|
|
|
|
Junior Member
|
|
Oct 4, 2007, 08:24 PM
|
|
How old? Bible vs. science
I was questioning how science could determine that something is hundreds of thousands, millions or even billions of years old. In particular, bones. My thoughts were... Doesn't elements affect the aging process. Like cold, heat, fire, ice, elements in the air and dirt, etc. Cold slows down the decaying process so why wouldn't it affect the aging process of bones? How is it possible to know for sure what the bones were exposed to that could have affected the aging process? Especially over many of thousands, millions and billions of years. It just doesn't seem feasible to me that science could determine for sure, even if you give or take some years.
I googled my question and this is a link that came up. I will forewarn you, it is long, but if you want to and have time to read it or scan through it, here it is.
What about carbon dating?
This question/topic might not be in the right place but I put it here because I agree with the age of the earth and all that's in it, determined Biblically. Even so I am still interested in understanding science's view. But I quickly lose patience when I have to stop reading to look up scientific words.
Anyway, what are your thoughts?
|
|
|
Full Member
|
|
Oct 4, 2007, 09:45 PM
|
|
This should probably be moved to the science section.
Element dating is pretty straight forward. Some atoms decay over time. The rate of decay can be measured. So if you take find out how much the atom has decayed and multiple by the rate at which the atom decays and you have a date. Carbon for example has a decay rate that can determined to about 40 or 60 thousand years depending on the sample and method used. Other elements can used to get dates farther back. It's not exact but it's close the best metaphor I can think of is treat it like a hourglass while it's not as good as a digital watch it will still keep pretty standard time. The reason temperature doesn't affect it is because the only reason temperature affects the living plants and animal that decay is caused by something eating something else atom decay is an atom shedding a some of it's parts and not effected by elements. For more detail try this link Howstuffworks "How Carbon-14 Dating Works"
The other way that we determine time is by the rate that light travels in a vacuum (186,282.397 per second) We know how far away stars are by using the shift of light from that object ( I won't go into that unless you want me to later). So we know from this that our galaxy is about 110,000 light years across (or 186,282*60*60*24*365*110,000 miles across don't have my graphing calculator here) so if the universe was only 6,000 years old light would have had to be traveling to us 104,000 years before it existed. I wasn't able to find a link on this but apparently putting "lightspeed dating" doesn't have anything to do with the science.
|
|
|
Full Member
|
|
Oct 5, 2007, 06:38 AM
|
|
Good question.
Perhaps I'm silly and ignorant, but the Earth's age doesn't concern me all that much. I am perfectly content with knowing Who created it, and am interested in all the neat ways that science can help us understand the "how's."
I know that time is irrelevant to God--time is MAN'S creation. Who says we got it right? :)
I think that the reason the Bible isn't more specific on the length of the ages is twofold:
1. Trying to explain it to the Hebrew people that lived 8,000 years ago would've been an exercise in frustration. I'm sure they were all reasonably intelligent people within the context of their time/culture. However, trying to explain scientific laws and principles to them would've really muddied up the waters, so to speak. I have enough difficulty trying to make modern 7th graders understand prepositional phrases; I can't imagine trying to teach Aaron the Theory of Relativity.
2. Such scientific things are outside the realm of what God was trying to accomplish. He wasn't trying to explain to the Hebrews and ourselves what made the world tick, He is trying to explain His love for us and His plan for us to be able to be with him.
The Bible isn't a science textbook--it was never meant to be.
I think that the Bible tells us the "Who done it," and science is striving to explain to us how it was done.
The two aren't incompatible in the least, to my mind.
|
|
|
Junior Member
|
|
Oct 5, 2007, 01:42 PM
|
|
Where is everyone? I was hoping to receive responses from those who believe that the earth is billions of years old. Science is supposed to be "fact", how can scientists possibly know for a fact that their determinations for the age of bone and earth is correct? It seems sketchy to me and more of a guess than fact. If it's not certain or fact then how does the guesstimation from science hold more weight than the guesstimation from theology?
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Oct 5, 2007, 01:55 PM
|
|
Originally Posted by MoonlitWaves
Where is everyone? I was hoping to receive responses from those who believe that the earth is billions of years old. Science is supposed to be "fact", how can scientists possibly know for a fact that their determinations for the age of bone and earth is correct? It seems sketchy to me and more of a guess than fact. If it's not certain or fact then how does the guesstimation from science hold more weight than the guesstimation from theology?
