Share good examples of Christian Science

BNR32FAN said:

All scientists don’t believe in an ancient earth. See now your just ignoring facts.

Click to expand...

So what. Depending on their field they could easily partition their God and young Earth beliefs from their work. For example, consider my field and its subfields: physics

Condensed matter (solid state) physics: Nothing in this field dependent on the age of the Earth, etc.

Plasma physics: see above

Atomic physics: see above

Particle physics: see above*

Nuclear physics: see above**

Biophysics: Evolution gets in the works a bit with the subject matter. A young Earth position might be problematic with doing your work.

Astronomy/Astrophysics/Cosmology: Now we have a serious problem. Nothing in these areas works at all under a young Earth/Universe understanding. Being a functional astronomer with a young Earth position would be quite difficult. (God, not such a problem, but this is one of those fields that demonstrate the Earth/Universe is quite a bit older than 10,000 years.)


We could do similar things with other fields that don't directly touch the age of the Earth/Universe much like chemistry.


*/**Common "explanations" for the apparent age of things and the young Earth often involve accelerated decay, varying the speed of light, etc. These physicists will understand the underlying physics that must be violated and the consequences very well and will not find these "explanations" plausible given the basic realities explored in their fields.

pitabread said:

You're repeating this over and over, but you're failing to explain exactly how this would work with respect to both dendrochronology and varve formation.

Click to expand...

If you don’t know how weather and climate affects both varves and dendrochronogy then you obviously don’t know what these rings & lines represent. The rings and lines are a record of the climate and weather patterns. The lines in varves are sediment layers formed by different climate and weather changes. The rings in trees are different growth rates also determined by climate and weather. Things like droughts, freezes, and soil nutrients directly affect how these rings form. Darker lines are slower growth periods, lighter lines are faster growth periods. Anyone who knows anything about these two types of dating knows that they are directly related to weather and climate. Those are the primary cause of the lines and rings. So trees and lakes in the same area will reflect the same climate and weather readings unless other factors are present like soil nutrients or other phenomenons like earthquakes, volcanic activity, etc. But generally speaking they should represent the same readings.

BNR32FAN said:

If you don’t know how weather and climate affects both varves and dendrochronogy then you obviously don’t know what these rings & lines represent.

Click to expand...

I know what they represent. I'm trying to determine if *you* know what they represent. My takeaway from your posts is that you don't know the actual mechanisms and consequently can't explain why they would be correlated.

Simply repeating "climate and weather" is not an answer.

The lines in varves are sediment layers formed by different climate and weather changes.

Click to expand...

How do they specifically form? What makes up those respective layers?

(Btw, if you want a hint you can always consult the article I previously linked: Lake Suigetsu and the 60,000 Year Varve Chronology)

Things like droughts, freezes, and soil nutrients directly affect how these rings form. Darker lines are slower growth periods, lighter lines are faster growth periods.

Click to expand...

How does slower and faster growth result in tree ring formation themselves? And how would that correlate to varve formation?

So trees and lakes in the same area will reflect the same climate and weather readings unless other factors are present like soil nutrients or other phenomenons like earthquakes, volcanic activity, etc.

Click to expand...

What does "same climate and weather readings" mean?

What do you think tree rings and varves are actually made of?

BNR32FAN said:

I can’t, the earliest recorded use of carts in the Bible was during Jacob’s time around 1,800 BC. So I can say that they’ve existed at least since that time but that doesn’t necessarily mean they were used before that. My evidence is based on the assumption that historians are correct in their assessment.

Click to expand...

An illogical statement in using the Bible as a reference to date a Mesopotamian potter wheel.

Not only do you not understand the science of dating but the definition of history as well.
History is about written records, for example there are no cuneiform texts of Mesopotamians using potter wheels which provide a time frame.

You have well and truly dug a hole for yourself as the 3,500BC estimate is based on the very dating techniques you reject.

BNR32FAN said:

Well that’s another part of the problem is when you ask how long have humans been on the earth you get a lot of vastly different answers depending on who your asking ranging from 60,000 years up to 800,000 years.

Click to expand...

And this response doesn't make any sense either as I asked you where you got a figure of 300,000 years for aboriginal occupation of Australia such as providing a peer reviewed paper.
You plucked this figure out of thin air and passed it off as a fact.

