As far as I know, Carbon-14 dating isn't precise. But it can give some amount of information on certain events. As far as the great flood is concerned, I'm pretty sure that most experts have evidence to believe that such an event did actually occur. That is, a large scale flooding of the area now regarded as "The Holy Land."
For a good overall view of the (possible) scientific evidence to back up a global flood (and the evidence against it), I highly recommend the website for the newsgroup talk.origins.
Scientific creationism (an oxymoron for sure) is just an attempt by Christian fundamentalists to get their ideas into schools by disguising their preconcieved notions as science. Hence, their version of the truth deserves equal time in science class. No way, but unfortuneatly their efforts pay off from time to time. If your math teacher wants to spew this crap in a religious studies class I could accept that, but its good he doesn't teach science and I hope he keeps his comments in math class to a passing amusement. (I figure any teacher gets to stand on their soapbox once a semester-no big harm).
I wonder what will happen if the Colorado river keeps flowing, cutting the canyon deeper and carrying silt out to sea? Ask him that.
If only two of each species survived the flood only a few thousand years ago, how come the genetic differences between indviduals is so great?
How come spread in the mid-oceanic rifts, due to new crust formation, has been measured when these rifts were supposed to be made by some crazy water mechanism?
How come radioactive decay is completely predicatable?
Why do I have an appendix?-sloppy job God.
Don't get me started on the junk DNA and the indadequacy of the human birth canal. You'd figure on the last day of creation that the kinks would have been worked out a bit better.
I leave you with this image: Imagine Noah collecting a pair of each insect spiecies to put on the ark-that's a lot of jars.
It's precise, what is being argued over if weather it is accurate. The different atmosphereic conditions kept cosmic rays less N14 or something from becoming C14 and so there was a different amount of carbon in bones then now. But since we don't know how much was in them then, we use bones now as an estimate.
His words not mine.
Quote:
Originally posted by Carson O'Genic
I leave you with this image: Imagine Noah collecting a pair of each insect spiecies to put on the ark-that's a lot of jars.
I think that even if those people that don't believe in evolution in the fullest (life from no life, major speciation events etc) probably still except the existence of DNA, genes and at least some basic aspects of genetics. (Those that don't are so lost it's not even worth discussing.) My point is that if you study the DNA then you can see that there are differences within species and that these differences are due to minor changes in the DNA. We can also measure the rate of these changes and show that they are fairly slow under most conditions. Thus, the degree of genetic change is proportional to time (there are quite a few details I'm leaving out here but the general point still holds true). Thus, the degree of genetic change within species is already more in most cases than can be accounted for by a few thousand years of life on Earth. Example, dogs that exist today are beleived to come from about 10 different progenitor breeds 10-12 thousand years ago (http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994682). This one little example already gets us in trouble with the whole creation/flood time line.
As a fundamentalist Christian who is fairly confident in Biblical Inerrancy (i.e. there are no *mistakes* or untruths in the bible) I personally find most, if not all, of "Creation Science" repulsive. I mean, in high school, a friend of mine was telling people about some guys theory that the flood waters in question were not *under* the earth, but surrounding the earth in a giant shell of ice, which blocked solar radiation thus prolonging human life. I mean, yes, I believe that if God wanted to, he could make it happen, but our scientific responsibility is to determine exactly what he made to happen, not cook up some freaky theory which serves no purpose other than to undermine the credibility of anyone who calls themself a Christian.
(stops, takes a breath)
As a scientist (well, I'm not *really* a scientist, but I can pretend) I think we should step back, and take a close look at just how sketchy much of our evidence for *anything* is. Essentially, our scientific discoveries constitute a working model of the evidence, and not something worthy of worship in itself.
As for the flood story? As far as its authors were concerned, the flood covered the whole world, and God inspired some guy to build a giant boat to keep his family and some food safe.
W.r.t the Apple/PC numbers game vs. the whole idea of "corroborating evidence", all those PC users don't constitute multiple peices of evidence, they're just multiple measurements made by the same broken instrument
As a fundamentalist Christian who is fairly confident in Biblical Inerrancy (i.e. there are no *mistakes* or untruths in the bible) I personally find most, if not all, of "Creation Science" repulsive.
(snip)
That's a great analysis. I think it's good to look at the Bible as an interpretation of God's word as passed down to man. Obviously, the humans who wrote the Bible couldn't understand some of the concepts that are common knowledge today. So God left them in the dark about various things, and we have been discovering more and more of those mysteries since then.
It is folly to look at the Bible as a scientific text. It isn't one, and it was never meant to be one. The people who wrote it knew very little about science compared to what we know today. But that doesn't mean that science must contradict religion as a rule. You could say that they are totally separate, or that they are somehow linked and each is an essential part of the other. I think it is a bad idea to totally eschew the viability of one because you think it fundamentally disagrees with the other.
DISCLAIMER: I don't actually believe in God, so I don't personally think that the Bible is the word of God. However, I think it's a good concept, and that's why I posted this.
I think we should step back, and take a close look at just how sketchy much of our evidence for *anything* is. Essentially, our scientific discoveries constitute a working model of the evidence, and not something worthy of worship in itself.
You are very correct in stating that our description of evolution and the mechansims of evoultions are a work in progress. However, the evidence is not sketchy. It's called the theory of evolution because there is so very much evidence that it is way beyond hypothesis. That doesn't mean the whole thing has been explained in every detail-nor will it likely ever be. The origins of life are a particular tough nut to crack since it all happened at least several billions of years ago and replicating chemical reactions don't exactly leave a fossil record to work with. All we have to work with are the commonalities of all life on Earth from which we derive hypotheses on what the first forms of life might have looked like. We also have the ability to test chemical reactions and conditions in the lab.
One interesting problem is figuring out what are the exact conditions under which life developed. It used to be people talked about shallow warm pools of organic chemicals and then it turned to undersea vents away from meteor impacts. Some of the oldest types of life forms appear to be the extremophils that like it hot, salty etc. Then there is always the life started somewhere else and then came here hypotheses, ehich means it could be anybody's guess of what the conditions were like. I've come across more than one scientist who beleives in evolutions ant all the rest but turns to God to fill in the blanks a few billion years ago. To me, that seams to be the more complicated and far fetched of the possible explantations. To each his own.
. But that doesn't mean that science must contradict religion as a rule. You could say that they are totally separate, or that they are somehow linked and each is an essential part of the other. I think it is a bad idea to totally eschew the viability of one because you think it fundamentally disagrees with the other.
I agree with this. Religious texts and the discoveries of science are two of our species' coolest achievements.
On a side note I wish that fundamentalists would choose to see the majesty and beauty of the work of God in the discoveries of science rather than trying to convince themselves that He wasn't as cool as He so obviously must be. It must really piss God off.
Quote:
Oh, just look, you twats. I made this for you and you've got your nose in a book.
Science and any creation story/description of how the universe works is the only place where shit hits the fan between religion and science. They operate in completely different realms and thus far moralization from science hasn't taken hold (when it has, things became disasterous -- the holocaust, social darwinism, PETA ). The nature of science currently is to avoid forming a moral structure based upon it; at the same time, religion doesn't need a creation story or describe how the universe works for its teachings to mean something. I will admit that I am an atheist, but at the same time I am not anti-religion per se. It does a great deal of good in maintaining what has become known as the social contract and religion (well, religious customs -- think circumcision, the body/blood of christ...) is as near to that hypothetical document as you can get. I also think religion has its flaws and i don't believe the founders of the various religions ever predicted the coming of fundamentalism (the idea of taking a book, translated and rewritten of course, or particular teachings to their most illogical extreme).
I think it is far more beautiful to think of the storied history the religions have taken under the leadership of different people. How we ended up where we are is fundamentally related to the actions taken by people in regard to their religion and not at all related to the ever changing words and interpretations of the religious documents...
.....shit hits the fan between religion and science.
--there's that CLEVER distinction agian, somehow your metphysics count as "science" while mine do not.
Your "science" (let's use your distinction for just a moment) is wrought with a hundred times the controversy that my "religion" is. In all reality your "science" takes more faith than my "religion".
Your "science" (let's use your distinction for just a moment) is wrought with a hundred times the controversy that my "religion" is. In all reality your "science" takes more faith than my "religion".
That's only because of your distorted perception. You've been exposed to so much FUD about modern science that you don't even give it a chance. I admit that there are too many scientists who don't give religion a fair chance, but you're just as bad for not giving science a fair chance.
In a perfect world, scientists would realize that religion isn't inherently wrong just because it doesn't appear to make sense at first glance, and religious people wouldn't see science as infringing on their faith. But that doesn't happen, because of atheist and religious fundamentalists.
Your "science" (let's use your distinction for just a moment) is wrought with a hundred times the controversy that my "religion" is.
Wrong. My science is wrought with millions of times, nay, billions of times more controversy than your religion. The thing is it doesn't matter (and I kind of like it that way). They don't replace eachother. I don't think you get it. Religion and science operate on intrinsically different bases. Religion provides some moral structure. Science provides rational (evidenciary) explainations for natural phenomena.
You are arguing with the wrong scientist (and I am a scientist doing real research into things your bible doesn't even begin to describe)....
In a perfect world, scientists would realize that religion isn't inherently wrong just because it doesn't appear to make sense at first glance, and religious people wouldn't see science as infringing on their faith. But that doesn't happen, because of atheist and religious fundamentalists.
Couple of things:
Not all scientists are atheists.
Scientists do not think about religion (unless they are religious) on a day to day basis at all. So to suggest that they necessarily think that religion is wrong (what has it got to be wrong about?) is a bit absentminded.
An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in, most fundamentallly, a deity. This has nothing to do with science or even the practical concerns of religion. Christianity doesn't need a god to function as a religion (perhaps the customs would seem absurdist, but they already do even when considering that there might be a god) and science doesn't need the almost purely speculative big bang to continue to function in its realm.
What most judeo/christians don't understand is that the very idea of the beginning of the universe is decendent from genesis. In all practical considerations, there is no need for the universe to have ever began...
--there's that CLEVER distinction agian, somehow your metphysics count as "science" while mine do not.
Your "science" (let's use your distinction for just a moment) is wrought with a hundred times the controversy that my "religion" is.
For a start, there's nothing wrong with 'clever'. If you have to get all sniffy about 'clever' you're off on the wrong foot. Right there.
Anyway.
'Metaphysical' means 'beyond the physical'; it is a de facto synonym for 'spiritual'. 'Your metaphysics' cannot possibly, by definition, be 'science'. billybobsky's not dealing with metaphysics but observations of the physical world. Yours are not.
If the processes of Creation Science were testable there would by the same amount of 'controversy' as there is in real, proper science. That is the nature of research. That's how it works. People theorise, they test, they disagree, they come to a consensus. Creation scientists would still be scientists. (There aren't any Creationist research units and peer-reviewed journals, though, and it has been proved beyond axiom that the world was not formed in the way the Bible says and that Genesis is no more correct than the creation myths of the Native Americans or the !Xung San of Southern Africa.)
Your religion is not mainstream Christianity (and scientists don't organise into factions to kill each other over differences in their working methods, I notice, so less of the accusations of 'controversy' if you please) and is based on one particular reading of the Bible, furthermore, so you can't even claim orthodoxy.
Finally, when we actually test the processes you claim formed the planet against what is demonstrably observable and repeatable we find that Genesis cannot possibly right.
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
In all reality your "science" takes more faith than my "religion".
This is incorrect. I'd dearly love to tell you what I really think of this sentence, but I'm on a (very gentle, friendly) warning from BuonRotto, so you'll just have to imagine I made you feel stupid.
I will say this, though: get your nose out of the Book and look at what God's made you. Why would you want to deny your Creator full praise for the awesome genius and beauty of His work, and the mind-blowing complexity of His methods? Based on what's in a book written by people who did not have the tools to understand it?
Comments
Originally posted by rampancy
For a good overall view of the (possible) scientific evidence to back up a global flood (and the evidence against it), I highly recommend the website for the newsgroup talk.origins.
Talk.Origins Archive: Flood Geology
There's also some good stuff in there on the issue of geological dating methods, too.
The Talk.Origins Archive: Age of the Earth FAQ's
This link is a goodie.
I wonder what will happen if the Colorado river keeps flowing, cutting the canyon deeper and carrying silt out to sea? Ask him that.
If only two of each species survived the flood only a few thousand years ago, how come the genetic differences between indviduals is so great?
How come spread in the mid-oceanic rifts, due to new crust formation, has been measured when these rifts were supposed to be made by some crazy water mechanism?
How come radioactive decay is completely predicatable?
Why do I have an appendix?-sloppy job God.
Don't get me started on the junk DNA and the indadequacy of the human birth canal. You'd figure on the last day of creation that the kinks would have been worked out a bit better.
I leave you with this image: Imagine Noah collecting a pair of each insect spiecies to put on the ark-that's a lot of jars.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
As far as I know, Carbon-14 dating isn't precise.
It's precise, what is being argued over if weather it is accurate. The different atmosphereic conditions kept cosmic rays less N14 or something from becoming C14 and so there was a different amount of carbon in bones then now. But since we don't know how much was in them then, we use bones now as an estimate.
His words not mine.
Originally posted by Carson O'Genic
I leave you with this image: Imagine Noah collecting a pair of each insect spiecies to put on the ark-that's a lot of jars.
7 days no less
Originally posted by dmz
Evidence bleached with faulty assumptions. Antarctica wasn't always frozen, neither was the Arctic.
So when in the last 6000 years wasn't the antarctic frozen?
Or are you challenging the teachings of the bible?
Originally posted by Carson O'Genic
If only two of each species survived the flood only a few thousand years ago, how come the genetic differences between indviduals is so great?
Ah, but evolution is a sham, at the same time.
D'oh. Slight problem there.
The sheer number of "Flood" stories that exist lends credence to the idea that it did happen.
AAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaa!!!!
You're here so you obviously know Macs are better than PCs right?
Originally posted by Kickaha
Ah, but evolution is a sham, at the same time.
D'oh. Slight problem there.
I think that even if those people that don't believe in evolution in the fullest (life from no life, major speciation events etc) probably still except the existence of DNA, genes and at least some basic aspects of genetics. (Those that don't are so lost it's not even worth discussing.) My point is that if you study the DNA then you can see that there are differences within species and that these differences are due to minor changes in the DNA. We can also measure the rate of these changes and show that they are fairly slow under most conditions. Thus, the degree of genetic change is proportional to time (there are quite a few details I'm leaving out here but the general point still holds true). Thus, the degree of genetic change within species is already more in most cases than can be accounted for by a few thousand years of life on Earth. Example, dogs that exist today are beleived to come from about 10 different progenitor breeds 10-12 thousand years ago (http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994682). This one little example already gets us in trouble with the whole creation/flood time line.
(stops, takes a breath)
As a scientist (well, I'm not *really* a scientist, but I can pretend) I think we should step back, and take a close look at just how sketchy much of our evidence for *anything* is. Essentially, our scientific discoveries constitute a working model of the evidence, and not something worthy of worship in itself.
As for the flood story? As far as its authors were concerned, the flood covered the whole world, and God inspired some guy to build a giant boat to keep his family and some food safe.
