Jumpin Johnies Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DemonKnight Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumpin Johnies Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Where? Show me. You already showed me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiggieFries Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumpin Johnies Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 That's not an answer to the question dude 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 First we had Thews and his finite box bending, then Tornotar and the micro vs macro evolution, and now JJ with God making an aged earth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumpin Johnies Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ill Nuts Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiggieFries Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumpin Johnies Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 ^^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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 You sound like a non-beliver in Christ, I see where you're coming from now. Dude, you are the poster child for why people have disdain for Christians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumpin Johnies Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 My question to you is, what evidence do you have that would suggest otherwise? Jesus Christ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ill Nuts Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 You sound like a non-beliver in Christ, I see where you're coming from now. Wow, talk about assumptions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumpin Johnies Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Dude, you are the poster child for why people have disdain for Christians. I can't control whether or not they have disdain for Christians, if they hate us so be it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumpin Johnies Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Wow, talk about assumptions. It's a yes or no answer that you never gave, all I'm left to do is assume. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumpin Johnies Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumpin Johnies Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 There's my answer to your god creating an aged world. You called Him "your God", does this mean He's not your God? If not I'll pray for you, friend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 I can't control whether or not they have disdain for Christians, if they hate us so be it. You have become a bible thumping babbler that embarrasses other Christians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 TRANSLATION ERRORS AND FORGERIES IN THE BIBLE To assume a manuscript translated and added to by humans is the pristine work of a higher power is idiocy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Jesus Christ +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumpin Johnies Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 You have become a bible thumping babbler that embarrasses other Christians. I'm sorry you feel that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ill Nuts Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 It's a yes or no answer that you never gave, all I'm left to do is assume. Tell you what, you show me how creationism (aka ID) fits the rationale of a science, I'll tell you my little faith story. Otherwise, I don't see why I need to answer that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.