Jump to content

Dinosaurs And The Bible.


Recommended Posts

I posted the website with a direct link to the articles on dating techniques...check them out so you can see where the creator of the website is coming from in his distaste for the current dating tools
I read through some of the articles in the site that you posted, and I have some problems with them. I will try to address some of the concerns that were brought up.1. Either one or several authors attempted to show flaws in both radiocarbon dating and potassium dating by testing the dates of objects of known age. In one article, a man tested the age of wood that was supposed to be several million years old using radio carbon 14 dating and was surprised when he found that the date of the wood was about 30,000 years old. Another scientist attempted to use potassium dating to date a recently erupted volcano, and was surprised when the result obtained was about 1 million years in age.My problem with these problems is that the scientists are clearly extending the dating methods beyond their capacities. As even the author admits, carbon 14 dating is not supposed to be used to date something for than several tens of thousands of years old, as the half life of carbon is small enough such that after several ten thousand years, all carbon in a sample would have decomposed. Similarly, the potassium method is supposed to measure many millions of years, so of course an attempt to measure a rock that is merely hundreds of years old will result in error. Though the error in dates seem quite large, I would wager that the actual errors in the measured quantities are much less than the errors in dates would suggest. The radioactive decay of elements works on a logarithmic scale so, taking the example of the million year old wood dated using carbon 14 dating, the difference in carbon present between a piece of wood that is tens of thousands of years old and one that is millions of years old is quite small. Both numbers are quite close to zero and therefore any outside contaminations come to have a much larger effect in comparison to the accuracy of the dating. The same applies for the potassium dating of the rocks. The difference potassium decay after a day and after a few hundred thousand years is miniscule. I would not be surprised if the given results were within margins of errors. These claims are quite ridiculous by anyone who has any sense of how radiocarbon works or any sense of statistics.2. Another claim as a means of undermining the effective nature of radioactive decay dating is the concept that dating relies on a constant rate of decay for the elements involved. The criticism is that we can not be sure that the rate of decay that we predict is the actual rate of decay in nature and that this rate is the same rate that has take place throughout the age of the EarthOf course, this claim is nonsensical. The half life of radioactive decay is an easily obtainable quantity using quantum mechanics. In 1928, George Gamow demonstrated theoretically how alpha decay, a type of radioactive decay similar in theory to the decays used to date objects, works. I won't go too deep into the quantum mechanics, but by using the WKB approximation of the coulomb potential created by atomic nuclei, one can derive the probability of quantum mechanical tunneling through this barrier, which would result in radioactive decay. This probability along with the frequency of the particle "attempting to escape" based on its average velocity is used to derive the half life. To claim that the half life can arbitrarily change would be to claim that quantum mechanics, easily the most proven theory (or rather set of theories, or whatever you want to call it) of all time would be wrong. Again, this claim is absurd. Rather, it is beyond absurd.3. Another claim is that every type of dating method is inherently inaccurate because it makes too many assumptions about the original levels of elements within the samples and about which elements found in the present date versions of the samples actually came from decay.This concern is easily the most valid of those presented, and is the greatest source of error involved in this type of dating. However, scientists have many methods for determining which elements came from decay and which were originally present. For example, let’s consider uranium. The many different isotopes of uranium decay into different isotopes of lead (Pb). However, one particular isotope of lead, Pb-204, does not come from any form of uranium decay. Therefore, scientists can measure the level of Pb-204 and they will know that this level did not come from decay but rather was present during the formation of the rock. They can use the abundance of pb-204 to calculate the abundances of the other isotopes of Pb in the sample and can subtract these numbers from the total about of PB isotopes found in the sample to learn how much Pb arose from decay. This is just an example, but scientists have many methods to attempt to remove sources of error. Indeed all types of radio-dating come with their own sources of error and therefore any result obtained from these types of dating is by no means exact but rather comes with an error. However, throughout MANY tests of rocks from the Earth, from meteorites, and even from the Moon, scientists have come up again and again with an age of the Earth of about 4.5 billion years. This is an age that is obtain over and over and over and over and over again all around the world. Yes, the exact age determined varies slightly from test to test. However, going from 4.5 billion years to 5 thousand years to fit with the literal interpretation of Genesis is ludicrous. As an aside, I would just like to say how easy information is to obtain with the slightest effort and a little research. I’m glad that Mattnxtc posts links and sources so the conversation can actually move in some direction as we analyze and discuss these sources. Using links and facts to back up claims is the most important part of a discussion. Even though this is just a poker internet board, we can still maintain some level of intelligent discourse, and backing up claims instead of blindly shouting ideas is one way to ensure a civil and proper discussion.To read more:http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/han...37/radiodte.htm
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well, God could have created the electromagnetic waves emanating from the stars all the way in between the stars and the earth and throughout all of space all at once when he created the rest of the universe. Of course, evoking Occam's Razor...
