[sassyT]

[QUOTE]

I see you have more trust in a book of which we do not know exactly who precisely wrote each of the various chapters, describing a deity of which we do not know if it exists, and - if it exists - of whom we can at best only BELIEVE that it has the powers and capacities described to it.

I hope when you "we" that you are not including me because just because you do not know whether God exists or not, does not mean I don’t know either. I know with as much certainty as I know of my own existence that God exists and you can believe that or not but you believing me or not will not in any way alter the fact that I know God. I also know who wrote the Book, again you may not.

A deity that in part one of the book is described as a tiran and blood thirsty murderer of children and women, while in part two that same deity is described - while in another format (disguised as his own son) - as an all-loving entity, while throughout the entire book we hear the deity repeating continuously the threat to humanity of "and if you do not do what I tell you to do ........".

This is your perception and opinion of God and the Bible, and we are all entitled to our own opinions so I have no problem with that, however perceptions and opinions do not always reflect reality and in this case I can say you are misled. Before you go and criticize other people's beliefs maybe you should consider doing some research and get all the information instead of just picking bits and pieces of info taken out of context to conveniently suit and further your own interest in portraying a negative perseption.

And for you that book and the claims stated in that book make more sense and have more value to you than science and scientific evidence, that is based on supported objective evidence?

Oh don't get me wrong, I believe is scientific facts. They undisputable. For example water evaporates. I just don't buy into presuptious theories that are not fundamentally rooted in fact. If you believe radio dating it true then I am no more believer in "faith" than you are because if you know science, then you should know that the assuptions used to facilitate for radio dating can not be proven true.

[templelane]

...maybe you should consider doing some research and get all the information instead of just picking bits and pieces of info taken out of context to conveniently suit and further your own interest in portraying a negative perseption.

You should take your own advice.

[sassyT]

You should take your own advice.

I do not criticize other people's beliefs. I was just pointing out to capuchin that his "belief" that radio dating is truth, is based on "faith" in that the assumptions used are accurate.

[Capuchin]

Just like you are trying to justfy your own faith.

This Scientist, like many others, is honest because he has no agenda. Because the Bible does not claim the earth is 6K years old so either way, whether it is 5K years old or 100 billion years old, it make no difference to a christian because the time lapse from the earths creation to human creation is not specified.
Most scientist have an agenda. An old earth will facilitate for the theory of evolution because they need billion of years to make their theory even nearly possible. Scientist had determined the earth was 70 million years old until evolution need more years.

And this is where you're talking stupid. Any scientist who proves that evolution is wrong, and that how we got here is different from the theory of evolution, will get untold praise and riches. There's an easy nobel prize, they will be more famous than Einstein or Newton.

Science isn't some place where we all go to hold hands and praise each others theories. It's all about being critical of others' work, it's a competitive field. That's exactly why it's our best tool for finding the truth.

Why are people not managing to undermine the theory of evolution or prove that the Earth is not 4.5 billion years old?? Because all of the evidence points to it being so!!

(By the way, we also measure the age of the solar system using helioseimology, the study of "earthquakes" on the Sun, using these to date the sun we get a figure very similar to the age of the Earth, wow!)

[ordinaryguy]

Here's the unabridged version of what you're actually saying:

[Your] perceptions and opinions do not always reflect reality [but mine do] and [that's why] in this case I can say [with certainty] you are misled.

I will say, however that the following advice is priceless, and should be heeded universally.

Before you go and criticize other people's beliefs maybe you should consider doing some research and get all the information instead of just picking bits and pieces of info taken out of context to conveniently suit and further your own interest in portraying a negative perseption.

[ordinaryguy]

I do not criticize other people's beliefs.

Well, you certainly had me fooled. It sure seemed like you criticized Cap's "belief" that "radio dating is truth".

What I don't get is this. If you don't think the Bible teaches that the earth is young, why are you so sure that radio-metric dating is wrong when it gives a result of a few billion years? According to your interpretation of the Genesis account, the rocks of the earth's crust and mantle could be that old, couldn't they?

[sassyT]

[QUOTE]

And this is where you're talking stupid.

There is no need to become emotional and resorting to name calling. Lets just have a civil debate like mature adults.

Any scientist who proves that evolution is wrong, and that how we got here is different from the theory of evolution, will get untold praise and riches. There's an easy nobel prize, they will be more famous than Einstein or Newton.

Science isn't some place where we all go to hold hands and praise each others theories. It's all about being critical of others' work, it's a competitive field. That's exactly why it's our best tool for finding the truth.

Why are people not managing to undermine the theory of evolution or prove that the Earth is not 4.5 billion years old?? Because all of the evidence points to it being so!!

Capuchin, I have not interest in all this. All I want is for you to acknowledge that radio dating is not scientific fact because it employs assuptions that can not be known to be factual.