Perhaps the problem is you have placed this in the christianity thread instead of in the science thread. You've also prefaced your question by saying you believe in the theologic version of things, indicating no matter what information you've been given your opinion will remain unswayed. This sets the thread up for a fight, in my opinion. You've also been given a pretty thorough answer in Michealb's post. The debate of the two points of view has also been discussed at length in the thread linked below.
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christ...ld-102975.html
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Oct 5, 2007, 02:17 PM
|
|
SPEAKING IN GENERAL:
There is a great problem with uneducated people trying to deal with all areas of science. Science is complicated, complex, an accumulation of facts and knowledge... scientists are curious, use trial and error to attempt to answer questions, seek verification... in order to best explain questions by supplying proof.
The libraries of Universities all over the world contain a huge multitude of non-fiction books which contain all the information-facts-knowledge accumulated over the centuries.What that means is that there is a huge amount of accepted scientific knowledge... the PROOF OF THIS KNOWLEDGE IS IN NON-FICTION BOOKS all over the world.
If a person wants proof, facts, and knowledge, a person has to read science books!
Cordially,
|
|
|
Junior Member
|
|
Oct 5, 2007, 02:45 PM
|
|
Originally Posted by jillianleab
Perhaps the problem is you have placed this in the christianity thread instead of in the science thread. You've also prefaced your question by saying you believe in the theologic version of things, indicating no matter what information you've been given your opinion will remain unswayed. This sets the thread up for a fight, in my opinion. You've also been given a pretty thorough answer in Michealb's post. The debate of the two points of view has also been discussed at length in the thread linked below.
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christ...ld-102975.html
I do believe in the theologic version, but it doesn't mean that I want to be dumb to other things. I'm am not looking for a fight, I don't argue anything as there is no point in it, but I do enjoy discussing things with people who oppose my beliefs, opinions and thoughts.
Thanks for the thread link.
|
|
|
Junior Member
|
|
Oct 5, 2007, 02:56 PM
|
|
Originally Posted by Choux
SPEAKING IN GENERAL:
There is a great problem with uneducated people trying to deal with all areas of science. Science is complicated, complex, an accumulation of facts and knowledge...scientists are curious, use trial and error to attempt to answer questions, seek verification........in order to best explain questions by supplying proof.
The libraries of Universities all over the world contain a huge multitude of non-fiction books which contain all the information-facts-knowledge accumulated over the centuries.What that means is that there is a huge amount of accepted scientific knowledge....the PROOF OF THIS KNOWLEDGE IS IN NON-FICTION BOOKS all over the world.
If a person wants proof, facts, and knowledge, a person has to read science books!
Cordially,
Of course they do. My intentions were not to have science class, but to learn the thoughts of others on the questions asked.
|
|
|
Junior Member
|
|
Oct 5, 2007, 03:37 PM
|
|
Jillian, I want to thank you again for the link to this discussion. I did learn some of the thoughts of others about the age of the earth and bones. My post may lean more toward science than Christianity, but I put it here because like I said earlier I believe in the young earth and my intentions were a discussion on both views. This of course was before I knew this topic had already been discussed. This may explain why I wasn't getting many responses.
I'm still not opposed to anyone who still wants to respond.
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Oct 5, 2007, 03:45 PM
|
|
Yeah, that thread got nasty, which, if you read all of it you can see.
If you're really interested in learning about such things, check out various websites designed for kids; this isn't to imply you are too dumb for the real things, but if you're looking for general information and a basic understanding, that's where you will be most likely to find it. You can also go to your local library and get some children's science books; they will give you short, simple information that doesn't require hard core study. Then, if you are interested in learning more, you can move up to more sophisticated books. Children's books are a great resource to get a basic understanding of things - people often don't think about them, but they're great because they get to the point quickly and directly.
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Oct 5, 2007, 04:31 PM
|
|
Originally Posted by michealb
This should probably be moved to the science section.
Element dating is pretty straight forward. Some atoms decay over time. The rate of decay can be measured. So if you take find out how much the atom has decayed and multiple by the rate at which the atom decays and you have a date. Carbon for example has a decay rate that can determined to about 40 or 60 thousand years depending on the sample and method used.
That is the absolute limit that it can be used to date. Too often people use carbon dating to try to establish dates millions of years old. The other problem is that many assumptions are made in the process that cannot always (in fact rarely) be validated.
