6,000 Years?

[River Jordan]

In order to use carbon dating you must know the amount of C14 in the atmosphere at the time the item was living....You also have to have the same ratio of C14/C12 in the atmosphere as we have today.... We do not know either these definitely from over 6000 years ago.

But again I have to point out that all the people across the world and across decades who do, and have done, C-14 dating for a living are very confident in its accuracy and utility. Do you think you know more about the subject than they do? Should they just stop doing their work and go find something else to do?

I learned about it as an undergrad and worked alongside some people who used it in grad school, so I know a little bit about it. But even with that I try and show some humility and I certainly don't think I'm more knowledgeable than the pros.

 

[River Jordan]

Thanks, I really appreciate the way you are interacting, I find it respectful, and even if we don't agree we can at lease understand one another - and that is a rare quality on most forums.

Aw, thanks!

Much of my "beef" with mainstream science is the way that things are talked about as certainties. Going back to taxonomy of species, scientists will author papers or make statements that are definitive, arguing their position as the only true reality. But the real truth is that they don't always know. Wolves in North America being my personal example. Are red wolves a hybrid, their own species evolved from a common ancestor, or something else? Are Algonquin wolves actually red wolves? Are they a hybrid grey wolf/coyote,, their own species evolved from a common ancestor? Science purports answers, but then there is continued debate. To me it does not actually matter - hybrid grey wolf/coyote, separate species, whatever, they fill a ecological niche and that's what matters. But science can't say with any clarity - and let's be honest, this is a pretty basic genetic question.

That's an interesting take. I've never worked with canids so I can't speak to that issue directly, but we do have a saying in biology that's something like "biology is messy". Every once in a while I work with engineers and they often get frustrated at how the biologists often qualify what we say with "usually", "most of the time", "sometimes", and other squishy language. In engineering world things are a lot more certain apparently.

So I'm surprised that there are papers that express the type of certainty you described. If you know of their titles or authors I'd be very curious to read them.

It's also interesting because of how often I've seen YECs wave away published papers because they use tentative language such as "likely" and "probably". I guess it's a no win situation for us! If we write with certainty YECs don't like that, and when we write tentatively they don't like that either.

That base level of uncertainty started me questioning the entire foundation of mainstream science. Where the science and where the investigation starts from are incredibly important to me as Christian.

I had a professor one semester explain that if we were really going to go into biology we'd better get comfortable with uncertainty and nuance. Since then I've been surprised at how rare that seems to be. When I'm at events or doing a project where we interact with the public it's always interesting to see how different people react when we answer their questions with "we're not sure" or "possibly". For us, that's exciting because it's a problem to solve and an opportunity for more research. For others it's apparently an indication that we don't know what we're doing or something.

That's life I guess.

 

[River Jordan]

How do you feel about the fact that, the text must be plainly interpretable, yet realistically none of us are able to read ancient Hebrew and thus can't even read what God has revealed? We have to rely on PHD Hebrew scholars to translate it for us?

I had a Jewish friend in college and he regularly reminded me that the OT is Jewish literature, written by Jews, for a Jewish audience, and so must be understood in that context. He took great offense at the idea of another group coming along and telling Jews how to read their own literature.

 

[River Jordan]

Science seems to have two sides. One side makes us marvel at God, but the other side, which is often more theoretical (e.g., evolution), tries to lead us away. The first seems to be primarily in the practical realm, and the latter is more of a mixed bag. I haven’t figured it out, but these discussions help.

Biologists are not trying to lead people away from God. We go to work and do our jobs like just about anyone else.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Biologists are not trying to lead people away from God. We go to work and do our jobs like just about anyone else.

Well, generally not. But there are a few biologists we all know who have attempted to dissuade folks away from the Christian faith. A few of them have been rather successful among the masses in that regard, too, over the past 20 years.

 

[River Jordan]

I seem to recall that a Viking grave in England was used to improve carbon dating, because they knew the date of the burial. It is one thing to say it needs improvement and another to say it is useless. Platte can answer for himself, but his words seem to be on the “needs improvement” side.

Well, I really don't want to get into trying to explain the methodology here because I don't think this is the right place to do that. But you are correct, they use known dates to calibrate their C-14 curves, along with correlation to other sources of chronology. Off the top of my head I know they use volcanic eruptions, ice cores, lake varves, stalactites/stalagmites, and tree rings.

 

[River Jordan]

Well, generally not. But there are a few biologists we all know who have attempted to dissuade folks away from the Christian faith. A few of them have been rather successful among the masses in that regard, too, over the past 20 years.

