Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

DISCLAIMER: IF YOU CAN’T HANDLE THIS DISCUSSION LIKE AN ADULT PLEASE DON’T BOTHER POSTING. PLEASE TRY TO KEEP AN OPEN MIND AND REMAIN CALM NO MATTER HOW HARD IT MAY BE TO DO SO.

I am pretty fascinated with the subject of Creationism vs Evolutionism. I have made some comments on other threads that have offended some, and I personally will refrain from using comments like “Evolution is a faith system” because it seems to upset people. Please try to respect my view point as well, and refrain from using terms like “You’re an idiot for believing in Creationism” such and so forth.

The religion thread was fairly well behaved and I think we can get through this without resorting to childishness.

There are many issues at play that I am aware of. Uniformitarianism, The Fossil record, Radioisotopes and the age of the earth, Biology, Astro physics, chemistry, Geologic features etc. Lets please try to stay with one topic at a time. Because if we try to cover the whole ball of wax we won’t get anywhere

So first off I will start things rolling and explain where I’m coming from. I believe in a young earth 6,000 yrs old to 10,000 yrs. I believe this because it has been traced back using the Bible to show that the earth is around 6,000 yrs old. I believe in a literal 6 day, 24 hrs a day creation. I believe in a world wide deluge that covered the entire planet, including the tops of the highest mountains(which we are not sure how high they really were at the time of the deluge). I believe that the Bible is the unerring word of God. My Bible of choice is King James, but I’m not King James only. I also like NIV,NASB,NKJ among others. I’m not a scientist, but I am educated. I will be finishing up my Masters of Science in Manufacturing Engineering (University of Wisconsin Stout) this year, and plan to continue my education afterwards.

Since I have been studying this particular aspect lately, I would like to start the ball rolling with a discussion of age of the earth. How do we know how old the earth is? Who tells us? How is it determined? Is it billions of years old or thousands of years old?

The conventional scientific view presented today is that the earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old, and the universe is between 10 and 20 billion years old. These estimates are based on the amount of parent and daughter radioisotopes and other cosmological models. (icr.org, Vardiman)

As I have stated previously there are a few assumptions that are made by evolutionists when it comes to radioisotope dating methods:

Assumption#1 It is assumed that the rate of decay has been constant from parent to daughter isotope during the period of time under question.

Assumption#2 It is assumed that the quantities of parent and daughter isotopes have not been altered by non radioactive processes, such as migration and transport.

Assumption #3 It assumed that when the rocks were formed it contained a known amount of the daughter isotopes, in many cases believed to be zero.

The above 3 assumptions are the pillars of which modern radioisotope dating is based on. The question I ask, is what if those assumptions are wrong? Is it possible that at some point in the past that dramatically higher rates of radioisotope decay has occurred, leading to a large production of daughter products in a short period of time? Could this have happened during creation? The judgement? The deluge? Something else? Or not all?

I didn’t realize that this was going to be such a long post, so I will hold off on some of the research I have been reading about concerning this issue and let some body else jump in. Specifically I will be covering Helium diffusion, Isochron discordance, nuclear decay theory, radio halos, fission tracks, and some other interesting stuff.

+ I’ve got a basketball game to watch.
GG

I can't handle the power! (head asplode)

I think that the age of the earth is in the same week as the universe. But also, the age is practically guessed at because the dating is so sketchy. So the age of the Earth to scientists is always getting older to make up for the length of time they think evolution has to happen in.

im very religous but i belive in evoulution
i b elive it is the answer to how not why
maybe god guided it or overwacth it
but i do belive to be fair we should also teach creationism in school

I'm calm! I'm calm!

I'm poasting!

I even if the dating for the Earth is off a bit, simple math tells us much more than 6,000 years.

If it were that young, there would be written accounts of the dinosaurs or of the massive Ice Age. Not cave drawings, written accounts.

I believe in evolution. I just don't think we completely understand it. The planet is old, that much is obvious, and we have fossil records of massive creatures like the dinosaurs and huge crocodiles and alligators.

