 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Eddy Tiner
Ferret
Joined: 17 Dec 2003
Posts: 120
Location: Dallas, TX
|
 Posted: Sun Feb 29, 2004 6:18 am Post subject: Science, research, history, proof, and all that |
 |
|
A common claim of anti-evolutionists is that radiocarbon dating might not be accurate. One line of thinking says that the rate of decay may not have been constant, so that whatever evidence we see in carbon today, there are no valid conclusions we can draw concerning the past. A number of other similar lines of reasoning exists.
But take a look at this:
http://channels.netscape.com/ns/news/package.jsp?name=fte/biblicaltunnel/biblicaltunnel&floc=wn-ns
Here, scientists are using radiocarbon dating as evidence to support a claim in the Bible. What are anti-evolutionists now to do? To rejoice in this moment of science and religion being in concert would mean validating a scientific tool they have previously been happy to attempt to discredit. But to continue questioning the validity of radiocarbon dating is to refuse to accept the beauty of the way in which both science and religion together reveal the glory of God.
I truly do not envy the position of anti-evolutionists, as fraught with inconsistency and contradiction as such a worldview is. Personally, I thank God that he reveals himself through both science and religion. Perhaps Paul put it best. "Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse." (Rom 1:20).
God talks to us through science, folks. And that includes evolution. Are we listening? If not, we are "without excuse." |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Smilin' Jacks
Pit Bull
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 354
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2004 7:03 am Post subject: Re: Science, research, history, proof, and all that |
|
|
| Eddy Tiner wrote: | Personally, I thank God that he reveals himself through both science and religion. Perhaps Paul put it best. "Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse." (Rom 1:20).
God talks to us through science, folks. And that includes evolution. Are we listening? If not, we are "without excuse." |
If I recall correctly it is written in Proverbs that we are to seek Him "all ways". That to me is inclusive of science, and many other disciplines frowned upon - mysticism, the study of other sacred texts, etc... 8)
_________________
All things are good that lead to God |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 7003
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2004 9:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
1 Cor 2:15 But the spiritual man tries all things [he [7] examines, investigates, inquires into, questions, and discerns all things], yet is himself to be put on trial and judged by no one [he can read the meaning of everything, but no one can properly discern or appraise or get an insight into him].
We are instructed to 'try all things', with the guidance of the Holy Spirit
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog
Psa 118:8 It is better to trust and take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Apollos
Not So Newbie
Joined: 25 Jun 2004
Posts: 8
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 25, 2004 2:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Eddy Tiner wrote: | | A common claim of anti-evolutionists is that radiocarbon dating might not be accurate. One line of thinking says that the rate of decay may not have been constant |
The statement you are presenting is misleading by making it appear that biblical creationists (or bible believing anti-evolutionists) have been proven wrong.
There are three main assumptions which go into any dating method / technique. The one you list above is one of the three. The three assumptions are:
1. The starting parent and daughter element ratios is 1:0.
2. No outside factor has injected or removed (i.e. altered) part or all of the daughter element.
3. The decay rate is constant.
You are correct in your statement that science is indicating that our calculated decay rates are constant. However, biblical creationists are not making their case on this assumption. The problem with the dating methods is that we do not know what the starting ratio of parent and daughter elements were. In addition, the dating methods do not, and cannot account for a global catastrophe such as the great deluge described in the time of Noah. These dating methods assume that historically there have been no major catastrophes. II Peter does a good job addressing this:
| II Pet 3:3-6 wrote: | | Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished |
This is exactly what scientists are doing today when they take uniformitarian approaches and scoff at the idea of a global flood. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gbunty
Alley Cat
Joined: 28 Jun 2004
Posts: 182
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2004 9:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Apollos wrote: | | Eddy Tiner wrote: | | A common claim of anti-evolutionists is that radiocarbon dating might not be accurate. One line of thinking says that the rate of decay may not have been constant |
The statement you are presenting is misleading by making it appear that biblical creationists (or bible believing anti-evolutionists) have been proven wrong. |
Well, they have been--on scientific questions, anyway.
| Quote: | | You are correct in your statement that science is indicating that our calculated decay rates are constant. However, biblical creationists are not making their case on this assumption. The problem with the dating methods is that we do not know what the starting ratio of parent and daughter elements were. |
In most cases we do. Some methods depend on there being no daughter element to start with (Potassium-argon) and it is known how that can be verified. Carbon 14 depends on the ratio of C14 in the atmosphere at the time the organism lived. This can be checked out by cross-referencing dates with the atmosphere trapped in ice cores. In other cases, the intial ratio can be checked on the basis of isochrons.
| Quote: | | In addition, the dating methods do not, and cannot account for a global catastrophe such as the great deluge described in the time of Noah. These dating methods assume that historically there have been no major catastrophes. |
That is not the case at all. The dating methods do not assume a lack of catastrophe either. Most radio-metric measures require vulcanism or an equivalent event to produce enough heat to melt rock as only fully melted rock can be the starting point of many radio-dating techniques. So in a sense, they require catastrophes.
