NOVA: Intelligent Design on Trial

[Jumpin Johnies]

Half lives have to do with the radioactive decay of radioactive materials. There's a couple of chemists on the boards that could probably be of more help. But if you have 1LB of radioactive material, it would take 6000 years (I'm speaking of the materials used in carbon/uranium dating) for 1/2 LB of that material to turn into lead (or some other non-radioactive material). So it's exponential. That radioactive material will not be complete gone until there is one atom left that finally gets rid of all of its radioactive-ness. Make sense?

Are there any assumptions involved in this proccess?

[Jumpin Johnies]

So Jesus wrote these after he died?

Are you asking if Jesus wrote his own eyewitness accounts?

[Jumpin Johnies]

Slightly off topic but Josh Mcdowell's reasons for being a believer:

 

All of us struggle with faith. What made you so certain?

 

McDowell: Biblical prophecy had an enormous role. The Old Testament was written between B.C. 1,400 and B.C. 400. As you probably know a great deal of the Old Testament speaks of a coming messiah. The question, of course, is whether Jesus is that person. Well, the Old Testament contains nearly 300 descriptive, prophetic references to this coming messiah written hundreds of years before Jesus was even born. Let me give you simply a few of them:

 

In the book of Micah, written approximately B.C. 750, it states: “But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler who will be the shepherd of my people Israel.”

 

In the book of Isaiah, written approximately B.C. 600, it predicts, “The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” Immanuel means “God with us.”

 

And in Isaiah it also makes this prediction concerning the messiah’s death, “Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.”

 

So how many people in human history who could remotely qualify for the title “Messiah” were born in Bethlehem, of a virgin and pierced for our transgressions? Do you see what I mean? The more I researched the deeper it went.

 

http://www.leaderu.com/theology/mcdowell_davinci.html

Edited November 20, 2007 by Jumpin Johnies

[BiggieFries]

From Josh Mcdowell:

"McDowell: To discover the accuracy of copying for the New Testament material and see whether or not it has been “changed,” you have to look at two factors: One, the number of manuscripts existing today; and two, the time period between the original document and the earliest manuscripts still in existence today. The more manuscripts we have and the closer the manuscripts are to the original, the more we are able to determine where copyist errors happened and which copies reflect the original.

 

For example, the book Natural History, written by Pliny Secundus, has 7 manuscript copies with a 750-year gap between the earliest copy and the original text. The number two book in all of history in manuscript authority is The Iliad, written by Homer, which has 643 copies with a 400-year gap.

 

Now this is a little startling: the New Testament has currently 24,970 manuscript copies, completely towering over all other works of antiquity. In addition, we have one fragment of the New Testament (NT) with only a 50-year gap from the original, whole books with only a 100-year gap, and the whole NT with only a 225-250-year gap. I don’t think there is any question from all of these early copies that we know exactly what the original documents said. "

 

So what you're saying is that there are 25K copies of the same 27 books of the New Testament and that they were just rewritten by others?

 

So does Josh have the movies/slide show that God showed his son? You know, for testing purposes?

[Kid Cid]

this isn't true. there are other elements where the half-lives are much, much longer that permit radiometric dating. for all of these dating techniques, however, there are a consistent set of assumptions about the somewhat constant status of our planet that permit them to function and also for various methods to correlate to each other. things like a nuclear bomb can dramatically change the results.

 

Right so let's look at these assumtions for a second. The biggest and most obvious is that nature is consistent. Most notable is that the percentage of radioactive isotopes in a newly formed mineral sample will have remained consistent over the eons. So, if we go get a newly formed rock sample from a recent volcanic event and were to measure the ratio of say...carbon-14 to carbon-12 from this sample, we make the assumption that several hundred million years ago that ratio was the same.

 

So what you're saying is that it is these types of assumptions that cause you to doubt the validity of radiometric dating techniques.

[Kid Cid]

Are there any assumptions involved in this proccess?

JJ, you don't know how it works and wouldn't know what the assumptions meant even though I told you in the post above. Stick to topics that you know something about.