Neither Evolution OR Creationism explain why things got so much smaller. Why aren't there still 60 foot long crocs in the Nile? What advantages do you get by getting smaller?

generalgrog wrote:
The above 3 assumptions are the pillars of which modern radioisotope dating is based on. The question I ask, is what if those assumptions are wrong? Is it possible that at some point in the past that dramatically higher rates of radioisotope decay has occurred, leading to a large production of daughter products in a short period of time? Could this have happened during creation? The judgement? The deluge? Something else? Or not all?
GG

Could it have happened? Yes. Is it likely to have happened? No. Especially not given a time scale of 6-10,000 years. What's more, even if you suppose that a miraculous process did occur, it would not actually derail the scientific method of explanation. In essence, science would be the system by which we discovered the normal operating parameters of the universe. Divine intervention would create deviations in this system, but would otherwise not affect it.

As an aside, its also possible that an infinite amount of time passed between the moment I started typing this, and the moment I finished typing it. However, because a finished product is present it is highly unlikely that such a statement is true.

Mattlov wrote: What advantages do you get by getting smaller?

I am guessing you need less food to survive

Mattlov wrote:
Neither Evolution OR Creationism explain why things got so much smaller. Why aren't there still 60 foot long crocs in the Nile? What advantages do you get by getting smaller?

Speed, reduced energy needs, camouflage, agility, numerical superiority due to reduced energy needs.

But if you're bigger, can't you kick more ass?

I mean, it's a legitimate poasted question.

I find it interesting how unlikely life is, there is a one in 10^208 chance of the protein in your hair forming in the right sequence of amino acids yet it happened. I believe that a higher power could of got things started.

youbedead wrote:I find it interesting how unlikely life is, there is a one in 10^208 chance of the protein in your hair forming in the right sequence of amino acids yet it happened. I believe that a higher power could of got things started.

Could you quote your source?

bill brysons a short history on nearly everything

whoops its actually 10^260

that number is larger then the amount of atoms in the universe.

And that just a medium sized protein collagen has 1055 amino acids imagine a slot machine with that many wheels with 22 different symbols on each what are the odds of them lining up perfectly.

Its fun to be smarter then your teacher

There are a lot of assumptions in science, so why would there not be innacuracies in the bible?

This is coming from a group of men writing the teachings of a man who died 300 years before they were born, and about events there are no records of. If the Earth was simply 10,000 years old, the bones of dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures would be sitting in mud or sand, rather than embedded in rock that takes hundreds of thousands of years to form.

The term "Prehistoric" brings up another question. If man is 10000 years old, why are there no cave paintings, pictures or ANYTHING of the aforementioned large beasties. The answer: The bones of said beasties were embedded in rock millions of years old.

It turns out that atoms form molecules according to laws of attraction which lead them to form particular combinations and specific shapes, and not other ones. Therefore, proteins do not form the shapes needed to support life by pure chance, they do it because they are led to do it.

To be surprised at the results is equivalent to being surprised that a train setting off from one end of the line can against all the odds travel to the other end, passing through the intervening stations.

This does not deny the possibility that the system works because God designed it to.

Be that as it may, I would like to address the original question in a different way.

Generalgrog set out his stall, which is that he believes the King James bible version of creation.

Why is the Judaeo-Christian bible a more believable source of evidence than the many other religious creation stories such as the Incan, Mayan, Shinto or Hindu, all of which provide alternative explanations of the formation of the universe?

The figure of 6,000 years (approx.) was derived by Bishop Ussher, using chronology from the Hebrew bible. There are competing biblical sources so he decided to rely on one particular series of data which fitted his theory.

The usual practice when presented with a variety of sources of evidence is to compare them against each other. This should include all creation stories as well as scientific evidence.

If the Christian idea of creationism is to be taught in schools as well as evolution, in the interests of fairness, we should also teach all other religious creation theories. We should also make it clear that the bible is a composite work which picks and chooses between a number of contemporaneous scriptural sources such as the Dead Seas Scrolls and the non-Canonical gospels.

Kilkrazy wrote:It turns out that atoms form molecules according to laws of attraction which lead them to form particular combinations and specific shapes, and not other ones. Therefore, proteins do not form the shapes needed to support life by pure chance, they do it because they are led to do it.

Why not but how do we choose which is best? Can we use sientific method, and how?

