Slashdot Mirror
Questioning C-14 Dating
Malicose writes: "According to this article on PhysicsWeb, the reliability of carbon dating could be (even more) questionable (than previously thought). The reported study, which revolves around 11,000 to 45,000 year-old Bahaman stalagmites, could impact 'estimates of how quickly the Earth can re-absorb the excess carbon dioxide generated by fossil fuels.' Tests on these calcium carbonate samples revealed carbon-14 levels double their modern level during that time and extends the records of atmospheric C-14 levels some 30,000 years. Project leader and physicist Warren Beck of the University of Arizona believes 'we should take this as a warning that climate change may affect the carbon cycle in previously unexpected way.'"
Well, it is, isn't it? Read the Bible, it says so right there.
I agree. If people want to belive in fairies, Santa Claus, the X-files, gods, whatever then those are all prefectly valid options.
For example, some people might think it unlikely that computers were magicked into existence by the good fairies because they claim to "know" that they're made in factories but it's just a matter of faith. The naughty fairies are magicking people's minds to think that they're builidng computers, seeing other people build them, whatever. But try telling them that!
Remember just because your beliefs are utterly ludicrous to any thinking person doesn't mean they're not just as valid as ones based on reality.
Yes, C-14 dating may be unreliable after a certain number of years. However, radiological dating is not confined to such short-lived isotopes.
Note to old-earthers:
No, you don't have to worry. The earth is still 4.5 billion years old, as can be seen by our lack of Neptunium, for example.
Note to non-creationists:
Please refrain from just saying "creationist" when you really mean "young-earth creationist." (unless of course, you are a troll)
Thank you. You may now resume your calm and thoughtful discussions.
In short, dating methods are nowhere near as questionable as you think. See "The Age of the Earth: How do we know it?", "Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale", "Isochron Dating Methods", "Dating with Icecores" and so on.
Is it just me, or did they tack on a vague unexplained wanring about "climate change" just to get government grant money? The rest of the article describes an unexplained jump in C-14 levels (whether the level of all carbon or the ratio of C-14 rose is not stated explicitly) between 10k and 45k years ago, along with the implications for radiological dating. But nowhere is it described what, if anything, this tells us about the climate at that time (hint: it was DAMN cold) or what affect climate has on C-14 levels. One possible explanation could be that the oceans absorbed less carbon in total because they were much colder than today. But that would not really explain why C-12 would have been absorbed preferentially, or why there was an excess of C-14 to begin with. While there might be a lot of interesting things to consider about this mystery, the vague warning about "climate change" is junk science at its worst. The basic translation of the article is: "There was a lot of C-14 around a long time ago and we don't know why. Stop driving your car." When are scientists going to start doing science again?
Just like there's absolutely no way that light can travel through a vacuum or that planets besides the six known ones exist or that the galaxy Earth is part of is not the only one? Scientific "facts" are subject to change; the larger the scope of the "fact," the larger and more frequent changes will be. Basing a statement of absolute fact such as yours on a large number of current assumptions is foolish. While it appears that the lower bounds on Earth's age can be safely fixed above 450M years using several apparently reliable methods, the upper bound is much more difficult.
the universe isn't even nearly that old!
The age of the universe has not even been estimated with any accuracy. Current estimates range from 7-9B years to double that, and goings-on near to the time when the universe came into existence (by whatever method) are almost completely unknown; many apparently viable hypotheses exist but none explains fully the observations we make today. The only statement which can be made reliably is that the universe is not less old than Earth, although it's even conceivable that this statement is false as well depending on your definition of Universe.
Religions aren't as stable as you claim. Just look at the past five hundred years or so of Christian history. But I guess that's one of the differences between a religion and science: The best you're going to get from a scientist is the claim that a particular model fits all existing evidence. There are no secrets. There are no revelations. If new evidence invalidates the model, the model is either revised or discarded. I'd be lying to you if I told you that there wasn't dogmatic belief in the scientific world, but the idea is to keep it to a minimum, and that keeps everyone intellectually honest (at least).
For sure, science doesn't have all the answers. But at least they tell you that up front.
Rev. Dr. Xenophon Fenderson, the Carbon(d)ated, KSC, DEATH, SubGenius, mhm21x16
I'm proud of my Northern Tibetian Heritage
I mean that in the strictest sense of the term. I.e. The current estimates may be off by an order of magnitude in either direction.
Carbon dating has long been known to be unreliable. The simple problem is that while it can determine how much C-14 is left in an object and we have some idea as to how rapidly this stuff depletes, we still don't know how much C-14 was there to begin with.
My favorite example was the carbon dating of a body part from a living animal (may have been the gum of a sea lion but I read this 15 years ago so forgive my forgetfulness). This thing was measured at 30,000 years old or something equally ridicules.
It's just pure arogance for people to run around attaching an age when they know any tag is little better than a guess, and I speak of both the Christians and the sientists. Niether actualy has real facts despite what they claim.
I.e. The Bible doesn't actually attach an age to the earth either. It dose suggest that Adam was created 6,000 years ago however most people don't notice that man was created twice in the bible.
"On the 6th day, God made man. Male and female created he them".
"God took the dust of the earth and formed a man then breathed in him the breath of life".
If you assume that those really were 2 separate creations then suddenly things like Cane running away from home ( after killing his brother) and getting married to some woman in some other land make perfect sense.
However. Like I said, people are arrogant enough to think they know how old the earth is. Never mind that they don't even know how old Diana Ross is. (and she might be younger than the earth:)
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
Yep. At last someone explains how you manage to get ridiculus results. :)
How do you verify the other dateing methods?
How do they actualy work?
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
Thanks for the links.
I'll be reading for days.
In case you are wondering, I am one of those rare fools who thinks Evolution and Creation are not incompatible. Everything below is My Opinion.
God created the earth and all that dwell therin. However Evolution was one of the tools he used.
Some creatures didn't actualy evolve. The Duck Billed Platipus forinstance was likely created as a devine practical joke to confound sientists who were claiming they could clasify all living things. (It was descoverd mear decades ago)
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
Realy? I have never been there so I wouldn't know. Those yanks
who yack on the media seam prety polerised on this topic.
Yeah. still debateble as to what came from what. Serch Napster
for "The monkey speaks his mind".
Realy? I always thoght it was found in the 1870s.
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
Thus, this is actually further evidence against a "Young Earth" theory. If these results are true, we've been systematically underestimating the age of things dated using the C14 method...
--
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
--
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
--
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
One of the nice features of humans is that they're capable of learning. Anyone who still believes at age 20 the same things they believed at age 2 is probably mentally retarded. Likewise, any system of belief that still teaches the same "truths" today as it did 2000 years ago is likewise probably retarded...
