|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Dinosaurs and Cave men - 11/2/2008 9:28:10 AM
|
|
|
robto
Posts: 103
Joined: 10/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: flyboy2610
The difference is that Christians believe in a Creator who is able to create something out of nothing.
Atheists are left with two choices: the eternality of matter, or spontaneous creation of matter from nothing without a creator.
Well, logically, there are only two possibilities:
A) the universe of space and time has always existed, or
B)it hasn't.
These are the only possibilities, whether or not a Creator exists.
The scientist says "Both A and B are theoretical possibilities. There is not currently sufficient evidence to decide between them."
The Christian chooses B, and tacks on a Creator as cause, based on "faith". That's fine, but if some day there IS evidence and it points to A, then what?
quote:
Belief in the Big Bang doesn't solve the problem. One is still faced with the question of where the tiny ball of matter came from. It was either there eternally, or it created itself from nothing.
Agreed. The Big Bang is a theory of how the universe changed over time from a hot, dense initial state. It is NOT a theory of how the universe began. (In spite of what you sometimes read about it.)
I would only take issue with "created itself from nothing." I would say "arose spontaneously from some timeless state."
quote:
Some physicists have estimated that the initial ball of matter, perhaps smaller than a period on this page, weighed no more than 25 pounds. Even granting the eternality of THAT ball of mass, one is still faced with the question of where the rest of the mass in the universe came from.
I've never heard this, either. But you may be referring to the inflationary model, in which all the matter in the universe arises from a universe-wide transition to a lower energy state. (But in this model the origin of the mass of the universe is very well understood.)
_____________________________
The Theory of Almost Everything: Everything you always wanted to know about elementary particles but were afraid to ask
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Dinosaurs and Cave men - 11/6/2008 7:03:21 PM
|
|
|
mikejonesoftn
Posts: 75
Joined: 6/7/2008
Status: offline
|
How do we actually know that Carbon Dating is accurate??
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Dinosaurs and Cave men - 11/7/2008 11:09:42 AM
|
|
|
catfighter
Posts: 102
Joined: 10/17/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mikejonesoftn
How do we actually know that Carbon Dating is accurate??
Radiographic dating is used in conjunction with other dating methods:
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Dinosaurs and Cave men - 11/7/2008 1:19:48 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 679
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: catfighter
quote:
ORIGINAL: mikejonesoftn
How do we actually know that Carbon Dating is accurate??
Radiographic dating is used in conjunction with other dating methods:
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html
Radio Carbon dating is hilariously unreliable and expensive, therefore it's never used when the date can be determined using historical dating methods. In other words, when we know the date of the object in question, carbon dating is so unreliable, that it's not preferred, and is therefore only used when the date of the object in question is not known, at which point it is assumed to be reliable.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Dinosaurs and Cave men - 11/8/2008 11:21:31 AM
|
|
|
robto
Posts: 103
Joined: 10/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mikejonesoftn
How do we actually know that Carbon Dating is accurate??
By comparing it with other methods of dating. For instance, if you have a chuck of wood from Pompeii, you know from historical sources that it was buried in 79 AD, so you can compare that to the carbon date. Another method is to use tree rings, or dendrochronology.
The method, when properly calibrated, is quite accurate. According to Wikipedia
quote:
The 2004 version of the calibration curve extends back quite accurately to 26,000 years BP. Any errors in the calibration curve do not contribute more than ±16 years to the measurement error during the historic and late prehistoric periods (0 - 6,000 yrs BP) and no more than ±163 years over the entire 26,000 years of the curve, although its shape can reduce the accuracy as mentioned above.
Because of the short half-life of carbon 14 (about 5700 years), this method can only be used back to about 50,000 years ago. Thus, it can't be used to date dinosaur bones, for example. For earlier times, there are other radioactive elements that can be used.
_____________________________
The Theory of Almost Everything: Everything you always wanted to know about elementary particles but were afraid to ask
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Dinosaurs and Cave men - 11/8/2008 12:22:47 PM
|
|
|
flyboy2610
Posts: 142
Joined: 5/10/2005
Status: offline
|
The problem with carbon-14 dating is that you must input an assumption into the formula.
Carbon-14 dating is a comparison of the amount of carbon in a specimen as compared to the amount of carbon in a sample of the same living tissue. This assumes that one knows how much carbon was originally in the specimen when it died.
You input an assumption. Hardly scientific.
