• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

God did not create from nothing

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,857,055
52,817
Guam
✟5,225,113.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
We have various New Testament references to "Moses and the prophets," and we read of Jesus Himself:

That is correct.

"Moses and the prophets."

Not, "Adam, Eve, Seth, Noah, Shem, and Abraham."

That's because Moses took Adam's, Eve's, Seth's, Shem's, Abraham's, et alii and compiled them into what is called "The First Book of Moses."

It's easier just to say MOSES, than it is Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy."

By the same token, it is easier just to say "the prophets," than it is Isaiah, Jeremiah ... Malachi."

As the commentator John Gill wrote about that verse:

"And beginning at Moses,.... The writings of Moses, the book of Genesis particularly, Gen_3:15 which is the first prophecy of him,

The Protevangelium was not written by Moses.

It was written either by Adam or Eve.

Then Moses wrote it again to preserve it.

In my opinion.

It wouldn't be fair, if the Declaration of Independence started to fade with age, and Joe copied it word-for-word to preserve it ... it wouldn't be fair to say Joe wrote the Declaration of Independence.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,857,055
52,817
Guam
✟5,225,113.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
One interesting irony in all of this is that some of the strongest defenders of a highly literal reading of Genesis often end up relying heavily on scientific arguments to defend that reading.

I'm second to none here in saying otherwise.

Science can take a hike.

What's "ironic" is that, whether someone on here says "science can take a hike," or someone on here "relies heavily on scientific arguments to defend that reading," he gets criticized.

Lu 7:33 For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and ye say, He hath a devil.
34 The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners!
35 But wisdom is justified of all her children.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,857,055
52,817
Guam
✟5,225,113.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The adage "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery" seems apposite

You won't see me flatter modern science; other to say that true science is a gift from God.

A gift that is very seldom used properly.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Perceiving the Bigger Picture
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
26,675
12,402
Space Mountain!
✟1,517,018.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
One interesting irony in all of this is that some of the strongest defenders of a highly literal reading of Genesis often end up relying heavily on scientific arguments to defend that reading.

In practice, the discussion can become less about what the text itself is saying and more about whether modern science can be marshaled to support a particular interpretation of the text. Or, alternatively, whether conventional scientific conclusions can be refuted. Either way, the conversation becomes centered on science.

It's an odd position. If Scripture is authoritative, then its validity does not stand or fall on whether a scientific model can be constructed or challenged in support of one specific reading. At that point, the debate shifts from biblical interpretation to scientific concordance.

The irony is that a position which claims Scripture as its highest authority ends up spending all its effort towards scientific validation.

The question changes from "What does the text mean?" to "Can this interpretation be defended scientifically?" And once that happens, science takes a more dominant role in the discussion than the Bible itself. The complete opposite of what the literalists intend to do.

I agree with what you're saying, but as you know some of this depends on the form of Apologetics that any one Christian thinks he/she needs to rely upon in order to understand and defend his/her own reading of the Bible.

Since 'science' can not be reduced down merely to the hard sciences but needs to include some of the soft sciences and historical arts, then we can't really get away from trying to wrangle science as we deal with a particular reading of the Bible. The trick is to not start with the Bible as one's beginning axiomatic position or set of presuppositions. And in fact, I'd aver that no one really does even when they think they do.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Job 33:6
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Reconstruction 3 will come
Mar 11, 2017
25,850
18,670
56
USA
✟485,715.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
I was hoping you'd mention 1200 year old samples.
Sure you did, Jan.
On a global scale, the Smithsonian Institution's Global Volcanism Program reports that baseline volcanic activity remains relatively constant over long periods. The appearance of a surge around 1,200 years ago (the 800s CE) down through the High Middle Ages is primarily caused by two factors:
  • Ice Core Preservation: Volcanologists locate ancient eruptions by drilling into polar ice sheets to measure sulfate spikes. Because younger ice layers are less compressed and have suffered less melting or distortion than older layers, scientists can more easily identify smaller, distinct eruptions from 1,200 years ago than from 12,000 years ago.
  • Increased Human Record-Keeping: Around 1,200 years ago, literate societies across Europe, Byzantium, the Middle East, and Tang Dynasty China were actively recording atmospheric anomalies. Chroniclers often noted "diminished sunlight" or "deeply red skies", which modern historians now match with ice core data to confirm historical eruptions.

