DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Henny on February 10, 2007, 07:12:15 PM
-
Christian faith in the other good book
12:56 10 February 2007
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11145-christian-faith-in-the-iotheri-good-book.html
Flocks of the Christian faithful in the US will this Sunday hold special services celebrating Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. The idea is to stand up to creationism, which claims the biblical account of creation is literally true, and which is increasingly being promoted under the guise of "intelligent design". Proponents of ID say the universe is so complex it must have been created by some unnamed designer.
Support for "Evolution Sunday" has grown 13 per cent to 530 congregations this year, from the 467 that celebrated the inaugural event last year. Organisers see it as increasing proof that Christians are comfortable with evolution.
"For far too long, strident voices, in the name of Christianity, have been claiming that people must choose between religion and modern science," says Michael Zimmerman, founder of Evolution Sunday and dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at Butler University in Indianapolis. "We're saying you can have your faith, and you can also have science."
Zimmerman and his backers believe the biblical account of creation is allegorical. "Creationists fear that if you believe evolution, you're an atheist," he says. But for Zimmerman, attempts to try and "ratify God's existence" through intelligent design signify lack of faith. "If you have enough faith, you don't need science to prove God exists, and science can't prove this anyway," he says.
The event arose from the Clergy Letter Project, a pro-evolution letter signed in 2004 by 10,500 Christian clergy. It is spreading internationally, and this year will also be celebrated in Australia, the UK, Canada and Nigeria. Seven publishers are donating material for the services.
-
Stay tuned for next week's show, when Christians discover that the earth is a sphere. (just kidding)
-
Christian faith in the other good book
12:56 10 February 2007
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11145-christian-faith-in-the-iotheri-good-book.html
Proponents of ID say the universe is so complex it must have been created by some unnamed designer.
This is what they say?
No ,complexity does not prove much , a mere collection of simplicities can produce complexity , rather it is the interdependence of and homeostasis of ,the dynamic systems that comprise life that are evidence of an organizing force , does it help to rephrase an argument you don't agree with in overly simplistic terms? Or does his author not consider the argument of IT worthy of further remark? Or perhaps he just doesn't"get " it?
Support for "Evolution Sunday" has grown 13 per cent to 530 congregations this year, from the 467 that celebrated the inaugural event last year. Organizers see it as increasing proof that Christians are comfortable with evolution.
Sure we are.
Most of us see evolution as a fact , as I do myself , but as a believer in the US Constitution I do not acknowledge the governments right to determine what is good and proper to teach children as being above the right of a child's parents.
-
Most of us see evolution as a fact , as I do myself , but as a believer in the US Constitution I do not acknowledge the governments right to determine what is good and proper to teach children as being above the right of a child's parents.
=====================================================================
So parents, according to you, have an absolute right to teach their children whatever they wish: creationism, flat Earthism, or perhaps that the South won the Civil War? Do they have a right to teach them that pi is exactly 3?
Can they teach them that 2 + 2 =5? That babies come from under cabbage leaves, or are brought by storks?
It their a limit to the lies that parents have a right to teach their children, or do you draw the line at Bible-based crap?
-
Most of us see evolution as a fact , as I do myself , but as a believer in the US Constitution I do not acknowledge the governments right to determine what is good and proper to teach children as being above the right of a child's parents.
=====================================================================
So parents, according to you, have an absolute right to teach their children whatever they wish: creationism, flat Earthism, or perhaps that the South won the Civil War? Do they have a right to teach them that pi is exactly 3?
Can they teach them that 2 + 2 =5? That babies come from under cabbage leaves, or are brought by storks?
It their a limit to the lies that parents have a right to teach their children, or do you draw the line at Bible-based crap?
I do not think that my posiion reduces to absurdity as eisily as yours does.
Do you think that the Govenment should have the right to teach the children of America its own standard of truth no matter what the parents think?
You can't think of even one thing that the government thinks is true that you do not?
What ever that is ,you want your child to be graded on how well she disagees with you?
-
This is Good News. ;-)
"Most of us see evolution as a fact , as I do myself...."
Then you'd get an earful from an Assembly of God pastor. They taught that only people who were not Christians believed in evolution. People who believed in evolution were worshipers of Satan. I never realized that people in this day and age thought like that.