Let us apply some core principals to the other side of the arguement. There are a few assumptions that are made by Fundamentalists (not all Christians or believer is God) when it comes to the biblical creation:

Assumption#1: What is written in the bible, specifically the much ignored Old Testament is true and not allegorical, especially in reference to 'days'.

Assumption#2: That the lineage shown in the bible is complete or accurate, the lineage of Jesus (not on the God side) for example is regarded to be incorrect by many Christians.

Assumption#3: That disputing the current interpretation of the Bible (in whole or in part) somehow diminishes God and his creation of the universe and everything in it.

garret wrote:
but i do belive to be fair we should also teach creationism in school

In Religious Studies, yes. Never in science. Science is not a democracy, and creationism is not a scientific theory, it is a religious one. If you teach creationism, there is no logical reason why you shouldn't teach the Muslim, Hindu, Budhist, Viking, Pastafarian and any other theological idea of the formation of the earth.

Greebynog wrote:

garret wrote:
but i do belive to be fair we should also teach creationism in school

In Religious Studies, yes. Never in science. Science is not a democracy, and creationism is not a scientific theory, it is a religious one. If you teach creationism, there is no logical reason why you shouldn't teach the Muslim, Hindu, Budhist, Viking, Pastafarian and any other theological idea of the formation of the earth.

QFT.

Science should be about science. It is not a teachers job to try and preach their religious beliefs to their students anyway. The fact that the US has separated Church and Public Schools is one of the few positive things I like about the US.

But this whole debate is pointless, as the Scientists can produce as much proof at they want, but the Creationists just say "That's the way god made it" and stick their fingers in their ears and go "lalalalalala"

generalgrog wrote:I am pretty fascinated with the subject of Creationism vs Evolutionism. I have made some comments on other threads that have offended some, and I personally will refrain from using comments like “Evolution is a faith system” because it seems to upset people. Please try to respect my view point as well, and refrain from using terms like “You’re an idiot for believing in Creationism” such and so forth.

I'll do my best, but no promises!

So first off I will start things rolling and explain where I’m coming from. I believe in a young earth 6,000 yrs old to 10,000 yrs. I believe this because it has been traced back using the Bible to show that the earth is around 6,000 yrs old.

Has anyone who is not a Christian ever come to this conclusion based on a starting point disassociated from the bible rather than simply finding facts that support them in their biblical beliefs? If so, do they have a reliable scientific background, or at least, are they not a kook? I can't be certain, but I doubt it.

I believe in a literal 6 day, 24 hrs a day creation. I believe in a world wide deluge that covered the entire planet, including the tops of the highest mountains(which we are not sure how high they really were at the time of the deluge). I believe that the Bible is the unerring word of God.

Do you believe that because of a book? If so, why do you believe your book is better than anyone else's? More on this later. Do you have the support of any non-Christians (or other faiths relying on the same scripture?) If you believe it because of something other than a book, do you honestly believe it because of the evidence, or do you believe it because of the book, but find the evidence gives you a feeling of comfort that you in fact have beliefs based on a logical stance, rather than simply a faith position? Faith positions are one thing and I'll rarely, if ever, try to talk someone out of such a stance, but "logical" stances that actually rely on fallacy, selective evidence gathering and conceptual trickery are unforgiveable.

My Bible of choice is King James, but I’m not King James only. I also like NIV,NASB,NKJ among others.

Why that version? Is it because you have reason to believe it is most faithful to the earliest written versions, or is it because it happens to suit your sensibilities and moral position? Or do you simply like it for stylistic reasons? Why not one of the others? Do you believe that some bibles are less true than others? If some bibles are better than others on a sliding scale, is there a place on your sliding scale of truth for books such as the Torah or the Koran? Or are they simply "wrong"? What others sources of theological thinking do you rely upon? Are there any particular scholars that you rely on to help you in your interpretations, or do you feel comfortable understanding the meaning of the bible on your own, or perhaps with your local priest or bible group?

I’m not a scientist, but I am educated. I will be finishing up my Masters of Science in Manufacturing Engineering (University of Wisconsin Stout) this year, and plan to continue my education afterwards.

