a couple of moon-based coincidences - that the moon covers the sun so well during a total solar eclipse, and that 28 days give or take is the moons orbit round the earth and that 28 days is a human menstrual cycle, give or take. This isn't evidence for an Abramic creator - in fact it isn't evidence for any kind of creator really - but I think its the best evidence there is that there might be a creator rather than just boring blind chance. I accept that there are a hundred cool coincidences related to just about anything you care to name - but I think there is some special resonance here that links the sun, the moon, human biology - that is pretty impressive. As an aside, does anyone else know any cool moon-related coincidences that might sit along side these nicely? The moon used to be closer to the earth then it is today, it didn't "fit so well" over the sun then, and in the future it will be too "small" to cover the sun entirely. The menstrual cycle is also easily explained. In the old days (I'm talking way back here, think 100.000 year and more) When the moon was full, the men would go out hunting, because, well, there's more light and all to see the prey and stuff. Hunts in those days could take a whole week or so. During this time, they could of course not impregnate their females. They could do this when they were there, so, due to natural selection, the beneficial act of going into menstruation during the full moon was selected for and the negative act of going into menstruation when there wasn't a full moon was selected against, and that's how we ended up with it today. As for cool moon coincidences, I've heard it said there are more murders during a full moon. This is of course also easily explained. Again, during a full moon there is more light, thus it is easier to kill someone. I hunt for the truth
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tusko Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 615 From: London, UK Joined: |
Hey, that's fun. Your first points are both very good - however, I don't think either of them necessarily puncture the moon-related fun. The fact that the moon is only the "perfect" distance away from the earth when there is sentient life on board to enjoy it doesn't necessarily mean that it is necessarily dismissable as just blind chance.
Also the evolutionary narrative for menstrual cycles is ultimately just that isn't it, a narrative? Thanks for getting back to me with good points - I've been away for ages and its nice to post again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
wardog25 Member (Idle past 5553 days) Posts: 37 Joined: |
quote: This article seems like a very wordy way of saying that since dating methods basically agree with each other, they must be right. Well if I set all the clocks in my house to the wrong time, they might agree, but they are still wrong. The original question remains. Why do samples that we know the age of give incorrect results when tested? I couldn't care less if that guy can list 500 more dating methods that agree. If you test one method and it gives a wrong answer, all that does is bring every one of those dating methods into question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Well if I set all the clocks in my house to the wrong time, they might agree, but they are still wrong. If I went into your house and saw all the clocks were the same, then I would assume that they gave the correct time. If the time they gave were consistent with other information I had that gave an estimate of the time, then I would be more likely to accept the time as correct. Why wouldn't I? The only way I could find out otherwise is (1) through another, independent check on the correct time, or (2) a theory of why the clocks are all wrong in exactly the same way, a theory that I can test through independent means. As far as (1) goes, there isn't an independent check of the absolute time scales in geology, so that presently isn't possible. Well, there is one check: the radiometric dates are consistent with the geologic time scales worked out by geologists before radioactivity was discovered, so why wouldn't we accept the radiometric dates? As far as (2), the only testable proposals that would explain why the radiometric dates would be wrong are a decrease in the decay rates of the materials, or the gain or loss of isotopes in the crystals; not only do tests not bear these out, but these mechanisms wouldn't explain why the radiometric dates are wrong in the same way. So, to sum up: we accept the dates as correct because they agree with what we already know from other fields of science, and there is no explanation of why they should be wrong and wrong in exactly the same way. - Added by edit:
I couldn't care less if that guy can list 500 more dating methods that agree. If you test one method and it gives a wrong answer, all that does is bring every one of those dating methods into question. But this isn't how you act in real life. To use the analogy you brought up, if you ask 500 people for the time, and 499 tell you that it's 2:15 and one person says that it's noon, I bet you don't assume that there is no accurate way to tell time. I bet you admit that the time is most likely 2:15. You know that occasionally a watch will be wrong, but most watches that are being used will be right most of the time. Why else would you even have a clock if you couldn't generally rely on it? You use a clock because use of clocks are generally far more reliable than guessing the time, even if you do see a wrong clock once in a while. Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given. Speaking personally, I find few things more awesome than contemplating this vast and majestic process of evolution, the ebb and flow of successive biotas through geological time. Creationists and others who cannot for ideological or religious reasons accept the fact of evolution miss out a great deal, and are left with a claustrophobic little universe in which nothing happens and nothing changes. -- M. Alan Kazlev
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
The original question remains. Why do samples that we know the age of give incorrect results when tested? I couldn't care less if that guy can list 500 more dating methods that agree. If you test one method and it gives a wrong answer, all that does is bring every one of those dating methods into question. This is properly addressed in one of the Dating threads. One of my fields is radiocarbon dating (primarily sample collection and interpretation), and I know a couple of others here are pretty good at the mechanics of the method. Bring your objections to a dating thread and we'll be happy to show you where you are wrong. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4116 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
Because creationists like Snelling violate known issues such as testing non-cogenetic samples. And then they lie about testing homogeneous ones. A simple understanding of basic testing rules can easily show why a few examples of testing are deviant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4189 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
If you test one method and it gives a wrong answer, all that does is bring every one of those dating methods into question. Not necessarily, which is why scientists use different methods of dating. If the date would seem suspect, other methods should not give the same date. At this point corrective measures would be instigated such as searching for contamination. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Tusko writes:
Why, thank you!