Believe in evolution? THen you can't possibly believe in Christianity because you have to believe in each and every word of the Bible literally...according to their view.
Thank goodness I don't see it that way.
-
This is Good News. ;-)
"Most of us see evolution as a fact , as I do myself...."
Then you'd get an earful from an Assembly of God pastor. They taught that only people who were not Christians believed in evolution. People who believed in evolution were worshipers of Satan. I never realized that people in this day and age thought like that.
Believe in evolution? THen you can't possibly believe in Christianity because you have to believe in each and every word of the Bible literally...according to their view.
Thank goodness I don't see it that way.
No one at all takes every word of the Bible absolutely literally ,to do so would make the Song of Solomon into gibberish.
I was once asked to stand for election as Decon in an Assembly of God Church.
It was a good church and I was glad to be a member active in some of its programs , but I demurred for issues unrelated to this one.
Evoluion strikes me as one of the issues covered by Pauls vision of the decending table loaded with forbidden food It is more important that the people learn of Christ than that they never eat an Eel ,so do we really need to insist that we all understand the scriptures in a stadard way down to every little detal? Is Genesis so much more important than Leviticus that we are excused to insist that we agree on Eve being a rib of Adams literally ,while we discuss it over a steaming plate of ribs of pork?
Everything one needs really to be a Christian is in any one of the Gosphels and is presented in condensed form in the Letter to the Romans, the rest of the Bilble is there for good reason ,but that reason is not division and conflict.
I know ,some Creationists and some Evolutionistas get carried away with the idea that it is not possible that the mighty "I" could be wrong about anything.
So they push against MY right to be wrong about somthing.
There has to be a limit to the governments right to force a law abideing citizen to do things he doesn't like ,or insist on beleifs being taught to children.
I do not mind that Evolution be taught in a comparitive religion class or something but to present it as uncontravertable to children of people who do not agree, is a crass imposition on the rights of a citizen.
-
Christian faith in the other good book
12:56 10 February 2007
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11145-christian-faith-in-the-iotheri-good-book.html
Flocks of the Christian faithful in the US will this Sunday hold special services celebrating Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. The idea is to stand up to creationism, which claims the biblical account of creation is literally true, and which is increasingly being promoted under the guise of "intelligent design". Proponents of ID say the universe is so complex it must have been created by some unnamed designer.
Support for "Evolution Sunday" has grown 13 per cent to 530 congregations this year, from the 467 that celebrated the inaugural event last year. Organisers see it as increasing proof that Christians are comfortable with evolution.
"For far too long, strident voices, in the name of Christianity, have been claiming that people must choose between religion and modern science," says Michael Zimmerman, founder of Evolution Sunday and dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at Butler University in Indianapolis. "We're saying you can have your faith, and you can also have science."
Zimmerman and his backers believe the biblical account of creation is allegorical. "Creationists fear that if you believe evolution, you're an atheist," he says. But for Zimmerman, attempts to try and "ratify God's existence" through intelligent design signify lack of faith. "If you have enough faith, you don't need science to prove God exists, and science can't prove this anyway," he says.
The event arose from the Clergy Letter Project, a pro-evolution letter signed in 2004 by 10,500 Christian clergy. It is spreading internationally, and this year will also be celebrated in Australia, the UK, Canada and Nigeria. Seven publishers are donating material for the services.
It is fitting that it be Christians that confront the Christian Right.
After all, since the high-sheen sanctimony of religion was worn like a cloak to work like armor by the Christian Right (which is politically fascist)--thus always partially if not entirely voiding ciriticism--it only logically concludes that criticism must come from Christians in order to riddle that armor.
These common, non-zealot Christians know all the words and know all the scriptures, and cannot be shamed by the cherry-picking use of them by the Far Right. They cannot be shamed away with a derisive Falwell sneer. It is an intracorporate affair. The field is level.
This is all about eight or ten years late for the Christians to pick up the mantle(earlier, if you were a student of tracking this phenomenon known as the new evangelical movement.)
Every Christian, and certainly every professionally collared Christian shall have to answer the question--'where were you when the foundation was laid.'
I posted for eight years about the political intrigue, the political power contained in this Christian movement, but all I ever got back was how I was attacking their--the post readers--"faith." This common chickenshit reaction came from both . . . er . . . at least three sides of the aisle in here.
