Posted on 06/10/2007 6:38:21 PM PDT by kathsua
Empirical science and religion differ in some fundamental ways. Scientists look for questions to ask. Priests (preachers, rabbis, etc) just provide answers.
Science has theories that are subject to change. In 1896, physicists believed that atoms were the smallest particles of matter. A year latter J.J. Thomson overturned this theory by reporting his discovery that atoms were actually comprised of smaller charged particles he called "protons", "electrons" and "neutrons". Later research demonstrated that Thomson's particles were comprised of even smaller particles.
Religion has truths that are to be accepted without question. Those who question these truths may be treated as heretics.
Real scientists encourage questions. They even ask questions about established theories including aspects of the Theory of Relativity and try to find ways these theories might be wrong. Stephan Hawking demonstrated what a real scientist does when he suggested he had been wrong when he suggested that information cannot escape from a black hole. Physicists have a model of the atom they are satisfied with, but that hasn’t stopped them from checking to see if they might have missed something. They are currently colliding heavy nuclei to test the model.
Relgion gets its truths from prophets or dieties. Science has to do things the hard way by conducting repeated observations and experiments. Science cannot verify theories about physical processes that cannot be examined.
Some people who call themselves scientists want science to become a substitute for religion, or at least function more like a religion.. Some believe that science can provide an explanation for events in the distant past that is so accurate it cannot be questioned. Such a claim is illogical because insufficient information is available. For example, those who talk about greenhouse gases state they can precisely determine past temperatures by examining tree rings or ice cores. The width of tree rings depends upon availability of water and the amount of time temperatures are within the range the tree can grow in, not average temperatures. The religious fanatics of the greenhouse gas religion have been accused of practicing censorship of those who disagree with their doctrine.
The subject of the origin of the universe and life on earth has traditionally been the province of religion. Science can only deal effectively with the present. It cannot observe or manipulate the distant past to verify theories. The subject of the origin of the universe and life on earth is interesting and scientific studies of the present might provide useful information, but science cannot provide a definitive answer to the question of how the universe or biological life came to exist. Science can only say what might have happened.
[I have told you over and over again that radiocarbon dating only goes back some 50,000 years. It is not used to date the age of the earth.]
Well by golly- ya got me on a misprint- I meant Radiometric Dating- So I’ll ask again: this time with the correctec word:
And tell me somethign ?Coyote- I’m surious about something- we’ll ignore Woodmorappe’s book doesn’t exist- pretend that Woodmorappe didn’t expose the problems with radiometric dating- and I’ll ask this instead, How is it that many many times down through the ages dates have had to be pushed back 10-20-50-100 million years AFTER being dated with these highly accurate systems in the first place? Do evos get to pick and choose when they determine the dating methods to be accurate or not? If they got the dates wrong once, let alone the numerous times they have been given that the evidneces dated didn’t fit the new evidences discovered, wouldn’t that mean the methods they used in the first place were a bit suspect? The calibration off by oh say, a hundred million years or so? (Provided we’re to assume the earth is even that old- but for the sake of this question, we’ll pretend it is) How many times have these highly accurate systems of dating been ‘recalibrated’ to fit hte eivdences? I dunno about you, but if I had a calculator that had to be recalibrated al lthe time, I’d throw the sucker out- even just one mistake would make it suspect- let alone many mistakes as we see in evo dating game.
When the Bible is read, one is reading what people wrote. Sure, they were inspired by God, but they were sinners like you and me.
You claim you will not bow down to science and no one is asking you to. But you are denying that the sky is blue and the sun shines behind clouds. The very fact that literal Genesis is in disagreement with observed facts means one must interpret Genesis in usch a way that it is a metaphor for God's creation. Evolution does not deny God, it reveals a pretty marvelous way He brought us into existence.
But if you really want to deny what God has put in front of you, go ahead. You are calling God a liar and will never be able to reconcile your faith with Him. But then again, that's why there is Grace, so you can comfortably ignore the world around you while others use the evidence God left in His creation to try to make the world a better place.
It's evident from your anger that I have touched a nerve.