The theory of evolution is also not scientific fact because we have not found the hundreds of transitional fossils that would be necessary to prove one species changed into another. Evolutionists themselve have admitted this fact. There is also an insurmountable amount of evidence that prove evolution is highly unlikely.

Like I said, just because a theory is generally accepted, does not mean it is truth. At one point the theory that the world was flat was generally accepted.

(By the way, we also measure the age of the solar system using helioseimology, the study of "earthquakes" on the Sun, using these to date the sun we get a figure very similar to the age of the Earth, wow!)

How convenient.. . more assuptions?

[NeedKarma]

how convienient. .... more assuptions?

Isn't the bible the ultimate assumption?

[Capuchin]

There is no need to become emotional and resorting to name calling. Lets just have a civil debate like mature adults.

I apologise, perhaps ignorant is more accurate.

Capuchin, i have not interest in all this. All i want is for you to acknowledge that radio dating is not scientific fact because it employs assuptions that can not be known to be factual.

There is no solid evidence that shows that it is a fundamentally flawed method like you seem to believe it is. The most innaccuracy that we have measured is 1%, that's highly accurate for the kind of work we're doing! We would be happy with +/- 20%, but 1% is absolutely fantastic.

The theory of evolution is also not scientific fact because we have not found the hundreds of transitional fossils that would be necessary to prove one species changed into another. Evolutionists themselve have admitted this fact. There is also an insurmountable amount of evidence that prove evolution is highly unlikely.

20 years ago you would be right, but now we have a whole plethora of transitional forms. We have so many that show such gradual changes that scientists have arguments over where we should draw the species line between man and monkey.

Where is this unsurmountable amount of evidence? I have not seen a single thing over the past few years that I've been having these conversations.

Like i said, just because a theory is generally accepted, does not mean it is truth. At one point the theory that the world was flat was generally accepted.

And just because a theory might not be the truth, that doesn't mean that it is not the truth... It explains all available evidence, which is exactly what a theory should do.

how convienient. .... more assuptions?

It's highly unlikely that 2 sets of completely different assumptions would come out with the same dates. You seem to still think that we want everything to fit together nicely and make assumptions to do so. This couldn't be further from what scientists do. We make observations, and if those differ from what our theories suggest, then we modify the theories to fit the new evidence. This allows our theories to become more accurate. Picking and choosing evidence that fits our theories is not how science works. That's a completely useless exercise for a scientist, both for the community and for their career.

[templelane]

[QUOTE=sassyT]

The theory of evolution is also not scientific fact because we have not found the hundreds of transitional fossils that would be necessary to prove one species changed into another. Evolutionists themselve have admitted this fact.

There are tons of transitional fossils for many different animal families. Donald Prothero has written a very eloquent book on the subject. This nice article describes a few more unusual animals and their transitional fossils, rather than going for the easy ones like whales and horses.

Evolution: What missing link? - evolution - 27 February 2008 - New Scientist
But for me fossils are boring (sorry palaeontologists).

For me the best and most compelling evidence is watching evolution work in human pathological diseases today. MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureusis) a great example of how these bacteria have evolved their defences when faced with a selection pressure (antibiotics) allowing the fittest (those resistant) to survive and thrive.

Seeing as you don’t care about the science here is just a news report rather than a journal paper to prove I didn’t just close my eyes and hope really hard that this was true.
BBC NEWS | Health | Medical notes | J-M | MRSA 'superbugs'

OK please direct me to the place where there is, "insurmountable amount of evidence that prove evolution is highly unlikely." Seriously I want to read it. I will read any links you post, I hope you read mine, I have chosen ones that are written for a general audience and aren’t too ‘sciency.’

I don’t care what you believe or why. However this continual denial of hundreds of years of scientific work and evidence I find, well to be honest, annoying. It’s the same as if I went, “I have never read the ten commandments- therefore they don’t exist!”

This is obviously absurd- I don’t need to believe that the ten commandments are the word of god to accept they exist. You don’t need to believe in evolution to accept that there is a lot of evidence supporting it.

[sassyT]

[QUOTE]

Well, you certainly had me fooled. It sure seemed like you criticized Cap's "belief" that "radio dating is truth".

As long as he acknowleges that it is a belief based on faith in the assuptions then, i am fine with it. I just have a problem with people who try to pawn off theories as facts.

What I don't get is this. If you don't think the Bible teaches that the earth is young, why are you so sure that radio-metric dating is wrong when it gives a result of a few billion years? According to your interpretation of the Genesis account, the rocks of the earth's crust and mantle could be that old, couldn't they?

