Age of the earth

npetreley · Aug 14, 2002

Originally posted by LewisWildermuth
Nick, Doc.

Your statements are vastly interesting.

You seem to supporty lying to people when the truth is uncomfortable...

Is this a very Christian thing to do?

ROFL!! An unmarried marriage counsellor.

In other words, rather than admit so-called scientific data is often contaminated with fairy tales and made-up facts, you're going to try to make us look like "bad" Christians. And in doing so, you've jumped to conclusions without adequate information (a very evolutionist thing to do, by the way).

Here's the info you were missing. I did the programming necessary to make the 4:1 fudge work, even though I objected to the decision made by management. I was also an atheist at the time.

LewisWildermuth · Aug 14, 2002

I knew your answer already Nick, but I don't have the time or patience to trade insults with you, I was hoping to hear from Doc though, either in PM like I sent to him or here.

DocBrown · Aug 14, 2002

<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">I was hoping my assessment was wrong when I said that some people on this board worship scientists as if they were infallible. It was very interesting that instead of admitting that these people are not perfect some went on the offensive. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o></o>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">Also I've noticed that people don't read post in there entirety or misundstand what is said. I never said that all scientists are dishonest, only that some are. I never said that no scientists actually obtain their own data, it's just that where I worked it wasn't the norm as the company paid the tech's to do this work. There are a lot of good scientists, but there are some that are not. Think about that, it's everywhere, in every field. It's like saying that all police officers are good and honest. Do you also believe this? Time to wake up and live in the real world. <o></o>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">Sorry I offended. <o></o>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">Doc <o></o>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"> 

LewisWildermuth · Aug 14, 2002

So now that you are called to prove some of your statements you act as if the peope asking are bad because they trust in the published and repeateed and peer reviewes test and not in a random poster on a message board just because that person says he/she is a Christian?

Some people who accept evolution may well put too much trust in a scientist and their interpretation of the data... And some people who accept creationism may well put to much trust in a theologist and his interpretation of the bible...

Kettle: Mr Pot you are black...

blader · Aug 14, 2002

Originally posted by npetreley

First you'll have to demonstrate that this is true. Can you present such evidence? Can you show how someone did exactly 6 tests using different radiometric dating techniques on the same samples, and they all agree? If not, can you show ALL of the test results, including all of the results that were discarded as "anomalies"?

Finally, you're simply not being scientific if you think that the results are accurate just because you get consistent results using different types of radiometric dating. Remember that you're using tests based on the same mechanisms and assumptions (radioactive decay, amount of parent/daughter materials), so a certain degree of consistency will occur even if your dates are wildly inaccurate. That's why most scientific experiments include tests with unrelated mechanisms and variables - to eliminate this kind of potential problem.

So why ask me demonstrate it when you've already dismissed before I even do so? Well, thanks for saving me the work. You should keep this up, I like this style.

LiveFreeOrDie · Aug 14, 2002

Originally posted by npetreley
Finally, you're simply not being scientific if you think that the results are accurate just because you get consistent results using different types of radiometric dating. Remember that you're using tests based on the same mechanisms and assumptions (radioactive decay, amount of parent/daughter materials), so a certain degree of consistency will occur even if your dates are wildly inaccurate.

Please show us how you know this. Show us how an error in the assumptions could result in wildly inaccurate yet concordant dates. Work the math. Show us the results.

You won't do it because you are all bluster and hot air.

Didaskomenos · Aug 14, 2002

I knew that's how this thread would end up. YEC decrying scientists and lodging handwaving dismissals like they were going out of style.

Let me tell the non-YEC's, scientific evidence on top of scientific evidence will do nothing for YEC's. They'll continue to distrust you. Here's three reasons:

1) The scientific method, especially in dealing with unrepeatable occurences, relies on theory. It can be the best theory, but if fundamentalists thought the Bible argued against the "law" of gravity, they'd oppose it. They're just not going to trust you, because they think that all non-Christians are either dishonest or hoodwinked by anti-God bias. And they won't even deny this charge.

My mom is like this. I was talking to her about my graduate orientation meeting at UGA, and I mentioned that it would just be an hour of introducing me to UGA, and she comes back with, "Well, I doubt you'll get much Truth there." At *ORIENTATION*! Sheesh. She thought they'd start deceiving me about the mysteries of life if I listened to even a non-theological, practical session too closely.

2) Their problem is with authority. They, through an interpretation of the Bible that is so pridefully self-important it's actually criminally negligent, would rather decide before going into a discussion that they know exactly what the Bible says rather than listen to anyone else who doesn't agree.

3) They don't want the Truth. "For who hopes for what he already has?" - or *thinks he has.* If they wanted the truth, they'd search all over God's creation to find it. They would at least listen to other Christians' viewpoints, because no Christian or belief or worldview has the monopoly on Truth. God gives it to whom he wills, and whether Christians like it or not, God sometimes wills to let non-Christians get ahold of some of it. :gasp!:

I know this because I came out of it. Scientific evidence didn't replace my faith in God - it forced me to re-evaluate my particular box that I had put God in. Some aren't willing to do that.