_____________________________
If the women don't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy.
Red Green
If you're going to live like there's no hell..... you'd better be right.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Dinosaurs and Cave men - 11/8/2008 2:50:36 PM
|
|
|
girlofmanycolors
Posts: 38
Joined: 5/3/2008
Status: offline
|
You have some very good points Flyboy. Personally, I am not foolish enough to believe I know everything there is to know about this; in fact what I know is merely a tiny drop in the ocean. How long did the earth exist before the fall, when man in their sinless state could have lived many millenia? I don't know. Is the "day" of Genesis an actual 24 hour day? Beats me. What kind of matter existed before creation? You're barking up the wrong tree if you think I can tell you. In my humility I realize I don't have all the answers. In my faith I know that there is One who does. Throughout the ages many have tried to disprove God but noone has succeeded because there's always room for another interpretation and there are always loopholes to any theory. And when it comes to something that nobody alive today has any firsthand knowledge of, lets face it, it's all theory. I wasn't there so I don't know. God was there and does know. I know this because He lives in my heart. I feel His presence and He is my guide. This is not scientific and I can't prove it but I don't need to. Anyone who comes to Him with an open and searching heart will be shown the truth.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Dinosaurs and Cave men - 11/9/2008 2:18:15 PM
|
|
|
robto
Posts: 103
Joined: 10/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: flyboy2610
The problem with carbon-14 dating is that you must input an assumption into the formula.
Carbon-14 dating is a comparison of the amount of carbon in a specimen as compared to the amount of carbon in a sample of the same living tissue. This assumes that one knows how much carbon was originally in the specimen when it died.
You input an assumption. Hardly scientific.
Calibration of the c14 curve removes any need to assume the amount of c14 present when the specimen died. (See the Wiki article I linked.) That is, we use objects of KNOWN age to DETERMINE the amount of c14 in the environment at that time. Then, since the amount of c14 is known for essentially any age within the range of applicability of the method, there is no need to ASSUME the initial amount.
In general, though, there is nothing unscientific about assumptions. Scientists make assumptions all the time, and then test them. When the test show discrepancies, you need to re-examine your assumptions.
In this, science is no different than everyday life. You can't prove that gravity will work the same way tomorrow that it does today. Yet no sane person ties themselves into bed at night in case of a reversal of gravity during the night. We all assume that the world will continue to work the same way it has in the past - that's just common sense.
Science is just organized common sense. To use radiometric dating, for example, we need to assume that radioactive decay happened at the same rate in the past that it does today. But is that assumption valid, when we are talking about a time frame of 4 billion years for the oldest rocks? Well, we can test the assumption in several ways. One way is to look out into space, which we know is also looking back in time. Another way is to directly compare the values of physical parameters obtained 10 or 20 years ago with the values obtained today. There are now very stringent limits on the amount of variation possible in the basic constants of nature, and therefore on any change in the decay rates of isotopes.
(Note that physicists are looking very hard for any such changes in fundamental constants, because some versions of unified theories predict that the constants SHOULD change over time. Finding a measurable change would be a great coup, and almost certainly a Nobel prize, for the discoverer.)
_____________________________
The Theory of Almost Everything: Everything you always wanted to know about elementary particles but were afraid to ask
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Dinosaurs and Cave men - 11/10/2008 1:42:24 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 679
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: robto
quote:
ORIGINAL: flyboy2610
The problem with carbon-14 dating is that you must input an assumption into the formula.
Carbon-14 dating is a comparison of the amount of carbon in a specimen as compared to the amount of carbon in a sample of the same living tissue. This assumes that one knows how much carbon was originally in the specimen when it died.
You input an assumption. Hardly scientific.
Calibration of the c14 curve removes any need to assume the amount of c14 present when the specimen died. (See the Wiki article I linked.) That is, we use objects of KNOWN age to DETERMINE the amount of c14 in the environment at that time. Then, since the amount of c14 is known for essentially any age within the range of applicability of the method, there is no need to ASSUME the initial amount.
In general, though, there is nothing unscientific about assumptions. Scientists make assumptions all the time, and then test them. When the test show discrepancies, you need to re-examine your assumptions.
In this, science is no different than everyday life. You can't prove that gravity will work the same way tomorrow that it does today. Yet no sane person ties themselves into bed at night in case of a reversal of gravity during the night. We all assume that the world will continue to work the same way it has in the past - that's just common sense.