--
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
You see, if the earth moved around the sun rather than the other way around, we would be closer to certain constellations at certain times of the year, and furthest from them 6 months later. (Which is indeed the case.)
Now, there are wonderful things like parallax and such that let you determine if this is indeed the case. When one is closer to the constellation, it should cover a larger angle of the sky, i.e. it should appear bigger, with it's stars further separated! And 6 months later, it should be smaller. This is all, of course, assuming the earth moves around the sun. If the reverse was true, constellations would remain constant in size.
Having noted this, the greeks looked at the constellations and noted they did not appear to change in size at all. Thus, the evidence clearly supported the geocentric view over the heliocentric view.
Now, one of the last greeks to continue to cling to the heliocentric model in spite of the evidence pointed out that, if the stars were really really really far away, it could be that the change is parallax would be too small to see. But others (correctly) pointed out that this was a post hoc explanation to try to save the theory, and really had no evidence to support it. Thus, heliocentric cosmology fell to the wayside until new evidence came along, much much later...
--
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
--
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
Men did'nt evolve from "monkeys". However, monkeys and men evolve from the same specie.
Now, as for christians, muslims and believers of all types ... I find it hard to believe that they've evolved at all. So many of them seem to be stuck in a perpetual middle or stone age.
--
How do I get government money to go study rocks in the Bahamas?
My other computer is your Windows box
Don't know about other religious etiologies, but at least from the biblical standpoint, the thought is that the universe was created in a mature state. In other words, people, animals, plants, geology, the stars and planets were all created in a full state of maturity. And when you think about it, it wouldn't have made sense for it to be any other way. I mean, if you have enough power to create the universe in a mere instant, why would you wait hundreds, thousands, or millions of years for everything to grow into a useful state?
yeah that one is great. check out this site too.
--
--
enterfornone - logging in for a change
Just ask Jack Chick, everyone knows the world is only 6000 years old so any carbon dating that says it's older is obviously wrong.
--
--
enterfornone - logging in for a change
Ah, yes, it all becomes clear now. At least four orders of magnitude in error is ``100% reliable''.
So... I've got a real nice bridge here, hardly used, previous owner (a little old lady) only ever drove over it on Sundays(*); it's got a good, steady revenue stream from the tollgates; no liability for suicides; magnificent outlook; as pictured on millions of postcards; easy terms available. Interested?
No wonder this coward is anonymous!
(*) on her way to the races
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
I wish CmdrTaco and co. would write some kind of script to figure out how much time the average /. reader takes between reading the story and submitting a comment. I would wager it's pretty low, given the responses to this story.
This is merely one study that brings to light a possible complication to assumptions made about c-14 uptake by organisms. That's it. It doesn't invalidate c-14 dating at all.
And aside from that, I simply can't understand why people argue religion vs. science. If you believe that God created everything, then who do you think made particles act the way they do? To make things interact in the way we observe them? God obviously. Then every theory we come up with is based on things God created. So why argue that they are somehow false? Our *interpretation* may be off (or wrong) due to previously undiscovered factors (as in this case), but the fundamentals (radioisotope decay) are correct. So if you believe in God, you must believe in that enormous mish-mash of facts and theories called "science".
i.e. It's all good.
Dennis
A Kuhnian scientific revolution this was not; ethical conclusions and implications were the main issue, not the breakdown of prior paradigms.
For that matter, Kuhn would probably be a good read for you - if you think science actually accepts the best theory to fit the facts in all but the most extraordinary situations, you could use a good shot of historic realism :-)
What we must be wary of is the assumption that scientific and objective truth are the same thing, that is, the assumption that scientific truth is exhaustive of objective truth; I always find it curious that there are "scientists" who pride themselves on making "as few assumptions as possible", and yet they base the entirety of their knowledge system upon this rather glaring leap of faith.
Of course, there's nothing inherently wrong with this assumption - it's a paradigm, and it produces a moderately coherent body of knowledge. But make no mistake, it is an unverifiable, unfalsifiable assumption.
This is the isotope carbon-14, not a 14 carbon hydrocarbon. Nice try.
To the contrary the scientific method is so
named because it is a method of establishing
facts through reproducible experimentation.
Religion and science only intersect when
religion tries to declare facts contrary
to observable evidence (by rejecting helio-
centrism, by holding to young-earth theories,
etc.) in which case it has entered science's
range of exploration and will be shot down.
Solipsism is a fool's paradise -- you must
accede that a bridge built by belief and
not by knowledge of physics & metellurgy
will not stay standing if it is built
contrary to the observed laws of physics.
You are attempting to transform science into
religious faith. This displays sad ignorance of
both. Your attempt to bring in evolution is
a non sequitir. But since you brought it up
I will point out that evolution is not a
matter of faith but of evidence. Scientists
accept the evidence for evolution as it is
the only conclusion which the evidence
logically draws one to.
Sigh. I will perservere in hopes of being heard.
You are trolling because you are making judgements
about science (denouncing Darwin) without
providing any rational supports for your
statements. The evolution of bats and dolphins
is well documented. I fail to see what is
so unusual about similar adaptation under similar
conditions, which is what the record shows in
both cases. In any case the bat is very different
from birds and the dolphin is very disimilar
from a fish. For one thing, it has lungs, for
another its limbs show clear evidence of land-
dwelling ancestors.
It seems to me that the crux here is that you WANT
darwin to be wrong. I apologize on behalf of the
universe for not being how you wish it to be.
Science is not a matter of belief, which is to say
faith. Evolution is not a matter of belief. I
do NOT "believe" that the Earth is 6 billion years
old or that evolution occured to bring
about modern species. I ACCEPT that these are the
theories supported by the preponderence of
verifiable reproducible research, discovery and
experimentation.
This is a different process from religous or
secular "faith". Science is different because
it is constantly admitting it is wrong,
working to disprove itself, etc. If evidence
arose that gravity only worked on tuesdays,
that mauve had more ram, etc, we would try
to understand these new facts and revise the
theories by which we understand the physical
world.
I am always offended to see sensationalist
headlines which take a science article
(which in this case is merely a refinement
of our knowledge about C-14 dating) and use
it as an excuse to act like the basis of
modern science is crumbling.
With science and rationalism under attack by
the powers of darkness in this country you
needs demonstrate better judgement! Too many
ignorant people use the lay press in their
campaign to keep the masses blind about
science, the scientific process, and attack
with non sequiters, misinformation and special
pleadings the real and firm bases for our
understanding of physics, geology and biology.