Well, intelligence has never been a bar to being religious, and being educated has always been even less of one. It is worth pointing out, however, that there is a strong correlation between both IQ and level of education and being either atheist or havng non-orthodox interpretations of religion.

Since I have been studying this particular aspect lately, I would like to start the ball rolling with a discussion of age of the earth. How do we know how old the earth is? Who tells us? How is it determined? Is it billions of years old or thousands of years old?

The conventional scientific view presented today is that the earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old, and the universe is between 10 and 20 billion years old. These estimates are based on the amount of parent and daughter radioisotopes and other cosmological models. (icr.org, Vardiman)

As I have stated previously there are a few assumptions that are made by evolutionists when it comes to radioisotope dating methods:

Assumption#1 It is assumed that the rate of decay has been constant from parent to daughter isotope during the period of time under question.

What evidence is there to the contrary? It is, to my mind, just within the realms of feasability that there may have been [/i]minor[/i] fluctuations during the history of time, but changes of the magnitude to fit in with the idea of a 6000 year old world would be several orders of magnitude different, and the processes involved, if they were so different would have affected other aspects of reality in very obvious, very detectable ways.

Assumption#2 It is assumed that the quantities of parent and daughter isotopes have not been altered by non radioactive processes, such as migration and transport.

I assume you mean by Geographical processes, or do you mean putting it in a truck and getting it to the lab? (I doubt it) Again, the consistency of the evidence we have gathered and analyses suggests nothing like this. Based on the fact that migration and transport from geographical processes shows immense variation around the globe, this would suggest differential effects on isotope decay, and there is no such discrepancy when these things are taken into account.

Assumption #3 It assumed that when the rocks were formed it contained a known amount of the daughter isotopes, in many cases believed to be zero.

Once again, it is generally the case that if the isotope levels had not been within a certain range, the isotope levels would have been sufficient to cause drastic and detectable changes in not only that item, but most living things and many non-living things around them through mutation, cancer, heating etc. Unless not only rate of decay had changed, but also the entire laws of physics, we can be fairly safe that the isotope levels at start were well within a certain range. That range may not be closely defined enough to specify that the Earth is, say 4 billion years old, or 2 billion years old (though the mountain of evidence suggests we have things right with the 4.5 billion year mark), but it is easily enough to be sure that the Earth is many magnitudes of time older than 6000 years.

The above 3 assumptions are the pillars of which modern radioisotope dating is based on. The question I ask, is what if those assumptions are wrong? Is it possible that at some point in the past that dramatically higher rates of radioisotope decay has occurred, leading to a large production of daughter products in a short period of time? Could this have happened during creation? The judgement? The deluge? Something else? Or not all?

To summarise the arguments I made above, even if some of those assumptions are flawed, it would be impossible for them to be flawed on a scale that would allow for a 6000 year old Earth. I expect that those assumptions are safe, but if they are not, they are still far closer to correct than the values necessary to support a 6000 year old Earth.

I didn’t realize that this was going to be such a long post, so I will hold off on some of the research I have been reading about concerning this issue and let some body else jump in. Specifically I will be covering Helium diffusion, Isochron discordance, nuclear decay theory, radio halos, fission tracks, and some other interesting stuff.

Some of those things I know nothing about, but in general, I do take time every so often to read anti-Darwinist literature and young-Earth literature, and I find I am able to construct relatively straightforward logical arguments against some of the conjectures that are made. I particularly enjoy arguing against ideas of irreduceable complexity, not at the macro-level, which has been pretty well covered, but at the micro-biological level, where the battle seems to have switched to.

+ I’ve got a basketball game to watch.
GG

Enjoy the game, but please don't thank God if your team wins. He doesn't care. And even if he did, would it be fair of the losing teams supporters to blame him instead of their own coach/players/the ref?

On the subject of why things got smaller, I remember the following snippet from the BBC's rather wonderful 'walking with beasts' series.