W.r.t the Apple/PC numbers game vs. the whole idea of "corroborating evidence", all those PC users don't constitute multiple peices of evidence, they're just multiple measurements made by the same broken instrument
Originally posted by dfryer
As a fundamentalist Christian who is fairly confident in Biblical Inerrancy (i.e. there are no *mistakes* or untruths in the bible) I personally find most, if not all, of "Creation Science" repulsive.
(snip)
That's a great analysis. I think it's good to look at the Bible as an interpretation of God's word as passed down to man. Obviously, the humans who wrote the Bible couldn't understand some of the concepts that are common knowledge today. So God left them in the dark about various things, and we have been discovering more and more of those mysteries since then.
It is folly to look at the Bible as a scientific text. It isn't one, and it was never meant to be one. The people who wrote it knew very little about science compared to what we know today. But that doesn't mean that science must contradict religion as a rule. You could say that they are totally separate, or that they are somehow linked and each is an essential part of the other. I think it is a bad idea to totally eschew the viability of one because you think it fundamentally disagrees with the other.
DISCLAIMER: I don't actually believe in God, so I don't personally think that the Bible is the word of God. However, I think it's a good concept, and that's why I posted this.
Originally posted by dfryer
I think we should step back, and take a close look at just how sketchy much of our evidence for *anything* is. Essentially, our scientific discoveries constitute a working model of the evidence, and not something worthy of worship in itself.
You are very correct in stating that our description of evolution and the mechansims of evoultions are a work in progress. However, the evidence is not sketchy. It's called the theory of evolution because there is so very much evidence that it is way beyond hypothesis. That doesn't mean the whole thing has been explained in every detail-nor will it likely ever be. The origins of life are a particular tough nut to crack since it all happened at least several billions of years ago and replicating chemical reactions don't exactly leave a fossil record to work with. All we have to work with are the commonalities of all life on Earth from which we derive hypotheses on what the first forms of life might have looked like. We also have the ability to test chemical reactions and conditions in the lab.
One interesting problem is figuring out what are the exact conditions under which life developed. It used to be people talked about shallow warm pools of organic chemicals and then it turned to undersea vents away from meteor impacts. Some of the oldest types of life forms appear to be the extremophils that like it hot, salty etc. Then there is always the life started somewhere else and then came here hypotheses, ehich means it could be anybody's guess of what the conditions were like. I've come across more than one scientist who beleives in evolutions ant all the rest but turns to God to fill in the blanks a few billion years ago. To me, that seams to be the more complicated and far fetched of the possible explantations. To each his own.
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
. But that doesn't mean that science must contradict religion as a rule. You could say that they are totally separate, or that they are somehow linked and each is an essential part of the other. I think it is a bad idea to totally eschew the viability of one because you think it fundamentally disagrees with the other.
I agree with this. Religious texts and the discoveries of science are two of our species' coolest achievements.
On a side note I wish that fundamentalists would choose to see the majesty and beauty of the work of God in the discoveries of science rather than trying to convince themselves that He wasn't as cool as He so obviously must be. It must really piss God off.
Oh, just look, you twats. I made this for you and you've got your nose in a book.
I think it is far more beautiful to think of the storied history the religions have taken under the leadership of different people. How we ended up where we are is fundamentally related to the actions taken by people in regard to their religion and not at all related to the ever changing words and interpretations of the religious documents...
Originally posted by billybobsky
.....shit hits the fan between religion and science.
--there's that CLEVER distinction agian, somehow your metphysics count as "science" while mine do not.
Your "science" (let's use your distinction for just a moment) is wrought with a hundred times the controversy that my "religion" is. In all reality your "science" takes more faith than my "religion".
Originally posted by dmz
Your "science" (let's use your distinction for just a moment) is wrought with a hundred times the controversy that my "religion" is. In all reality your "science" takes more faith than my "religion".
That's only because of your distorted perception. You've been exposed to so much FUD about modern science that you don't even give it a chance. I admit that there are too many scientists who don't give religion a fair chance, but you're just as bad for not giving science a fair chance.