In the history of such things, this Christian movement, this created, Far Right political machine will go down as an brilliant construct, with strong powers manipulated to achieve political success (power), effective beyond the ken of all those who simply sat there in their head like a bump, answering a call of being shamed into submission by the shaking nanny finger of Evangelical America.
Psychologically, it was and still is brilliant.
And those who think they are gone?
In watching various serious coverage by media news specials, one hour shows, about these Christians--a few things are clear:
--they are not going to separate themselves from your society, they already have.
--looking from a sputnik with the proper lens filter, this would look like a completedly divided country. This would be no distortion. True, not divided in half, but divided.
--They have constructed a new world for themselves by disengaging and inventing their own science, medicine, entertainment, music, science, psychology . . . just about all the pigeonhole concrete staples that constitute a culture.
Not to mention the intellectual insult that they have proffered up as substitute.
If you can't see what's coming, you don't deserve to.
-
.............--looking from a sputnik with the proper lens filter, this would look like a completedly divided country. This would be no distortion. True, not divided in half, but divided.
........Not to mention the intellectual insult that they have proffered up as substitute.
Is the answer to this teaching their Children better?
-
It their a limit to the lies that parents have a right to teach their children, or do you draw the line at Bible-based crap?
Plane raises a very interesting question, does the government under current interpretation of the first amendment, have the right or the authority to show favoritism to one religious belief over another?
-
It their a limit to the lies that parents have a right to teach their children, or do you draw the line at Bible-based crap?
Plane raises a very interesting question, does the government under current interpretation of the first amendment, have the right or the authority to show favoritism to one religious belief over another?
Gee... I wish I had said that.
-
Gee... I wish I had said that.
I think you did.
-
Evolution belongs in the teaching of biology and science. It is not a religion, and should not be taught as a part of a religion class.
Crane, here's a place that discusses what you're talking about. Talk to Action.
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/2/8/04932/02745
This is a post by Joe Bageant about the Left Behind series.
-
Evolution belongs in the teaching of biology and science. It is not a religion, and should not be taught as a part of a religion class.
Crane, here's a place that discusses what you're talking about. Talk to Action.
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/2/8/04932/02745
This is a post by Joe Bageant about the Left Behind series.
Why should your definition of religion be accepted?
-
It their a limit to the lies that parents have a right to teach their children, or do you draw the line at Bible-based crap?
Plane raises a very interesting question, does the government under current interpretation of the first amendment, have the right or the authority to show favoritism to one religious belief over another?
I noticed no one has tackled this question yet. I wonder why. Too politically incorrect?
-
No one at all takes every word of the Bible absolutely literally ,to do so would make the Song of Solomon into gibberish.
I had a good friend who was an "independent Baptist" of some sort. They supposedly took the Bible literally. They were also teetotallers to an extreme. So, I always wondered about the parts of the bible where Jesus drank wine. The response was that it wasn't really wine, it was "grape juice." ;)
Literal interpretation is still an interpretation. To me, it is a very anti-intellectual view of the Bible. It fails to comprehend a great deal of the beauty and context that are a part of the written word of the time. A good example of the failures of literal interpretation are in John 21:15-19 where if one does not understand the Greek, then one misses a very powerful set of verses.
-
It their a limit to the lies that parents have a right to teach their children, or do you draw the line at Bible-based crap?
Plane raises a very interesting question, does the government under current interpretation of the first amendment, have the right or the authority to show favoritism to one religious belief over another?
I noticed no one has taclked this question yet. I wonder why. Too politically incorrect?
Perhaps it is worthy of deep consideration beore replyng.
I would give greater weight to Parents because with rare exception parents have the good of the child central to their consideration , states do too but the exceptions are not as rare.
-
The response was that it wasn't really wine, it was "grape juice." ;)
Actually, I've always thought that was funny. We have evidence that not only was wine fermented, it was stronger than current wines.
Open fermentation (which was used at that time in the Middle East) tends to produce a stronger wine or beer than closed fermentation (used in Europe). One of the open fermentation products from Europe, Kriek ales, typically have 5.5% alcohol in comparison to closed fermentation ales which are around 4 - 4.5% alcohol.
I don't know of any open fermentation wines currently available.