Don't come near where the grass is green and alive with truth.
That is not where you are. You must use deception to make the real world conform to your beliefs. That is where Satan treads.
You are thrashing like a madman. Do you ever read the drivel that you write?
Enjoy your chosen darkness.
And tell me somethign ?Coyote- I’m surious about something- we’ll ignore Woodmorappe’s book doesn’t exist- pretend that Woodmorappe didn’t expose the problems with radiometric dating- and I’ll ask this instead, How is it that many many times down through the ages dates have had to be pushed back 10-20-50-100 million years AFTER being dated with these highly accurate systems in the first place? Do evos get to pick and choose when they determine the dating methods to be accurate or not? If they got the dates wrong once, let alone the numerous times they have been given that the evidneces dated didn’t fit the new evidences discovered, wouldn’t that mean the methods they used in the first place were a bit suspect? The calibration off by oh say, a hundred million years or so? (Provided we’re to assume the earth is even that old- but for the sake of this question, we’ll pretend it is) How many times have these highly accurate systems of dating been ‘recalibrated’ to fit hte eivdences? I dunno about you, but if I had a calculator that had to be recalibrated al lthe time, I’d throw the sucker out- even just one mistake would make it suspect- let alone many mistakes as we see in evo dating game.
First, I do not do that type of dating. My expertise is in radiocarbon dating.
Second, you have shown that you know little about science because your questions make no sense. You have to know something about a field of science to ask an intelligent question.
Did you ever consider that it was the rocks that were getting older, rather than the dating methods being adjusted?
Did you ever consider that tens of thousands of dates were being done, and the ones being reported in the popular media (where you would see them) were only the ones which bumped the age just a bit older? While the scientific literature (which you obviously do not read) reported all of the dates?
And did you ever consider that when scientists established the dates of certain rocks, they figured out where to look for even older rocks?
Or are you silly enough to expect that the very first time a rock was dated that they would discover the oldest rock ever?
Give it up. You simply do not have the makings of a scientist. You are unwilling to view the world as it actually is because your a priori belief is preventing you from doing so. That is the characteristic of a fundamentalist, rather than a scientist.
[You made a number of claims that were specific about organisms surviving hundreds of millions of years without change.]
I did? I find it odd I would have made that claim as I don’t think the world more than 6,000-12,000 years old.
[The onus is on you to provide a link to some science somewhere that stats there is a time limit to morphological stasis.]
I think there was a misunderstanding- The onus is on Evo science to show that time could produce NEW information
[”time plays no part in moecular biological fact”
If you are saying that there are no time limits then why did you bring up the claim that there are organisms which have not changed since the Precambrian?]
What I meant was that Time can not cure the problem of biological impossibility-
[You made a specific claim. The onus is on you to provide specific support for that claim.]
The uspport for my claim is online- and in the libraries- just as I mentioned- help yourself.
[If the scientists had no intention to create a new species, your comments are irrelevant.]
Oh, but they were- that was the whole point of the fruit fly experiments to see if a replication of millions of years of evolution through massive radiation and gene manipulations could produce new species- The point of using hte fruit flies was that they reproduced very rapidly, prolifically, and many many generations could be examined- however, the results were very dissappointing and only resulted in freakish mutant fruitflies
[Evolution is an accumulation of changes, you cannot get away from that,]
Nor am I trying to ‘get away from that.”. I fully understand how evolutionists claim evo happened- however- We’re starting to play a little game here with wording- As you well know, there is no evidence to back up the fact that microevolutionary changes can move a species to anotehr species- Subspecies? Sure- We have plenty of evidnece that proves this is a reality- New? No- in order to do that you would need to move information from one species to another
[so for you to claim that no speciation has occurred by giving an example where no speciation was attempted through multiple changes to multiple alleles throughout multiple generations, invalidates your claim.]
More game- I never said speciation doesn’t happen- obviously a species can lose enough information that they can no longer breed with the original- however, your sparrow is still a sparrow and so far from being a bat that it is an impossible leap to said bat. Speciation is not macroevolution- it’s simple natural selection that varies species within their own KIND- There isn’t an iota of evidence that speciation EVER led a psecies KIND outside of it’s own KIND. It’s still just a hypothesis with no evidence to back it up.