Natural Climate Cycles and Volcanic Clusters
While the overall global rate of volcanism is steady, volcanoes do occasionally experience random statistical clustering.
Between the 6th and 13th centuries, Earth did undergo several massive, climate-altering eruptions. For example, the infamous volcanic winter of 536 CE—often cited as one of the worst periods to be alive—was triggered by major eruptions in Iceland and the Americas. A few centuries later, during the Medieval period, another cluster of major tropical eruptions occurred, culminating in the massive 1257 eruption of Mount Samalas in Indonesia.
These heavy-hitting events injected massive amounts of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, blocking sunlight and noticeably cooling the global climate. Because these specific, large events heavily disrupted human history and left massive chemical signatures in polar ice, they stand out prominently in the geological record.
None of that is about carbon.
Do you really want to discuss carbon dating from 1200 years ago....its not realible either because of these known factors?
You've mentioned no relevant factors.
Again, I don't trust it because of the many issues that make it useless.. 20 - 400 year it doesn't work and yes even on 1200 year old samples.

Tool?
Yes, tool.
If 3 major scientist reversed course on carbon dating the entire scientific consensus would fall apart and you’d fall right into place with them.
You've mentioned no scientists.
 
Upvote 0

Platte

Well-Known Member
Jul 14, 2020
1,650
279
57
Virginia
✟85,618.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Sure you did, Jan.

None of that is about carbon.

You've mentioned no relevant factors.

Yes, tool.

You've mentioned no scientists.
Thank you good discussion. I appreciate your honesty and insight.
 
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
9,643
10,494
✟311,187.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Carbon dating relies on the steady, predictable decay of the radioactive isotope Carbon-14. However, this method becomes highly unreliable for items around 50 years old (originating after 1950) due to human-made disruptions in Earth’s atmospheric carbon levels:The Nuclear Bomb Spike: Above-ground nuclear weapons testing in the 1950s and 1960s roughly doubled the amount of Carbon-14 in the Earth's atmosphere (known as the "bomb pulse"). Because the atmosphere changed so drastically, items from this era cannot be mapped to a standard timeline.The Fossil Fuel Dilution: Burning massive amounts of fossil fuels—which are millions of years old and contain virtually no Carbon-14—has continually diluted the atmosphere's Carbon-14 levels since the Industrial Revolution.Together, these factors mean atmospheric Carbon-14 fluctuates wildly, throwing off standard calculations.

Carbon dating measures the slow decay of radioactive carbon-14. Because this isotope has a very long half-life of 5,730 years, it takes thousands of years for a measurable amount to decay. In items that are only 20 years old, virtually no decay has occurred, making the test useless.

Carbon dating (Carbon-14) is generally ineffective for items that are only 100 years old because the margin of error is too large, and human activity has drastically altered the amount of Carbon-14 in our atmosphere during that time.

Carbon dating is highly inaccurate for 150-year-old items. The short half-life of Carbon-14 and modern industrial human activities create too much "noise" and margin-of-error for a precise reading.

You generally cannot use standard carbon dating (Carbon-14) for 200-year-old items because the decay rate is too slow to provide a precise window, and human activity has drastically altered atmospheric carbon levels.

You can't effectively use traditional carbon dating for items 300 years old because the margin of error overlaps with modern human activity, and a single 5,730-year half-life is far too broad to pinpoint an exact year in a recent 300-year window.

You actually can use carbon dating for items that are roughly 400 years old, but its accuracy drops drastically and results in large date ranges. This unreliability is caused by human activity interfering with the Earth's natural carbon levels.

Carbon dating is science fiction. Theoretically sure its a good approach but it depends on one thing that is definitely not reality - symmetry.
I refer you to @Hans Blaster post #236. This addresses your points succinctly and comprehensively.

In that post, or possibly one of the others in your exchange with Hans, you mention a minimum requirement of being accorded respect for doubting the efficacy of carbon dating given all of the caveats surrounding its use. I withhold such respect for individuals who themselves withhold respect for the thousands of researchers who have painstakingly investigated and studied and analysed and reviewed and tested and validated and questioned and synthesised and corrected and amended and developed and improved and refined the methodology of carbon dating with an ongoing critical examination of their own work and that of their fellows in the field. Individuals who approach the topic with such arrogance are not worthy of the respect you suggest you are owed.

Thank you for your honesty. I can respect that, not the attitude it exposes.

I have no more to say.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hans Blaster
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
9,643
10,494
✟311,187.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
What's "ironic" is that, whether someone on here says "science can take a hike," or someone on here "relies heavily on scientific arguments to defend that reading," he gets criticized
Hypocrisy is often the subject of criticism.
 
Upvote 0

Platte

Well-Known Member
Jul 14, 2020
1,650
279
57
Virginia
✟85,618.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I refer you to @Hans Blaster post #236. This addresses your points succinctly and comprehensively.