Yes, I actually realized this theoretical "problem" of my argument....okay Dawkin's argument, in my words. But saying "God did it" is not a valid explanation. If somebody makes wild claims which are in opposition to scientific findings and backs them up with "God can do anything," I cannot respond. They have not won the argument, but have killed it. I cannot disprove their statement any more than they can show its validity. It is an essentially irrelevant statement when made in regards to the physical properties of the universe.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I read the site, and all I see are a few counterexamples and a couple things that this guy doesnt like about the system. I see absolutely no proof that carbon dating is, in general, incorrect.Maybe if you could find an unbiased source. That offers some type of empirical proof.This site only says that it was wrong once, so we should ignore the thousands of tests on known dated elements that came back to be true?I find his conclusions completely ridiculous. The author of this site is very closed-minded. He's doing the same thing he accuses the scientists of doing, making unreasonable assumptions.
I am not exactly sure of what article you read...but I know in a few I saw it made the point of saying that often if the scientist assumes it shoudl be that time period they accept it..if not they dont accept it...Again I dont know if thats true or not as that is my field of study but if thats true then it has to throw the system into doubt...again...thats what the articles claim...would be interested to know if this is true or not
Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not exactly sure of what article you read...but I know in a few I saw it made the point of saying that often if the scientist assumes it shoudl be that time period they accept it..if not they dont accept it...Again I dont know if thats true or not as that is my field of study but if thats true then it has to throw the system into doubt...again...thats what the articles claim...would be interested to know if this is true or not
what is in doubt is the precise accuracy and consistency of individual dating methods in individual cases, and that's all the articles on your site point out. there will always be discrepancies or anomalies with these methods, because they frequently AREN'T precise in some cases, and (contra what your site implies), science does not claim they are 100% precise or rely on them to be to form conclusions.what is NOT in doubt is the overall correlating old-earth picture that all dating methods bring together - not just radiometric, but also methods comparing timing of geologic processes measurable today to the past. none of the articles on your site refute an old earth picture, they just pretend that the lack of precision in individual cases is significant to the overall picture when it's not.
Link to post
Share on other sites
what is in doubt is the precise accuracy and consistency of individual dating methods in individual cases, and that's all the articles on your site point out. there will always be discrepancies or anomalies with these methods, because they frequently AREN'T precise in some cases, and (contra what your site implies), science does not claim they are 100% precise or rely on them to be to form conclusions.what is NOT in doubt is the overall correlating old-earth picture that all dating methods bring together - not just radiometric, but also methods comparing timing of geologic processes measurable today to the past. none of the articles on your site refute an old earth picture, they just pretend that the lack of precision in individual cases is significant to the overall picture when it's not.
Hey im not arguin for young earth...was just tryin to keep the discussion goign by tossin out what i assume is the opinion of the website
Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey im not arguin for young earth...was just tryin to keep the discussion goign by tossin out what i assume is the opinion of the website
So you didnt believe the evidence (i.e. the website) you posted? :club: How could you possibly judge how legitimate the evidence is, if you didnt trust in it yourself.Please let the young earth people do their own research.
Link to post
Share on other sites
So you didnt believe the evidence (i.e. the website) you posted? :club: How could you possibly judge how legitimate the evidence is, if you didnt trust in it yourself.Please let the young earth people do their own research.
A few things Petoria...I wasnt the OP....I merely provided a link to the website so that everybody would have background information to understand where the intial post was coming from. I have said so many times in this thread that I dont know what i believe on this yet as it is not an area I have or am doing research in
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah what's the deal with the OP. He posts a ridiculous essay, and then just takes off. I guess he's not interested in defending it...
I dont know I havent had the pleasure of listening to the creator of the website...I would like to hear him speak on this subject since this is what he is known for whether for the good or bad. I cant really defend him since he would know a bunch more about this then i do...I just want yall to at least see where hes comin from
Link to post
Share on other sites
what is in doubt is the precise accuracy and consistency of individual dating methods in individual cases, and that's all the articles on your site point out. there will always be discrepancies or anomalies with these methods, because they frequently AREN'T precise in some cases, and (contra what your site implies), science does not claim they are 100% precise or rely on them to be to form conclusions.what is NOT in doubt is the overall correlating old-earth picture that all dating methods bring together - not just radiometric, but also methods comparing timing of geologic processes measurable today to the past. none of the articles on your site refute an old earth picture, they just pretend that the lack of precision in individual cases is significant to the overall picture when it's not.
Here is a theory I have, and realize it's just a theory but could offer some semblance of a reason why biblical timing does not jibe with somewhat proven scientific method. It says " In the begining, God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was without form, and void." A couple scriptures later it begins going into detail of what he did,after " the spirit of God moved across the waters." There is no reason why there could not have been some sort of large amount of time between the materials that were used to make earth being here and the Earth actually being a usable planet. If I tested the wood in my grandmothers rocking chair it would be a lot older than the rocking chair actually is, but we already know that the material is older than the object itself. So, the point is when testing is done on earth objects we coud be just testing building materials, that had just been sitting around in a cosmic workshop for millions of years. Any thoughts? (I guess I don't really have to say that!)
Link to post
Share on other sites
Here is a theory I have, and realize it's just a theory but could offer some semblance of a reason why biblical timing does not jibe with somewhat proven scientific method. It says " In the begining, God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was without form, and void." A couple scriptures later it begins going into detail of what he did,after " the spirit of God moved across the waters." There is no reason why there could not have been some sort of large amount of time between the materials that were used to make earth being here and the Earth actually being a usable planet. If I tested the wood in my grandmothers rocking chair it would be a lot older than the rocking chair actually is, but we already know that the material is older than the object itself. So, the point is when testing is done on earth objects we coud be just testing building materials, that had just been sitting around in a cosmic workshop for millions of years. Any thoughts? (I guess I don't really have to say that!)
So are you saying that in between the 7 days in Genesis God took a break? As in, they aren't 7 consecutive days? Or are you saying that he created heaven and a void earth, and the seven days of the meaningful creation took place much later? I'm just trying to understand your theory.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Here is a theory I have, and realize it's just a theory but could offer some semblance of a reason why biblical timing does not jibe with somewhat proven scientific method. It says " In the begining, God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was without form, and void." A couple scriptures later it begins going into detail of what he did,after " the spirit of God moved across the waters." There is no reason why there could not have been some sort of large amount of time between the materials that were used to make earth being here and the Earth actually being a usable planet. If I tested the wood in my grandmothers rocking chair it would be a lot older than the rocking chair actually is, but we already know that the material is older than the object itself. So, the point is when testing is done on earth objects we coud be just testing building materials, that had just been sitting around in a cosmic workshop for millions of years. Any thoughts? (I guess I don't really have to say that!)
that's one i hadn't heard before. at least you're thinking :club: unfortunately it doesn't explain why there are fossils in 500 million year old strata.i don't really see the point anyway - if you're going to impose your own personal interpretation on genesis to make it match up better to modern scientific evidence, why not just go all the way and say evolution was god's plan for creating species? that's what many intelligent informed modern christians are doing, since unlike literal creationism that idea doesn't conflict with or impede science.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah what's the deal with the OP. He posts a ridiculous essay, and then just takes off. I guess he's not interested in defending it...
Excuse me Tim, but I do have a life other than checking this thread. I posted it yesterday and this is the first chance I have had to log an and see if there were any responses. First of all guys . . . I am not the author of this article. Some of you seem to think that I wrote it. I merely copied it and pasted it here.Secondly, I have no reason to sit here and try to "defend" what Ken Ham is saying. Yes, I am a Christian . . . but I am not going to force my beliefs down anyones throat. I posted this essay because I thought it would get a debate going . . . and it has.Personally I believe in a young Earth. That is my choice based on the information I have gathered through my walk. I think that Ken Ham makes some very good arguments in my opinion. But face it guys . . . both sides so to speak uses the same arguments. The bottom line is that neither scientists nor creationists can prove 100% how old this Earth is because they weren't there when it was formed. There are flaws in any method of dating which means that it can be wrong . . . period. Then there are those that can not believe the Christian "proof". The sad reality is that whether you believe in a young or old Earth you do so by Faith. You either have Faith in GOD that he created the Heavens and the Earth (like me) or you have Faith in whatever theory it is that you believe created the Earth (Big Bang, etc.). But you still believe by Faith that your theory is correct.Bottom line is they are called theories for a reason . . . nobody and I mean nobody on this Earth can prove without a shadow of a doubt either way how and when this Earth was created. Believe what you want . . . I choose GOD.
Link to post
Share on other sites

The word theory has nothing to do with whatever the theory states is true or not. Don't imply that because it's "just" a theory doesn't mean that it's true. That's not how it works.Science may not be able to prove the exact moment of creation, but it can keep refining, and more importantly, reject impossiblities. A young Earth is not possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
that's one i hadn't heard before. at least you're thinking :club: unfortunately it doesn't explain why there are fossils in 500 million year old strata.i don't really see the point anyway - if you're going to impose your own personal interpretation on genesis to make it match up better to modern scientific evidence, why not just go all the way and say evolution was god's plan for creating species? that's what many intelligent informed modern christians are doing, since unlike literal creationism that idea doesn't conflict with or impede science.
My point is that tesing is done on the materials, and if the materials have been here a very long time vs. thge time earth was actually created, we have a reasonable explanation as to why some scince doesn't biblically Jibe. As far as personal interpetation, it never gives a time frame until he strts building, and then he starts talking in terms of days. If anything I am just not assuming that everything happened all at once, like most christians do. In the beginning just states a start, and it says at that point earth had no form, void. Who knows how much time went from the point that the material for earth was here vs. when he actually made it. Hey, maybe science can help with that.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Excuse me Tim, but I do have a life other than checking this thread. I posted it yesterday and this is the first chance I have had to log an and see if there were any responses. First of all guys . . . I am not the author of this article. Some of you seem to think that I wrote it. I merely copied it and pasted it here.Secondly, I have no reason to sit here and try to "defend" what Ken Ham is saying. Yes, I am a Christian . . . but I am not going to force my beliefs down anyones throat. I posted this essay because I thought it would get a debate going . . . and it has.Personally I believe in a young Earth. That is my choice based on the information I have gathered through my walk. I think that Ken Ham makes some very good arguments in my opinion. But face it guys . . . both sides so to speak uses the same arguments. The bottom line is that neither scientists nor creationists can prove 100% how old this Earth is because they weren't there when it was formed. There are flaws in any method of dating which means that it can be wrong . . . period. Then there are those that can not believe the Christian "proof". The sad reality is that whether you believe in a young or old Earth you do so by Faith. You either have Faith in GOD that he created the Heavens and the Earth (like me) or you have Faith in whatever theory it is that you believe created the Earth (Big Bang, etc.). But you still believe by Faith that your theory is correct.Bottom line is they are called theories for a reason . . . nobody and I mean nobody on this Earth can prove without a shadow of a doubt either way how and when this Earth was created. Believe what you want . . . I choose GOD.
you are dead wrong. science is not a belief - unlike you (or Ham) it doesn't "choose" to believe anything and accepts nothing through faith. an old earth is not a theory - it is accepted as fact by science simply because the evidence for it is so overwhelming that there are no possible objective arguments against it.
Link to post
Share on other sites
My point is that tesing is done on the materials, and if the materials have been here a very long time vs. thge time earth was actually created, we have a reasonable explanation as to why some scince doesn't biblically Jibe.
i know what you were saying. that's why i said your theory doesn't explain why fossils are embedded in 500 million year old strata. if what you say is true animal bones would all be on the earth's surface, unless god is planting them for some reason :club:
Link to post
Share on other sites
Excuse me Tim, but I do have a life other than checking this thread. I posted it yesterday and this is the first chance I have had to log an and see if there were any responses.
I stand corrected.
Link to post
Share on other sites

FOOSE1, you really shouldve given credit in the OP to the author, rather than passing it off as your own. I'm not suggesting that you said you wrote it, but without evidence otherwise the most logical assumption is that you wrote it. I give you a C+ on the article bc of poor citation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
FOOSE1, you really shouldve given credit in the OP to the author, rather than passing it off as your own. I'm not suggesting that you said you wrote it, but without evidence otherwise the most logical assumption is that you wrote it. I give you a C+ on the article bc of poor citation.
