Church Discipline

[KLP]

...I didn't know I was "provoked", nor was I attempting to provoke you. I was simply responding to your statement.

Any posting of a reply/quote is a response to a stimulus and therefore it is proper to use the term provoke.

[Lev]

...but his point was that if you're going to take biologists on, you needed to know specifically how a biological process actually worked.

You also need to make sure your examples are current. I've heard too many creationists attempt to discredit evolution or the age of the earth through the use of "unanswered questions" that were actually answered by science long ago. New evidence can challenge theories but good theories can explain new evidence.

I've found this site useful: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/
Whenever I'm presented with an argument for creationism or a young earth, I can usually find it referenced here.

Lev

[agricola]

TalkOrigins is a fine site! don't miss the section - index to creationist's claims.

Also the site for the Center for Science Education (ncseweb.org) Especially the FAQs.

Another good site is //evolution.berkely.edu

[KLP]

So no takers on stating what actual practical difference it makes of having an unknown origin event/process 6k years ago or one 13billion yrs ago? What if a researcher thought it was only 1billion yrs ago would they be unable to use a scientific method in research? How soon is too soon for some one not to be able to actually research, observe, and follow rational methods and techniques?

[agricola]

klp -

the process of radioactive decay is well understood, and the rate of decay is also well established.

the earth's crust is made up of rocks, and those rocks frequently contain daughter products of radioactive decay.

It is entirely possible - and routinely done - to establish the true age of these rocks, within relatively narrow error ranges - using analyses of the ratios of parent to daughter products.

The oldest known rocks on earth are 4.28 Billion years old (the earth itself is calculated to be rather older - around 4.6 billion years - but we don't have (or haven't found) any remaining solid rock from that time - not yet anyway):

The ancient rocks were found in Northern Quebec, along the Hudson's Bay coast, 40 km south of Inukjuak in an area known as the Nuvvuagittuq greenstone belt.

The discovery was made by Jonathan O'Neil, a Ph.D. candidate at McGill's Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Richard W. Carlson, a researcher at the Carnegie Institution for Science in Washington, D.C., Don Francis, a McGill professor in the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, and Ross K. Stevenson, a professor at the Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM).

O'Neil and colleagues estimated the age of the rocks using isotopic dating, which analyzes the decay of the radioactive element neodymium-142 contained within them. This technique can only be used to date rocks roughly 4.1 billion years old or older; this is the first time it has ever been used to date terrestrial rocks, because nothing this old has ever been discovered before.

"There have been older dates from Western Australia for isolated resistant mineral grains called zircons," says Carlson, "but these are the oldest whole rocks found so far." The oldest zircon dates are 4.36 billion years. Before this study, the oldest dated rocks were from a body of rock known as the Acasta Gneiss in the Northwest Territories, which are 4.03 billion years old. The Earth is 4.6 billion years old, and remnants of its early crust are extremely rare—most of it has been mashed and recycled into Earth's interior several times over by plate tectonics since the Earth formed. - h**p://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080925144624.htm

this is not 'a theory'. This is a fact: DATA. It is measured.

The oldest rocks on earth containing the remains of some kind of lifeform, are also quite old:

The oldest evidence for life may be 3.5-billion-year-old sedimentary structures from Australia that resemble stromatolites. Stromatolites are created today by living mats of microorganisms (mostly cyanobacteria, or blue-green algae). These primitive organisms trap thin layers of sediment with their sticky filaments and grow upward to get light for photosynthesis. Modern-day examples of stromatolites can be found in waters off Australia, the Bahamas, and Belize.