The other way that we determine time is by the rate that light travels in a vacuum (186,282.397 per second) We know how far away stars are by using the shift of light from that object ( I won't go into that unless you want me to later). So we know from this that our galaxy is about 110,000 light years across (or 186,282*60*60*24*365*110,000 miles across don't have my graphing calculator here) so if the universe was only 6,000 years old light would have had to be traveling to us 104,000 years before it existed. I wasn't able to find a link on this but apparently putting "lightspeed dating" doesn't have anything to do with the science.
Again, the assumptions make this method problematic also. Just because you know the lightshift, you only know how fast that it is travelling relative to earth. That does not establish an absolute speed. Also, when you see the color, you have to assume what the color of the star itself is. If the star is actually red, then the color may not be from a light shift at all, and may be standing still. Further, the lightshift really says nothing about age directly in any case - assumptions must be made about how it got to that speed, and that assumption is the big bang. If the big bang is wrong, then so are all the conclusions that they reached.
To establish this properly, and to validate the assumptions would require at least two locations significant distances apart, taking measurements at the same moment and comparing results. Because we have no outposts light years apart, we have no means to do such validation.
I have only scratched the surface on the problems related to this.
|
|
|
Full Member
|
|
Oct 5, 2007, 07:00 PM
|
|
Yes I know Tj3, you know enough science to cast doubt on the average persons faith in science cause the majority of people don't know the answers to your questions off the top of their head and I studied this stuff over 10 years ago so while I can answer most average science question off the top of my head yours would require research that I'm just not willing to put into these posts. I know from when I was a full time student that all the question you are asking can be googled and the high level answer your looking for can be found right there and if you have a specific question about that high level answer you don't understand I will try to help but when you put 5 or 6 high level questions in someone else's post I'm just not going to spend the time on it and apparently neither is anyone else.
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Oct 5, 2007, 07:18 PM
|
|
Originally Posted by michealb
Yes I know Tj3, you know enough science to cast doubt on the average persons faith in science cause the majority of people don't know the answers to your questions off the top of their head and I studied this stuff over 10 years ago so while I can answer most average science question off the top of my head yours would require research that I'm just not willing to put into these posts. I know from when I was a full time student that all the question you are asking can be googled and the high level answer your looking for can be found right there and if you have a specific question about that high level answer you don't understand I will try to help but when you put 5 or 6 high level questions in someone else's post I'm just not going to spend the time on it and apparently neither is anyone else.
Nice try, but I have been involved in science my entire life, and have a university degree in science and engineering. What I stated is true.
|
|
|
Full Member
|
|
Oct 5, 2007, 07:40 PM
|
|
So you want everyone here to believe that you are right and that thousands of scientists make stuff up, to what end. If you can prove a scientist wrong write the paper present evidence and as long as the evidence meets your theory, your new theory will prevail. I'd do it but I understood the evidence they presented and thought their theories sound so I didn't need to. If you present theories with no observable or testable data though you get laughed at.
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Oct 5, 2007, 08:20 PM
|
|
Originally Posted by michealb
So you want everyone here to believe that you are right and that thousands of scientists make stuff up, to what end. If you can prove a scientist wrong write the paper present evidence and as long as the evidence meets your theory, your new theory will prevail. I'd do it but I understood the evidence they presented and thought their theories sound so I didn't need to. If you present theories with no observable or testable data though you get laughed at.
I am not trying to prove any scientist wrong. What you need to do though, is look beyond the conclusions of one or more scientists and look at the basis for those conclusions and the assumptions that they have made. Ask them - any honest scientist will tell you that they have made assumptions, and what they are. I am not telling any secrets.
The problem is that too many people hear the conclusions and take them as being absolute fact. I have a science book here from the 19th century in which they provide absolute proof that nothing larger than a basketball can ever go into space. And they were absolutely right based upon the assumptions that they made. The problem is that their assumptions about what was possible was wrong. I could give many examples.
So, it is not that I am saying that the scientists are wrong. The question is whether their assumptions are valid. You are assuming that they are. A good scientist or engineer always challenges assumptions, whether they be mine or someone else's. Because assumptions are not facts, they have varying degrees of credibility.
You said "If you present theories with no observable or testable data though you get laughed at". That is my point. Assumptions by their nature are made simply because there is no data upon which to validate those points. If you accept those assumptions as fact without any data upon which to validate them, then you are the one putting yourself into that situation.
The strange thing here is that so many people take the conclusions as fact regardless of the fact that it is lacking validation, and yet if you spoke to the scientists themselves, you will find that they will acknowledge the assumptions. They would no doubt explain to you why they believe the assumptions are reasonable, but they are still unvalidated assumptions and open to challenge by thinking people.