Hey, that's fun. Your first points are both very good however, I don't think either of them necessarily puncture the moon-related fun. The fact that the moon is only the "perfect" distance away from the earth when there is sentient life on board to enjoy it doesn't necessarily mean that it is necessarily dismissable as just blind chance.
The moon will be to far away in the future (looking at the lifespan of this planet, it won't even be too ling into the future) I'm guessing sentient life will still be here then. Does it still fit so perfectly?
Also the evolutionary narrative for menstrual cycles is ultimately just that isn't it, a narrative?
Perhaps, I seem to remember reading about it in a scientific sense thoug. But, since I can't recall for certain, I won't hold you to that. However, you'll have to admit it is a possible explanation.
Thanks for getting back to me with good points - I've been away for ages and its nice to post again.
Glad I could be of service I hunt for the truth
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
wardog25 writes:
Well, if independent sources agree wih eachother, it's a strong indication they ARE right. Like for example, f you ask 100 people what colour your eyes are, an 95 of them answer blue, and 2 answer green, and 3 answer brown, what would you conclude your eye colour to be?
This article seems like a very wordy way of saying that since dating methods basically agree with each other, they must be right. Well if I set all the clocks in my house to the wrong time, they might agree, but they are still wrong.
Yes, but if you had no further information, how would you go about testing if they were wrong? You wouldn't, you would assume the clocks are right.
The original question remains. Why do samples that we know the age of give incorrect results when tested?
Because the wrong tests are applied to them. Carbon14 dating is only successfull up until abbout 50.000 years old. Any older, and the dates will be incorrect.
I couldn't care less if that guy can list 500 more dating methods that agree. If you test one method and it gives a wrong answer, all that does is bring every one of those dating methods into question.
So, if 500 people told you you're eyes are blue, and the 501st person told you they were brown, you'd go with the last person you talked to, instead of thinking, well, the chances of the one opinion that is not shared by the rest to be wrong is far greater then those 500 people being wrong? Edited by Huntard, : No reason given. I hunt for the truth
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hey wardog25,
The original question remains. Why do samples that we know the age of give incorrect results when tested? There are a number of specific ways that the various dating methods are known to give wrong results because of special circumstances. Scientists know this and identify these ways to prevent misuse of the dating methods. These are also published for general reference. The way carbon-14 works, for instance, is that solar radiation interacts with the 14N (stable) in the atmosphere converting it to 14C, which is radioactive, with a half-life of ~5730 years. This solar process keeps making 14C in the atmosphere, which is then constantly decaying, so there is a rough equilibrium level (rough because the solar activity keeps varying over long term cycles). How Carbon-14 Dating Works | HowStuffWorks What this means is that any organism that takes in air or carbon from the atmosphere is taking in 14C in the same proportion to 12C (the "normal" stable version) that is in the atmosphere, and when that organism dies, this replenishment of 14C ceases, and the relative level of 14C to 12C then is related to the decay of 14C in the dead organic material left behind. This is basically how 14C dating works. But there are instances where it is not appropriate: one such is where you have marine organisms that acquire carbon from another source, such as the sea (which has a different level of rough equilibrium between 14C and 12C than the atmosphere). Scientists call this the reservoir effect, and publish locations where various different starting 14C/12C ratios are found: Corrections to radiocarbon dates.
quote: Link in the original. Now, when a creationist presents evidence of erroneous 14C dates, and when you look at the information you see (a) they are dating marine organisms and (b) the dates are off by the known correction factor, but the creationist somehow fails to mention this fact (especially when they claim to be scientists with sufficient credentials to know better), what do you think their evidence really shows? Certainly it would be easy for a dishonest person to go to one of the posted sites, gather samples that he knows beforehand will wrong when calculated based on atmospheric 14C/12C ratios with no reservoir correction, and such a dishonest person can publish this false information on websites designed to fool gullible and ignorant (don't know better) people eh? I hope your references are not like that. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024