IIRC, the Earth has had, at varying times, differing levels of Gases in it's atmosphere. This was largely down to Plankton levels, as they contribute far more than trees (true that!). The more oxygen, the bigger insects can get, due to their suprisingly inefficient respiratory system. So when your base level prey is larger, the same reasonably follows for your Predator. As Oxygen levels dropped (due to Plantkon again I think!) the larger insects suffered, and died out due to lack of breeding and being eaten a lot. Thus, the base level of prey shrank in stature, meaning it was the smaller predators who found themselves better suited to the environment, as the larger ones found it harder and harder to eat what they needed, leading to them dying off as well. As such, over different periods of the Earths history, the smaller creatures have traditionally done the best, as whilst they may not gain that much from having larger prey/carrion to chow down on, neither do they tend to suffer from a lack of larger prey.

Now don't treat the above as 100% accurate. It's a rather hazy recollection of a television series I found fascinating, probably from as much as 7 or so years ago!

But I do find the Biblical Creation story frankly ludicrous. It has nothing to back itself up with, barring outright faith in a book, and not just any book, a book which througout the years has always been translated by people in power, and has whole sections missing and declared 'heretical' by the Catholic Church, probably because the additional sections disprove or at least challenge their mindless Dogma, thus undermining their position. So even if it ever was the infallible word of god, it's been thoroughly buggered about with by mankind in the intervening thousands of years, thus rendering it to my mind utterly unreliable! And, I mean...come on. Science is at least willing to question the veracity of it's findings, and more than happen to recant theories later disproved, but in doing so, also willing to explain the flaw in the previous theory. Evolution makes perfect sense. The better adapted a species is to it's immediate environs, the better placed it is to successfully feed and breed. The best adapted will soon out compete it's rivals, leading eventually to either the migration of the rival, or to it's extinction. I fail to see why some people still call evolution a load of codswallop when it's blatantly not!

Also, please don't fall into the trap of saying that just because either there is a gap in some understanding, a contradiction in two bits of science or some small room for doubt in some assumptions that this leads to the conclusion that it woz God/Allah/Vishna wot dun it. You have avoided the trap so far, but have come close to it at times.

Finally, I mentioned it above - I'm against people who claim believing in a God is a logical stance. It is impossible to rule out God using logic and a science based evidentiary approach, but it is pretty close to possible to prove he is not needed to explain things. That goes hand-in-hand with it being impossible to prove God does exist using logic or evidence.

I ask people people to recognise that belief in God is a faith position, one based on a feeling. It is not based on logic or evidence, and attempts to feel better about belief by justifying using logic and concocting chains of evidence could be argued to show weakness of faith rather than strength.

I'll respect a person's right to say "I believe in God because I feel it to be right in my heart," but I can't respect someone who makes attempts to justify something that can't be justified.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:IIRC, the Earth has had, at varying times, differing levels of Gases in it's atmosphere. This was largely down to Plankton levels, as they contribute far more than trees (true that!). The more oxygen, the bigger insects can get, due to their suprisingly inefficient respiratory system. So when your base level prey is larger, the same reasonably follows for your Predator. As Oxygen levels dropped (due to Plantkon again I think!) the larger insects suffered, and died out due to lack of breeding and being eaten a lot. Thus, the base level of prey shrank in stature, meaning it was the smaller predators who found themselves better suited to the environment, as the larger ones found it harder and harder to eat what they needed, leading to them dying off as well. As such, over different periods of the Earths history, the smaller creatures have traditionally done the best, as whilst they may not gain that much from having larger prey/carrion to chow down on, neither do they tend to suffer from a lack of larger prey.

Also, being smaller is more often a competitive advantage than a drawback. If you are equally strong, equally fast, equally intelligent, equally resistant to illness etc, then being able to fit in smaller spaces, requiring less food, being less good as a food source yourself, needing less shelter, water, energy to warm yourself/move yourself/clean yourself, having better leverage in a fight etc etc are all beneficial. Of course, it may mean you can't reach the higher branches!

generalgrog wrote:
Assumption#1 It is assumed that the rate of decay has been constant from parent to daughter isotope during the period of time under question.

Assumption#2 It is assumed that the quantities of parent and daughter isotopes have not been altered by non radioactive processes, such as migration and transport.

Assumption #3 It assumed that when the rocks were formed it contained a known amount of the daughter isotopes, in many cases believed to be zero.

