Philosophical question?

[MadeFromDust]

Here are some thoughts on carbon dating:

[video=youtube;3wMV8Hw99yg]

 

[magnifier661]

What flaws in Carbon-14 are so problematic as to disregard their results?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

Speleothems (such as stalagmites) are calcium carbonate deposits that form from drips in limestone caves. Individual speleothems can be tens of thousands of years old.[30] Scientists are attempting to extend the record of atmospheric carbon-14 by measuring radiocarbon in speleothems which have been independently dated using uranium-thorium dating.[31][32] These results are improving the calibration for the radiocarbon technique and extending its usefulness to 45,000 years into the past.[33] Initial results from a cave in the Bahamas suggested a peak in the amount of carbon-14 which was twice as high as modern levels.[34] A recent study does not reproduce this extreme shift and suggests that analytical problems may have produced the anomalous result.[32]

I don't discredit the method. I am saying it's not perfect. Am I wrong?

 

[TripTango]

Well I've done it, and I'm not an atheist. Maybe you should take some time to, after all your eternity depends on it.

So you admit the Bible is scientific too then? Thanks! And with that are you willing to admit you are putting a measure of "faith" in what these biologists claim to know?

You are so funny.

I'm familiar with the multiverse hypotheses. I find them interesting, but far fetched. Explain to me again how this affects my eternal soul?

I've also seen the evidence for evolution. I understand and believe in the science behind carbon dating. Having also read the bible, I think speak from some experience when I say the two are not comparable. Maybe you should go get yourself a degree or two in science before you tell me what "scientific" is and isn't. I've got two.

 

[TripTango]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

I don't discredit the method. I am saying it's not perfect. Am I wrong?

I assume you trust scientific conclusions in some cases, right? Can you tell me an experimental method that IS perfect? How close to perfect must a method be for you to accept its conclusions?

 

[MadeFromDust]

You are so funny.

I'm familiar with the multiverse hypotheses. I find them interesting, but far fetched. Explain to me again how this affects my eternal soul?

OK, so you agree the multiverse theory is pretty ridiculous and has no evidence whatsoever. Then what's your argument against the razor sharp precision observed in the universe? What's your counter to the teleological argument?

And if you don't accept God, then you are against God. And if you are against God you will spend eternity in separation from God. Hope you get the picture.

I've also seen the evidence for evolution. I understand and believe in the science behind carbon dating. Having also read the bible, I think speak from some experience when I say the two are not comparable. Maybe you should go get yourself a degree or two in science before you tell me what "scientific" is and isn't. I've got two.

Perhaps you think you've seen evidence for evolution, but you certainly haven't seen testable, objective and observable evidence for it. If so, you would be the first! Unless you now want to recant on your previous statement and let evolution through your "objective" gate. And that's cool, Dr.Bill Craig seems to think they are and he's a lot smarter than you and I, and there are plenty more who agree with us. Isn't the world like less than 2% atheist? Must have some pretty conclusive evidence there for that massive number. And nice condescending attitude there buddy, pretty sure degrees don't salvage your soul. Are you still "playing around" or do you want to zap me away with your superior knowledge and reason?

 

[magnifier661]

I assume you trust scientific conclusions in some cases, right? Can you tell me an experimental method that IS perfect? How close to perfect must a method be for you to accept its conclusions?

The method used to make scientific law, like gravity. Yeah it's mathematics, but still it doesn't contradict and always accurate.

 

[TripTango]

And nice condescending attitude there buddy, pretty sure degrees don't salvage your soul. Are you still "playing around" or do you want to zap me away with your superior knowledge and reason?

Let's see here...

Well I've done it, and I'm not an atheist. Maybe you should take some time to, after all your eternity depends on it.

Maybe you should read up on it, it's one of the reasons I'm not an atheist.

Might want to study up.

You have consistently encouraged me to "read up" on matters with which I am already familiar. Seems you can dish it, but not take it.

What's testable, objective, and observable in regards to evolution is the archaeological record itself. Individuals may disagree on final scientific conclusions (and many do, in all areas of science). You may believe that the dating is flawed (though you'd be hard-pressed to show that it's off by a large enough factor to allow a 10,000 year-old earth). You may believe that god randomly destroyed species throughout time and replaced them with very similar species immediately after, for some odd reason. However, the logical conclusion from the fossil record for the majority of folks who understand the underlying science is that evolution is the most likely explanation. You disagree, and have good evidence to back your own hypothesis? Write your own paper with your own data and turn the scientific community upside-down. It has happened before. Evolution is not a plot against theism. It does not prove that god doesn't exist. It jives perfectly well with a Christian world-view -- just not a Creationist one. But then, not much (outside of the Bible) jives with a Creationist world view.

