God's Place In Evolution

goldrush writes:The reason I didn't deal with it is because it was based on radiocarbon dating which assumes too many unknowns.

Dr Adequate writes:The Bible says two of every kind (seven of clean kinds).Now the meaning of kind is not explained, true, but it is illustrated.The word "kind" ( מין ) as used in Genesis is also used in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14, where the Bible refers to various kinds of black kites, ravens, hawks, herons, "great lizards" (distinct from the gecko, the monitor lizard, the wall lizard, the skink and the chameleon), locusts, bald locusts, beetles, grasshoppers, tortoises and vultures.So, for example, we know that ravens cannot constitute a "kind", since there are distinct "kinds" of ravens.This suggests that "kind" actually slices the animal kingdom fairly thin, since ravens are various species within the genus Corvus.However, this is by-the-by. As I pointed out in my previous post on this subject, kinds can be as big as you like and the species within them would still show a genetic bottleneck. See my previous post on this subject. Why not? That's a complete non sequitur.Would you listen to an attorney who tried that sort of argument in a paternity case? Or in a murder case? "Yes, DNA analysis apparently shows that the skin found under the victim's fingernails came from my client --- but we don't know enough about genes and life to produce even a single cell, so we shouldn't consider our current understanding of DNA as proof".The things we can't do don't even tend to discredit the things that we do know. And, I might add, it isn't lack of knowledge of life or DNA that stops us from building a cell from scratch, it's lack of technology. You can know all about a thing and lack the technology to make one. Would you say that we don't understand why stars shine until we
can make a star?To look at it another way --- suppose scientists did make a cell from scratch.
Suppose they do it tomorrow. Would you then feel obliged to say: "Oh well then, geneticists must be right about the non-occurrence of the Flood"? Or would you be the first to say that the question of whether scientists can make cells and the question of whether the Flood occurred are completely unrelated?

Very simply put, too many things are unknown to allow the carbon dating process to be as accurate as many proclaim it to be

goldrush writes:The validity of radiocarbon dating rests on the assumption thatthe ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere has always been the same as it is today (1 to 1 trillion).Although the theory of radiocarbon dating is interesting, there are several inherent problems with the process. The first of these problems is the fact that the original ratio of carbon and radioactive carbon is unknown. The second problem is that the possibility of contamination of the sample over time is quite high. The older the sample the higher the probability of contamination. What this means is that using carbon dating to date very old samples is really quite impractical given our current level of knowledge and technological capabilities.Very simply put, too many things are unknown to allow the carbon dating process to be as accurate as many proclaim it to be. Factors as diverse as changes in the earth's magnetic field and changes in the amount of carbon available to organisms in times past could translate into perceivable differences in the carbon ratios in artifacts and remains from ancient times. Even changes in the atmosphere itself could impact this carbon ratio. We know that changes such as these have occurred over time. They are still occurring today in fact.

The reason I didn't deal with it is because it was based on radiocarbon dating which assumes too many unknowns.

The validity of radiocarbon dating rests on the assumption that the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere has always been the same as it is today (1 to 1 trillion).

Although the theory of radiocarbon dating is interesting, there are several inherent problems with the process. The first of these problems is the fact that the original ratio of carbon and radioactive carbon is unknown.

The second problem is that the possibility of contamination of the sample over time is quite high. The older the sample the higher the probability of contamination. What this means is that using carbon dating to date very old samples is really quite impractical given our current level of knowledge and technological capabilities.

Very simply put, too many things are unknown to allow the carbon dating process to be as accurate as many proclaim it to be. Factors as diverse as changes in the earth's magnetic field and changes in the amount of carbon available to organisms in times past could translate into perceivable differences in the carbon ratios in artifacts and remains from ancient times. Even changes in the atmosphere itself could impact this carbon ratio. We know that changes such as these have occurred over time. They are still occurring today in fact.

Re: Accurate knowledge?
I've actually read this before. Sorry, artificial life is not the same as the real thing.

I see what you are saying, but isn't it also possible that the word "kind" can take on slightly different meaning based on context just as many words can/do?

With the "creating a cell" thing I made reference to, I didn't literally mean that this was the basis of my belief or disbelief in the Bible. I actually said it with the nature of science in general in mind. The more we discover, the more we realize we don't know. There is no end to knowledge. The deeper we dig, the more wrong we discover we have been previously. Science is kind of like seeing while blind. I hope I'm making sense, lol.

goldrush writes:Actually a living cell has not been created. Scientists have merely created synthetic computer-generated genetic instructions (based on preexisting code) and inserted them into a pre-existing cell. This is a far cry from creating a cell from scratch.

goldrush writes:Scientists have managed to tweak and develop some "software" (genetic info) and implant it into the "hardware" (Pre-existing cell). They have not created a cell.