This article does NOT undermine the C-14 dating
process. A more apt title would have been
"Scientists refine accuracy of C-14 dating"
which is what they have in fact done.
No problem. All the c14 ages are need to be adjusted for fluctuations in c14, for source (atmospheric or marine) and in the case of coral, perhaps preferred incorporation of c14 over c13.
Basically, this will improve the calibration of c14 'ages' beyond the 9000 year curves that are available from the bristlecone pine records. This is a really really good thing.
Calibrated c14 dates take into account more that A c14 age determination.
The age determination is just how old is this assuming a certain starting ratio of c14/c13 and a decay rate. Nothing more.
The calibrated dates take into consideration the material, and the know fluccuations of c14. In some portions of the curve, a calibrated aged can span several centruies, even if the raw age only has an error or 20 or 30 years.
"Religion encourage blind faith, which is lulls the mind and stops the critical thinking process."
As a Christian, I take exception to this idea. We have such short memories.
We must have forgotten that many major breakthroughs in science were discovered by Christians.
Think of Galileo, Pascal, Kepler, and many many more who used scientific principles and thought to bring glory to the God they worship.
Science has as its basis the concept of reasonable thought - an ordered universe. This is entirely consistent with a Christian worldview.
BTW - If we're here as a result of random processes, how can you say that your thoughts are ordered?
Respectfully,
Anomaly
PS - God loves you and longs for relationship with you. If you want to know more about this, please contact me at tom_cooper at bigfoot dot com
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
"Natural selection is not random"
Umm. Did I assert that it is? The subject reads "Creationists" not "people opposing natural selection." I don't dismiss natural selection. It's an observable, repeatable process. Macro-evolution, on the other hand.....
"How do you know?"
For God so loved the world that he gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him might have eternal life.
John 3:16
You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly.
Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die.
But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
Romans 5:6,7,8
He does love you. He has your number, and His messengers. Consider this a ringing telephone, an email hitting your inbox, or a doorbell resounding.
I'm not God, just one of His millions of messengers - people following the commandment to go throough all of the world proclaiming Him. Slashdot just happens to be on my "delivery route."
Respectfully,
Anomaly
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
If you accept that the laws of physics as we currently estimate them to be even remotely correct, would you like to take a look at very simple computer programs which produce complexity from seemingly nowhere? I think it's called evolutionary computing, and I've yet to hear a sensible argument from creationists against it. No, "it's computers not real life" is not really that good, I think, as the parallels are evident.
-Kaatunut
- Kaatunut
And that would be?...
- Kaatunut
From the FAQ
"""
There is a recent creationist technical paper on this topic which admits that the depth of dust on the moon is concordant with the mainstream age and history of the solar system (Snelling and Rush 1993). Their abstract concludes with:
"It thus appears that the amount of meteoritic dust and meteorite debris in the lunar regolith and surface dust layer, even taking into account the postulated early intense bombardment, does not contradict the evolutionists' multi-billion year timescale (while not proving it). Unfortunately, attempted counter-responses by creationists have so far failed because of spurious arguments or faulty calculations. Thus, until new evidence is forthcoming, creationists should not continue to use the dust on the moon as evidence against an old age for the moon and the solar system."
Even though the creationists themselves have refuted this argument, (and refutations from the mainstream community have been around for at least a decade longer than that), the "moon dust" argument continues to be propagated in their "popular" literature, and continues to appear in talk.origins on a regular basis:
"""
--
Poliglut
I'm a creationist myself, but you cannot immediately disqualify the facts because they don't coincide with your personal belief system. I personally believe that dinosaurs really did roam the earth. The fact that modern man has lived on the earth for roughly 6000 years has little bearing on the age of the earth. Whose to say that god didn't create the earth 500 million years ago, start some dinosaur life to fetilize/flourish and then kill them off with a meteor. Wait for everything to warm up, create mankind. You can believe both things at once. From my viewpoint, the bible is accurate. Any inaccuracies are probably due to our own lack of understanding about the laws of nature or the dynamics of the universe.
I think our sample of time is far too small for the magnitude of time we're trying to measure.
Mike
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
> Ok Creationists, you can all sit down right now.
In related news, the Institute for Creation Research has announced that recent advances in theology require a correction to the previously established age of the earth. "We now realise that the earth is only 5342 years old, rather than 6005 as calculated by the traditional method," said ICR spokesman Lyle Lott.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
> Dirac: "So what would it look like if it were the other way around?"
LMAO.
> I just found out that Dirac was born in the house next door to me a few months ago.
Funny; I thought he was much older.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Mmmm. I wonder what would happen if you submitted a paper on, say, genetics, to a scientific journal, and in it cited another paper several centuries old in order to make a controversial point. I fear the new must supercede the old in science.
> "Prejudices based on current scientific theory act as a "knowledge filter," giving us a picture of prehistory that is largely incorrect."
What peer review actually does is endow science with a sort of 'inertia' that keeps it from turning aside at every claim every loonie makes. Sure, that raises the bar and makes people who discover something truly new have to work a bit harder to get their claims accepted, but the benefits of the system outweigh the disadvantages by many orders of magnitude.
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0892132949
From one of the reviews posted on that page:This is nice, too:And Flynn is a prominent paleontologist? Archaeologist? Anthropologist? No, sociologist.
Also revealing:> If you want to learn more about cristianity: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1862044724
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
> Modern genetics
Modern genetics supports evolution.
> lack of fossil evidence supporting evolution
There is an amazing amount of fossil evidence for evolution.
> cosmology
Irrelevant to the verity of evolution, unless you want to make ludicrous claims about the age of the universe.
> statistical look into the chance of life forming from a Big Bang
The big bang part is also irrelevant cosmology, and you didn't even bother to give us some made-up statistics, let alone some valid ones.
> etc, etc, etc.
The word "etc" does not bear much weight in science. You either have the evidence or you don't.
You don't.
If that your single most airtight disproof of evolution, evolution can coast now.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
> Yes, as always, the things scientists are so definately sure about (and use to prove other theories) turn out to be wrong. Just wait till we find out that man lived before and during dinosaurs, and that the most renound prehistoric fossils and cave paintings are just a few hundred years old.
Sounds typical indeed. Perhaps you were not aware that:
a) it is extremely rare that scientists, other than mathematicians, ever "prove" anything, or claim to do so, and
b) science is self-correcting by nature.
ps - A google on "scientific method" turns up 147,000 hits. Maybe you'll find one or two of them useful.
Feeding the Slashdot trolls since 1999 (or thereabouts).