They do that in their personal capacity, and there are other biologists who do the opposite, such as Francis Collins and Ken Miller. But when it comes to work, none of them are working on leading people away from God. You will not find a single published paper that seeks to do anything like that.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

They do that in their personal capacity, and there are other biologists who do the opposite, such as Francis Collins and Ken Miller. But when it comes to work, none of them are working on leading people away from God. You will not find a single published paper that seeks to do anything like that.

Yes, I'm very, very well aware of Francis Collins and Ken Miller. And I appreciate them. But I'm referring to the likes of Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne, or other scientists within other fields who have the same mindset and philosophy of science. It's these guys who make a number of Christians (not me so much) wary.

 

[River Jordan]

Yes, I'm very, very well aware of Francis Collins and Ken Miller. And I appreciate them. But I'm referring to the likes of Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne, or other scientists within other fields who have the same mindset and philosophy of science. It's these guys who make a number of Christians (not me so much) wary.

Me too. To me Dawkins and Coyne are the other side of the coin of creationists like Ken Ham and Kent Hovind, in that all of them try and pit science and Christianity against each other and tell people they have to choose one or the other. That drives me crazy!

My original point though is about the actual work biologists do. There's nothing in our work that constitutes an effort to lead people away from God. All the promotion of atheism from Dawkins et al. is their own personal, and not professional, agenda.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Me too. To me Dawkins and Coyne are the other side of the coin of creationists like Ken Ham and Kent Hovind, in that all of them try and pit science and Christianity against each other and tell people they have to choose one or the other. That drives me crazy!

Yep. That's exactly how I see it, too.

My original point though is about the actual work biologists do. There's nothing in our work that constitutes an effort to lead people away from God. All the promotion of atheism from Dawkins et al. is their own personal, and not professional, agenda.

Yes, I understand your essential point, one which unfortunately not everyone can get onboard with. But I'm there with you, bro!

 

[Valletta]

What Lord Jesus gave them to drink is the blood of the new covenant, which is the fruit of the vine.

Matthew 26:27-29 (WEB) 27 He took the cup, gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, “All of you drink it, 28 for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the remission of sins. 29 But I tell you that I will not drink of THIS fruit of the vine

Therefore, the fruit of the vine represents the blood of the covenant. That is Lord Jesus own explanation.

What you're doing is taking one sentence and finding something that isn't there. What begins at the Passover meal is finished at the cross. Wine that you get at the liquor store is not the blood of Jesus. Jesus tells us that "This is My Body" and "This is My Blood." We are to "Do this" which means the breaking and blessing of the bread, the words of consecration, and distribution to the people. Sadly the meaning has been even more obscured since the three leaders of he reformation came up with their own ideas of what the Eucharist is. The words of Jesus are true:

John 6:53-56 Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

Jon 19:29 “A bowl of sour wine stood there; so they put a sponge full of the vinegar on hyssop and held it to his mouth”

Exodus 12:21-23 Then Moses called all the elders of Israel, and said to them, “Select lambs for yourselves according to your families, and kill the passover lamb. 22 Take a bunch of hyssop and dip it in the blood which is in the basin, and touch the lintel and the two doorposts with the blood which is in the basin; and none of you shall go out of the door of his house until the morning. 23 For the Lord will pass through to slay the Egyptians; and when he sees the blood on the lintel and on the two doorposts, the Lord will pass over the door, and will not allow the destroyer to enter your houses to slay you. RSVCE


The cup of blessing, the third cup of the Passover meal, is indeed referred to in the Bible, as per below. The hyssop and the four cups are part of the sacrificial ritual. But if you don't care for that explanation you can just leave it at say you don't know what Jesus was referring to. But picking out one sentence to discredit all that Jesus has emphasized, "Truly, truly" he says, is great folly.

1 Cor 10:16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?

 

[Job 33:6]

I had a Jewish friend in college and he regularly reminded me that the OT is Jewish literature, written by Jews, for a Jewish audience, and so must be understood in that context. He took great offense at the idea of another group coming along and telling Jews how to read their own literature.

Yea. It's a pretty big issue in the church and I'm not quite sure what the solution is.

Some people might say "well it's too hard to read it through the context of the ancient audience".

And there isn't really much we can do about that. I can't really take the Bible out of its original context. Maybe we can translate it into English to help us understand it. But that still falls short of contextual background.

Alternatively, to read it through our own context is to misread it, and to lead people to think that the church is scientifically backwards. Which thus results in atheists attacking the Bible and Christians leaving the faith out of confusion.

I just don't really have a good solution unfortunately.

But I will say, and this is just my opinion, but as a scientist, a geologist, and a Christian, I do think that science is way way way more easy to understand than the context of the ancient Israelites. And so with that, it's quite easy to see who is actually telling the straight story in the matter.

