The Beginning of Time

[WallyVon]

A very good point, there are atleast doubts about cause and effect, but we tend to ignore it. I think it is for biological reasons, organisms that could infer cause and effect from two seemingly related events had a greater chance of living.

Yea, that's true. In our physical world here on earth everything has a cause and an effect, and our understanding of this mechanism aided our survival.

Sometimes people confuse cause and effect with morality, and everything has a purpose. This is a flawed concept.

Furthermore, it is futile to try and understand or predict cause and effect concerning realms we don't understand. It is a pointless debate.

[Om]

The ultimate human dilemma. One of our greatest strengths is our voracious and impatient curiosity. We want to know everything, and we want to know it NOW. It's the reason we've come as far as a species as we have.

And yet, because we CANNOT know everything and know it now, we compensate. Some by believing (having faith) in unproven and unprovable theories advanced by others. Some by forming their own theories. Some by wigging out entirely.

And some of us, a tiny, tiny minoritry in my experience, quietly advance the apparently revolutionary idea that ... wait for it ... not only do we not "know," but it's OKAY not to know yet.

That I don't know at this point.

That's the one this I can comfortably confirm I DO know at this point.

[Drockvb]

I beleive in creation, but that doesn't mean i don't beleive in the "Big Bang". The problem with the big bang is that you need something to create a "Bang". That is where god comes in. I beleive there is evidence in the stars and the Bible. But i also think there are problems with both. Carbon dating isn't what it is cracked up to be. And the Bible, i beleive, has been re-translated time after time which has led to the real meaning of things getting lost in translation. A lot in the Bible is symbolic. Translational differences give us slightly altered meanings. For example the dragons that are talked about in the book of Revelations are symbolism. But in the time of Jesus when Hebrew language was dominate "the dragons" could have been anything. Who knows? If you look at life and take in all the facts you can come to this conclusion, "It takes something to create something." Creation must be the answer.

[chomerics]

The ultimate human dilemma. One of our greatest strengths is our voracious and impatient curiosity. We want to know everything, and we want to know it NOW. It's the reason we've come as far as a species as we have.

And yet, because we CANNOT know everything and know it now, we compensate. Some by believing (having faith) in unproven and unprovable theories advanced by others. Some by forming their own theories. Some by wigging out entirely.

And some of us, a tiny, tiny minoritry in my experience, quietly advance the apparently revolutionary idea that ... wait for it ... not only do we not "know," but it's OKAY not to know yet.

That I don't know at this point.

That's the one this I can comfortably confirm I DO know at this point.

I think therefor I know nothing :laugh: yep

Couldn't agree more with the post, good one

[chomerics]

Carbon dating isn't what it is cracked up to be.

Please explain. . .

[WallyVon]

Please explain. . .

This is another one of those right wing conspiracy theories that have been indoctrinated in impressionable young fellows. Very similar to the "liberal media bias" conspiracy or the "michael moore is a liar" conspiracy.

The religious right has claimed carbon dating is flawed because that is the only way they can continue to believe the bible literally.

Tis a pity that this young fellow has fallen for the trick.

[Drockvb]

The amount of cosmic rays penetrating the earth's atmosphere affects the amount of 14C produced and therefore dating the system. The amount of cosmic rays reaching the earth varies with the sun's activity, and with the earth's passage through magnetic clouds as the solar system travels around the Milky Way galaxy.

The strength of the earth's magnetic field affects the amount of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere. A stronger magnetic field deflects more cosmic rays away from the earth. Overall, the energy of the earth's magnetic field has been decreasing,[5] so more 14C is being produced now than in the past. This will make old things look older than they really are.

Also, the Genesis flood would have greatly upset the carbon balance. The flood buried a huge amount of carbon, which became coal, oil, etc., lowering the total 12C in the biosphere (including the atmosphere -- plants regrowing after the flood absorb CO2, which is not replaced by the decay of the buried vegetation). Total 14C is also proportionately lowered at this time, but whereas no terrestrial process generates any more 12C, 14C is continually being produced, and at a rate which does not depend on carbon levels (it comes from nitrogen). Therefore, the 14C/12C ratio in plants/animals/the atmosphere before the flood had to be lower than what it is now.

Unless this effect (which is additional to the magnetic field issue just discussed) were corrected for, carbon dating of fossils formed in the flood would give ages much older than the true ages.

Creationist researchers have suggested that dates of 35,000 - 45,000 years should be re-calibrated to the biblical date of the flood.[6] Such a re-calibration makes sense of anomalous data from carbon dating -- for example, very discordant "dates" for different parts of a frozen musk ox carcass from Alaska and an inordinately slow rate of accumulation of ground sloth dung pellets in the older layers of a cave where the layers were carbon dated.[7]

Also, volcanoes emit much CO2 depleted in 14C. Since the flood was accompanied by much volcanism (see Noah's Flood..., How did animals get from the Ark to isolated places?, and What About Continental Drift?), fossils formed in the early post-flood period would give radiocarbon ages older than they really are. In summary, the carbon-14 method, when corrected for the effects of the flood, can give useful results, but needs to be applied carefully. It does not give dates of millions of years and when corrected properly fits well with the biblical flood.