An isotope is produced when an element changes into a heavier or lighter version of itself a proton turning into a neutron, or vice versa( this process is called beta plus or beta minus decay). In tests it has been observed to happen at an exponetial rate particular to the type of element in question. It has been observed to take, for example, polonium 140 for its mesured quanties of disintergaration to decay by half(eg 140 days for it's disintergration to reduce from 160kBq to 80kBq, and 140days from 80kBq to 40 kBq, another 140daysfrom 40kBq to 20 kBq etc) for this reason the rate of decay has been given the name HALF LIFE, the rate being peculiar to each element. If plotted on a graph, the quantities can be extrapolated beyond the actual observation time to its origin(which seems pretty reasonable to me) to a point befor the decay prcess started( where there would have been no isotopes present, only the origonal element).(ps Bq= 1 disintergation per second)
So my questions to you would be as follows:

Question#1 What observations have you made to think whether rate of decay MAY NOT have been constantly exponential rate from parent Element to daughter isotope during the period of time under question?

Question#2 How have you come to the conclusion that the number of isotopes may have been altered by non radioactive processes, such as migration and transport.(Since isotopes ore only produced through raioactive decay processes)

Question#3 Do you think it an unreasonable assumption that at an elements original state(before any Radioactive decay) that there were not any isotopes which are a results of said decay?

Personaly I think that the assumptions made by the proponents ofradioisotope dating pretty reasonable, due to the observations that we are able to make.

I wonder whether the proponents of 'creation-ism' are under the belief that if it's not in the bible that it's the work of "THE DEVIL"? whether they believe that all scientists and archeologists are SATANISTS endeavouring to disprove GOD?
It has been my experience that such a BLACK and WHITE view of the universe, can be very limiting, and the person who believes such may be missing out on a whole load of beautiful COLOURS which are there(may even have been PUT there if one is so inclined to believe) for us to enjoy!

(edited for politeness!)

Fifty wrote:
I ask people people to recognise that belief in God is a faith position, one based on a feeling. It is not based on logic or evidence, and attempts to feel better about belief by justifying using logic and concocting chains of evidence could be argued to show weakness of faith rather than strength.

There are ways to logically justify a belief in God, they simply do not turn on objective data. A good example is Alcoholics Anonymous. One of the central tenets of that program is that the alcoholic in question must accept the presence of a higher power. It doesn't have to be God, but in practice it almost always is. Thus the logical justification for Gods existence is one of personal necessity. It is entirely logical to believe in God if you need God to exist. However, it should also be pointed out that such a line of argumentation does not render 'God says so' a valid form of objective argumentation as personal need does not necessarily reflect on collective need.

I clearly need to clarify what I said.

Evidence and logic cannot prove the existence of God.

It may be argued that logic can provide a reason to believe in God, but as you point out, that will be a purely subjective matter.

I would say aree that you can provide a logical reason to need/want to believe in God, but not to actually do so. Believing in him because it would help you get over alcoholism still requires an act of faith.

At this point though, I would suggest that if we went further along this road, then we would be arguing about semantics and proving which of us is better at manipulating language, not debating the core issue.

OK so sorry I haven't replied yet, I've had a busy Saturday. I hope to be be replying later, but I just wanted to point out that I won't be able to answer evryones questions, and I hope I didin't set my self up as "The answer man". Some things I am just going to have to say "I don't know", and I don't have a problem with that.

For the short term, I will be only replying to isues relating to the current topic about radioisotope dating. I do want to get to the other issues eventually because some of them are very important, in my opinion, but as I mentioned I am going to try very hard to stay focused on 1 issue at a time until we all feel that the issue is exhuasted, then we can move on to another topic.

Feel free to talk about whatever you want as parallel discusions, just be aware that my brain isn't big enough to handle 10 different topic strings, so I will only be focusing on one issue at a time.

So Mcfly, Dogma,Mattlov,Fifty,Uri...I will get back to you.

The other guys have brought up different issues, like biology, accuracy of Bible, EasterBunny,philosophy, opinions, and questions about literal readings of the Bible and comparative religion questions. All relevent(sans easterbunny) to a discussion of the main creation-evolution discussion, please don't be offended if I don't respond to those issues right away due to trying to stay focused on 1 issue.