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
> It's worth noting that intuition tells us that the sun goes around the Earth.
Of course our intuition tells us that. Did you expect it to lead us astray or something?
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Even if there were no Creationist postings on the topic at the time, it was inevitable that there would be eventually. One of the common misconceptions Creationists have, after all, is that so many of them don't know the difference between radioisotope dating and radiocarbon dating.
--
--
Do I look like I speak for my employer?
For the record, we don't have very definite evidence on the matter of bat evolution - bats are small and fragile and don't fossilize well. But we have some excellent fossil evidence on the land-based ancestry of cetaceans - and if mammals evolved from reptiles, it's not at all surprising that there may be egg-laying mammals (since the evolution of live birth and of mammary glands are not required to take place on the same timetable).
--
--
Do I look like I speak for my employer?
I notice you picked on the one thing I didn't claim to be able to do.
--
--
Do I look like I speak for my employer?
If you think that C-14 has anything to do with evolutionist or creationist theories, your private school isn't nearly as good as you think it was. Evolution deals on far larger time scales than C-14 can reach, usually using isotopes of minerals, such as uranium, potassium, etc.
--
--
Do I look like I speak for my employer?
Notice, however, that they specifically suspect that a supernova shock wave could have caused what they measured. I assume that their literature search revealed the 35 kyr-old Be-10 anomalies, which probably were caused by a supernova shockwave. Indeed, footnote 4 (page 17 of PostScript paper) of "Geological Isotope Anomalies as Signatures of Nearby Supernovae" refers to Raisbeck finding a rise in the C14/C12 ratio during the period of this stalagmite study.
You're both kind of missing the point (but don't feel bad, religions long claimed knowledge of first origins (some still do) and one branch of science - Cosmology - puzzles over the mystery of creation with the jury still out (and likely to remain so forever) so questions remain.
A good view doesn't pit science and religion against each other - it's not an either/or issue (Kansas Board of Education notwithstanding). Look, science is a _method_ not a set of beliefs. Religion is a socio-political construct - and I don't care _which_ religion one might choose, they're all the same in this very fundamental way. BTW - the separation of Church and State is a Very Good Thing in the US.
Religion is all about telling the mass population what to believe along the way to influencing how they _behave_. Everyone has to believe _something_, even if it's that they don't know what they believe (but that's a precarious state, not at all recommended for folks who get up and go to work every day, care for their families, etc.). But religion is mostly ethics in drag - fairie tales with moral points, plus some do's and don'ts (the 10 Commandments in Christianity, other rules in Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc.). Some of the rules are practical (not eating pork avoids trichinosis), pragmatic (not seducing one's neighbor's wife promotes civil peace, not to mention personal longevity), or simply self-reinforcing ("Thou shalt have no other God before me, sayeth the Lord." - well of course, what else would you expect the priests to say?). But mostly, religion is about ethics - how to act: care for your parents, love your spouse, raise the kids, help neighbors, deal fairly in business - all the stuff that _should_ be automatic for any rational person but that people somehow need reminding about.
Religion is also a social mileau in communities - hitch-hike into Salt Lake City and go to a Mormon church, let them know that you need work, you'll find a job - do the same without going to church, you'll be on welfare before you find a job at McDonalds. One might surmise that similar conditions govern life in Tel Aviv and Tehran (except those countries don't have US model immigration and unemployment safety-nets, so one might actually starve there first, unless luckily deported). But the point is religion is a venue for positive social interaction. Go to any place in the Third World without money or highly marketable skills (drug-dealing, gun-running, pimping), and avoid the local churches, and you'll soon wish you'd robbed a bank in the US and gone to a nice clean, warm, and dry prison instead.
Enough said - I've likely offended some Mormans, Israilies, Iranians, and perhaps others, all in one post - so I'll quit while I'm ahead.
Uh, er...
/can't/ use the isochron method to date once living material, which is what C14 is good for.
They weren't dating organic stuff directly (which is what you want to do with C14-dating, since it's produced continuously in the atmosphere (more or less constitutively, but that's what's being drawn into question here)) but had found some stalagtites thought to've formed during a certain period (through use of other means than C14-dating, presumably) that had more C14 than is expected to be found in mineral.
What they are claiming is some climatic event may have caused a bumper crop of organic slough, or something like that.
They weren't dating the stalagtites by C14, strictly speaking.
And you
So one wonders what you are talking about.
mefus
--
um, er... eh -- *click*
mefus
In Open Society, GPL Software frees YOU!
False dichotomy.
You assume that either your God or no god exists. Personally, I believe in ZZQRE, a God who hates all evangelicals and consigns them to listen to Amy Grant music for all eternity while showering scientists and others who used their ZZQRE-given minds with wonders.
Evidence for ZZQRE? About the same as for the Christian God.
Sure, I'm being satiric, but there are plenty of other belief systems out there besides yours.
Eric
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
Well, that would be the answer, then. Think of a pinniped that eats fish fattened on algae blooming from CO2 (and other nutrients) out of a deep water upwelling, like as the once fabulously fertile Grand Banks. Most of the C-14 in its food would already be several thousand years old. Not suprising that it would date older than expected.
You can get even more extreme results if you try to date shellfish growing around underwater oil seeps. The petroleum has dern near zero C-14 in it.
That's why there are well established rules on what can be successfully carbon dated.
IOW: ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.
--
"You've crossed my Line of Death!" "What? No! Where is it?" "Here in the fine print...."
Two points: Why do you think that finding inactivated genes in DNA is evidence against evolution? What about the cave creatures (newts, crickets, etc.) that have deactivated genes for producing eyes? Surely, not producing unneeded organs is an advantageous evolutionary step in the resource-starved enviornment of a cave.
Secondly, check out the following:
Observed Instances of Speciation for dozens of examples of living things that "crossed the species barrier" without human help and
29 Evidences for Macroevolution (I hate the word "macroevolution". It is too often abused by people who don't know any better -- or worse, by those who should.)
Not really. Our DNA seems to contain all kinds of junk, probably inserted by retroviruses, which are sloppy replicators. Again, a point for evolution or other non-optimal processes in the genome. Definitely a point against creationism -- even a first year bio engr. student could produce a cleaner genome, let alone a deity.
Now you're not even trying, just parroting things out of ICR tracts. ==Sigh==
There are a number of antibiotics that never existed until some chemist synthesized them. (Which ones? Don't remember; references not at hand.) You can't say that bacteria had enzymes to degrade them sitting around in "junk DNA" cold storage because they were totally new. Said antibiotics are remarkably effective for a couple years, or even decades. Eventually, some strains of strep evolve the ability to break down those antibiotics.