Petoria . . . I give you an F- on reading then. I did not pass this off as my own are you serious? Please re-read the opening paragraph please . . .I took a class years ago on creation versus evolution. The class was taught (through video) by Ken Ham. Ken Ham is considered an expert on the topic of creation and the book of Genesis. His articles are always very well argued (from the Christian perspective). This is a fun topic and hope you all enjoy it. If you would like to read more of his articles you can go to www.answersingenesis.orgDinosaurs and the Bibleby Ken Ham An aura of mystery surrounds the dinosaurs . . . . . . . . . . . . . by Ken Ham . . . Seems pretty clear to me.
Link to post
Share on other sites
So are you saying that in between the 7 days in Genesis God took a break? As in, they aren't 7 consecutive days? Or are you saying that he created heaven and a void earth, and the seven days of the meaningful creation took place much later? I'm just trying to understand your theory.
I am saying that it states in Genesis that in the Begining God created the Heavens and the Earth, the Earth was without form, etc.- it doesn't pick up till 3 or 4 scriptures later, when it states that God "moved over the surface of the water" and then he kind of gets down to buisness. Now, my point is this- many christians look at this as literally the begining of the earth, but it doesn't say that. Maybe it's actually speaking of the begining of everything, time, space, matter, whatever- and then later on he makes Earth. Now, it doesn't say that either, it doesn't really elaborate too much until it gets too the 7 days. My theory, if you will, is that the material was put in place long before he actually did anything with it, and this is why we get such skewed numbers but in fact the numbers are not skewed, they are right on, just as my analogy with the rocking chair. Does that make sense?
i know what you were saying. that's why i said your theory doesn't explain why fossils are embedded in 500 million year old strata. if what you say is true animal bones would all be on the earth's surface, unless god is planting them for some reason :club:
If the earth was indeed completely flooded at one point there would be alot of things buried where it should not be, not to mention we are still dealing with methods of dating materials that are, while not inaccurate hardly accurate- margin for error is huge.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I am saying that it states in Genesis that in the Begining God created the Heavens and the Earth, the Earth was without form, etc.- it doesn't pick up till 3 or 4 scriptures later, when it states that God "moved over the surface of the water" and then he kind of gets down to buisness. Now, my point is this- many christians look at this as literally the begining of the earth, but it doesn't say that. Maybe it's actually speaking of the begining of everything, time, space, matter, whatever- and then later on he makes Earth. Now, it doesn't say that either, it doesn't really elaborate too much until it gets too the 7 days. My theory, if you will, is that the material was put in place long before he actually did anything with it, and this is why we get such skewed numbers but in fact the numbers are not skewed, they are right on, just as my analogy with the rocking chair. Does that make sense?
Sort of, but it just sounds more and more like you're grasping at straws in an effort to show that Christianity isnt wrong. The more we learn about how the universe works, the harder creationists have to work to make it fit a picture that involves God.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Sort of, but it just sounds more and more like you're grasping at straws in an effort to show that Christianity isnt wrong. The more we learn about how the universe works, the harder creationists have to work to make it fit a picture that involves God.
I'm not grasping at anything- it was a theory, remember? I'm not going to argue or make a case for it, I just said it was something I had considered. Now, if we were to look at Genesis, we would see that indeed my " theory " is possible, at the very least. Then, you would say the exact thing you did, and it just proves that really, non creationist don't thrive on answers, they thrive on the lack of. As long as you can't prove anything, they are happy. And to be honest- I have never worked hard to prove that God created the Earth, it is pointless. Certain aspects of our society will just question and question until the day they die, and that is that. There is no possible way I can make/help somebody believe if they don't want too, it CANNOT happen. That is the very definition of free will, God gave it to you. Enjoy.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not grasping at anything- it was a theory, remember? I'm not going to argue or make a case for it, I just said it was something I had considered. Now, if we were to look at Genesis, we would see that indeed my " theory " is possible, at the very least. Then, you would say the exact thing you did, and it just proves that really, non creationist don't thrive on answers, they thrive on the lack of. As long as you can't prove anything, they are happy. And to be honest- I have never worked hard to prove that God created the Earth, it is pointless. Certain aspects of our society will just question and question until the day they die, and that is that. There is no possible way I can make/help somebody believe if they don't want too, it CANNOT happen. That is the very definition of free will, God gave it to you. Enjoy.
Well it was a hypothesis, theories have been proved or at least have a large amount of evidence supporting them.I'm sorry to disappoint, but we (non-creationists/ scientists) are the ones coming up with answers, creationists are the ones who are reinterpretting evidence so that it fits their views, and propose non-scientific, illogical viewpoints.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...