 

[TripTango]

The method used to make scientific law, like gravity. Yeah it's mathematics, but still it doesn't contradict and always accurate.

But what CAUSES gravity? Have you ever seen a graviton? What about the fact that gravity has been questioned as a true force, and may in fact just be a byproduct of space-time curvature?

Beyond that, how much precision does your scale have? Did you know that it has a significant, measurable uncertainty due to random atmospheric fluctuations, temperature changes, and differences in elevation?

My point is just that EVERY theory has exceptions and complications, and EVERY scientific instrument has uncertainty. It's important to recognize all of this, and it's also important to decide whether the theoretical problems and experimental uncertainties are large enough to justify modification of the theory. In the case of carbon dating (and similar techniques), the uncertainties are nowhere near high enough to allow for a 10,000 year-old earth. Either god is playing tricks on us, or a young earth is just not possible.

 

[Denny Crane]

But what CAUSES gravity?

The God Particle, of course.

 

[magnifier661]

But what CAUSES gravity? Have you ever seen a graviton? What about the fact that gravity has been questioned as a true force, and may in fact just be a byproduct of space-time curvature?

Beyond that, how much precision does your scale have? Did you know that it has a significant, measurable uncertainty due to random atmospheric fluctuations, temperature changes, and differences in elevation?

My point is just that EVERY theory has exceptions and complications, and EVERY scientific instrument has uncertainty. It's important to recognize all of this, and it's also important to decide whether the theoretical problems and experimental uncertainties are large enough to justify modification of the theory. In the case of carbon dating (and similar techniques), the uncertainties are nowhere near high enough to allow for a 10,000 year-old earth. Either god is playing tricks on us, or a young earth is just not possible.

Thank you.... What is God? Have you ever seen him? Can something break the laws of physics?

This is all I ask. The pioneers that put Faith in something you can't see and proved it law. Sometimes things we still know nothing about. It's glad that there is philosophy to guide the way. And why can't the bible be just another map to this quest of truth?

 

[TripTango]

OK, so you agree the multiverse theory is pretty ridiculous and has no evidence whatsoever. Then what's your argument against the razor sharp precision observed in the universe? What's your counter to the teleological argument?

Do you really want to know what I think? I know the teleological argument, and I find it unconvincing. I suspect you've read all of the main counters to the teleological argument, and that you've found them unconvincing. We are unlikely to change each other's minds -- do we really need to go through the dance?

 

[TripTango]

The Goddamn Particle, of course.

FTFY!

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Do you really want to know what I think? I know the teleological argument, and I find it unconvincing. I suspect you've read all of the main counters to the teleological argument, and that you've found them unconvincing. We are unlikely to change each other's minds -- do we really need to go through the dance?

Hey TT did you see the link I posted to the Lawrence M. Krauss interview from this past weekend? It was really interesting. If you want to listen to it I can email it to you.

Also do you listen to Michio Kaku's weekly radio show?

 

[TripTango]

Hey TT did you see the link I posted to the Lawrence M. Krauss interview from this past weekend? It was really interesting. If you want to listen to it I can email it to you.

Also do you listen to Michio Kaku's weekly radio show?

I missed that link -- good stuff? I'd be happy to give it a listen after Mag's movie tonight. I've read Kaku, but never heard his radio show... I didn't even know he had one.

Thanks for the recommendations!

 

[SlyPokerDog]

I missed that link -- good stuff? I'd be happy to give it a listen after Mag's movie tonight. I've read Kaku, but never heard his radio show... I didn't even know he had one.

Thanks for the recommendations!

Here's what the Krauss interview was about -

Theoretical physicist Lawrence M. Krauss joined John B. Wells (email) to discuss the origin of the universe and how it could have arisen from nothing. "We now can see a plausible way in which a universe can come from absolutely nothing without any creator," he said, adding that the aspects of our universe which can be measured are consistent with that conclusion. The word 'nothing' is a scientific term (not a philosophical one) that refers to empty space, or an area with zero total particles, Krauss noted. This space is not actually empty but is instead "a boiling bubbling brew of virtual particles—particles that fall in and out of existence at a time scale so short that you can't measure them," he explained. Space can pop in and out of existence and is where the dominant energy of the universe resides, Krauss revealed. The very laws governing the universe may have arisen spontaneously as well, and may be completely different in other universes, he added.