-
The response was that it wasn't really wine, it was "grape juice." ;)
Actually, I've always thought that was funny. We have evidence that not only was wine fermented, it was stronger than current wines.
Open fermentation (which was used at that time in the Middle East) tends to produce a stronger wine or beer than closed fermentation (used in Europe). One of the open fermentation products from Europe, Kriek ales, typically have 5.5% alcohol in comparison to closed fermentation ales which are around 4 - 4.5% alcohol.
I don't know of any open fermentation wines currently available.
Yes, I consider the evidence strong that the wine was wine , grape juce has a very short shelf life without pasteurization.
This interpretation seems to be a fairly recent thing , mostly an artifact of the temprence movement.
-
The temperence movement was very strong when my mom was little. And, her dad was a Methodist minister. No wine or sprits in their house.
I asked her about the passage in the Bible where Jesus turns water into wine, and she said it was because of the lack of potable water in those days. Yeah....that sounded kind of iffy to me too, but that was her story! ;-)
-
So, the question remains: Do parents have some sort of inherent right to teach their children nonsense that flat-plant is not true in the name of religious freedom?
========================================
I suppose that teaching children that Jesus just changed some bug-infested water to wine so as to purify it, but the purification ingredient in wine is alcohol, and perhaps other compounds resultant from fermentation. Jesus is rather a one-shot phenomenon, and his wine-creating abilities are unlikely to cause anyone harm unless he comes back and goes ape with his miraculous talent.
But a majority of Americans seem to believe that the Earth was created 4000 odd years ago and that the End of the World is likely to come really soon. It is also true that this country needs a much larger number of scientists and engineers than it currently produces. The deficit used to be made up for by immigrant students, but it's harder for them to get into the country on an I-20 Visa than it was before 9/11.
I suggest that the anti-science bias is harmful to this nation.
If people have the right to teach their children bullsh*t in the name of medieval religious views, the rest of us need to be aware of the consequences.
-
But a majority of Americans seem to believe that the Earth was created 4000 odd years ago and that the End of the World is likely to come really soon.
I suggest that this statement is bullshit.
-
Speaking as someone who successfully homeschooled their child, I embraced BOTH sides of this issue. Specifically, I taught Intelligent Design and evolution. My daughter, who is currently an A student at college and received almost a 1400 on her SAT, therefore learned both positions on this issue. Answering some of the questions posed here, I felt, and still do feel ,that it is NOT the Government's right to tell me, in specific terms, what my child should learn. Of course,They felt differently and I had to accede to their demands and therefore she learned the proper amounts of math, science on a macro level. On a micro level, I felt free to use conservative-leaning but highly-acclaimed academically texts. The Government School Hierarchy didn't like it and at one time I had to get HSLDA involved. Once their lawyers explained THE LAW to the Government Schools, they backed off. See,they wanted to tell me what TEXTS to use. I felt that as long as I covered the academic ground they required, that should be sufficient. A key question here is where is the line of power in this issue between parents and the Government? In my case, I and the Government Schools differed on where this line is. In this case, I won. In other states of the union, I probably would not have since many other states are more strict on homeschooling issues.
-
But a majority of Americans seem to believe that the Earth was created 4000 odd years ago and that the End of the World is likely to come really soon.
I suggest that this statement is bullshit.
Actually, you can argue that it is only 60,000 years old if you add up the generations in the Bible. Do I personally believe this? No, but I do not believe we crawled out of primordial slime either. Was the Earth created in six days? Six LITERAL days? I dnot believe so, because, if you are into linguistics, this could really mean six thousand or six million or six...anyway, you get the point here. However, if you came up to me and said "I believe the wordily was created in six literal days." I would say "Great!' Let's go get lunch!" The implication here is that sometimes people argue over minutia instead of majoring in the majors, not the minors. So, why demonstrate your argumentative nature and jump down their throat? After all, there are Christians who believe in any number of variations on this theme, and guess what, in the end analysis, it means zip because JESUS CHRIST is really all that matters. Eveything else is but a shadow.
-
<<I do not mind that Evolution be taught in a comparitive religion class or something but to present it as uncontravertable to children of people who do not agree, is a crass imposition on the rights of a citizen.>>
I studied evolution at University and it was never presented as incontovertible to anybody. Evolution is a theory, an attempt to explain known facts in accordance with scientific method. Like any other scientific theory, evolution stands ready to be modified or discarded completely if new facts surface which cannot be accommodated by the existing theory.