Bingo! Instant competitive advantage that is massively useful to the bacterium. It's more than just a "slight" positive change, it's a major breakthrough that gives that strain and all its decendents a big boost over competing strains of strep.
Is this too hard to imagine? But, you don't have to imagine it. Just read the reports on the antibiotic resistant strains of strep found around hospitals and shudder....
Really? I suppose the entire chain of fossils linking Hyracotherium (AKA Eohippus) to modern horses is all a product of my diseased imagination. Likewise, the fossil series for whales and other cetacians, lagomorphs (rabbits, etc.), condylarths (hoofed animals in general), etc.
Check out Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ or the less broad but more detailed Horse Evolution.
--
"You've crossed my Line of Death!" "What? No! Where is it?" "Here in the fine print...."
Well enough in practice. There's too much to talk about here. See Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale for an overview of general dating, and Isochron Dating Methods on using multiple isotopes to cross-check each other. There are some class notes: Module 2 and Module 4, if you're interested in the grisly details.
It's worth noting that isotope dating techniques had to prove themselves in the 1910's through '50s. They weren't just proclaimed as The Way by the Secret Evilutionist Cabal, as some have implied. 8^)
--
"You've crossed my Line of Death!" "What? No! Where is it?" "Here in the fine print...."
and a half life time of 5715 years.
___
Geek rants since like... 2000 or something.
Those people are Manicheans - and thus, heretics against their own faith. Read "A Case Of Conscience" for an interesting take on this. The science is a wee bit out of date, but it' still fun.
Become a FSF associate member before the low #s are used
And we know the Bible is right because God wrote it, and we know God wrote it because that's what the Bible says... oh wait ;)
Given enough religious brainwashing, anything is possible. Heck, if you can manage people to believe that there's a guy high above with a white beard that created everything, you can lead those people to believe pretty much anything else (that pork is not good, that working on sunday is evil, etc...)
Well given enough time, there's certainly a mathematical transformation that would change The Bible into Shakespear's "Romeo and Juliet", up to the comma.
:). Random chance ? Hell no ! The guys who found this first decided to look for the number 7, then arranged their method of searching/computing so that they would find lots of 7 in The Bible. I'm also sure the Bible is full of 7 letters long words. And 8 letters long word too. That's not a reason to claim that 7 (or 8 or 5) is "hiding" in this book either.
So one can always read a text in such a way as often to find the number 7 (or 9, 12 or even 42
is the number 7, which is mentioned over and over again in various relationships to God the number that this kind of numerology works with?
Hugh... 10 commandments anyone ? Anyway if there is an intent in putting "hiding" the number 7 in the Bible (which is doubtfull, as the only intent I'm sure is that people are looking for the number 7 and ready to use whatever skewed method of analysis to find it), it just shows the writers put the number 7 in there. Hey - I could write a text with the number 7 everywhere, it doesn't make me God or divine. It doesn't proove anything at all.
Actually it wouldn't be hard to write a book with only 7 letters long words only. As for as book without the letter 'e', Georges Perec (French author) has written a whole fiction without a single 'e', and if you know of often the 'e' is used in French you know what a feat this is.
Given that the plausibility of a guy that is invisible, that no one has ever seen except as described in very old books, and that is supposed to have absolute power and knowledge is about the same as the plausibility that unicorns exists, I'd say this requires a whole lotta more brainwashing that any wrong-science could ever need. You can check that the world is round (despite what most religions were saying) - you still can't check that God said this or that or that he exists either. That's the difference between brainwashing and checking the facts.
Other than as a curiosity specific to the dating or organic matter and archaelogical finds, this is irrelevant. Serious dating is performed with the Isochron method.
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
You could always go read some of their literature for yourself and find out that they're not lunatics, they just have different points of reference. Ooops, that would require an open mind.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
They don't post as AC's :-)
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
> expecting everyone to double check every piece of information themselves is not what you should expect.
If a person reads the bible, and believe it, they should apply the principles contained within, e.g. "prove all things" (Thes 5:21) comes to mind.
> The Bible should have been written better.
I agree. It was written by men, and contains mistakes.
> Now why don't you go and put more effort in that?
I'm not qualified to.
> Read the Bible, it says so right there.
*sigh*
I'm tired of people that can't even be bothered to *read* the orginal Hebrew and double check the translation. Gen 1:2 uses the Hebrew word "hayah" which means "became". It is used in over 600 places in the Old Covenant.
Next time, use proper exegisis instead of taking the words at literal value.
Good explaination of the hebrew words:
http://members.nbci.com/doulos/howold_earth.html
Gap Theory:
http://pages.prodigy.net/oweber/gapq.htm
Post #37 is an anti-creationist post that isn't even a reply? Talk about some high level CSICOP paranoia.
Well perhaps if you knew ANYTHING about the scientific method, and how it is epistemologically much more superior than the "revelation" of the bible, or any other source of religious faith, and if you didn't allude to tired old creationist arguments that have been shown to be fallacious time and time again (ie moon dust), then you wouldn't be a troll. Though I would have moderated you up as funny.
-------------
The following sentence is true.
The following sentence is true. The preceding sentence was false.
It's an attack against our intuition. Something like: "If our intuition could be so wrong about that, what makes you believe something just as far out of the human experience, based solely on your intuition?"
Ewige Blumenkraft.
I mean just because the Egyptian's Tale of Noh and his zoo boat are strikingly similar to Noah and his ark doesnt mean that the phrase "Love your neighbor as yourself" is worthless. Its a good way to live, reguardless of whether theres a heaven, whether you go there, or how much it costs to get in.
...
The only problem is that the bible also teaches some brutally horrible things as well, such as: the killing of homosexuals, limiting the rights of women, intolerance to other religions (evangalism), guilting children into believing they and their bodies are evil, and a lack of reliance on medicines. (links to follow when I get back from work) Now of course all religious people don't believe such things, and most don't agree with any other things that I mentioned, and aren't even aware of what is contained in their "holy bible" that they truck around with them. But if we could try to be "good" people without the christian baggage
The way I see it is that those that believe get their enjoyable experience from it, and those that don't should be protected under seperation of church and state.
sorry, isn't your email address say that you are from kansas state university? You should know too well what happens when blind faith takes hold too strongly in the education system.
-rt-
-rt-
** Evil Canadians are taking over the world. Learn about the conspiracy
I've had people tell me that "Satan put all the apparent evidence that the world is older than 6000 years. God looks at the whole thing as a test of your faith."
Some people (Not just creationists) will believe what they believe, no matter how much evidence there is for or against their beliefs.