BNR32FAN said:

No not skipping it, I’ve already explained my position that six days is pretty hard to interpret as anything else. You’ve just failed to produce anything refuting that to promote any further discussion on it. You compared the flat earth debate with the young earth debate as if the evidence that the earth is ancient is as solid as the earth being a sphere and I explained exactly why it’s not. When we look at the earth from space we don’t have to rely on assumptions the way carbon dating, dendrochronolygy and thermoluminescence dating do. All we have to do is take one look at we it’s been established as undeniable fact that the earth is not flat, it is a sphere. Unlike the unseen conditions that must be true in order for the dating methods to be fact. That’s why they’re not facts, they’re theories.

Click to expand...

So, just to be clear, you are saying that you use data from science to determine if you interpretation of the bible is correct? If the data we have says the world is round then the people who believe in a flat earth are wrong? I just went to mail this down since it seems to contradict your earlier statement.

BNR32FAN said:

All scientists don’t believe in an ancient earth. See now your just ignoring facts.

Click to expand...

The vast majority do as I'm sure you are aware. Especially in the relevant fields. Are they all stupid or is it a giant conspiracy? How do you make sense of the vast majority in the relevant fields being convinced by the data?

BNR32FAN said:

Thermoluminescent dating fails because it is based on the assumption that the gamma exposure has been constant when we have no way of knowing that. She says that in the video you posted. Listen very closely to what she says at two minutes 32 seconds into the video. If the absorption of the radiation occurs at a constant rate. Scientists predict that solar storms happen once a century which would be increasing the amount of gamma radiation massively affecting the trapped particles and the thermoluminescent readings making object appear way older than they actually are.

Click to expand...

So you are now cherry picking my video.
You have conveniently ignored the video also points out soils are tested to compensate for radiation differences and there is a +/- 10% error range in the precision.

When it comes to accuracy rather than precision according to you 30,000 year old pottery which can be no older than 6000 years has a built in error of at least 400%!!!
Are you that naive in suggesting archaeologists would use a dating technique where the error is of the same magnitude as the measurement?

Let me reiterate you have been well and truly caught out as fragments of wheel thrown pottery was dated around 3500 BC using the techniques in the video you have dismissed.

BNR32FAN said:

No not skipping it, I’ve already explained my position that six days is pretty hard to interpret as anything else. You’ve just failed to produce anything refuting that to promote any further discussion on it. You compared the flat earth debate with the young earth debate as if the evidence that the earth is ancient is as solid as the earth being a sphere and I explained exactly why it’s not. When we look at the earth from space we don’t have to rely on assumptions the way carbon dating, dendrochronology and thermoluminescence dating do. All we have to do is take one look at we it’s been established as undeniable fact that the earth is not flat, it is a sphere. Unlike the unseen conditions that must be true in order for the dating methods to be fact. That’s why they’re not facts, they’re theories.

Click to expand...

The simple facts of stratigraphy, which anybody can understand from looking at rock outcrops, demonstrate beyond denial that the Earth is old. Angular unconformities, conglomerates containing recognisable clasts of older rocks, igneous intrusions, faults and folds deforming rock units, all testify to a long history for the Earth, and all these phenomena were familiar to geologists more than a hundred years before the discovery of radioactivity, and more than 150 years before anybody was able to go into space and see the Earth as a sphere.

You should read Siccar Point - Wikipedia and Hutton's Unconformity - Wikipedia , particularly the comment of Playfair when, in June 1788, he first saw the unconformity at Siccar Point:

'We felt necessarily carried back to a time when the schistus on which we stood was yet at the bottom of the sea, and when the sandstone before us was only beginning to be deposited, in the shape of sand or mud, from the waters of the supercontinent ocean ... The mind seemed to grow giddy by looking so far back into the abyss of time; and whilst we listened with earnestness and admiration to the philosopher who was now unfolding to us the order and series of these wonderful events, we became sensible how much further reason may sometimes go than imagination may venture to follow.'

Click to expand...

BNR32FAN said:

That is incorrect because you have to know how much C14 was present when the life form was alive to be able to determine the half value.

Click to expand...