Nobody can be forced to have their children study science. But if a child IS going to learn science in a public school, the teachers MUST teach what the students are signed up to learn - - that is, science, not theology and certainly not Christian theology. Science proceeds according to the scientific method - - observation, hypothesis (theory) to explain the observations and finally, testing the theory.
The theory of evolution was developed in strict accordance with scientific method. The theory of intelligent design was not. Scientists, therefore, are prepared to teach the theory of evolution to those who want to study science and are not prepared to teach the theory of intelligent design to those same students. The reason is simple: evolution theory is science, ID theory is not.
Every scientific theory can be countered with a religious theory: God can be used to explain the existence of phenomena just as easily as science. To those who wish to study how God created the world in six days and whether Jesus Christ is a god or not, I would say, fine, go study religion. Scientists cannot prove you are wrong and you may in fact be right. Maybe the world WAS created by God in six days and anyone who says different will fry in hell. We don't say, "Science is right, the rest of you guys are all fulla shit." But if you want to study science, then you must learn science. You are not going to come into a science class and learn how God created the world in six days - - learn that elsewhere and good luck to ya.
-
Actually, you can argue that it is only 60,000 years old if you add up the generations in the Bible.
Regardless of adding up the generations in the Bible, most Americans do not believe that the world is only 4,000 years old. Which is the claim that I was calling bullshit.
-
After all, there are Christians who believe in any number of variations on this theme, and guess what, in the end analysis, it means zip because JESUS CHRIST is really all that matters. Eveything else is but a shadow.
==================================================================
The reason one is supposed to believe that Yeshua bin Yacob, aka Jesus Christ, was the Son of God and the Savior of Mankind is that his story is found in the Bible, which declares itself to be the Word of God. Jesus Himself, though allegedly capable of returning from the dead, has not done so recently, and despite his religious heritage, which gave major importance to the Written Word, Himself wrote not an account, nor a paragraph, nor a sentence nor one word.
If any part of the Bible is not true, then all of it is suspect, and subject to actual scholarly analysis, which is not the same as the baloney known as "Bible studies", which merely analyze HOW it is true. Stating that Jesus drank grape juice rather than wine is one example of this sort of silliness.
As for a majority of Americans believing that the world was created around 4000 years ago, I personally did not poll them, but I did read this in a popular magazine. I shall amend this by saying that far too many believe the "young Earth" theory to be true.
It was a Church of England priest and 'scholar' who in fact did add up the ages of all the lineages of the begats mentioned in the Bible and arrived at the first man (Adam) having been created in the year 4004 BC on a Thursday afternoon, I believe. So that would have been not 4000 years ago, but 6011 years ago, give or take a year. Not that it matters, because it is patent malarkey.
In any event, the number of people who believe Biblical nonsense surely causes many young Americans from becoming scientists, though probably not so many as an aversion to mathematics, which is at least partly due to the fact that people who are really enthusiastic about math can find far more gainful employment and higher status in jobs outside the teaching occupation. My daughter did not meet one adequate math teacher in 14 years of education, nor did I meet even one in high school, either.
-
if christ is the one true path.
how can people be doomed to hell for not beinmg christians if they never hear of christ.
missionaries are stranger who come to your house and say everything you know is a lie and you have to follow everything they say.
I have friends in vietnam.
they`re not too crazy about christians.
pretty much all religions that follow the one true path criteria is not very well thought through.
quite insulting
-
In any event, the number of people who believe Biblical nonsense surely causes many young Americans from becoming scientists, though probably not so many as an aversion to mathematics, which is at least partly due to the fact that people who are really enthusiastic about math can find far more gainful employment and higher status in jobs outside the teaching occupation. My daughter did not meet one adequate math teacher in 14 years of education, nor did I meet even one in high school, either.
That's a shame. I had several in high school and one in college. A few really excellent chemistry, biology, physics, electronics, and one excellent english teacher as well. History teachers were pretty uniformly bad, even in college.
-
As for a majority of Americans believing that the world was created around 4000 years ago, I personally did not poll them, but I did read this in a popular magazine. I shall amend this by saying that far too many believe the "young Earth" theory to be true.