Science is just organized common sense. To use radiometric dating, for example, we need to assume that radioactive decay happened at the same rate in the past that it does today. But is that assumption valid, when we are talking about a time frame of 4 billion years for the oldest rocks? Well, we can test the assumption in several ways. One way is to look out into space, which we know is also looking back in time. Another way is to directly compare the values of physical parameters obtained 10 or 20 years ago with the values obtained today. There are now very stringent limits on the amount of variation possible in the basic constants of nature, and therefore on any change in the decay rates of isotopes.
(Note that physicists are looking very hard for any such changes in fundamental constants, because some versions of unified theories predict that the constants SHOULD change over time. Finding a measurable change would be a great coup, and almost certainly a Nobel prize, for the discoverer.)
That's a nice story, robto, but it's time to move on from Mother Goose. In application, carbon dating is notoriously unreliable for producing results that correspond with "known" dates. There is a food fight between archaeologists who say they have the right dates, and the radiocarbon crowd, the dates from whom produce a history that looks nothing like archaeological data. Radiocarbon dating is a broken science that works only in the minds of those who are wanting it to work. It doesn't work, and no amount of dendrochronology seems to be fixing it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Dinosaurs and Cave men - 11/10/2008 7:42:52 PM
|
|
|
EcclesFruitcake
Posts: 50
Joined: 1/15/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
That's a nice story, robto, but it's time to move on from Mother Goose. In application, carbon dating is notoriously unreliable for producing results that correspond with "known" dates. There is a food fight between archaeologists who say they have the right dates, and the radiocarbon crowd, the dates from whom produce a history that looks nothing like archaeological data. Radiocarbon dating is a broken science that works only in the minds of those who are wanting it to work. It doesn't work, and no amount of dendrochronology seems to be fixing it.
Could you please state more precisely your objections to the technique of radiocarbon dating and what data led you to your conclusion.
As you infer that the errors arise in the application of the procedure, is it fair to say you are in accord with the science, the findings notwithstanding?
It has been my understanding that carbon dating revolutionized archaeology in that it provided a technique to date sites absolutely and not have to rely on relative dating (via depth, style e.t.c) when there is an absence of dated artefacts. Moreover, many archaeological finds with known ages have been significant in the testing of the method such as those used in the initial paper
Age determinations by radiocarbon content: checks with samples of known age
Is the concordance between tested and expected dates presented in the paper a coincidence in your view?
W. F. Libby later received the Nobel prize for the paper.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Dinosaurs and Cave men - 11/11/2008 12:30:33 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1369
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: EcclesFruitcake
Could you please state more precisely your objections to the technique of radiocarbon dating and what data led you to your conclusion.
I go over some of the problems with radiometric dating here.
http://forums.christianity.com/m_3235728/mpage_1/tm.htm
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Dinosaurs and Cave men - 11/11/2008 12:47:48 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1369
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: robto
And so it goes.... No matter how many of these "evidences" are shown to be frauds, forgeries or misinterpretations, YECs will still cling to their beliefs: "But this OTHER case is genuine!" All the while ignoring the massive amounts of evidence on the other side.
You mean, no matter how much of this evidence is assumed to be fraudulent based on mainstream interpretations of the evidence (though that's not to say all of it is not fraudulent).
I think the problem is that, as Christians, we understand the limits of science with respect to origins whereas materialists seem to suggest that their beliefs are based entirely on empirical methods. As people who understand the limitations of science, we know that evidence is subject to interpretation and that many different people can interpret the same evidence in many different ways and, when it comes to origins, there is no reason to think that one single interpretation (ie: the materialist interpretation) is more scientific than all other interpretations. We understand that our interpretation requires faith, but so do all other interpretations, and the materialist interpretation requires no less faith. It's not that we "ignore the evidence on the other side", it's simply that we interpret it differently, and as people who understand the limitations of science, we advocate that contradictory interpretations be considered and advanced (and that no interpretation gets rejected simply because it contradicts materialist dogma).
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Dinosaurs and Cave men - 11/12/2008 5:20:07 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 679
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: EcclesFruitcake
quote:
That's a nice story, robto, but it's time to move on from Mother Goose. In application, carbon dating is notoriously unreliable for producing results that correspond with "known" dates. There is a food fight between archaeologists who say they have the right dates, and the radiocarbon crowd, the dates from whom produce a history that looks nothing like archaeological data. Radiocarbon dating is a broken science that works only in the minds of those who are wanting it to work. It doesn't work, and no amount of dendrochronology seems to be fixing it.