I know. Those people are not the ones I am trying to reach; they are beyond help. There may be others that are not yet as brain-washed tho, who still may be reached by logic and reason.
/Dervak
The Bible never says that the earth is 6k years old.
I know. Yet many (not all) creationists still insists it is.
BTW, I am quite familiar with creationism and its arguments as my parents are creationists. Sigh.
We can work out that humans have been around that long, though.
Well, if you arbitrarily decide that the genealogical listings and lifetimes as stated in the Bible are utterly correct (despite even internal contradictions), and at the same time totally disregard not only other genealogical listings from, say, Mesopotamia and Egypt, but also massive amounts of archaeological evidence from all around the world, then I guess you could believe humans have only existed for 6k years.
But if you do, at least have the decency to admit it is blind faith and don't claim there is anything even remotely akin to scientific evidence supporting it.
Many Christians believe that the Bible leaves out a really long time between the creation of the Universe and then, taking the earth from a lifeless ball of earth and water, and making it into a habitable and life-fulled planet (which God can easily do in 6 days.. since He is God). So there :)
Yeah, I know all about that variant. While not quite as preposterous as saying the entire Earth is 6000 years old, it still conflicts with enormous amounts of evidence.
Besides.. you guys keep claiming that we're stupid to believe in a creator.
I personally claim no such thing. In fact, I believe in a Creator, or Creators. I am not a materialist. I just don't believe in JHWH, in the Biblical creator, or that the Bible is more truthful or accurate than any other old mythological text. I lean more or less towards a variant of Pantheism if anything.
From personal experience, I know there is a lot more to existence than materialistic science or traditional religions think. Of course this is valid evidence only for myself and I wouldn't dream of asking anyone else to believe this just because I say so. Everyone must walk their own path.
What about you believing that we grew into humans (and humans are really complex, study biology.. work on AI.. you'll get the idea) from.. rocks?! Sounds a lot more crazy to me.
Why? Why should the idea that there is an innate property in nature to turn more and more complex by itself be more crazy than the idea that there is an omnipotent God, to which no natural laws apply, who never shows himself, to which everything we can't explain is referred?
/Dervak
Not being the creationist at the other end of your sword i still think i ought to point out that there's a fairly large bit of scientific evidence to show that there really was a large oceanic swelling that coincides with glacial movements and 'ice age' cycles.
Sure there was, if you by "swelling" mean changes in sea level due to large amounts of water being bound up in ice sheets and later melting again. IIRC the worldwide sea level during the height of the last ice age was some 150 m lower than now, but the point is that those eustatic changes took a long time; thousands of years.
However, it is possible that some flood myths came from large-scale (but still not worldwide) flooding at the end of the last ice age.
You can thump your Geology book just as well as others can thump their bibles, but you at least ought to read it now and then.
And I do. The difference between thumping the geology book and thumping the Bible is that the geology book is based on empirical data and logic, whereas the Bible is based on old myths. In addition geologists admit that the theories the present are only models, which may be changed or updated as new facts demand it, something that can not be said of the Bible. It's defenders seem more keen on changing facts to suit the book.
/Dervak
Well, as it happens I have personally experienced telepathy (with my GF), but above all I have OBEs (Out-of-Body-Experiences) now and then. Have had a few hundred by now.
No, I can't do it at will, much less prove it to others, and I am not really interested in proving it either. I know what I have done. It is enough.
So now, let all prejudiced people call me crazy, deluded, a liar or a kook. It doesn't matter, the truth is still the same. Mind you, I am not "evangelizing" or trying to convince anyone else; I only tell this because you asked. In case anyone has a genuine interest feel free to email me about it.
Now, some may say that I am probably just dreaming. All I can say to that is that once you experience this there can be no question whatsoever that you are not. It is a state far more profound, sometimes more clear than waking life. And it is fun!
It really is an incredibly cool thing you know... being "out"... better than any drug high. What I could tell you... the things I have done... but most people would not likely believe it, so I won't.
/Dervak
So, if you have a very big eruption, say a magnitude 7, roughly every 10 000 years from a certain volcano, if you find ten ash layers from eruptions of that size it is not very unreasonable to think that the oldest one is ~1 million years old.
Oops, that should be ~100 000 years of course.
/Dervak
Ok Creationists, you can all sit down right now. This is not the proof that C-14 is wrong. The Earth is not 6000 years old. This is just a minor bug modifying the upper half of the C-14 dating scale somewhat.
If by any chance you listen to logical arguments there are lots of very good reasons why the Earth must be a lot older than old Bishop Usher thought. Even if you dismiss all radiometric dating as somehow unreliable - not only C-14 but Potassium-Argon and the others too - there are still other methods by which we can see that the Earth must be vastly much more old than the Bible says.
For instance, sedimentation takes time.
One example is clay layers in the deep ocean basins. Tiny clay grains that have come from rivers slowly settle in the still waters of the ocean basins. The beds generally grow less than 0.1 mm in thickness per year, and the clay beds may be many kilometers thick - this gives an age of many tens to perhaps more than a hundred million years.
Now, many creationists will say that most of that clay was deposited much faster during the supposed Flood. But that won't work - you see, clay will not sediment at all if it isn't very calm and it always does it very slowly. Also, the thickness of the beds increase linearly away from the mid-ocean spreading ridges, in perfect agreement with the slow (1-10 cm/year) seafloor spreading. The same principle of slow sedimentation also applies to large river deltas, which may be many km thick too.
Erosion and weathering also takes time.
A typical valley glacier erodes its bed and sides with roughly 1 mm/year, and the U-valleys can be many km deep. Rivers slowly eat their way down into the rock - how long does it take to wear a mountain range down? How long does it take for chemical weathering to slowly eat its way down to hundreds of m of depth in the very bedrock?
Volcanoes ash layers are another way of dating. The exact date you get from other methods, like historical accounts, C-14, ice cores etc. - but relative dating is very easy, which ash layer is above the other? There is an approximate power-law for volcanic eruptions; the larger the longer the interval between. So, if you have a very big eruption, say a magnitude 7, roughly every 10 000 years from a certain volcano, if you find ten ash layers from eruptions of that size it is not very unreasonable to think that the oldest one is ~1 million years old.
Now, of course eruptions can come closer in time to each other, the period isn't totally fixed, but if, say, two eruptions were close to each other in time you can tell, because then there will be no fully developed earth horizon on the lower layer. It takes thousands of years for chemical weathering, leaching and nutrient uptake by plants to form a mature earth horizon.