In a perfect world, scientists would realize that religion isn't inherently wrong just because it doesn't appear to make sense at first glance, and religious people wouldn't see science as infringing on their faith. But that doesn't happen, because of atheist and religious fundamentalists.
Originally posted by dmz
Your "science" (let's use your distinction for just a moment) is wrought with a hundred times the controversy that my "religion" is.
Wrong. My science is wrought with millions of times, nay, billions of times more controversy than your religion. The thing is it doesn't matter (and I kind of like it that way). They don't replace eachother. I don't think you get it. Religion and science operate on intrinsically different bases. Religion provides some moral structure. Science provides rational (evidenciary) explainations for natural phenomena.
You are arguing with the wrong scientist (and I am a scientist doing real research into things your bible doesn't even begin to describe)....
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
In a perfect world, scientists would realize that religion isn't inherently wrong just because it doesn't appear to make sense at first glance, and religious people wouldn't see science as infringing on their faith. But that doesn't happen, because of atheist and religious fundamentalists.
Couple of things:
Not all scientists are atheists.
Scientists do not think about religion (unless they are religious) on a day to day basis at all. So to suggest that they necessarily think that religion is wrong (what has it got to be wrong about?) is a bit absentminded.
An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in, most fundamentallly, a deity. This has nothing to do with science or even the practical concerns of religion. Christianity doesn't need a god to function as a religion (perhaps the customs would seem absurdist, but they already do even when considering that there might be a god) and science doesn't need the almost purely speculative big bang to continue to function in its realm.
What most judeo/christians don't understand is that the very idea of the beginning of the universe is decendent from genesis. In all practical considerations, there is no need for the universe to have ever began...
Originally posted by sillybobsky
........Religion provides some moral structure. Science provides rational (evidenciary) explainations for natural phenomena.........
Your western education is catching up with you. You have bulldozed a path into existential nonsense.
-and-
When is comes to "rational (evidenciary) explainations".....
My science is wrought with millions of times, nay, billions of times more controversy than your religion.
....which, of course, proves how solid your science is.
Originally posted by dmz
--there's that CLEVER distinction agian, somehow your metphysics count as "science" while mine do not.
Your "science" (let's use your distinction for just a moment) is wrought with a hundred times the controversy that my "religion" is.
For a start, there's nothing wrong with 'clever'. If you have to get all sniffy about 'clever' you're off on the wrong foot. Right there.
Anyway.
'Metaphysical' means 'beyond the physical'; it is a de facto synonym for 'spiritual'. 'Your metaphysics' cannot possibly, by definition, be 'science'. billybobsky's not dealing with metaphysics but observations of the physical world. Yours are not.
If the processes of Creation Science were testable there would by the same amount of 'controversy' as there is in real, proper science. That is the nature of research. That's how it works. People theorise, they test, they disagree, they come to a consensus. Creation scientists would still be scientists. (There aren't any Creationist research units and peer-reviewed journals, though, and it has been proved beyond axiom that the world was not formed in the way the Bible says and that Genesis is no more correct than the creation myths of the Native Americans or the !Xung San of Southern Africa.)
Your religion is not mainstream Christianity (and scientists don't organise into factions to kill each other over differences in their working methods, I notice, so less of the accusations of 'controversy' if you please) and is based on one particular reading of the Bible, furthermore, so you can't even claim orthodoxy.
Finally, when we actually test the processes you claim formed the planet against what is demonstrably observable and repeatable we find that Genesis cannot possibly right.
Originally posted by dmz
In all reality your "science" takes more faith than my "religion".
This is incorrect. I'd dearly love to tell you what I really think of this sentence, but I'm on a (very gentle, friendly) warning from BuonRotto, so you'll just have to imagine I made you feel stupid.
I will say this, though: get your nose out of the Book and look at what God's made you. Why would you want to deny your Creator full praise for the awesome genius and beauty of His work, and the mind-blowing complexity of His methods? Based on what's in a book written by people who did not have the tools to understand it?