If you're talking about this poll (http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060608-111826-4947r.htm), then you'll note that the wording of the question was not "do you believe the Earth was created less than 10,000 years ago" - it was "do you believe that humans were created by God less than 10,000 years ago." There are a large number of people who believe the Earth is older than 10,000 years, but humans were created by God a relatively short period of time ago.
Regardless, the number was 46% for this question - not "most Americans."
-
Nevertheless, even if 46% think that humans were created less than 10,000 years ago, that is pretty sad.
There are numerous carbon-dated bones that are far older than that.
-
It should be noted that carbon dating is not entirely accurate and is based upon possible suspect assumptions.
-
It should be noted that carbon dating is not entirely accurate and is based upon possible suspect assumptions.
It's accurate within it's margin of error, and is not based on "suspect assumptions" - it's based on science.
-
Well, let's see:
We can take a sample of air, count how many 12C atoms there are for every 14C atom, and calculate the 14C/12C ratio. Because 14C is so well mixed up with 12C, we expect to find that this ratio is the same if we sample a leaf from a tree, or a part of your body.
In living things, although 14C atoms are constantly changing back to 14N, they are still exchanging carbon with their surroundings, so the mixture remains about the same as in the atmosphere. However, as soon as a plant or animal dies, the 14C atoms which decay are no longer replaced, so the amount of 14C in that once-living thing decreases as time goes on. In other words, the 14C/12C ratio gets smaller. So, we have a "clock" which starts ticking the moment something dies.
Obviously, this works only for things which were once living. It cannot be used to date volcanic rocks, for example.
The rate of decay of 14C is such that half of an amount will convert back to 14N in 5,730 years (plus or minus 40 years). This is the "half-life." So, in two half-lives, or 11,460 years, only one-quarter of that in living organisms at present, then it has a theoretical age of 11,460 years. Anything over about 50,000 years old, should theoretically have no detectable 14C left. That is why radiocarbon dating cannot give millions of years. In fact, if a sample contains 14C, it is good evidence that it is not millions of years old.
However, things are not quite so simple. First, plants discriminate against carbon dioxide containing 14C. That is, they take up less than would be expected and so they test older than they really are. Furthermore, different types of plants discriminate differently. This also has to be corrected for.
Second, the ratio of 14C/12C in the atmosphere has not been constant -- for example, it was higher before the industrial era when the massive burning of fossil fuels released a lot of carbon dioxide that was depleted in 14C. This would make things which died at that time appear older in terms of carbon dating. Then there was a rise in 14CO2 with the advent of atmospheric testing of atomic bombs in the 1950s. This would make things carbon-dated from that time appear younger than their true age.
Measurement of 14C in historically dated objects (e.g., seeds in the graves of historically dated tombs) enables the level of 14C in the atmosphere at that time to be estimated, and so partial calibration of the "clock" is possible. Accordingly, carbon dating carefully applied to items from historical times can be useful. However, even with such historical calibration, archaeologists do not regard 14C dates as absolute because of frequent anomalies. They rely more on dating methods that link into historical records.
Outside the range of recorded history, calibration of the 14C "clock is not possible.
Also, the amount of cosmic rays penetrating the earth's atmosphere affects the amount of 14C produced and therefore dating the system. The amount of cosmic rays reaching the earth varies with the sun's activity, and with the earth's passage through magnetic clouds as the solar system travels around the Milky Way galaxy.
The strength of the earth's magnetic field affects the amount of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere. A stronger magnetic field deflects more cosmic rays away from the earth. Overall, the energy of the earth's magnetic field has been decreasing, so more 14C is being produced now than in the past. This will make old things look older than they really are.
In addition, the Genesis flood would have greatly upset the carbon balance. The flood buried a huge amount of carbon, which became coal, oil, etc., lowering the total 12C in the biosphere (including the atmosphere -- plants regrowing after the flood absorb CO2, which is not replaced by the decay of the buried vegetation). Total 14C is also proportionately lowered at this time, but whereas no terrestrial process generates any more 12C, 14C is continually being produced, and at a rate which does not depend on carbon levels (it comes from nitrogen). Therefore, the 14C/12C ratio in plants/animals/the atmosphere before the flood had to be lower than what it is now.