[Yes we have gone over this and found that you are incapable of defining information let alone quantifying it enough for it to be objectively measured.
No- the answer we’ve coem to is that you know, but won’t admit that speciation doesn’t = a biological NEW KIND- I’ll answer it yet once again because evidnetly you missed it the last time- NEW information is NON species specific information that is introduced to a species. All the information in a species can be altered, manipulated etc, and it will still only result in the same species precisely because of the species specific limitations of gene manipulation. The ONLY way for a cat to get bat radar is to introduce it through lateral gene transference from the bat- the information in the cat simply can’t be manipulated to produce that echo location syatem- the cat isn’t coded for it- the code it does have has very species specific limitations whicbh you full well know. The echo location information and organs used for said system would all be NEW infromation in a cat- a Cat with 12 legs would be nothign but a freak of nature cat that had it’s own specific species gene infromation altered through gene mistakes. See- the problem is, you folks know this full well, but it is so devestating to the hypothesis of evolution, that you al ltry to play these little symantics games to try to counter argue against the term NEW information. Your hypothesis that small accumulations could result in NEW information has no evidence to back it up, and infact is biologically impossible, and the impossibility is made more clear by all our testing and selective breeding programs which show quite clearly that species have limits as to how far they can be altered. You know full well that the idea that small accumulations of mutations could result in moving species to higher species is broken and has impossible hurdles to overcome, and so this little symantics game is played.- I’m sorry, but that’s what it is- a game- rouind and round we go. The only thing evo has to offer as far as supporting evidnece is showing a species with jaw bones in different spots and telling us it clearly lead to inner ear assembly of the ear hearing system- with no evidence showing htose bones accumulating in the ear and assembling themselves. Again- it’s a swell hypothesis, but it’s a weak one and has serious biological impossibilities to overcome. Evo’s assertion that speciation = NEW information odesn’t cut it- not even close. The sparrow is still a Sparrow- you can suggest that the speciated Sparrow later became a bat- but there is no evidnece to back this up, and there is equally no evidence to back up the assertion that biological impossibilties can be overcome with time. Stating that it can is simply WAY too conveinient a cop out. Sorry, but true.
[Selective breeding is not an attempt to move something beyond its own ‘kind’ (whatever that is) it is an attempt to fix a specific allele within a population.]
The experiments, once again, were not a slective breeding program- it was carried out to mimick evolution by producing, en mass, natural mutations through radiation.
[Second, you have shown that you know little about science because your questions make no sense.]
Oh it makes plenty of sense- which I guess means, since it makes no sense to you- that apparently you have even less knowlege of scien than me? Is that what you’re suggesting?
[Did you ever consider that tens of thousands of dates were being done, and the ones being reported in the popular media (where you would see them) were only the ones which bumped the age just a bit older? While the scientific literature (which you obviously do not read) reported all of the dates?]
I don’t care what the scientific literature reported- that simple fact is the Dates got bumped back tens/hundreds of millions of years and became the date standards in science- the question still stands.
[Or are you silly enough to expect that the very first time a rock was dated that they would discover the oldest rock ever?]
Nope- but apparently you’re just silly enough to ask a super silly question
[Give it up. You simply do not have the makings of a scientist. You are unwilling to view the world as it actually is because your a priori belief is preventing you from doing so.]
Here let me just fix that paragraph for you:
Give it up. You simply do not have the makings of a scientist. You are unwilling to view the world as I see it and that makes you an idiot because you dare question the priori dogma that macroevolution happened despite zero evidence to show that it can. Biological impossibilities? Pfffft- Time fixes all wounds. Mathematical impossibiltiies? Pffffft- again- tiem overcomes all. The only reason that you don’t suspend all logic, and ignore all impossibilties, and beleive in a syatem that has nothign to back it up scientifically, is that you apparently aren’t willing to suspend logic, and dare to question the dogma! Don’t be an idiot- bow down to the goddess called time and the godettes called mutation and vestigial organs, and kill your children on the alter of speciation and quit making waves! Don’t make me dunk your head in a prebiotic soup young man!
[First, I do not do that type of dating. My expertise is in radiocarbon dating.]
Golly- didn’t see that response coming- I guess that autoimatically makes the problems that Woodmorappe exposed with radiometric dating dissapear altogether. Carry on maligning those who bring the to attention that radiometric dating has problems then coyboy
What it does not do is make the absolutely foolish comments "Woodmorappe" (and you) make regarding radiocarbon dating disappear altogether.
When will you get it through your head that neither "Woodmorappe" (nor you) have a clue about radiocarbon dating?
And if I can show, as I have, that neither "Woodmorappe" (nor you) have a clue about radiocarbon dating, that implies that neither of you necessarily has a clue about radiometric dating either.
Here are some links for those willing to learn:
ReligiousTolerance.org Carbon-14 Dating (C-14): Beliefs of New-Earth CreationistsRadiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.
This site, BiblicalChronologist.org has a series of good articles on radiocarbon dating.
Are tree-ring chronologies reliable? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)
Tree Ring and C14 DatingHow does the radiocarbon dating method work? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)
How precise is radiocarbon dating?
Is radiocarbon dating based on assumptions?
Has radiocarbon dating been invalidated by unreasonable results?
Radiocarbon WEB-info Radiocarbon Laboratory, University of Waikato, New Zealand.
Oh, and I wouldn’t be holding dendroChronology up as the infallible dating method that solidifies radiocarbon dating methods
[When will you get it through your head that neither “Woodmorappe” (nor you) have a clue about radiocarbon dating?]
Woodmorappe doesn’t have a clue? LOL- ah you are a funy funy guy
From your ‘bible site: “We could discuss the details of pattern-matching technique or the probability of error, but there is another, more quantitative way, to determine if the long tree-ring chronologies are accurate or not. One can use the amount of radiocarbon in the individual tree rings.”
Hahahaha- yup- one can use the very same error prone dating methods to ‘cross check’ the error prone dendrology- it’s like using a broken calculator with a broken number 4 on it to check anopther calculator with a broken number 4 and trying to add 2+2. Yup- use a system that is based on ASSUMPTIONS to check a system that relies on ASSUMPTIONS- to verify it’s accuracy lol
“A great deal of subjective interpretation is required to judge between true and false rings and true and false pattern matches between different pieces of wood. For estimating the ages of trees that are still living, this doesn’t seem to be a significant problem, but when it comes to matching up wood from different trees, to create an extended overlapping chronology, the problems become a bit more difficult to overcome.” http://www.detectingdesign.com/carbon14.html
Two can play the links game all day long coyote-
Tree ring dating inacurate
http://creationwiki.org/Carbon_dating_gives_inaccurate_results
http://www.nazarene-friends.org/booklets/radiometricdating.htm
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/tree_ring.asp
From the site: http://www.bible.ca/tracks/dating-radiometric.htm#tree
“The following message was sent to me by e mail on February 11, 1998:
As one who has taught dendrochronnology, I have a few opinions on this particular subject. Also, one of my graduate students went to work for Ferguson in his lab at U of A, and in fact was the curator of his work after his death, and is presently probably the only one who knows anything about how he [Ferguson] produced the bristlecone chronology. Another of my graduate students gave a seminar to the lab on dendrochronology of fossil trees and had ample opportunity to analyze the procedures there, and to work with Ferguson for a while. I can say on pretty firm grounds that the Bristlecone chronology before 4000bp is fraught with problems and unanswered questions. While Ferguson was alive, he never allowed anyone to analyze his original data or the bases for the many suppositions that went into the establishment of the chronology. Thus the chronology was not subjected to the normal rigors of science.”
“But suffice to say the chronology before 4000bp is entirely dependent on C14 dates of the wood, and is thus tautologous. “
“Dr. Libby, the discoverer of the C14 method, which won for him a Nobel prize, expressed his shock that human artifacts extended back only 5000 years, a finding totally in conflict with any evolutionary concept. Older dates were found to be very unreliable (CRSQ , 1972, 9:3, p.157). By this time tens of thousands of C14 dates have been published from tests performed by various laboratories around the world. In the annual volumes in which the dates are published, concerns have been expressed about many relatively young dates that violate established geological age notions” Woopsie.
“Bones 30,000 years old were found lying above wood dated at 16,000 years (Ceram, 1971, p.257-259).”
“Another classic C14 problem was noted for Jarmo, a prehistoric village in northern Iraq. Eleven samples were dated from the various strata and showed a 6000-year spread from oldest to most recent. Analysis of all the archaeological evidence, however, showed that the village was occupied no more than 500 years before it was finally abandoned “ Woopsie- better trot out the ‘contamination’ excuse
“Mortar samples can be given normal C14 tests since mortar absorbs carbon dioxide from the air. Mortar, however, from Oxford Castle in England gave an age of 7,270 years. The castle was built about 800 years ago.”
“Data produced by the Petroleum Institute at Victoria, New Zealand, showed that petroleum deposits were formed 6,000-7,000 years ago. Textbooks state that petroleum formation took place about 300,000,000 years ago”
On and on it goes- and on and on the ‘contamination’ excuse goes. As the site states, some people claim that when dating anythign over 30,000 (supposedly) years, that ‘of course there will be mistaken dates given because the subjects are subject to contasmination- yet, incredibly, we’re told Carbon dating is ‘accurate up to 40-50,000 years. I guess when the whacky dating method gives a date ya like- then that date is inscritible- but when it conflicts, ya just claim ‘contamination’ But alas, the author of the site probably isn’t as degreed as you, so we can safely ignore the facts he presents- phew.
I find it incredible that you claim anyone that brings evidence that doesn’t support Carbon dating isn’t ‘qualified’ to do so (Despite the fact that the oens doing so in many cases are geologists themselves- not sure how you come to your conclusion other than by complete priori based baised.) Yet, when it comes to maligning ID science- you apparently feel yourself quite qualified to malign them DESPITE the fact that you both aren’t educated in their science fields and DESPITE the fact that you completely ignore their science aND worse yet, don’t even bother to study their science because you can’t get yourself past a NON issue- that they have PERSONAL beliefs OUTSIDE of their scientific investigations. you rail against them being yourself completely ignorant of the science they are conducting. A petty bias against people’s PERSONAL beliefs is apparently enough in your mind, to discount their science. You lecture others about pointing out problems with carbon and other radiometric dating t4echniques- requiring them to be fully accreditted scientists before they can voice the FACTS about hte problems, yet you give yourself complete liberty to ignore your own petty rules. Amazing.
From the site again “Anyway, as for C14 dating in general, it seems clear that many, many results are much too young according to the standard view, and that explaining away one or two of them does not appreciably diminish the problem.”
You don’t even bother to explain even a few away- your tactic is to rail incessantly about a site as though such railings are scientifically credible and sufficient to discount any problems that radiometric dating methods might have. And you have the nerve to call ID apologetics? Bahahaha.
Coal from Russia from the "Pennsylvanian," supposedly 300 million years old, was dated at 1,680 years. (Radiocarbon, vol. 8, 1966).I am gradually tracking down the many phoney claims made pertaining to the radiocarbon dating process, but because I have to work for a living and don't have unlimited access to a major library it takes time. But, I have tracked this one down. It appears in a lot of places in creationist literature, not just in the one you cited. For example, it's at TrueOrigin.org as well.
Analysis:
False information due to sloppy research.
This is a difficult reference to track down because the actual page number is not provided. It appears that each creationist website just copies from the previous without checking the original citation. (The information in question is on page 319.)
The original source for the false information seems to be Ken Ham, Andrew Snelling, and Carl Weiland’s The Answers Book, published by Master Books, El Cajon, CA, in 1992 (page 73).
The original article in the journal Radiocarbon includes the following paragraph describing this sample:
Mo-334. River Naryn, Kirgizia -- 1680 ± 170. A.D. 270
Coal from the cultural layer on the left side of the r. Naryn (Kirgizian SSR), 3 km E of the mourh of the r. Alabuga (41° 25' N Lat, 74° 40' E Long). The sample was found at a depth of 7.6 m in the form of scattered coals in a loamy rock in deposits of a 26-m terrace. According to the archaeological estimations the sample dates from the 5 to 7th centuries A.D. The sample was found by K. V. Kurdyumov (Moscow State Univ.) in 1962. Comment: the find serves as a verification of archaeological data on the peopling of the Tien Shan.
What we have here is no more than shorthand or sloppy translation from the Russian! The coal is nothing more than charcoal from an archaeological deposit. This sample is even included in the section of the report dealing with archaeological samples, and the paragraph discusses archaeological data.
The odd use of terms is shown clearly in another radiocarbon date, Mo-353, reported on page 315 of the same article. It reads "Charcoal from cultural deposits of a fisher site. The coal was coll. from subturfic humified loam..."
But the term "coal" in place of "charcoal" was enough to fool Ken Ham, as well as dozens of subsequent creationists who apparently were salivating to find 300 million year old coal radiocarbon dated to recent times, and who repeated Ham's false claim without bothering to check its accuracy.
The interesting question is where Ken Ham managed to find "Pennsylvanian" in that short paragraph, and where he dug up the date of 300 million years.
This is still another case where a creationist claim about science falls apart when examined more closely.
Reference
Vinogradov, A.P.; A.L. Devirts; E.I. Dobinka; and N.G. Markova. Radiocarbon dating in the Vernadsky Institute I-IV. Radiocarbon, Vol 8, No. 1, pp. 292-323.
Another creationist claim shot down in flames. Yet you continue to trust those creationist websites!
Yes, please do track down one or two obscure points and pretend the following statement “By this time tens of thousands of C14 dates have been published from tests performed by various laboratories around the world. In the annual volumes in which the dates are published, concerns have been expressed about many relatively young dates that violate established geological age notions” doesn’t exist as fact.
And pretend one APPARENT mistake renders the other facts listed on the site invalid- it’s funny to watch evos jump on a few mistakes as their only defenses against other true facts. When evos make mistakes- all sorts of excuses are made- when evos hide the truth and print half truths that are easily refutted- no explanations are given- Yet when a Creo makes a mistake- why then He’s automatically dismissed entirely-
By the way- that site trueorigins you listed refutes TONS of mistakes, half-truths and flat out lies perpetrated by your beloved talkorigins site- But I’m sure you excuse all manner of sloppy and false articles on talkorigins while puffing out your chest and pretending that site is ‘real science’ while any creo site with a mistake or two is to be dismissed entirely- it’s really quite laughable- but hurry along- therem ight be another mistake or two on the link I gave which will serve to brush the fact thaT “In the annual volumes in which the dates are published, concerns have been expressed about many relatively young dates that violate established geological age notions” under the carpet.
That is next on my list to cross check. I am sure you won't like the results.
And pretend one APPARENT mistake renders the other facts listed on the site invalid...
I have demolished more than one creationist claim regarding radiocarbon dating. I have even posted them to you. Don't you remember? Or are you ignoring those posts hoping that they will go away?
>>Science can only deal effectively with the present.<<
Its amazing the author could have so little knowledge of the subject and yet get published on it.
I would bet that the number of radio carbon tests is in the millions not just the thousands. And it would not be at all surprising if there were some errors and that someone had at some time expressed concerns about the errors.
I suspect that would be true of any chemical, physical or biological/medical test. What’s important would the type and frequency of errors. Radiometric dating is regarded as quite reliable based on repeated tests checked independently world wide.
As with many tests, it is important to avoid contamination. But this is a critically important method and very useful.
religion is about spirituality... religion is not about science.
If science is too dificult to understand, read a book, or take up 6th grade science.
Except that it the creation of a new species from an older one has never been observed. It is just a framework, like economics.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.