[Jumpin Johnies]

So what you're saying is that there are 25K copies of the same 27 books of the New Testament and that they were just rewritten by others?

 

So does Josh have the movies/slide show that God showed his son? You know, for testing purposes?

Rhe writings had a 99% corelation rate that reafirmed each other. Are you not a believer? Do you consider Christ to be a raving lunatic who claimed to be God or are you convinced He was a really swell guy with a bad lying problem?

[BiggieFries]

Are there any assumptions involved in this proccess?

 

No, not really. It's just how radioactive materials decay. What I described was just how radioactive materials behave normally. It had nothing to do with the dating process of fossils or rock strata.

[bushwacked]

JJ didn't stumble this much after 24 hours of straight drinking in Vegas.

[Jumpin Johnies]

JJ, you don't know how it works and wouldn't know what the assumptions meant even though I told you in the post above. Stick to topics that you know something about.

I've repeatedly pointed out that I wasn't a scientist. I simply asked if there were assumptions involved with Carbon dating.

[Jumpin Johnies]

JJ didn't stumble this much after 24 hours of straight drinking in Vegas.

I'm not stumbling.

[Kid Cid]

I've repeatedly pointed out that I wasn't a scientist. I simply asked if there were assumptions involved with Carbon dating.

And if tonorator had brought up these assumptions in his previous posts you would have jumped on that bandwagon like a dog on a pork chop.

[Jumpin Johnies]

Right so let's look at these assumtions for a second. The biggest and most obvious is that nature is consistent. Most notable is that the percentage of radioactive isotopes in a newly formed mineral sample will have remained consistent over the eons. So, if we go get a newly formed rock sample from a recent volcanic event and were to measure the ratio of say...carbon-14 to carbon-12 from this sample, we make the assumption that several hundred million years ago that ratio was the same.

 

So what you're saying is that it is these types of assumptions that cause you to doubt the validity of radiometric dating techniques.

You understand that God created an aged man (Adam) and an aged Earth right?

[Jumpin Johnies]

And if tonorator had brought up these assumptions in his previous posts you would have jumped on that bandwagon like a dog on a pork chop.

Probably not, I still wouldn't have understood it. I'm not exactly responding to any of Tonorator's posts. Not saying he's wrong or right, I simply don't understand it. All I want to know is if assumptions are involved, how far back it dates without using hypotheiticals and if you all realize that God created an aged Earth.

[BiggieFries]

Rhe writings had a 99% corelation rate that reafirmed each other.

 

There's a 99% correlation rate of 24K copies of the same information? Wow, that's outstanding. Who would have thought that "2+2=4" continues to hold true after being copied 25K times? Learn something new everyday!

 

Are you not a believer? Do you consider Christ to be a raving lunatic who claimed to be God or are you convinced He was a really swell guy with a bad lying problem?

 

Just out of curiosity, what does this have to do with Creationism not being an actual theory by "scientific" standards hence it not being eligible to be taught in public science classrooms? Does it matter if I believe in Jesus or not? Does it change the sentence I wrote before this one?

[Kid Cid]

You understand that God created an aged man (Adam) and an aged Earth right?

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.

[Jumpin Johnies]

There's a 99% correlation rate of 24K copies of the same information? Wow, that's outstanding. Who would have thought that "2+2=4" continues to hold true after being copied 25K times? Learn something new everyday!

Just out of curiosity, what does this have to do with Creationism not being an actual theory by "scientific" standards hence it not being eligible to be taught in public science classrooms? Does it matter if I believe in Jesus or not? Does it change the sentence I wrote before this one?

Yeah it does matter if you believe in Jesus. If you do believe in Jesus but you think he's wrong for saying God created Adam and Eve I'm curious if you think He's wrong about anything else.

[tonorator]

So what you're saying is that it is these types of assumptions that cause you to doubt the validity of radiometric dating techniques.

 

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?

[BiggieFries]

Yeah it does matter if you believe in Jesus. If you do believe in Jesus but you think he's wrong for saying God created Adam and Eve I'm curious if you think He's wrong about anything else.