Jerry Smith · Aug 14, 2002

Well said, Didaskomenos.

RufusAtticus · Aug 14, 2002

Didaskomenos,

Are you at UGA too?

blader · Aug 14, 2002

Great post, Dida.

Didaskomenos · Aug 14, 2002

Rufus,
Starting Tuesday. I'm pursuing an MA in historical linguistics. Should be fun!

RufusAtticus · Aug 14, 2002

Great,

I almost went to grad school to do Historical linguistics. I took as many classes in it as I could as an undergrad. Dr. Klein still is my favorite professor. Drop me a line, and we can go out to dinner some time.

Cantuar · Aug 14, 2002

Dida, to answer your original question, the best resource I've found is a book, not a website, so it mightn't be all that much help to you. It's "The Age of the Earth" by Brent Dalrymple, a USGS geologist.

Doc Brown, I'm sorry the scientists you've come across have been dishonest and lazy. My husband and his colleagues and most of our friends and a lot of the people I work with are research scientists and they aer anything but dishonest and lazy. Just thought you might like to know there are some honest hardworking scientists out there.

Didaskomenos · Aug 14, 2002

Thanks, Cantaur. It'd be worth a check-out.

LiveFreeOrDie · Aug 15, 2002

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie

Please show us how you know this. Show us how an error in the assumptions could result in wildly inaccurate yet concordant dates. Work the math. Show us the results.

You won't do it because you are all bluster and hot air.

I rest my case.

Duane Morse · Aug 15, 2002

 
<TABLE cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=3 width="90%" align=center border=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD><B>quote:</B></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #000000 1px solid; BORDER-TOP: #000000 1px solid; FONT-SIZE: 11px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 1px solid; COLOR: #ffffff; BORDER-BOTTOM: #000000 1px solid; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana,Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #828fa2"><I>Originally posted by Duane Morse </I>
Do you think I am all knowing? Ask God.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

But God's not the one proposing the idea of altered DNA to explain languages at Babel.  That's YOUR idea.

So asking you is the proper thing to do.

The altered DNA is a possible explaination, and the only one I can think of that could hold water. The idea came from something I read a long time ago in a book called, I think, Molocules of the Mind. It was talking about the early days of the NMR scanners and an anomoly in there readings. It seems that sometimes when an atom flipped polarity it emmitted a short burst of radiation. The radiation was specific to the type of atom. So, I theorized if the earth underwent a pole-shift it may emmit a similar burst of radiation. There seems to have been a pole-shift at the time of Babel, and if the earth emmitted this radiation it could be the mechanism that God used to change the single race into many.

Evidence for this pole-shift at the time of Babel is in that ice-core record that was posted earlier. and it is at the exact time that the Chinese calander began in 1953 B.C.. It is the first very tall spike on the graph, and rather short lived.

Be seeing you

Duane

Didaskomenos · Aug 15, 2002

Whoa. Trekkies, eat your hearts out!

DocBrown · Aug 15, 2002

Originally posted by Cantuar
Dida, to answer your original question, the best resource I've found is a book, not a website, so it mightn't be all that much help to you. It's "The Age of the Earth" by Brent Dalrymple, a USGS geologist.

Doc Brown, I'm sorry the scientists you've come across have been dishonest and lazy. My husband and his colleagues and most of our friends and a lot of the people I work with are research scientists and they aer anything but dishonest and lazy. Just thought you might like to know there are some honest hardworking scientists out there.

I also know a lot of scientists that are hard working and honest. It's just that over a 20 year period of time I've known a whole lot of scientists. Some good some not so good. But like I've stated before when you are developing something new then they have to be honest because of the checks and balances. What they do has to be able to be reproduced by others. Remember Cold Fusion? Couldn't be reproduced so it was dropped or re-studied.

I haven't been a Christian very long (months) and I'm looking into creationism now with an open mind for the first time. As of now I don't know enough about it to debate but I'm learning. Being on the other side of the fence for so long I have to admit it's very hard.

Doc

LewisWildermuth · Aug 15, 2002

Ahhhh The pole shift demon, I haden't relized that so many Christian fringe groups had clammored onto that bad science bandwagon too... The last pole shift recorded was 780,000 years ago, not just a few thousand.

Morat · Aug 15, 2002

  Silly boy! You take the concepts you want, ignore the data that supported it, and use it to support something directly contradicted by the data.

  In other words, you can use pole shifts to prove a young Earth, because the concept works, and you don't need to fiddle with the fact that pole shift's were demonstrated with data under the usual (and emphatically not young-earth) geologic paradigm.

   The usual lack of follow through, really.

 

Age of the earth

pumpkin sailor

Senior Veteran

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Evilutionist

Science Officer

Voiced Bilabial Spirant

Fish out of water

PopGen Grad Student

Evilutionist

Voiced Bilabial Spirant

PopGen Grad Student

Forever England

Voiced Bilabial Spirant

Science Officer

Well-Known Member

Voiced Bilabial Spirant

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Untitled One

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency