Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

71 (27.7%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

114 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (23.8%)

Total Members Voted: 251

[TD1]

...

One quick google search:

The oldest known fossils, in fact, are cyanobacteria from Archaean rocks of western Australia, dated 3.5 billion years old. This may be somewhat surprising, since the oldest rocks are only a little older: 3.8 billion years old! Cyanobacteria are among the easiest microfossils to recognize.

6000 years isn't....well...

[Frumple]

Speaking of that, has the state of young earth creationism changed much in the last little bit? Last I was paying attention, fossil record was either a test of faith, or they spent their time trying to discredit carbon dating (ignoring, of course, that carbon dating is something like one of a few dozen different means of dating ancient materials). Anyone aware of any new developments, or further development of old ones?

[TempAcc]

Thats one of the reasons that a lot of interpretations of the of the bible and the gospel dont take the whole "the earth is only a few thousands of years old" seriously, instead taking the genesis as more of a metaphor for the creation of things and the status of man vs the rest of creation. The only reason its still quite widespread is because a lot of the more fundamentalist protestant christians in north america latched onto the literal interpretations of the bible and disseminated it into the USA and south america through mormons, evangelicals, etc. Even the catholic church has been changing its view on the genesis for quite a long time now.

[Orange Wizard]

I think we've adequately proven that you can't disprove science by using slightly less reliable science.

[penguinofhonor]

.

[origamiscienceguy]

carbon dating only works on things that were once living. And, even then, we would have to study a living specimen to find the amount of Carbon in it during its life in order to have an accurate assessment. Carbon is also affected by the earth's magnetic field, which has been steadily declining. And, volcanism would increase the carbon in the atmosphere, and the flood was the period on the earth with the greatest amount of volcanism.

[TD1]

Is the half life of carbon effected by the magnetic field?

[Frumple]

[snip]

I must have missed that the last time I was paying attention, or forgot in the interim. Thanks.

I think we've adequately proven that you can't disprove science by using slightly less reliable science.

You might be able to discredit or obfuscate it with slightly less reliable science. YEC is entirely unreliable non-science, though, so it doesn't particularly manage that.

E: Though that's perhaps too inclined towards snark to be appropriate. I've got a decent answer and will drop the line of discussion unless something constructive can be added.

[origamiscienceguy]

Is the half life of carbon effected by the magnetic field?

Yes, I said that.

[TD1]

Yes, the atmospheric content of carbon-14 can vary somewhat. The dipole moment of the earth's magnetic field, sunspot activity, the Suess effect, possible nearby supernova explosions, and even ocean absorption can have some effect on the carbon-14 concentration. However, these factors don't affect the radiocarbon dates by more than about 10-15 percent, judging from the above studies. Of course, when we reach the upper limit of the method, around 40,000 years for the standard techniques, we should allow for much greater uncertainty as the small amounts of C-14 remaining are much harder to measure.

Tree-ring data gives us a precise correction table for carbon-14 dates as far back as 8,000-9,000 years. The above study by Stuiver shows that the C-14 fluctuations in the atmosphere were quite reasonable as far back as 22,000 years ago. The earth's magnetic field seems to have the greatest effect on C-14 production, and there is no reason to believe that its strength was greatly different even 40,000 years ago. (For a refutation of Barnes' argument see Topic 11.)

Therefore, atmospheric variation in C-14 production is not a serious problem for the carbon-14 method. The evidence refutes Dr. Hovind's claim that the C-14 content of our atmosphere is in the middle of a 30,000-year buildup.

From here.

Still reading up on this argument. Haven't heard it before.

[Vilanat]

There is an interesting concept presented by someone i can't, for the life of me, remember who it was, that maintained that the abstract thought was far less able in grasping complex concepts in the past, as it was the development of language that elevated it to allow us humans to grasp those. that "theory" maintains that a visual thinking, or imagining certain things, is older than the abstract thought and that, for example, the first human being that ever felt remorse for killing a dog, because it was cute, didn't just abstractly thought or discovered he had conscience but actually visualized a being (angel/demon/etc..) that told him not to kill cute dogs (Prior to that phase, not hunting a beast for meat was perceived as bizarre). the inner voice only later introduced when people started exchange that experience and ideas and the exterior visual image became an inner visual image (Humans began to understand the visual entity is not out there) and only then an inner voice.

That theory also suggests that a lot of concepts of god/gods is actually only the birth of abstract concepts that started to take shape as visual entities that explained stuff and that the evolution of religions/gods is simply an evolution of human understanding of universal laws, either physical or moral laws.
The change in god throughout the revelations is actually the different and evolving ability of the "prophets" to perceive, understand and communicate their insights.

Regardless if humans actually visualized stuff externally, because their language was severely limited, they communicated the theories/concepts through metaphors so they could explain them to themselves and to others. in essence, if abraham had lived today, he wouldn't have "seen" nor communicated an angel diverting his hand from killing his son, nor a single powerful god. he would have thought that sacrifice is immoral and that there is a unified set of rules that apply to all and communicated so. its not that he merely couldn't communicate it, its that he couldn't actually understand it without visualizing a giant, extremely powerful being.

[That Wolf]

From what Ive heard from the cultists, the great flood could have fucked the carbon dating and the accuracy of it all.
Please dont claim microevolution is apart from macroevolution.
Just cause the drug-fried prophets who wrote the books claiming what god had said means nothing.
Imagine if religion was just a new concept, our science would be far more advanced and the new 'bible' would clearly state evolution as a creation of god.
I look at the dogs we have, the many variations, from a wolf to a pug (this sickens me) it clearly proves microevolution as a fact, so whats so hard to imagine that if you leave a species long enough it will become seperated into at first a sub species then unable to breed with the original genetic pool.
Just because your books say that god created everything as it is.
I mean shit if you believe in the books, god changes his mind a clear sign of his lack of infinate wisdom. So why couldnt he have set evolution in place and the decided to give rules later.
Its because you couldnt fathom a microbe to have a soul. Personaly if you say animals have don't have souls, then people dont. Because, *drum roll* we are animals. And the books are clearly a humans guide to becoming apart from animals and nature, a mind set that is currently fucking our world. A bible wont save your life in the woods. It sure as shit didnt save mine.

drug-fried

[Citation] haha

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

what is drug fried anyway? Sounds tasty.
Btw how good is music....
No way! You say all that beautiful art, music, video games, cartoons, media was because some people experimented?
Without the 'fried' young man there would be no adventure time, no Doors, no brave new world. Shit the list hoes on and on.
Btw how good is music

[Rolan7]

That's an interesting theory Vilanat, I'd be interested to know more if you see it again.  I wonder if it can be observed in those isolated human populations which haven't developed much...  Maybe that's even where the research came from?

[Teneb]

-snip-

That Wolf, could you be a bit more clear when you post? LSP level should be fine. Otherwise people will ignore you at best and report you at worst.

[Angle]

-snip-

That Wolf, could you be a bit more clear when you post? LSP level should be fine. Otherwise people will ignore you at best and report you at worst.

+1