In that post, or possibly one of the others in your exchange with Hans, you mention a minimum requirement of being accorded respect for doubting the efficacy of carbon dating given all of the caveats surrounding its use. I withhold such respect for individuals who themselves withhold respect for the thousands of researchers who have painstakingly investigated and studied and analysed and reviewed and tested and validated and questioned and synthesised and corrected and amended and developed and improved and refined the methodology of carbon dating with an ongoing critical examination of their own work and that of their fellows in the field. Individuals who approach the topic with such arrogance are not worthy of the respect you suggest you are owed.

Thank you for your honesty. I can respect that, not the attitude it exposes.

I have no more to say.
You are real tool....Not agreeing with someone is not witholding respect from them. I've made no comment on any individial or group. Carbon dating has major flaws and I simply don't accept that the results should be considered factual - just the best guesstimate that can be given on the information we have. If you want to involve youself with science fiction then go do it - Science and tools like you are the ones that like to belittle and ridicule those that don't agree with its premise.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,857,055
52,817
Guam
✟5,225,113.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You are real tool....Not agreeing with someone is not witholding respect from them. I've made no comment on any individial or group. Carbon dating has major flaws and I simply don't accept that the results should be considered factual - just the best guesstimate that can be given on the information we have. If you want to involve youself with science fiction then go do it - Science and tools like you are the ones that like to belittle and ridicule those that don't agree with its premise.

I'm more interested in the Rock of Ages, than I am the age of rocks.

- Inherit the Wind
 
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
6,374
5,183
✟386,258.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
@Platte
Isn't the point of you referring to the science you don't agree with as science fiction because it clashes with a 6000 year old earth?

For all your references to AI, one point you haven't taken into account or perhaps don't understand, the differences between random and systematic errors.
If RC dating is as unreliable as you think it is then random errors would dominate, yet your AI examples show where deviations can occur. These are systematic errors which in many cases can be corrected for.

One way is to date the same object using two different methods such as the food fragments in a pot and when the pot was fired.

Item (single artefact)What was analysedDating methodWhat is being datedDate range
One Jōmon cooking pot sherd with interior charred crust (single vessel)Ceramic body of the same pot + attached food residuePot: thermoluminescence (TL) / stratigraphic context; Residue: AMS radiocarbon datingPot firing (manufacture) vs. last cooking eventPot firing: ~13,000–10,000 BCEFood use: ~12,500–10,000 BCE

Not only are the date ranges in agreement but indicate the earth was not created 6000 years ago.
Science does not rely on single but multiple dating methods where possible.
 
Upvote 0

dlamberth

Senior Contributor
Site Supporter
Oct 12, 2003
20,309
3,253
Oregon
✟1,053,000.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Politics
US-Others
AI on carbon-14 dating accuracy:


Carbon-14 dating doesn't suddenly become "accurate" at a specific age. Rather, its usefulness gradually improves as more carbon-14 decays and the signal becomes easier to distinguish from measurement noise and natural variations.
A rough guide:
Age of sampleTypical usefulness
0–100 yearsUsually poor for precise dating
100–300 yearsPossible, but often large uncertainties
300–1,000 yearsGenerally useful; often accurate to within decades
1,000–10,000 yearsExcellent range for radiocarbon dating
10,000–40,000 yearsStill very useful, though uncertainties grow
40,000–60,000 yearsNear the practical limit; results become less reliable
The reason is that after a few hundred years, enough carbon-14 has decayed to create a measurable difference from modern carbon. By around 500–1,000 years old, radiocarbon dating is usually considered a very effective tool, especially when:
  • The sample is uncontaminated.
  • Modern accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) is used.
  • The results are calibrated against known records such as tree rings.
For example:
  • A 1,000-year-old sample has lost about 11% of its original carbon-14.
  • A 5,730-year-old sample has lost 50%.
  • A 10,000-year-old sample has lost about 70%.
Those larger differences are easier to measure accurately than the tiny changes seen in a 100-year-old sample.
So if you're asking when carbon-14 dating becomes reliably useful for determining age, a reasonable answer is around a few hundred years old, with particularly strong performance from about 500–1,000 years onward.
 
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
9,643
10,494
✟311,187.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
AI on carbon-14 dating accuracy:


