Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

NOVA: Intelligent Design on Trial


TimC
 Share

Recommended Posts

Because of the short half life of C14, there is indeed a finite time period for which Carbon can be used to date these rocks. It is around 60,000 years. It is also important to note that radiocarbon dating is only used on organic matter and not rocks. Therefore, it is useful for recent archaeological remains but loses its ability to accurately reflect dates beyond a certain point.

 

This may be a little more technical than most laymen can understand, but the assumptions that tonorator has mentioned are delveled into in the Wikipedia explanation of radiocarbon dating. See the section entitled calibration.

God creating an aged world makesw sense then right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 710
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

yes, that's what i'm saying. it is obvious to you that nature is constant? constant over the last few million/billion years? you have no issues with assuming that in the last, say, few million years that conditions on this planet have not varied in such a way that throws off your isotope samples?

 

how do you know these things?

 

 

So in your opinion was the Universe created 6000 years ago or just the Earth?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus reaffirmed what was written in the OT. It is neccessary to believe in Christ if you are a believer of Creationism.

 

this still doesn't answer my question...

 

If a science class only uses materials & curriculum that fall within the scientific method, why should Creationism be taught in public school since it does not fall within the scientific method? This is why I keep asking what my beliefs/non-beliefs (or anyone else's for that matter) have to do with this aspect of the discussion. If something doesn't fall within the scientific method (I may be wording this wrong), then that "thing" should not be taught in a science classroom. I don't care how much someone believes Jesus rode dinosaurs to Jerusalem, it still doesn't belong in a science classroom that's funded by public money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this still doesn't answer my question...

 

If a science class only uses materials & curriculum that fall within the scientific method, why should Creationism be taught in public school since it does not fall within the scientific method? This is why I keep asking what my beliefs/non-beliefs (or anyone else's for that matter) have to do with this aspect of the discussion. If something doesn't fall within the scientific method (I may be wording this wrong), then that "thing" should not be taught in a science classroom. I don't care how much someone believes Jesus rode dinosaurs to Jerusalem, it still doesn't belong in a science classroom that's funded by public money.

Just about everyone that has posted in this thread agrees that evolution has holes in it, but everyone thinks it's a great idea to teach it in schools.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is it not. Do you believe in Jesus? If you don't I have a much better understanding of where you're coming from.

 

^^See the post above^^

 

Creationism isn't science. ID is a poor attempt to paint creationism as a "science". Therefore, it shouldn't be taught in science class. What I think about Jesus, or God, or floating spaghetti monsters is irrelevant to that discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just about everyone that has posted in this thread agrees that evolution has holes in it, but everyone thinks it's a great idea to teach it in schools.

 

What does "having holes" have do with Evolution still falling within the scientific method and Creationism not falling within it? You're still not answering the question. Put your newly found religious beliefs aside for a minute and logically think about it. You're trying to put a square peg in a round hole. Our religious beliefs have no baring whether a subject or "theory" fall within the scientific method.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes, that's what i'm saying. it is obvious to you that nature is constant? constant over the last few million/billion years? you have no issues with assuming that in the last, say, few million years that conditions on this planet have not varied in such a way that throws off your isotope samples?

 

how do you know these things?

 

The assumption is that the laws of physics and chemistry haven't changed over that period of time.

 

Let's put it this way, if you take 100 lbs of your basic basalt (rock) and heat it up to the melting point and let it cool, we can expect a certain distribution of the minerals within this sample. Certain things about these minerals can be altered by changing the amount of time required for these minerals to cool. For instance, the quicker it cools the smaller grain the minerals will have. Thats why obsidian is like glass, it comes from a basaltic melt that has come into contact with water and cools very rapidly. If you cool this melt slowly, then you can get very large crystals forming. Since matter is neither created nor destroyed during physical and chemical reactions, and we assume that the laws of physics and chemistry haven't changed, the conclusion is that these minerals and their isotopes occur in the same ratios today that they did in the past.

 

My question to you is, what evidence do you have that would suggest otherwise?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^See the post above^^

 

Creationism isn't science. ID is a poor attempt to paint creationism as a "science". Therefore, it shouldn't be taught in science class. What I think about Jesus, or God, or floating spaghetti monsters is irrelevant to that discussion.

You sound like a non-beliver in Christ, I see where you're coming from now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, so you want to talk about something other than radiometric dating. Good choice.

 

There is a story that says this being created this planet and over the course of 6 days populated it with all kinds of things, living and not living and finally culminated this work with making a man and a woman and that yes, they were not babies and therefore had an otherwise unguessable age to them.

 

 

God creating an aged world makesw sense then right?

 

There's my answer to your god creating an aged world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus Christ

No evidence whatsoever. In fact, it completely ignores the question. But I'll play.

 

Exactly how does Jesus Christ provide evidence that physics and chemistry worked differently in the past than it does today?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No evidence whatsoever. In fact, it completely ignores the question. But I'll play.

 

Exactly how does Jesus Christ provide evidence that physics and chemistry worked differently in the past than it does today?

He never got into physics or chemistry He simply stated that God created Adam and Eve and I believe Him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information