In the Archean structures, layers similar to those seen in living stromatolites are evident, and secondary structures interpreted as simple filamentous microfossils have been recovered from the layers. The biotic origin of the structures has, however, been questioned. Both the supposed Archean stromatolites and the microfossils may have been produced by inorganic processes. Regardless, uncontested microfossils and chemical traces of life were present at least by 2.7 billion years ago. Stromatolites that were produced by microorganisms are abundant later in the Archean and throughout the Proterozoic. These sedimentary structures, formed by organic processes, provide important evidence of early life. At present, we can say with certainty that life had evolved by 2.7 billion years ago, and possibly as early as 3.5 billion years ago. - h**p://paleobiology.si.edu/geotime/main/htmlversion/archean3.html

Data.
The rocks are dated (inorganically) and within some of those rocks there are remnants of past life which are identifiable. Currently, the window of time in which the EARLIEST known fossils occur is wide: 2.7 to 3.5 billion years. However, whatever the actual age of that life is, it is NO LESS THAN 2.7 Billion years old. Not a 'theory'. Evidence.

The only thing the YEC people actually do, is make themselves look supremely silly - which further makes their ideas about God and faith equally silly. If that isn't transgressing the fourth of the ten commandments, then I don't know what is.

[KLP]

And that DATA and process you describe always has big ASSUMPTIONS that are omitted such as an assumption that everything has always be uniform, consistent, and constant in all processes of infusion/decay and that the starting state must have been such and such. This is unknowable. And so it makes one look "silly" when they are either unaware or not upfront that their DATA has assumptions in it yet still insisting that it be accepted as unquestionable FACT.

So your "what difference does it make" response is that it breaks the Decalogue? OK, but I was talking more about a practical or physical reality impact. Like that guy can't cure cancer because he believes in the Bible account of creation. Or wow, we were able to get a fly by of Pluto (formerly known as) because we think the universe is 13.12 billion yrs old.

[agricola]

Do you have any reason to think that the original assumption that rates of decay are constant is NOT true? Yes, that assumption is made and used - and has proved so far to be reliable. Results are consistent, repeatable, corroborated by extraneous other information (for instance, dating always shows that the rocks 'on top' are younger than the rocks 'on the bottom' - everywhere, all over the world).

In other words, this is a minimum assumption as far as 'problems' goes. Making a different assumption (that rates change over time) is far more problematic and much more complicated.

I'm a geologist, though not the kind that works in actual geochron labs - I am not a physicist. I will talk about rocks, but not rocket science.

[KLP]

Do you have any reason to think that the original assumption that rates of decay are constant is NOT true?...

Yes, because everything changes or has variation. So why should any one assume decay rates are the one thing that has no variation and cannot be influenced?

[B.H.]

NO one has refuted the hypothesis that Satan has manipulated the fossils, and rock records, and the machines used to test dates. Science is only as good as your scientists and equipment and knowledge of possible variables allow. If you have no way to test for possible Satanic influence in your tests then it is very possible he is giving you false readings.

Geesh, even in Predator II the people from the government developed a device that at least let them see traces of the alien hunter through his cloaking. Couldn't all of you scientists get together and figure out some way, if Satan exists, you would be able to detect him and his devils and jinn going around stirring up crap?


My theory actually can be tested and prove at least plausible.

MY theory is that the devil, if he exists, would want to fake fossils and ages of rocks to cast doubt in the peoples minds about what their scriptures say about the history of the world and its creation.

When we go out and test these rocks and fossils sure enough their dates do not agree with what people's scriptures say the ages of them are.

My conclusion is that it is plausible a devil is messing with all of these experiements. Now it is possible the explanation they really are millions and billions of years old is correct but the people who believe this scientifically have no way as of yet to know if Satan has not corrupted their tests. Until they do my theory is equal to theirs.

Same thing with evolution. All those fossils that supposedly show transition species are just really good forgeries by the devil to make it look like animals evolved over millions of years. For all we know we could have had bunnies in the PreCambrian and he just destroyed the evidence to destroy faith.

[B.H.]

NeverAgain can froth at the mouth and go rabid about my Satan/Jinn theory but let him prove me wrong and not just say I'm stupid or the idea is stupid.