Krauss spoke about the difference between science and philosophy/religion, pointing out the unique role of science in probing empirical information about the world. While he believes it is presumptuous to say categorically, "There is no God," Krauss admitted there is no physical proof to suggest such a being exists. He further asserted that there is no evidence for intelligent design in biological life and in the universe. The Earth is teaming with diverse life forms of all different kinds, none of them designed, Krauss said. The amazing diversity of life on this planet arose solely by natural evolutionary mechanism without any celestial guidance, he declared. Krauss also talked about how dark energy may dominate the future of the universe, causing it to expand at a rate faster than the speed of light, as well as his expectation that Earth-like planets will be discovered within our lifetime, and perhaps some will even have life on them.

I have the Krauss interview in 3 .mp3 files that I can email to you. They're about 15 megs each so your email would have to accept 15 meg attachments. Email me at SlyPokerDog@yahoo.com if you want them.

You can find Michio's radio show here - http://mkaku.org/

He has a new show every Tuesday and gets some amazing guests. You can find the most recent episodes here - http://www.kpfa.org/archive/show/51

There is also an embedded player here that has tons of his previous episodes - http://mkaku.org/home/?page_id=130

 

[crowTrobot]

Are you talking about Carbon 14?

scientists don't use carbon 14 to date the earth.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

 

[magnifier661]

scientists don't use carbon 14 to date the earth.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

And?

 

[crowTrobot]

Scientific evidence is testable, objective, and reproducible. Everything else is unscientific.

better to say scientific evidence has to be objectively demonstratable. creationists like to selectively take the term "reproducible" quite literally when it fits their agenda (only when it fits their agenda) - such as "we can't produce new species in a lab, so evolution didn't happen".

 

[crowTrobot]

And?

you tell me. you're the one who mentions it in every thread.

 

[magnifier661]

you tell me. you're the one who mentions it in every thread.

Mention that Carbon 14 isn't accurate? Yeah that's true. And yes they use it to measure the age of the Earth. They measure "Age of fossils" with it. Are fossils not part of the Earth? Enlighten me....

 

[SlyPokerDog]

God could have used old rocks to make the earth.

If I use a bunch of Legos from the 1960's to make a toy robot my robot is still a new creation, I just used old parts to make it.

 

[ABM]

God could have used old rocks to make the earth.

If I use a bunch of Legos from the 1960's to make a toy robot my robot is still a new creation, I just used old parts to make it.

Yep.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Or if after seeing Silence of the Lambs if I decided to make a skin suit out of old ladies as long as I stretched the skin real tight I would look like a MILF.

 

[crowTrobot]

Mention that Carbon 14 isn't accurate? Yeah that's true. And yes they use it to measure the age of the Earth. They measure "Age of fossils" with it.

it's useless for measuring anything beyond 50000 years or so.

 

[ABM]

Or if after seeing Silence of the Lambs if I decided to make a skin suit out of old ladies as long as I stretched the skin real tight I would look like a MILF.

You'd really want to? Hmmm.........

 

[SlyPokerDog]

You'd really want to? Hmmm.........

I'm just trying to explain how God could have made Eve out of old dinosaurs.

 

[ABM]

I'm just trying to explain how God could have made Eve out of old dinosaurs.

Actually, He did. ~Genesis 1:32

 

[magnifier661]

God could have used old rocks to make the earth.

If I use a bunch of Legos from the 1960's to make a toy robot my robot is still a new creation, I just used old parts to make it.

That makes sense. I love Legos!

 

[TripTango]

it's useless for measuring anything beyond 50000 years or so.

Which is still well beyond the 10,000 years proposed by Young Earthers. But yes, it certainly doesn't provide the upper bound of scientific estimates.

And I hear you regarding "reproducible", but again, the procedures leading to the recovery and analysis of evolutionary evidence are entirely reproducible. You don't necessarily need to see a smoking gun to figure out that a bullet was fired.

 

[TripTango]

God could have used old rocks to make the earth.

If I use a bunch of Legos from the 1960's to make a toy robot my robot is still a new creation, I just used old parts to make it.

And hiding all those fossils in there like Easter eggs was certainly a nice touch. That crazy ol' god -- such a practical joker!

Either evolution is true, or god did one hell of a job making it appear to be so.