That Noah's flood was global was disproved by 1850, long before scientists even discovered radio-active minerals or the possibility of radiometric dating. Even before the publication of Origin of Species, in fact. So even the theory of evolution had nothing to do with disproving the global extent of the flood.
| Quote: | | This is exactly what scientists are doing today when they take uniformitarian approaches and scoff at the idea of a global flood. |
A uniformitarian approach does not say a global catastrophe is impossible. It does say that the laws of physics are the same everywhere in the universe and at all times. Therefore catastrophes leave evidence of their occurrence.
Catastrophes such a meteor impacts leave evidence. Catastrophes such as earthquakes leave evidence. Catastrophes such as the collision of continents (via plate tectonics) leave evidence. Catastrophes such as the collapse and reversal of the magnetic poles leave evidence. And catastrophes such as floods leave evidence.
There is plenty of evidence of many floods in the geologic record. But no evidence of a single, global flood. That is the conclusion that devout Christian scientists, diligently looking for evidence of the Deluge, came to over 150 years ago. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Apollos
Not So Newbie
Joined: 25 Jun 2004
Posts: 8
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2004 9:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Gbunty –
The way you are describing scientific answers is very general and is conveniently ignoring that science, in the disciplines we are writing about, utilizes interpretation. Science interprets facts and where facts are missing, assumptions have to be made. When assumptions are made, an answer is not absolute. There is only one absolute authority on what the correct answer is.
The ‘Christian scientists’ you are referring to, that have ‘proven’ the Deluge a fallacy, are interpreting the gathered facts with a faulty world view. These scientists cannot be Bible believing scientists because they take a stand that the Word of God is wrong. The Word of God clearly states that there was a global flood that will never occur again. I think you should really reconsider restating your above statement using ‘compromising Christian scientists.’ This would be a more accurate representation of the individuals you write of. I am curious though, which individuals you are referring to.
When an individual looks at the facts through the Bible; the fossil record, sedimentary deposits, and other data confirms a global flood that destroyed its inhabitants. On the other side of the coin, if an individual looks at the facts with a uniformitarian and naturalistic world view, the facts can give a different interpretation. BOTH approaches require the use of assumptions that cannot be proven today, because the event occurred in the past. Thus, without any higher authority to confirm assumptions, one cannot be absolutely sure of the interpretation. The decision resides with the individual to choose between man’s theories or God’s Word.
Regarding your dating methods comments, you state that in most cases we know the starting ratios. You fail to state that we only know the starting ratios for decay processes witnessed and recorded in recent history. Applying this knowledge back any further than current history is applying uniformitarian principles and denies the possibility that God may have created igneous rocks with a specific ratio. Please note that I am not taking a dogmatic stand on what the ratios were. I do not know and the Bible does not state it. But it is important to recognize that science does not have the ability to tell us either.
Regarding your comment that dating methods take into consideration catastrophes, I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I agree with you that catastrophes are an inherent part of decay process starting point. However, I am referring to a catastrophe occurring during the decay process. The dating methods assume a closed system. This means that nothing has interfered with the decay process – adding to or taking away daughter elements or increasing the decay rate during a catastrophe following the starting point of the decay process. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gbunty
Alley Cat
Joined: 28 Jun 2004
Posts: 182
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2004 1:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Apollos wrote: | Gbunty –
The way you are describing scientific answers is very general and is conveniently ignoring that science, in the disciplines we are writing about, utilizes interpretation. Science interprets facts and where facts are missing, assumptions have to be made. When assumptions are made, an answer is not absolute. There is only one absolute authority on what the correct answer is. |
Actually, assumptions usually come first. They are then tested to see if they are reliable assumptions. Science does not interpret missing facts. Where there is no information to be analysed and interpreted, science is silent.
So science interprets known facts on the basis of assumptions which have been proven reliable in past experience. Got anything better to suggest?
| Quote: | | The ‘Christian scientists’ you are referring to, that have ‘proven’ the Deluge a fallacy, are interpreting the gathered facts with a faulty world view. |
Yes, they were. They were using the world view known as creationism. They believed the universe had been created about 6000 years ago (4004 BCE to be exact) in a period of six 24-hour days. And that early in the history of human civilization, there had been a global flood in which only eight persons together with many animals had survived. They looked diligently for the geological evidence of this flood. Their discoveries led to the conclusion that no such evidence existed. In fact, some of the actual discoveries in the geological record were flatly contradictory to the possibility of a recent global flood. Hence, being convinced that the creation of God does not lie, they concluded that the flood referred to in the book of Genesis was a relatively local flood which formed the basis of a grander story about God and God’s people.
| Quote: | | These scientists cannot be Bible believing scientists because they take a stand that the Word of God is wrong. |
For the most part, they subscribed to evangelical Christianity. Some of them were also clergy. The sincerity of their Christian convictions is not doubted by any historian or biographer. You might read some of their biographies. Perhaps that of Rev. Adam Sedgwick to begin with.
One exception was Louis Agassiz, who was a Deist, not a Christian. But he was also a convinced creationist and opponent of evolution even though he himself proved that the last global disaster on earth was the Pleistocene Ice Age which ended about 10,000 years ago.
I mention these people because they are historic evidence that the falsification of the global flood theory did not come about because people were seeking justification for atheism or for anti-biblical ideas. Their world-view was based on the bible; the point of much of their scientific work was to come to a better understanding of God through the study of creation. Yet, it was devout people like these who proved the flood was not a global catastrophe.
| Quote: | | When an individual looks at the facts through the Bible; the fossil record, sedimentary deposits, and other data confirms a global flood that destroyed its inhabitants. |
Only if they use the Bible to filter out inconvenient facts. IMHO, that is a misuse of the Bible.
| Quote: | | On the other side of the coin, if an individual looks at the facts with a uniformitarian and naturalistic world view, the facts can give a different interpretation. |
No, the facts don’t support different interpretations. They support only the correct interpretation. However, certain assumptions about the nature and character of God can influence interpretation. For example, if one assumes that God is of such a character as to insert false and unreliable evidence into creation, one can spin any story one wishes about what creation says.
| Quote: | | Regarding your dating methods comments, you state that in most cases we know the starting ratios. You fail to state that we only know the starting ratios for decay processes witnessed and recorded in recent history. Applying this knowledge back any further than current history is applying uniformitarian principles and denies the possibility that God may have created igneous rocks with a specific ratio. |
So, basically, you support the thesis that God has not created a world that operates according to discoverable and rational laws of physics. You support the thesis that given certain temperature and pressure, sometimes a rock will melt and sometimes it will resist melting. So we can never be sure when we put iron ore in a furnace whether or not we will be able to make steel from it, since we never know from day to day what its melting point will be. It all depends on what God decides today.
Or do you also contend that God was only whimsical in the distant past and has become the author of natural order in historical times?
In either case, you set yourself against historical Christian belief which has always asserted that God is a God of order, not confusion.
| Quote: | | Please note that I am not taking a dogmatic stand on what the ratios were. I do not know and the Bible does not state it. But it is important to recognize that science does not have the ability to tell us either. |
Science has the capacity to tell us whether or not an igneous rock was fully melted at the time of its formation, or whether it contains remnants of older, incompletely melted rock (xenoliths). It can also tell us the consequences of each situation so long as one assumes that the fundamental laws of physics were applicable at the time.
Naturally, if God at any time chose to set aside the fundamental laws of physics and use miracle instead of natural process, science could not be aware of that. However, since the fundamental laws of physics apply to a great many more phenomena than radio-activity, the likelihood is that the consequence of setting them aside would be the destruction of all creation.
Theologically, it does not seem reasonable to suppose that it is so important to God to fool some modern scientists about the age of certain geological strata that God would destroy the universe to do it. Kind of pointless anyway, since in that case there would be no scientists to question what the age of a rock is.
| Quote: | | Regarding your comment that dating methods take into consideration catastrophes, I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I agree with you that catastrophes are an inherent part of decay process starting point. However, I am referring to a catastrophe occurring during the decay process. |
What sort of catastrophe would affect the decay process? We know it would not be affected by a flood, for example. Nor is it affected by heat, pressure or magnetism. The decay rate has been found to be constant even in stars. No earthly process has ever been found that affects it. That includes all the sorts of disasters of which we have knowledge.
| Quote: | | The dating methods assume a closed system. This means that nothing has interfered with the decay process – adding to or taking away daughter elements or increasing the decay rate during a catastrophe following the starting point of the decay process. |
No, they do not assume a closed system. As noted above, scientists have tested the rate of decay under many different circumstances. That was done precisely to find out if and how it was affected by variations in light, heat, moisture, pressure, etc. IOW, what environmental factors would cause it to change. That is not assuming a closed system.
In undisturbed rock there is no way any elements could have been added or taken away. So, only undisturbed rock is used for dating purposes. Had a catastrophe occurred subsequent to the initial formation of the rock which would contaminate the evidence, there would be geological evidence of the catastrophe, and the researcher would know the rock is not suitable for dating.
There is a possibility of contamination in gathering and handling the samples. But there are also tests to determine whether or not such contamination has occurred.
Finally, if all else fails, there are still the results themselves. Contaminated samples yield anomalous results which give away the fact that the sample has been contaminated. It is known when results are anomalous because it is standard procedure to use more than one testing method in more than one lab.
So no, there is no presumption of a closed system. But there is a methodology for determining what types of rocks are suitable for dating purposes, for avoiding and detecting contamination, and for assuring that a date is accurate through multiple testing and cross-referencing with known dates. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
