|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Age of mankind, dating, and the flood | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 188 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
If mainstream science willingly and in an unbiased fashion carefully tested the claims of creationists there would be no reason for all these websites
Mainstream science has willingly and in unbiased fashion carefully tested the claims of creationists. All of them are BS. Creationists refusing to accept this fact are the reason for all these websites and dialog. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
isn't that the position of most creationists? We see creation expressed in science, and see flaws in common scientific arguments. The problem is that the flaws are invented by yourselves.
Its not that we oppose science, we just oppose the unscientific methodology of discarding alternative theories before testing them in an unbiased fashion. But they're not really "discarded"... They're left unaddressed until actual evidence is brought forth. It could've been's and maybe it was's aren't scientific propositions if they aren't based on empirical evidence. There's no reason to waste time and money on them until they can actually be investigated.
If mainstream science willingly and in an unbiased fashion carefully tested the claims of creationists there would be no reason for all these websites, No, that's not the problem. The problem is that science has shown that the Bible gets things wrong and contains errors. CreationistsTM simply cannot accept that as a possibility. So, they invent these "flaws" in science so they can focus on that instead of facing the fact that their cherished book isn't perfect. That 'attack' on science is why these websites exist. It isn't that science really is biased against creationism and unwilling to address it, its that creationists don't have any empirical evidence and science ignores the unevidenced. Creationists feel slighted, but its nothing against them, personally. Its that their approach is unscientific from the get-go. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : proofreading by edit >.<
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
If mainstream science willingly and in an unbiased fashion carefully tested the claims of creationists there would be no reason for all these websites, just a communal commitment to scientific truths. That is the kind of post that only serves to make Christians look at best like fools and actually more like dishonest con men. Who the hell do you think produced the evidence that the earth was old and that there never was a Biblical flood? Two hundred years ago the sciences were run by Christians and when the good Christians went out and actually looked at what is really there, what God actually wrote and created, they found that what they had believed about the world, things like Usher's age of the world or the Biblical Floods or the Conquest of Canaan as described in Joshua or the Exodus simply didn't happen. Over the last 200 years evidence has continued to roll in and from independent lines of inquiry that those who came before could not even imagine. And all of the evidence has supported old earth, evolution, close relationships between all the great apes including humans, no Biblical flood ... Today's Creationists are simply in denial and totally out of touch with reality. One thing is true though. It's far easier to claim to do science than it is to actually do science and as long as it is so profitable to just rake in money from Creationists through talks and donations and phony amusement parks that call themselves "Museums" there is no incentive to do otherwise. Thar's Gold in them thar Creationists pockets. Edited by jar, : appalin spallin then ---> themAnyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
mindspawn writes:
Where are the creationist experiments to test their own claims? If they reject radiocarbon dating's correlation with varve dating, tree-ring dating, etc., where is their own research to back up their conclusions?
If mainstream science willingly and in an unbiased fashion carefully tested the claims of creationists there would be no reason for all these websites, just a communal commitment to scientific truths.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
Ossat writes: They tried to deliberately mislead us. Firstly by providing a false statement and then not providing the sources so that it can be easily checked. Dishonest. Not even worth considering the rest. They will tell untruths again.
Even if this texts is right, it is not proving anything in favor or against the radiocarbon method. while it concentrates in the very last bit of the creationist text quoted there,.... Ossat writes: Not everything that has been written agrees with that, and not all scientists agree, here's one example: Carbon Dating Undercuts Evolution's Long Ages | The Institute for Creation Research I read that article and that author was dishonest as well. One example from that article: quote:Nope. Uniformatarianism does not 'assume' that at all. From GARY, M., MACAFEE R (JR), and WOLF, C. L. (eds), 1977. Glossary of Geology. American Geological Institute:
quote: So, it seems as if the term uniformatarianism refers to uniformity in the array of processes operating on the Earth across time. Not what Baumgardner claimed it is. He told an untruth. The result is that both references to creationist websites given so far in this thread indicate that those creationists tried to mislead people. I've seen many creationist 'articles' in my lifetime. I've never seen one where creationists are not very, very economical with the truth. You always find at least one falsehood.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2680 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
No, that's not the problem. The problem is that science has shown that the Bible gets things wrong and contains errors. CreationistsTM simply cannot accept that as a possibility. So, they invent these "flaws" in science so they can focus on that instead of facing the fact that their cherished book isn't perfect. That 'attack' on science is why these websites exist. It isn't that science really is biased against creationism and unwilling to address it, its that creationists don't have any empirical evidence and science ignores the unevidenced. Creationists feel slighted, but its nothing against them, personally. Its that their approach is unscientific from the get-go. I can see why you would have that impression, and its your honest appraisal of the situation, but creationists see the obvious bias that you may be unwittingly supporting. For example in these threads, most of the time I'm just discussing facts, and yet the amount of unnecessarily emotional and unscientific comments is a bit disturbing if this site is representative of common scientific thought. So I see the bias expressed numerous times every day on this very site.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2680 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