Unless this effect (which is additional to the magnetic field issue just discussed) were corrected for, carbon dating of fossils formed in the flood would give ages much older than the true ages.
Creationist researchers have suggested that dates of 35,000 - 45,000 years should be re-calibrated to the biblical date of the flood.[6] Such a re-calibration makes sense of anomalous data from carbon dating -- for example, very discordant "dates" for different parts of a frozen musk ox carcass from Alaska and an inordinately slow rate of accumulation of ground sloth dung pellets in the older layers of a cave where the layers were carbon dated.
Also, volcanoes emit much CO2 depleted in 14C. Since the flood was accompanied by much volcanism (see Noah's Flood..., How did animals get from the Ark to isolated places?, and What About Continental Drift?), fossils formed in the early post-flood period would give radiocarbon ages older than they really are.
In summary, the carbon-14 method, when corrected for the effects of the flood, can give useful results, but needs to be applied carefully. It does not give dates of millions of years and when corrected properly fits well with the biblical flood.
-
Obviously, this works only for things which were once living. It cannot be used to date volcanic rocks, for example.
Correct. There are other methods for dating non-living samples, or samples outside the date range of radiocarbon dating.
Outside the range of recorded history, calibration of the 14C "clock is not possible.
Sure it is. There are other techniques for calibration.
In addition, the Genesis flood would have greatly upset the carbon balance. The flood buried a huge amount of carbon, which became coal, oil, etc., lowering the total 12C in the biosphere (including the atmosphere -- plants regrowing after the flood absorb CO2, which is not replaced by the decay of the buried vegetation). Total 14C is also proportionately lowered at this time, but whereas no terrestrial process generates any more 12C, 14C is continually being produced, and at a rate which does not depend on carbon levels (it comes from nitrogen). Therefore, the 14C/12C ratio in plants/animals/the atmosphere before the flood had to be lower than what it is now.
There is no scientific evidence for a worldwide flood. Therefore, it does not need to be taken into account.
And all of these "calibration errors" that you claim make radiocarbon dating incorrect are actually taken into account. That is why radiocarbon dates are always given as a range of dates.
-
There is also dendrochronology, ice core sampling, Potassium-argon dating, thermoluminescence dating and other dating techniques.
That the world is far older than 10,000 year is well-known and scientifically accurate.
The reason one is supposed to believe that Yeshua bin Yacob, aka Jesus Christ, was the Son of God and the Savior of Mankind is that his story is found in the Bible, which declares itself to be the Word of God.
The Bible is not a book of evidence for making a judicial case. Belief in Christ requires faith. It is rooted in the very essence of man's purpose, which is to know and love God.
If any part of the Bible is not true, then all of it is suspect, and subject to actual scholarly analysis, which is not the same as the baloney known as "Bible studies", which merely analyze HOW it is true. Stating that Jesus drank grape juice rather than wine is one example of this sort of silliness.
Many parts of the Bible may not be "true" as in actual actions that took place in the annals of history. Some are more likely to be stories to relate a message to the people (much like the parables of Christ). Job is a good example, as are Judith and Tobit. The morals of the stories are the keys, not necessarily that every single word is historically true.
As for the Gospels, which are true, it is important to keep in mind that the authors had particular audiences in mind when writing them. Matthew, for example, is clearly writing to a Jewish audience whereas Luke is writing to a Gentile audience. The differences in early Judaic Christianity and Gentile Christianity are clearly present in both writings.
Neither of these make the Bible "suspect." Scholarly views of the Bible are done everyday.
It was a Church of England priest and 'scholar' who in fact did add up the ages of all the lineages of the begats mentioned in the Bible and arrived at the first man (Adam) having been created in the year 4004 BC on a Thursday afternoon, I believe. So that would have been not 4000 years ago, but 6011 years ago, give or take a year. Not that it matters, because it is patent malarkey.
It was malarkey. I believe the original Bishop got it down to a year, and one of his followers got it down to not only a month and a day, but an exact time of day as well (how he did this, I have no real clue). There is no reason to believe in that dating system and science has thoroughly refuted it. Many Christians don't believe in it either.
In any event, the number of people who believe Biblical nonsense surely causes many young Americans from becoming scientists, though probably not so many as an aversion to mathematics, which is at least partly due to the fact that people who are really enthusiastic about math can find far more gainful employment and higher status in jobs outside the teaching occupation.
It is ashame that many people see science and Christianity at odds. It doesn't have to be that way, of course. As I've said before, it was a Catholic Priest who discovered the Big Bang Theory (and many other scientists have been religious as well).
Regardless, I was one of those people who was adept at math, but found it intensely boring. I scored higher on the GRE math section than most engineers seeking a graduate degree, but I chose a different graduate studies program.
-
I pretty much suck at math but for some reason i like doing math.
I enjoy the structure.
it`s only wrong when I forget how to do it.
It kinda bugs me people use calculators for the easy stuff.
I rather do math in my head than play video games.
actually I don`t even like video games.
someday i like to try card counting
that looks like fun
-
Research: God did speak world into existence
Student's scientific documentation offers evidence of biblical account
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 11, 2007
9:35 p.m. Eastern
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
A science student in Kentucky says when the Bible records God spoke, and things were created, that's just what happened, and he can support that with scientific experiments.
"If God spoke everything into existence as the Genesis record proposes, then we should be able to scientifically prove that the construction of everything in the universe begins with a) the Holy Spirit (magnetic field); b) Light (an electric field); and c) that Light can be created by a sonic influence or sound," Samuel J. Hunt writes on his website.
"There are several documented and currently taught laboratory experiments that accurately portray the events in Genesis in sequential order, the most important being that of sonoluminescence," he wrote.
That, he described to WND, is the circumstance in which sending a sonic signal into bubbles in a fluid causes the bubbles to collapse and they release photons, or create light.
That aligns with one of the earlier descriptions of the creation by God, when, in Genesis 1:1-3, the Holy Spirit moved upon the face of the deep, which generally is considered water, and said "Let there be light," he explained.
God was sending a sonic influence into the waters, and basically creating light, Hunt said. He's documented his theory, and the experiments he believes back it up, in his "Episteme Scientia, the Law of All That Is."
Researchers at institutions no less than UCLA and the University of Chicago have verified the production of light from bubbles when sound is passed through a liquid, called sonoluminescence.
Hunt said he was spurred on in his work because the advanced physics and other courses he was taking were advancing propositions that sometimes didn't match up.
"The further I went, the more my questions seemed to be being answered in the Genesis record," he told WND.
His abstract states, "An examination of the sequential mathematical and experimental dual proof of the Genesis record of origins underlying the institution of all that is in the universe – from waves to matter to the mind."
Hunt said science has been proving the Genesis account in classrooms for centuries, "in spite of the fervency to promote evolution and big bang theories."
A student at Western Kentucky University in Bowling Green, Hunt said his questions started very simply.
"I asked my professors in physics and chemistry, 'What if I could scientifically prove that all matter was spoken into existence and that all matter could be manipulated by sound just as Genesis says? Wouldn't that mean God exists and created the universe?" he asked.
"Nobody's ever done that before," was the response.
His 84-page treatise, now published, addresses that, he said.
Hunt said he believes every event in Genesis can be observed to be happening daily.
"Either you experience a universe of chaos or a universe of order and processes that produce immediate and calculable results," he wrote. "The results of my research support and prove that everything that exists was spoken into existence from waves to matter to mind."
"My professors think my application of accepted laws and theories may bend the rules a bit, but the ideas are thought-provoking and progressive," he said.
The website describes the integration of several mathematical systems including "Phi, Pi, L-systems, Penrose tiling, and an all-encompassing Koch curve."
The outline, available at scienceprovescreation.com, already has sold more than 1,700 copies.
Hunt said his goal was to be able to provide experiments that would explain the Genesis creation story – in the order the Bible records events happened.
"Some of my teachers are like, 'That's complete hogwash,'" he said, "while others say, 'That's pretty interesting.'"
His goal is to bring a unity to the Christian community, "just like the founders of our nation expected and wanted from the Constitution."
The documentation of his processes, Hunt believes, could end debate.
"People want to know the truth, to have something to stand on that's not trickery and deceit," he said. "This gives people something real to touch, hang on to."
-
Research: God did speak world into existence
Student's scientific documentation offers evidence of biblical account
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hahahaha
This seems like a fine example of doubble talk.
Gods creation of matter and energy necessicerily used tecniques that we do not understand yet , elese we would be useing them .