All these maethods say is that the Earth must be at least a few hundred million years old, probably older. To get the 4.8 billion years number you will have to use radiometric dating, but there is something else supporting that too.
Theoretical models of the evolution of stars say that the sun is roughly 5 billion years old, and is is reasonable to assume that the Earth formed roughly the same time.
So, in the end the 4.8 billion year value seems quite certain. It is possible future research will find out that it really is 4.7 or 4.9, but the overall picture is clear, no matter what creationist Bible-thumpers say.
/Dervak
What is more disturbing to me is I still don't see how this is Troll material. Perhaps moon dust was disproven. big deal. The timetable still has to be screwd by flying (bats), swimming (dolphins), and duck billed mammals that lay eggs. I'm sorry Darwin WAS WRONG. So you have some new timetable that is better than the last? fine, then that is what YOU believe. but it still JUST A BELIEF, And no matter how we wish to be correct, we MAY be wrong. How many evolutionists will say that? Creationists?
Three choices here folks.
1: Religion
2: Science
3: Just don't care enough to think about this. aka.. Science. Why? Religion requires effort. It's easier to believe science because at no time are you accountable for what you believe.
But this is prolly more Troll material. huh.
Sit... Speak.... Shake.... Good Dog!
And just to be clear. In the same 6 billion years, Life developed in the mud, becake single celled creatures, became fish, crawled onth the land became reptials, became mammals, crawled the water took on all the likenesses of the other fish and became a dolphin? this screws the timetable .. all I'm saying is that we all could be wrong. Can I get agreement on that?
I'ts early, need to go to work. Please excuse me if my argument was not as clear as it could have been.
Sit... Speak.... Shake.... Good Dog!
Having said that, I don't think either side of the evolution debate can claim a victory here. As noted, "We should take this as a warning that climate change may affect the carbon cycle in previously unexpected way." In other words, the humanist jury is still out.
Two out of three are from non-creationist publications. I regret that these are a bit old, but observations do not become false with the passage of time.
snail statement
Keith and Anderson, "Radiocarbon Dating: Fictitious Results with Mollusk Shells," Science, Vol. 141, 1963, p. 634.
trees statement
Haskins, Caryl P., "Advances and Challenges in Science in 1970," American Scientist, Vol. 59, May-June 1971, p. 298.
lava flows statement
Lammerts, W.E., Why Not Creation?, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1973, p. 388.
How long is one polarity stable? How long does it take to change polarity?
To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
"we should take this as a warning that climate change may affect the carbon cycle in previously unexpected way"
This strange assertion is completely bogus and doesn't follow from anything written in the article. Climate is not mentioned anywhere else in the article and seems to have no connection with the actual research being done. It seems that Mr. Beck knew he would get more press coverage if he added some hip buzz words to his comments.
If the stalagmite had been immersed in sea water for a while, possibly some modern carbonate penetrated the structure and stuffed up the 14C readings.
Yes, as always, the things scientists are so definately sure about (and use to prove other theories) turn out to be wrong. Just wait till we find out that man lived before and during dinosaurs, and that the most renound prehistoric fossils and cave paintings are just a few hundred years old.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
I often question why I date carbons. Especially C-14. I mean, if she were ever to miss 10 molecules, I'd be in a terrible mess, trying to explain why my date just blew half the diner up.
Ahh, the pains of dating compounds...
-Aaron
Doesn't matter. The cretinists will still just see the headline and ignore the rest. That a date could be a bit wrong will just mean "it is wrong." This will be just more misinformation to feed the minds of those who don't want to question their faith.
this post should have been modded -1, offtopic. Or -1 troll.
My post should have been moderated -1 offtopic, as should every other post on this subject.
Sure this should be "All your base pair are belong to us" ?
--
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
What are the fundamentalist lunatics going to say now? Earth is 6k years old?
"Over the centuries, researchers have found bones and artifacts proving that humans like us have existed for millions of years. Mainstream science, however, has supppressed these facts. Prejudices based on current scientific theory act as a "knowledge filter," giving us a picture of prehistory that is largely incorrect."4 9/ qid=989804640/sr=1-1/ref=sc_b_1/107-6727476-364456 2
2 4/ qid=989804768/sr=1-1/ref=sc_b_1/107-6727476-364456 2
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/08921329
If you want to learn more about cristianity:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/18620447
I think that there are two main problems with the creationist agenda. I agree with you that there is much in religion, including Christianity which is valuable and worth preserving. Sadly it seems to me that those bits which are worth preserving are not those bits which are typified by the creationist viewpoint.
The second problem is that christianity is by definition an evangelic religion. Now I am a professional biologist. I don't ask anyone to believe what I say. Take it or leave it is my opinion. This is sadly not reciprocated. The number of times that I have been attacked for suggesting a Darwinian explanation for some phenomena is untrue. Of course I have a choice in this matter. I can just restrict myself to non US boards (which is the only developed country with a strong creationist movement). However many of my colleagues work in the US and get rather tired of the whole thing. Under these circumstance a desire to disillusion (or disabuse) people of creationist notions seem understandable.
Phil
The article talks about the very old dates being affected (like 50,000 yo) No scientist aware of the limitations of the method would quote dates older than 30k yo without further verification. Typically these are backed up by further methods such as thermo-luminesence, and stratification.
I mean just because the Egyptian's Tale of Noh and his zoo boat are strikingly similar to Noah and his ark doesnt mean that the phrase "Love your neighbor as yourself" is worthless. Its a good way to live, reguardless of whether theres a heaven, whether you go there, or how much it costs to get in.
The way I see it is that those that believe get their enjoyable experience from it, and those that don't should be protected under seperation of church and state.
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
I have a little question to all the people who believe in macro evolution. If on one bad day we discover proof that macro-evolution is not posible, how hard would it be for science to accept this? What if macro-evolution theory goes the way the flat earth theory went?
All the evidence shown until now only points out that micro-evolution is happening as a directionless variation within the specie. But do we truely know what a specie is? What are the bounds and limits of micro-evolution? Can we really use the proof of micro-evolution as proof of macro-evolution?
How difficult will it be to change the standard paradigma? What if the DNA research gives proof that it is not posible that humans and chimps have a common ancestor? How would such evidence be seen and interpreted? Are we really so much more scientific that the generations before us? Would we accept the failure of a theory most hold so dear? I don't know, but I hope we are honest enough to accept the evidence no mater on which side it falls.
And I'm not even talking about the facts that we still don't know how life came to be in the first place (theory is not fact).