 

How does my belief/non-belief in Jesus change the fact that Creationism is not a theory by scientific standards, and therefore cannot be included in public science classrooms?

[Jumpin Johnies]

How does my belief/non-belief in Jesus change the fact that Creationism is not a theory by scientific standards, and therefore cannot be included in public science classrooms?

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

[The Irish Doggy]

Dr. Elmer Towns poses 4 questions for evolutionists and I'm curious if any of you all can answer them.

 

First he asks, "Where is the missing link?" When evolutionary paleontologists arrange and measure brain capacity between the primate and human being, there is a significant gap between the human and the next closest primate, with no credible fossil record to prove otherwise. Darwin's theory has no subjective facts to link animals to the human race.

 

 

This is complete bull, and discredits the rest of the questions. There certainly is a fossil record of brain size dating back millions of years. The australopithecus genus had brain sizes from 300 to 500 cc. A modern chimp is about 400 cc. Early homo species (2.5 mil ago) then took off from that and through a range over time from 600 cc to finally around 1350 cc for us. There are a half dozen "in betweens" from early homo to modern humans. Appearently some Neanderthals actually had larger brains at 1500 cc. (Most of this detail is from the Smithsonian website link)

 

The demand for a "missing link" is largely a bogus argument. It implies that there is only one, when according to the evidence there are many.

 

eta: It is possible we may never be able to connect all the dots. Unfortunately, early humans didn't get into caring for the dead until the last 40K years or so IIRC. Those that lived 2 million years ago just dies on the savanna. We can't be sure which of the above referenced species became humans for sure just yet, but there are a wide variety and increasing brain sizes the closer to present you go.

 

 

What is a neanderthal? Is that some kind of primate mistaken as a pre-human species. What is a australopithecus? Are you saying our brains are currently at 1350 cc because that sounds a lot larger than the apes that you've incorrectly dated from 2.5 million years ago. Are you telling me that these other animals could function the same as us? How were these animals you speak of dated? Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the half-life on carbon dating max out at 6,000 years. Why is that? Why can't anything on the Moon be dated further back than 8,000 years? Is it not true that things are first dated by taking into consideration what time period it is believed to be from?

 

 

You don't know the first thing about the scientific evidence for human origins if terms like neandertal and australopithecus are alien to you.

 

 

I don't belive they're "pre-human".

 

 

Just so you know, JJ, you asked for evidence of brain sizes of primates in between that of a close relative and humans. I delivered. Well, rather the Smithsonian delivered. No, they didn't surf the huddle, but yes, we share similarities. They have traits both human and ape-like. The brain size is measured from fossilized evidence. Current human and chimp brain sizes are a matter of medical record. Look it up for yourself. 400 cc for chimps and 1350 cc for humans is just an average. That's cubic centimeters by the way. There is obviously some variance based on total body size and if you are a steroid dosed slugger playing for the Giants.

 

You attempted to engage in a scientific debate but when push came to shove, your only response is "I don't believe". It's all ironical.

Edited November 20, 2007 by The Irish Doggy

[Jumpin Johnies]

Just so you know, JJ, you asked for evidence of brain sizes of primates in between that of a close relative and humans. I delivered. Well, rather the Smithsonian delivered. No, they didn't surf the huddle, but yes, we share similarities. They have traits both human and ape-like. The brain size is measured from fossilized evidence. The current human brain size is a matter of medical record. Look it up for yourself. 1350 cc is just an average. That's cubic centimeters by the way. There is obviously some variance based on total body size and if you are a steroid dosed slugger playing for the Giants.

 

You attempted to engage in a scientific debate but when push came to shove, your only response is "I don't believe". It's all ironical.

There is still a wide gap.

[Kid Cid]

Probably not, I still wouldn't have understood it. I'm not exactly responding to any of Tonorator's posts. Not saying he's wrong or right, I simply don't understand it. All I want to know is if assumptions are involved, how far back it dates without using hypotheiticals and if you all realize that God created an aged Earth.

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.

[The Irish Doggy]

There is still a wide gap.

 

Where? Show me.

[Ill Nuts]

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

 

 

That's not an answer to the question dude