If it is to be resolved, part of the matter certainly falls upon teachers of the Bible to educate seminary students. But as a scientist and not as someone who teaches seminary, there is only so much control that I have over that matter.

And that further assumes that those seminary students would survive that information and would remain in the faith. It assumes that they would become pastors and would be able to educate others etc.

I'm not worried about scientists. We've been rocking and rolling for centuries and doing quite well. But the church goes through these waves of controversy and complications in translation, and cultural shifts.

I suppose it'll work it's way out over time. God finds a way.

 

[River Jordan]

Yea. It's a pretty big issue in the church and I'm not quite sure what the solution is.

Some people might say "well it's too hard to read it through the context of the ancient audience".

And there isn't really much we can do about that. I can't really take the Bible out of its original context. Maybe we can translate it into English to help us understand it. But that still falls short of contextual background.

Alternatively, to read it through our own context is to misread it, and to lead people to think that the church is scientifically backwards. Which thus results in atheists attacking the Bible and Christians leaving the faith out of confusion.

I just don't really have a good solution unfortunately.

But I will say, and this is just my opinion, but as a scientist, a geologist, and a Christian, I do think that science is way way way more easy to understand than the context of the ancient Israelites. And so with that, it's quite easy to see who is actually telling the straight story in the matter.

If it is to be resolved, part of the matter certainly falls upon teachers of the Bible to educate seminary students. But as a scientist and not as someone who teaches seminary, there is only so much control that I have over that matter.

And that further assumes that those seminary students would survive that information and would remain in the faith. It assumes that they would become pastors and would be able to educate others etc.

I'm not worried about scientists. We've been rocking and rolling for centuries and doing quite well. But the church goes through these waves of controversy and complications in translation, and cultural shifts.

I suppose it'll work it's way out over time. God finds a way.

Great post!

At the very least everything you describe should be cause for all of us to be humble when it comes to how we read the OT.

 

[Frank Robert]

I seem to recall that a Viking grave in England was used to improve carbon dating, because they knew the date of the burial. It is one thing to say it needs improvement and another to say it is useless. Platte can answer for himself, but his words seem to be on the “needs improvement” side.

I don't know if "improvement" is what Platte is recommending and I don't know if he is a creationist who often aim to disprove carbon dating because it provides evidence that contradicts their belief in a young Earth.

 

[Aaron112]

False evidence, or evidence used fraudulently, is most common on earth.

 

[Aaron112]

The solution is simple truth = Jesus, and not anything else with Jesus.

Yea. It's a pretty big issue in the church and I'm not quite sure what the solution is.

 

[Frank Robert]

Much of my "beef" with mainstream science is the way that things are talked about as certainties.

I don't doubt that there are people who take it that, neither do I doubt that there are likely scientists who do such things, but I wouldn't consider such scientists as scientists because science doesn't aim to establish absolute truths, as new discoveries can always challenge existing theories and refine our future our knowledge.

I can't say much more because I don't know the particular science you are referring to, so perhaps you can provide some links to studies by those particular offenders.

 

[tampasteve]

I don't doubt that there are people who take it that, neither do I doubt that there are likely scientists who do such things, but I wouldn't consider such scientists as scientists because science doesn't aim to establish absolute truths, as new discoveries can always challenge existing theories and refine our future our knowledge.

I can't say much more because I don't know the particular science you are referring to, so perhaps you can provide some links to studies by those particular offenders.

It is something that I have looked into a lot, but I am not an expert or a biologist. This is not an in depth link tree, but here are two links that talk about some of the studies that can be looked at in more detail. LINK and LINK

Again I will lean on my current belief that YEC matches with my understanding of scripture and my world view. I will freely admit that I am not a trained biologist. I was a zookeeper for a while in the mid-late 1990's and I am an amateur paleontologist, but none of that is formal training at all. Much of the details of biology and other natural sciences are something that I am interested in but I am absolutely not a expert in the subjects.

 

[Frank Robert]

I'm claiming because of its inherent limitation it holds no authority

I wouldn't argue the point. You are certainly entitled to your belief.

 

[Frank Robert]

Well, generally not. But there are a few biologists we all know who have attempted to dissuade folks away from the Christian faith. A few of them have been rather successful among the masses in that regard, too, over the past 20 years.

I am a retired scientist and I am also a practicing Catholic. I have not come across anything and I mean anything at all from science where there is an inherent conflict between science and being Catholic. There are likely individual scientists who are anti religion but I don't believe they have much influence.

On the other hand I can understand the conflict between creationists beliefs and science because of specific their beliefs in an young earth.