The key to real science is not to go looking for the things we want to be true, no doubt we will bend unknowningly the facts to fit the believe. Real science it about finding the real facts, as they are. Why must science be with out a God? What if there is one? Shouldn't real science then reflect this? Just think about this even if you don't believe in a God, consider it for a moment. What if there was a God and you would refuse any scientific report that claims this, would you then be scientific?
Micro-evolution is the proces by which a specie adapts to its enviorment (but keeps to be the same specie): adaption. Macro-evolution is the theory that trough micro-evolution new species develop: 'ceation' of new species.
Disclaimer: I hold true that there is a God who created everything in the begining (which is at least 10^12 years ago), and also created life (between 10^6-10^5 years ago give or take a little (I wasn't there)). I also hold true that species evolve (micro evolution) but that this is without direction and reverseable. I am not convinced about macro-evolution.
What I cannot create, I do not understand
There is information on the creationist side. They have no evidence. All they can say is Goddidit!
Creationists are modern-day equivalent of flat-earthers...
Except that the platlets weren't found fresh.
Read some actual science books for a change, instead of cretinist lies...
Ah. The old mis-represent the data trick. Hawaiian lava dated as ancient is pure urban legend by the creationists, snails (all aquatic animals actually) don't get the carbon in their bodies directly from the atmosphere (and so can't be carbon dated), and as for trees, I'll need details before we can debunk you on them (I'm reasonably confident since you have already had two strikes, you will round it out with a third).
The article states that the issue is that C-14 levels were higher than expected for various ranges of dates. This implies that if you were to carbon date things from those date ranges, they would appear younger (have more C-14 than expected) than their true age. And it scarcely casts doubt on C-14 dating. What it actually does is calibrate it better by telling you its range of validity.
Given that the plausibility of a guy that is invisible, that no one has ever seen except as described in very old books, and that is supposed to have absolute power and knowledge is about the same as the plausibility that unicorns exists
Please be aware that the books about me are not *that* old.
Dancin Santa
Sure we can infer certain things about past climatology, and use that for a basis on how to 'age' things based on C-14 dating, half-life decay, etc., but that still does not mean that it is even accurate. The reason for this is because it may be possible that the 'data' (be they geological, atmospherical, molecular, etc.) may have been 'recorded' in a different manner than that which we see today. There may be so many parts per million of carbon in living things for the past 10,000 years, but past that maybe the parts per million were drastically different. Basically, I find that it is scientifically irresponsible to look backwards in time past about 10,000 yrs because we have no data to tell us of the conditions at that time in an accurate manner. I'm just saying that at a certain point you have to take either the creationist or evolutionary theories based on faith alone 'cause no one was there to witness it and test theories based on observable phenomena.
That's why I'm always rather leary of basing any of the evolutionists or creationists theories on just how old something is based on the C-14 method. Chalk this 'news-worthy' item up to a poor American educational system, because it's not news to me.
Silly bastard When he dies, just cut him open and count the dark rings. Easy.
~Bass
~Mike
A big enough hammer fixes *anything*
You seem to quite a lot about this. Could you please tell more about how radiometric dating is used to estimate the age of earth?
-- Cure for Cancer instead of SETI! (only w32 yet - mail and beg)
Now we'll never know how old Strom Thurmond really is...
My recokoning is that this artical is going to to be biblical for all the creationists out there. This , no matter how acurate the artical is going to be blown out of preportion to the piont the people will argue that the earth is only 4000 years old. Persoanaly I think it is it could be worded more carefully
Don't worry! Everything is getting nicely out of control....
It's been proven over and over again that given the typical religious premise it cannot be attacked using _any_ scientific evidence or otherwise.
It is a lot like filosphical movement called scepticism which is also, logically speaking, closed, i.e. it cannot be attacked unless you can convince them to accept some other new premise.
But as long as the only solid premise they accept is "God is allmighty" it is theoretically impossible to run them down using any arguments possible, wether it's based on science/philosophy/logics.
Far better approach is to try to convince them that Kansas is the creationists' paradise and hope the rest of all these Darwin-haters will migrate there and let the rest of the world go on about it's business.
--
1 Earth is warming, 2 It's us, 3 it's royally bad, 4 we need to take action NOW
She is beautiful, put in equilibrium, refreshed. She knows significantly more person than I do. She is approached for more men than I am for women. She can provide the luxury of siting down back and to choose among her suitors. She sees me far away in a corner by I to hatch, to try ignoring it desperately and her suitors. Perhaps she is plotted. Perhaps I the remembrance inexactly of an ex boyfriend, or something. She treats flirting a small one, to speak me in the vestibule. But I do not respond; I am afraid. I obtain an attack of the panic when she is nearby. She tires of me. Its interest awoke lightly, but when she was given account I would not do anything, its interest fled in another part. I would not be able it to satisfy. I me drill. She deserves better.
In the beginning most people in the Christian world looked at the universe though Christian eyes. Everything was a product of God and it was a mystery. Some people devoted themselves to reading the Bible and finding answers to the many questions people had about the way things worked. There were things that people couldn't find the answers to. Many of these things were about the way the universe worked. Some people decided to try and find the answers to these questions in the real world. They started observing and experimenting. These were the first scientists. All the time they were trying to determine how God had done things. No one had any real problem with that as long as it didn't conflict with what the church said. As these scientists started learning more and more they started getting in trouble.
Take Galileo for example. He saw the moons of Jupiter with his primitive telescope. The church at that time believed that the sun was the center of the universe. Believing that moons orbited something other than the sun or the earth was grounds for heresy and he was sentenced to house arrest for life.
This wasn't the beginning of the rift between science and the church but it was a prime example. As the years have rolled by and science has learned more about the workings of the universe both science and the church have change. Scientists now are less likely to be working for the church for one. Even though science has changed greatly from its beginnings one thing remains the same. Scientists are trying to determine how the world works.
When scientists disagree with the church are they wrong? It is impossible to tell. As an omnipotent being God could make things appear anyway he/she wants them to. That is the beauty of omnipotence. All a scientist can do is say that according to the evidence, if the world works according to these theories, this is true. Now is that to say it is right? No. If God just made it look like the Earth is 4.5 Billion years old because that the way God wanted it to look, there would be no way of knowing. What a scientist can say is that according to the past evidence and the theories we are using to describe things the evidence doesn't support a 6000 year old earth.
The conflicts seem to occur when people from one side attempt to use their beliefs and techniques in the other court. Religion has its place and is wonderful and useful for many things. The same is true for science. You can't use the Bible to do science and you can use science for biblical studies or studies of morality. The differences in the genres are to great for much useful overlap. It seems to me to be counterproductive.
Sorry if I was a little long winded.