Please explain. . .

[chomerics]

This is another one of those right wing conspiracy theories that have been indoctrinated in impressionable young fellows. Very similar to the "liberal media bias" conspiracy or the "michael moore is a liar" conspiracy.

The religious right has claimed carbon dating is flawed because that is the only way they can continue to believe the bible literally.

Tis a pity that this young fellow has fallen for the trick.

I see you were right

From his link, it says that dinosaurs existed only a few thousand years ago :doh:

#

# Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized!) dinosaur bone. But these could not last more than a few thousand years -- certainly not the 65 Ma since the last dinosaurs lived, according to evolutionists.[28]

[Drockvb]

This is another one of those right wing conspiracy theories that have been indoctrinated in impressionable young fellows. Very similar to the "liberal media bias" conspiracy or the "michael moore is a liar" conspiracy.

The religious right has claimed carbon dating is flawed because that is the only way they can continue to believe the bible literally.

Tis a pity that this young fellow has fallen for the trick.

Carbon dating has also disproved evolutionists. Not just Creationists.

[WallyVon]

Carbon dating has also disproved evolutionists. Not just Creationists.

Nothing has ever disproved evolution.

[autographcollector]

This is another one of those right wing conspiracy theories that have been indoctrinated in impressionable young fellows. Very similar to the "liberal media bias" conspiracy or the "michael moore is a liar" conspiracy.

The religious right has claimed carbon dating is flawed because that is the only way they can continue to believe the bible literally.

Tis a pity that this young fellow has fallen for the trick.

Actually carbon dating has shown to not be accurate...not because of a right wing theory.

[chomerics]

Carbon dating has also disproved evolutionists. Not just Creationists.

:doh: where has it been disproven by SCIENCE??? That is what I am asking. Any crackpot can post a webpage, just because it is on the internet does not make it true, show me where SCIENCE disproves carbon dating, that is what I am looking for.

[WallyVon]

I see you were right

From his link, it says that dinosaurs existed only a few thousand years ago :doh:

I have an interesting article you should read. It is a bit long, but it reveals the insanity of the religious right.

DINOSAURS WITH SADDLES!!!

:laugh:

http://templeofpolemic.proboards42.com/index.cgi?board=theo&action=print&thread=1130126466

[Tarhog]

This is another one of those right wing conspiracy theories that have been indoctrinated in impressionable young fellows. Very similar to the "liberal media bias" conspiracy or the "michael moore is a liar" conspiracy.

The religious right has claimed carbon dating is flawed because that is the only way they can continue to believe the bible literally.

Tis a pity that this young fellow has fallen for the trick.

Lets leave politics out of this thread (at least just this once). And you're assuming 'right wing' = 'religious' - thats not the case.

I believe conventional carbon-dating is correct. But theres no reason to ridicule others belief-systems. If you want to address the factual accuracy of what he's posted, thats fine. If you want to start a political thread about the topic, thats fine too. But theres no legitimate reason to bring politics into this thread.

[chomerics]

Actually carbon dating has shown to not be accurate...not because of a right wing theory.

Link??? Yes, it is crackpot theory, unless you can give me something a bit more credible then the dinosaurs were here at the same time as Jesus.

[WallyVon]

Actually carbon dating has shown to not be accurate...not because of a right wing theory.

Not 100% accurate is not disproving the method. Of course it won't be completely accurate. Nothing is.

[chomerics]

But theres no legitimate reason to bring politics into this thread.

I'll put a ten spot down it will pop up in about 15 minutes :laugh:

[WallyVon]

Lets leave politics out of this thread (at least just this once). And you're assuming 'right wing' = 'religious' - thats not the case.

I believe conventional carbon-dating is correct. But theres no reason to ridicule others belief-systems. If you want to address the factual accuracy of what he's posted, thats fine. If you want to start a political thread about the topic, thats fine too. But theres no legitimate reason to bring politics into this thread.

It's all intertwined. This sect of people have been indoctrinated in many ways. I was just pointing out the similarities to other instances.

[Tarhog]

It's all intertwined. This sect of people have been indoctrinated in many ways. I was just pointing out the similarities to other instances.

They could argue you've been indoctrinated. And who's 'this sect of people'? You mention right-wingers as if they're some homogenous group. They're not. I fit in that category and I don't even belong to a church.

This isn't a political thread and I'm not going to let it become one. Thats the point. Not fair to the thread starter.

[Drockvb]

Nothing has ever disproved evolution.

When a "date" differs from that expected, researchers readily invent excuses for rejecting the result. The common application of such posterior reasoning shows that radiometric dating has serious problems. Woodmorappe cites hundreds of examples of excuses used to explain "bad" dates.[9]

For example, researchers applied posterior reasoning to the dating of Australopithecus ramidus fossils.[10] Most samples of basalt closest to the fossil-bearing strata give dates of about 23 Ma (Mega annum, million years) by the argon-argon method. The authors decided that was "too old," according to their beliefs about the place of the fossils in the evolutionary grand scheme of things. So they looked at some basalt further removed from the fossils and selected 17 of 26 samples to get an acceptable maximum age of 4.4 Ma. The other nine samples again gave much older dates but the authors decided they must be contaminated and discarded them. That is how radiometric dating works. It is very much driven by the existing long-age world view that pervades academia today.

A similar story surrounds the dating of the primate skull known as KNM-ER 1470.[11] This started with an initial 212 to 230 Ma, which, according to the fossils, was considered way off the mark (humans "weren't around then"). Various other attempts were made to date the volcanic rocks in the area. Over the years an age of 2.9 Ma was settled upon because of the agreement between several different published studies (although the studies involved selection of "good" from "bad" results, just like Australopithecus ramidus, above).

However, preconceived notions about human evolution could not cope with a skull like 1470 being "that old." A study of pig fossils in Africa readily convinced most anthropologists that the 1470 skull was much younger. After this was widely accepted, further studies of the rocks brought the radiometric age down to about 1.9 Ma -- again several studies "confirmed" this date. Such is the dating game.

Are we suggesting that evolutionists are conspiring to massage the data to get what they want? No, not generally. It is simply that all observations must fit the prevailing paradigm. The paradigm, or belief system, of molecules-to-man evolution over eons of time, is so strongly entrenched it is not questioned -- it is a "fact." So every observation must fit this paradigm. Unconsciously, the researchers, who are supposedly "objective scientists" in the eyes of the public, select the observations to fit the basic belief system.

We must remember that the past is not open to the normal processes of experimental science, that is, repeatable experiments in the present. A scientist cannot do experiments on events that happened in the past. Scientists do not measure the age of rocks, they measure isotope concentrations, and these can be measured extremely accurately. However, the "age" is calculated using assumptions about the past that cannot be proven.

We should remember God's admonition to Job, "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?" (Job 38:4).

Those involved with unrecorded history gather information in the present and construct stories about the past. The level of proof demanded for such stories seems to be much less than for studies in the empirical sciences, such as physics, chemistry, molecular biology, physiology, etc. Williams, an expert in the environmental fate of radioactive elements, identified 17 flaws in the isotope dating reported in just three widely respected seminal papers that supposedly established the age of the earth at 4.6 billion years.[12] John Woodmorappe has produced an incisive critique of these dating methods.[13] He exposes hundreds of myths that have grown up around the techniques. He shows that the few "good" dates left after the "bad" dates are filtered out could easily be explained as fortunate coincidences

[autographcollector]

Link??? Yes, it is crackpot theory, unless you can give me something a bit more credible then the dinosaurs were here at the same time as Jesus.

From the India Dept of Technology.

To deny issues in dating is silly. Yes you can get caught up in the religious yahoo sites.

http://tdil.mit.gov.in/itinhindi/vigyan%20Shabd%20Mala/Barc/Carbon%20Dating.htm

[WallyVon]

They could argue you've been indoctrinated. And who's 'this sect of people'? You mention right-wingers as if they're some homogenous group. They're not. I fit in that category and I don't even belong to a church.

This isn't a political thread and I'm not going to let it become one. Thats the point. Not fair to the thread starter.

They could attempt to argue that I've been indoctrinated, but it would be a pretty weak argument. I think each issue out independently, and thus very few people would agree with me on a preponderance of the issues.

I wasn't referring to the right as a whole, moreso to the radical right and the religious right. I respect fiscal conservatives as much as anyone, and wouldn't pidgeonhole them that way. The religious right, however, has pidgeonholed themselves.

[Drockvb]

It is an age old debate, to forever more be debated till the end of time.

[chomerics]

From the India Dept of Technology.

To deny issues in dating is silly. Yes you can get caught up in the religious yahoo sites.

http://tdil.mit.gov.in/itinhindi/vigyan%20Shabd%20Mala/Barc/Carbon%20Dating.htm

Yes, there are issues that everyone knows about. . . such as if there was once a fire the object was exposed to, then the carbon from the fire can skew results. These are known errors and they are equated into the sampling of the specimine. This is ENTIRELY different then the "cosmic rays" theory from a crackpot site.

[Underwater Ally]

This sounds like the same layered mutliverse theory I had read about. Every great number of years two of the layered universes will make contact resulting in a Big Bang for each universe.

So where did this complex layer of multiple universes come from?