Carbon-14 dating doesn't suddenly become "accurate" at a specific age. Rather, its usefulness gradually improves as more carbon-14 decays and the signal becomes easier to distinguish from measurement noise and natural variations.
A rough guide:
Age of sampleTypical usefulness
0–100 yearsUsually poor for precise dating
100–300 yearsPossible, but often large uncertainties
300–1,000 yearsGenerally useful; often accurate to within decades
1,000–10,000 yearsExcellent range for radiocarbon dating
10,000–40,000 yearsStill very useful, though uncertainties grow
40,000–60,000 yearsNear the practical limit; results become less reliable
The reason is that after a few hundred years, enough carbon-14 has decayed to create a measurable difference from modern carbon. By around 500–1,000 years old, radiocarbon dating is usually considered a very effective tool, especially when:
  • The sample is uncontaminated.
  • Modern accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) is used.
  • The results are calibrated against known records such as tree rings.
For example:
  • A 1,000-year-old sample has lost about 11% of its original carbon-14.
  • A 5,730-year-old sample has lost 50%.
  • A 10,000-year-old sample has lost about 70%.
Those larger differences are easier to measure accurately than the tiny changes seen in a 100-year-old sample.
So if you're asking when carbon-14 dating becomes reliably useful for determining age, a reasonable answer is around a few hundred years old, with particularly strong performance from about 500–1,000 years onward.
Excellent, objective, reasoned summation of the situation. Unfortunately excellent, objective, reasoned summations are likely considered by some to be some form of science fiction.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hans Blaster
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
6,374
5,183
✟386,258.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
AI on carbon-14 dating accuracy:


Carbon-14 dating doesn't suddenly become "accurate" at a specific age. Rather, its usefulness gradually improves as more carbon-14 decays and the signal becomes easier to distinguish from measurement noise and natural variations.
A rough guide:
Age of sampleTypical usefulness
0–100 yearsUsually poor for precise dating
100–300 yearsPossible, but often large uncertainties
300–1,000 yearsGenerally useful; often accurate to within decades
1,000–10,000 yearsExcellent range for radiocarbon dating
10,000–40,000 yearsStill very useful, though uncertainties grow
40,000–60,000 yearsNear the practical limit; results become less reliable
The reason is that after a few hundred years, enough carbon-14 has decayed to create a measurable difference from modern carbon. By around 500–1,000 years old, radiocarbon dating is usually considered a very effective tool, especially when:
  • The sample is uncontaminated.
  • Modern accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) is used.
  • The results are calibrated against known records such as tree rings.
For example:
  • A 1,000-year-old sample has lost about 11% of its original carbon-14.
  • A 5,730-year-old sample has lost 50%.
  • A 10,000-year-old sample has lost about 70%.
Those larger differences are easier to measure accurately than the tiny changes seen in a 100-year-old sample.
So if you're asking when carbon-14 dating becomes reliably useful for determining age, a reasonable answer is around a few hundred years old, with particularly strong performance from about 500–1,000 years onward.
Here is the science or rather the mathematics behind it.

1780308047278.png

1780308227560.png
 
Upvote 0

Platte

Well-Known Member
Jul 14, 2020
1,650
279
57
Virginia
✟85,618.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
@Platte
Isn't the point of you referring to the science you don't agree with as science fiction because it clashes with a 6000 year old earth?
I don't agree that something is science if its not....I never said the earth was 6000 years old - but my opinion of science or science fiction is not based on my Creation views....though its funny how science and of course History do support my Creation views.
For all your references to AI, one point you haven't taken into account or perhaps don't understand, the differences between random and systematic errors.
If RC dating is as unreliable as you think it is then random errors would dominate, yet your AI examples show where deviations can occur. These are systematic errors which in many cases can be corrected for.

One way is to date the same object using two different methods such as the food fragments in a pot and when the pot was fired.
Using 2 science fiction models to date the same object doesnt really help anyone....however there is nothing wrong with having a best guess of something. Thats what humans do and is very helpful for us to make the best possible decisions - "guesstimation" is a good thing.
Not only are the date ranges in agreement but indicate the earth was not created 6000 years ago.
Science does not rely on single but multiple dating methods where possible.
2 wrongs dont a right make - the Earth was created 6000 years ago and took 6 days.
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Reconstruction 3 will come
Mar 11, 2017
25,850
18,670
56
USA
✟485,715.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Using 2 science fiction models to date the same object doesnt really help anyone....however there is nothing wrong with having a best guess of something. Thats what humans do and is very helpful for us to make the best possible decisions - "guesstimation" is a good thing.

What about the science of radioactive decay is "fiction"?
 
  • Like
Reactions: dlamberth
Upvote 0

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,730
1,963
✟86,949.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I don't agree that something is science if its not....I never said the earth was 6000 years old - but my opinion of science or science fiction is not based on my Creation views....though its funny how science and of course History do support my Creation views.

Using 2 science fiction models to date the same object doesnt really help anyone....however there is nothing wrong with having a best guess of something. Thats what humans do and is very helpful for us to make the best possible decisions - "guesstimation" is a good thing.

2 wrongs dont a right make - the Earth was created 6000 years ago and took 6 days.
Many people don't realize that science as well as the bible agree with a young earth.

For example the flood of Noah buried the dinosaurs...and they are not 65+ MY's old.
 
Upvote 0