GG

youbedead wrote:

whoops its actually 10^260

that number is larger then the amount of atoms in the universe.

I think , if you research it further, that you will find the above statement is absolute boll**ks.

on that single observation, I would suggest that you dont take much in that particular book too seriously. If you, youbedead, wish we can discuss it further.

Good old Statistics.

I have a one in six chance of rolling a six on a single six sided dice. This however, does not mean that if I roll it six times, I will get said six. I could get it on the first roll, and assuming the six is all I am looking for, I would cease rolling at that point.

The same is true of the chances of life developing. Sure, it might well be the aforementioned 10 to the power of 260, but it only need happen once, and it quite blatantly has. And that is just life *as we know it*.

Cheesey quote I know, but it's important to this. One thing we have found to hold true on earth, is that life finds a way. For example, Snotites...http://everything2.com/node/1547240 are very much NOT life as we would necessarily define it. They exist and thrive in an environment we would normally consider inimicable to life. Perhaps they are 'left over' from an earlier time on Earth, when the environment was considerably more hostile.

There are also forms of bacteria in a cave which feed off the rock itself, the only example of life currently known to require neither water nor sunlight to exist. Are they especially complex forms of life? Clearly not, but they are forms of life. So who is to say Saturn, Jupiter etc are devoid of life? Certainly, life as we have come to understand it wouldn't stand much of a chance, but then, it hasn't evolved in said environs, so it shouldn't. But that is not necessarily ruling it out.

So I would ask this. What if we do find life forms, however primitive, on other planets? How does that correalte with the Biblical creation store? Fair enough, The Bible seem to deal specifically with our planet, and the existence of extraterrestrial life doesn't disprove the teachings etc, but surely it will throw some kind of spanner into the works? And indeed, what of the rest of the larger cosmos? What part might that play in God's plan? I hasten to point out this is not an attempt at some kind of theological trap. Just a question I find interesting, and I hope others do too.

Every radio-carbon dating technique has known error amounts, so your argument is pretty null.



Hello Mr. Dunning. Recently I've grown a fancy to disproving creationism and theism. My question to you is of a creationist argument that carbon dating is inaccurate longer than 1000 years. I was immediately skeptical. So the question is, is carbon dating inaccurate, and how could I respond to such an argument?

This is a common objection that Young Earth Creationists raise to the scientifically determined age of the Earth. Radioactive decay rates are a known constant. By measuring the amount of an element in a compound and that of the element into which it naturally decays, a ratio can be established that tells us how long ago that compound was formed. There are more than a dozen commonly used types of radiometric dating, each optimal for a different type of compound, and each with its own error range and its own useful date range. Carbon-14 dating, that you mention, is used for establishing how long ago living matter died. Any scrap of wood or other organic matter stopped metabolizing carbon-14 when it died, and that carbon-14 in its cells has been decaying into carbon-12 ever since. How much is left tells us for a certainty how long ago it died. Carbon-14 dating is good for anything up to about 60,000 years ago.

Naturally, it's essential to know how much carbon-14 was in the environment throughout that period of time. Calibration scales have been established that tell us this. The amount of natural environmental carbon-14 is confirmed from a variety of sources. These include dendochronology, or tree rings; ice cores; ocean sediment cores; coral samples; and speleotherms, or cave formation samples. These combine to give us an extremely detailed, consistent, and precise knowledge of atmospheric carbon-14 levels throughout recent geological history. They account for volcanic events and even the era of atmospheric nuclear tests. These calibration sources are a great place to start your conversation with your friends. You can't deny radiocarbon dating without denying tree rings.

Other radiometric techniques can be used to date rocks and other objects on much longer time scales. While carbon-14 has a relatively short half-life of 5,730 years, the decay of potassium-40 to argon-40 has a half-life of 1.3 billion years, so potassium-argon dating is useful for dating the oldest rocks; but it's only accurate for rocks at least 100,000 years old. In addition to the useful date range, each method has a known error rate. For example, rubidium-strontium dating, with a half-life of 50 billion years, can date rocks as old as moon rocks up to about 3 billion years with an error of 30 to 50 million years, or about 1.5%.