Could you please state more precisely your objections to the technique of radiocarbon dating and what data led you to your conclusion.
As you infer that the errors arise in the application of the procedure, is it fair to say you are in accord with the science, the findings notwithstanding?
It has been my understanding that carbon dating revolutionized archaeology in that it provided a technique to date sites absolutely and not have to rely on relative dating (via depth, style e.t.c) when there is an absence of dated artefacts. Moreover, many archaeological finds with known ages have been significant in the testing of the method such as those used in the initial paper
Age determinations by radiocarbon content: checks with samples of known age
Is the concordance between tested and expected dates presented in the paper a coincidence in your view?
W. F. Libby later received the Nobel prize for the paper.
The fact that you were led to believe that carbon dating "revolutionized archaeology" simply shows that there is a strong preference to "name it and claim it" among those who have the voices in media and education. Ask an Egyptologist whether or not they would use carbon dating to determine the age of, say, a piece of papyrus of ambiguous age. The answer would be a chuckle and a no. #1 it's expensive, and #2 it'll give an age that will just about never be correct. Manfred Bietak authored "Introduction: High and low chronology", in Procedings of the SCIEM 2000 - 2nd Euroconference in which we find that there are no carbon dates that confirm the history of Egypt. In fact, the high and low dates of every single period of Egyptian history fall outside of the historical dates, and many of them overlap, indicating that periods of Egyptian history happened at the same time. I agree that there appears to be no reason why carbon dating shouldn't work, but the fact is that it doesn't. I would agree that Egyptian history needs a lot of work, and maybe carbon dating does work, but at the present, they are not in agreement, and they are certainly NOT revolutionizing one another.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Dinosaurs and Cave men - 11/13/2008 9:12:18 AM
|
|
|
EcclesFruitcake
Posts: 50
Joined: 1/15/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
The fact that you were led to believe that carbon dating "revolutionized archaeology" simply shows that there is a strong preference to "name it and claim it" among those who have the voices in media and education.
While I feel it is prudent to treat all reports, but particularly those of a scientific nature, from media with caution I find it peculiar to extend the fear of their major shortcomings of being shallow or superficial to educational bulletins as well.
That is, I trust the rigour employed in scholastic enquiries so that when the conclusions are wrong the professors have good reasons for being so.
It seems we differ in this regard and I can only state that the claim of radiocarbon dating revolutionizing archaeology comes from both media outlets and authentic archaeologists who are applying the technique...with straight faces  . A cursory search of modern archaeology papers will demonstrate such.
quote:
Ask an Egyptologist whether or not they would use carbon dating to determine the age of, say, a piece of papyrus of ambiguous age. The answer would be a chuckle and a no. #1 it's expensive, and #2 it'll give an age that will just about never be correct.
I find this a lazy remark both due to its vagueness and inaccuracy.
I can only surmise that the Egyptologist knew something about said papyrus that I did not from his glib chuckle and explanation. For sending something to be carbon dated is only a matter of a few hundred U.S dollars and the age will only be wrong with an egregiously strict definition of correct.
The 'Center for Applied Isotope Studies' will date a sample for $300.
quote:
Manfred Bietak authored "Introduction: High and low chronology", in Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 - 2nd Euroconference in which we find that there are no carbon dates that confirm the history of Egypt. In fact, the high and low dates of every single period of Egyptian history fall outside of the historical dates, and many of them overlap, indicating that periods of Egyptian history happened at the same time.
I will certainly concede that I am just a layman with respect to the field of archaeology and thus only knew of disagreement among scholars over the chronology of ancient Egypt. However, to say that carbon dating holds no sway in the dispute seems a brash and erroneous assertion.
See Radiocarbon Dating In Near-Eastern Contexts: Confusion And Quality Control
about the issues, from the peer reviewed journal Radiocarbon.
And a detailed discussion of the dating of the Thera volcanic eruption and the role carbon dating has had in supporting either a high or low chronology can be read here
The paper references work by M. Bietak.
quote:
...and they are certainly NOT revolutionizing one another.
Maybe not in the narrow case M. Bietak advances.
I can only suggest you peruse the Radiocarbon Journal for a more general appreciation of the effect carbon dating has had on archaeology.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