Over the last 200 years evidence has continued to roll in and from independent lines of inquiry that those who came before could not even imagine. And all of the evidence has supported old earth, evolution, close relationships between all the great apes including humans, no Biblical flood .. I can understand that is your perspective. Let's see how this discussion unfolds.(ps close DNA between two outwardly similar creatures is no proof of evolution. Its like seeing similarities of the technology inside two cellphones and concluding they have a common ancestor. A common designer would reflect similarities too)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2680 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
Citing the Institute for Creation Research will garner nothing more than laughs when it comes to science or scientific research Oh really?? Even if some of their researchers are well qualified and make sense?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2680 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
The basis of your argument seems to be that religious belief is more accurate than scientific dating methods. I don't know if presenting you with scientific evidence will change your mind or not; too often, as Heinlein notes, "Belief gets in the way of learning." I propose this thread to deal specifically with: --Scientific evidence supporting dating methods and the age of modern humans, and--Evidence from creationists supporting the Young Earth position and refuting that scientific evidence. To begin with, the 10,300 year old date for On Your Knees Cave was established by radiocarbon or C14 dating. They did not date a fossil, but human bone. But this is not the only old radiocarbon date from the same area. The Manis Mastodon Site in northwestern Washington dates to about 13,800 years and Paisley Caves in southeastern Oregon date slightly older than that. It gets worse: Alaska has even older dates, and the Old World has dates on modern humans going back past 100,000 years (although these are not established using the radiocarbon method). If anyone disagrees with scientific dating methods, here is the chance to present evidence showing how and where it is wrong. Hi Coyote, I apologise for taking so long to reply to your post, I suspect that this thread will take more research than other threads and this is why I have been delaying my response. Hopefully I have the time now to focus here. My main problem with carbon dating is not one based on religious bias, but on scientific principles. Often when we measure modern rates , we assume these rates have applied to the past. Apparently carbon dating has been adjusted for the past strength of the magnetic field, but I am wondering how this is done, and if a proper relationship has been established between fluctuations in the earth's magnetic field and the production of carbon 14 in the atmosphere. Here's a quote from Wikipedia:"The highest rate of carbon-14 production takes place at altitudes of 9 to 15 km (30,000 to 50,000 ft) and at high geomagnetic latitudes. As of 2008, the rate of carbon-14 production was poorly known — while the reaction can be modelled or the current concentrations and the global carbon budget can be used to backtrack, attempts to directly measure the production rate had not agreed with these models very well. Production rates vary because of changes to the cosmic ray flux incident, such as supernovae, and due to variations in the Earth's magnetic field. The latter can create significant variations in carbon-14 production rates, although the changes of the carbon cycle can make these effects difficult to tease out.[10]" The strength of a magnet is directly related to its "magnetic moment",McElhinny and Senanayake discovered that 2000 years ago the earth's dipole moment was 50% higher than today, indicating a significantly stronger magnetic field back then. Since then the following study showed that the magnetic dipole moment was twice as strong 2000 years ago :http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2000GeoJI.140..158Y, and then weak back in the 5000/6000 bp period. This article from Scripps Institution claims an approximate 35 % increase for the period 1000bp until 3000 bp: http://igpphome.ucsd.edu/...ublications/Preprints/dipole.pdf We know from the Wikipedia article that changes to the magnetic field cause "significant variation in carbon-14 production rates" and "changes of the carbon cycle make these effects difficult to tease out". So the relationship between carbon production and the magnetic field is significant but the exact effects are unknown, and the magnetic field was significantly stronger 2000 years ago and earlier. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my obvious conclusion is that carbon dating is increasingly unreliable going back from 2000 years ago especially in the 2000 to 5000 bp period. Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given. Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given. Edited by mindspawn, : Adding further evidence Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 188 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my obvious conclusion is that carbon dating is increasingly unreliable going back from 2000 years ago especially in the 2000 to 5000 bp period. He's already explained why you are wrong. You are ignoring calibration.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2680 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
He's already explained why you are wrong. You are ignoring calibration. How can you calibrate if the relationship between carbon-14 production and the strength of the magnetic field has not been established. changes to the carbon cycle make the effects difficult to tease out: As quoted already:"The latter can create significant variations in carbon-14 production rates, although the changes of the carbon cycle can make these effects difficult to tease out.[10]"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
But there is evidence of evolution and no evidence of any design or designer.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Yes. They begin with the lie that they are doing science and so everything from that point on is suspect.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2680 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
But there is evidence of evolution and no evidence of any design or designer. This thread is about dates. Other threads are about evolution itself. Kindly start a thread if you have come up with anything that proves evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
You were the one who brought up the designer. I was simply pointing out that once again, you were wrong.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024