It is actually the ratio of C14/C12. (For some other dating methods the amount of the daughter product can be used avoiding the need to know the actual amount of the parent isotope when the sample formed. Unfortunately, the daughter isotope of C14 is N14, which accounts for about 80% of the atoms in the air.)

[The "half value"? Do you mean the half-life? That is a fundamental property of C14 nuclei and not of any particular sample.]

BNR32FAN said:

We don’t even know if the increase in C14 in the last 80 years has stayed constant before that. Magnetic fields are constantly shifting and changing directly affecting the amount of C14 in the atmosphere. Huge forest fires and solar storms are two other major contenders in the fluctuation of C14.

Click to expand...

This is what calibration is for, to correct for (effectively determine) the ancient C14/C12 ratios by knowing the decayed ratio for samples of known ages. (Forest fires burn wood that formed in the last couple hundred years at most. Even if they dominated the C14 in the atmosphere, they would only shift the ages off by a couple hundred years.)

BNR32FAN said:

That’s why carbon dating is based on the principles that IF these conditions have stayed constant then this material is x amount of years old. The prediction is contingent upon the data being consistent. This goes for every single dating method out there.

Click to expand...

And that's why they do calibrations.

BNR32FAN said:

There are tons of examples of carbon dating being off by 50% or more. Surely you’ve seen these examples? If not you haven’t looked at all because they’re literally thousands of them.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're talking of. When I've seen calibrated and non-calibrated values quoted the differences are of the 10% or maybe 20% level. (My memory is vague. I don't look at C14 ages often.)

If you mean C14 dates for things that eat foods depleted in C14 (like sea creatures), then that is obviously not relevant. The people who use dating techniques are aware of where (and generally why) they don't work and don't use them there.

If you're talking about things like the Shroud of Turin dating as 7-800 years old, that's because it is a 14th century forgery.

1rreducibly Complex said:

Took an hour to re-watch this documentary as its been 7+ years since I last saw it.

It definitely covers most of the basic scientific arguments for creationism.

This documentary should be broadcast in churches, temples and mosques around the world.

It should be standard curriculum in public schools.

Click to expand...

Except that Creationism isn't science. It is just religion. Also, you're espousing Christian Creationism, which will be a different thing to Muslim Creationism and also a VERY different thing to the Creationism of any other religion.

1rreducibly Complex said:

I posted a documentary containing scientific evidence for creationism 10 pages ago. But you'll never know this, as you'll never watch it. What's the point in discussing and debating content you'll never see.

The old testament of the christian bible shares some of the same books and verses as the koran. They're more similar than most realize.

Click to expand...

A documentary that I have no incentive to watch because I know it's going to be the same arguing points that all creationists have made repeatedly throughout history and definitely on this site. I don't need to rewatch something I already know fails.

And the Koran shares the Old Testament because it was taken from the Old Testament. Just like how the Old Testament is the same as the Old Testament of the Torah.

1rreducibly Complex said:

Very few christians know who Lee Strobel is. Even fewer have seen his documentary on creationism.

Statistically, you should never have heard any of the arguments made in it.

Click to expand...

Statistically, yes. But you're also ignoring the fact that websites like this place exist which allow creationists to put forth their ideas, and I've been a lurker on here for a good few years before I became a member so I've seen many, many, many points that have been refuted a thousand times and have been shown to be just flat out wrong.

As someone once said, there is nothing new under the sun. And there is absolutely nothing new for creationism.

1rreducibly Complex said:

I posted a documentary containing scientific evidence for creationism 10 pages ago. But you'll never know this, as you'll never watch it. What's the point in discussing and debating content you'll never see.

The old testament of the christian bible shares some of the same books and verses as the koran. They're more similar than most realize.

Click to expand...

"Watch this hour long video." is a very unconvincing argument in and of itself.

As a further support of a statement, sure, but I think you should make the effort to actually present these scientific evidences in the appropriate format of this forum.

1rreducibly Complex said:

There are many scientific arguments made for creationism dating back to 2005 and earlier. Which the overwhelming majority of christians and atheists have never heard of.

This makes many ideas and arguments appear new. Simply due to the level of christian content normally shared and posted being extremely generic and superficial.

Click to expand...

And that really changes nothing. I've seen enough arguments, read enough arguments and heard enough arguments from creationists to decide for myself that it is not science.