Yes, there is a possibility that the earth could be billions of years old however i believe it is very unlikely, not because i have an agenda to promote my faith, but for simple fact that i believe the assumptions used in radio dating are not accurate. The assumptions are very far fetched if you will and other scientists share the same opinion.
In my opinion there is a lot more evidence for a younger earth.

The bottom line is i just don't take other people's beliefs and opinions at face value especially if feel the is an agenda behind it. The earth was originally aged at 70 million years old by scientists until evolution needed the billions of years so mm.. Why not come up with assumptions that allow for an older earth..

I just don't buy what ever is shoved in my face, i do my own research and analysis. I know enough science to know that "historical science" cannot be known with certainty. I have bachelor's degree in Biology (graduated 3.8gpa)and i have taken a lot of physics and chemistry classes. I am in my first year of Biology masters program right now. So it just makes me laugh when people like Cap make condescending remarks about me being stupid and not knowing science.. oh really?

[Capuchin]

The bottom line is i just don't take other people's beliefs and opinions at face value especially if feel the is an agenda behind it. The earth was originally aged at 70 million years old by scientists until evolution needed the billions of years so mm.. why not come up with assumptions that allow for an older earth....?

But we have reasons, good reasons, why the 70 million calculation was wrong, based on new science that was discovered between then and now... It is not only because evolution needed a longer time, but also because we have more evidence to take into account so that we can alter our theories.

Also, why are you as a masters student in biology "not interested in science"? It would seem a rather foolish position for you to take.

[Dark_crow]

Shame on you for disagreeing….Capuchin disagrees: We know with certainty - we use radiometric dating to estimate the age of the Earth.

Don't you see the contradiction in what you say? We know with certainy…then use radiometric dating to estimate the age of the Earth.

Which is it, is radiometric dating an estimate or a certain date?

[Capuchin]

Shame on you for disagreeing….Capuchin disagrees: We know with certainty - we use radiometric dating to estimate the age of the Earth.

Don't you see the contradiction in what you say? We know with certainy…then use radiometric dating to estimate the age of the Earth.

Which is it, is radiometric dating an estimate or a certain date?

It's a measurement with a known certainty - in this case about 1%, so we know that the age of the earth according to all available evidence, with certainty, is between 4.5 and 4.6 billion years old.

Like I said before, we can only know things within certain error limits - we cannot know anything with 100% certainty.

[Dark_crow]

“Certainty” is a word I have never heard a scientist use. Science is based on theories, not certainties.

There you go with the contradiction… “It's a measurement with a known certainty - in this case about 1%,…” Is it certain, or “about” 1%?

About, and estimate, are not an indication of certainty.

[Capuchin]

“Certainty” is a word I have never heard a scientist use. Science is based on theories, not certainties.

There you go with the contradiction… “It's a measurement with a known certainty - in this case about 1%,…” Is it certain, or “about” 1%?

About, and estimate, are not an indication of certainty.

You're right, we don't talk about certainties. But we do talk all the time about uncertainties. This is about working out how accurate our results are and lets us know what range of values the true value lies.

[Fr_Chuck]

The problems with carbon dating

How accurate are Carbon-14 and other radioactive dating methods? - ChristianAnswers.Net

[Fr_Chuck]

But in the end, science puts its faith in many principles that may appear true today but may prove untrue 100 years from now.
But in the end, the bible does not "date" anything, ecept for the time Adam left the garden of Eden into the world, From that some idea of dating can be assumed.

The length of time of creation and even more important, the number of years Adam would have lived in the garden, in a state of perfection ( assuming in this perfect state he would not age)

Also we understand that the bible in the old testement is the history of God's relationship with his people, not a complete history of the people, and not complete of all the things in creation. Since it is mans relastionship with his God that was the theme of why we have the bible today.

And of course we understand that many things will try and confuse the Christian, as such we are tempted by many false teachings, and parts of Science is one of them, science temps our morals today with things like clonning, soceity temps us with things like same sex relastionships, and the world temps us with riches and pleasure.

So in the end, those that have placed their faith and salvation into the world will have the world, those that place their faith in God will have God.
And in the world to come when the earth is passed away, the Christian still has God, the others, nothing.

[Credendovidis]

The problems with carbon dating. How accurate are Carbon-14 and other radioactive dating methods?

You make a questionable suggestion here : if there has to be corrected on radio dating, we are talking about some percentage points at max, because the general basis is correct (as PROVED by objective supporting evidence).

However : religious (Bible) claims are based on BELIEF and so far have never been proved by any objective evidence to be correct.

The age of earth is "somewhere" between 4.500.000.000 and 4.600.000.000 years, based on scientific data (supported objective evidence).

Even if this would contain a 10% miscalculation (which it does not) the earth is at least minimal 4.000.000.000 years old, which is about 3.999.994.000 years older than the age as per the creationist claim.

[Fr_Chuck]

RATE

Creation Scientists