Those who attack people who challenge such assumptions are like those who ridiculed people who did not believe in the flat earth. If we never challenged unvalidated assumptions, science would come to an abrupt end as far as new discoveries are concerned.
Those who refuse to challenge unvalidated assumptions have ceased believing in science and have elevated their version of science to religion because they believe it even though the data to validate the assumptions is missing.
|
|
|
Full Member
|
|
Oct 6, 2007, 11:56 AM
|
|
I agree that science always need to be challenged but challenges by people who don't understand why they made those assumptions doesn't do any good. Especially when you then try to put into it's place religion that has absolutely no bases in fact.
The big problem facing research today is that the average man can't understand it. I could explain string theory all day to 97% of the population but they won't get it. The problem is when that 97% say that to complicated to make sense so god must have done it.
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Oct 6, 2007, 12:36 PM
|
|
Originally Posted by michealb
I agree that science always need to be challenged but challenges by people who don't understand why they made those assumptions doesn't do any good. Especially when you then try to put into it's place religion that has absolutely no bases in fact.
Perhaps you missed the fact that my background and training is in science, so I am very qualified to examine and challenge those assumptions. Further, many of the assumptions are quite basic and well within the understanding of the average person.
Religion enters into it the moment that you say that we must believe anything that scientist conclude without questioning. Then you have turned them into priests.
It is also contrary to the scientific method to reject a possible conclusion because you don't agree with it (i.e. the existence of God). There is no difference between that approach and refusing to believe that the earth may rotate around the sun.
|
|
|
Uber Member
|
|
Oct 6, 2007, 12:47 PM
|
|
Originally Posted by Tj3
Religion enters into it the moment that you say that we must believe anything that scientist conclude without questioning. Then you have turned them into priests.
This statement makes me doubt that you indeed have a background in science. Scientific findings are accepted after peers (or anyone) reproduce the tests. NO ONE accepts anything without questioning. Nice strawman argument you set up.
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Oct 6, 2007, 01:26 PM
|
|
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
This statement makes me doubt that you indeed have a background in science. Scientific findings are accepted after peers (or anyone) reproduce the tests. NO ONE accepts anything without questioning. Nice strawman argument you set up.
Perhaps you should read back and bit and discover what it is that we are discussing. Nothing that I said disagrees with what you said - in fact I agree with it wholeheartedly.
But if you know anything about how scientific research and scientific hypothesis are developed, you will have to agree that while in the process of developing such an hypothesis, many assumptions are made which then must be validated in order for the findings to be accepted as fact. In some cases, such as determining the age of planets, how man was created, etc.. many such assumptions are made, which cannot be validated. In such cases there are no tests to be performed, so it is you, not I who is setting up a strawman.
Nice try, but no cigar.
|
|
|
Uber Member
|
|
Oct 6, 2007, 03:56 PM
|
|
So if you were to apply the same thinking to any proof of creation or that Jesus lived one could offer the same arguments and hence say that asumptions were made and the proof must be dismissed. So we basically end up nowhere for every theory or hypothesis.
|
|
Question Tools |
Search this Question |
|
|
Add your answer here.
Check out some similar questions!
Where in the Bible?
[ 3 Answers ]
I am a Catholic and I am trying to remember but can't as to where in the Bible I could find about the story where Jesus gave three men pieces of silver (?), the pieces of silver represents the gifts that he left us. God said the number of silver is given according to one's ability. God would later...
What does te Bible say about.
[ 7 Answers ]
What does the Bible have to say about Marijuana smoking?
I would love to know if it's a sin (I assume it is) and why... if anyone could help I would appreciate it! Thanks .
Bible Help
[ 3 Answers ]
I am looking for the translation from the Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic Bible into English. There are so many versions, and I keep getting pointed in different directions. Please Help! I'm Catholic, and I want something the King James Version.
Thank you!
Bible Help
[ 2 Answers ]
I am looking for the oldest translation from the Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic Bible into English. There are so many versions, and I keep getting pointed in different directions. Please Help! I'm Catholic, and I want something before the King James Version.
Thank you!
RionerPoet
Morals/bible says?
[ 3 Answers ]
I have searched my Bible several times but have yet to find a direct answer to the following. I would really appreciate help and/or verses to the following!
1. Are tattoos "bad"? One verse in the old testament said to not tattoo yourself, but that was the old testament... does it still apply?...
View more questions
Search
|