Dinosaur Timeline

[Red]

No, not to confound us, just to put us in awe of His creation.

Sounds like a pretty insecure God that needs to think up ways to impress his inferiors.

←

Well, if you were God (or a god someday) wouldn't you like to create a few animals that blew your hair back? Wouldn't you like to share the joy with others? Whenever a pretty walked by I used to say a little prayer to God, something like, "Nice work! Fearfully and wonderfully made--no kidding!!" God I think is an artist, and He likes to put His work on display whether its a dinosaur, Yosemite National Park or the first human you see after you get off the computer.

I would say that dinosaurs were both pre-flood AND post-flood. I say pre-flood definately because we have the fossils from the Flood all over the world, Dinosaurs were living breathing creatures for sure and if that is true I'm sure that they were on the Ark too (as juveniles of course).

Why should we ignore every single reputable scientist in the world who says that you have missed the date by 65,000,000 years?

Because God does.

I'm one of those nuts who thinks that the Behemoth and Leviathan of Job are actually dinosaurs.

Agreed.

I think that's a first. Is the ground a little cooler? did Hell just freeze over?

[Red]

Originally posted by Snow@Jan 2 2006, 11:59 PM

I will not allow current scientific understandings to trump simple and clear readings of Scripture.

That's dogmatic. I am a seeker of truth not dogma.

←

You have lost your compass. Your dogma is that the Bible is NOT the chief source of truth by which all others must be tested.

Without your compass, your search for truth will never end, going in circles and become futile.

You are leaning on the wisdom of men, not God's revelation.

[sgallan]

RED -

FWIW, despite the good work of folks like Snow, it is people like you ,and more than a few others, who have this godless heathen thinking it far far better to raise a child in a secular household.... perhaps to be non-religious. Oh, and since you are apparently so anti-science might I just suggest the next time you or a loved one get ill or hurt.... JUST.... pray about it. Don't see the doctor. Because that would be hypocritical. Modern medicine is very much science, and you would be relying on the arm of 'man' to get well.

FWIW again, I one time joined this particular faith thinking it was a religion that had outgrown a fundamentalist take on science (especially since they graduate so many scientists).... had given up the reliance on mythology and so forth. Yet despite the terrific 'scientist' demographic, I found this to be mostly not all that true among the rank and file. That was the beginning of the end with regards to my last shot at religion or religious beliefs.

Just a couple of observations and comments.

[prisonchaplain]

Originally posted by Snow@Jan 2 2006, 09:59 PM

I don't think you could find even one single credible scientist who is NOT religiously motivated that believes in a 6000 - 10,000 year earth.

←

I've never argued that there were many, but had to take of the challenge of looking for ONE scientist who is not religiously motivated who questions Darwinism and macro evolution (note my broader inquiry, versus the narrow 6-10K year one. Even many creationists believe that 25-30K would still rendor a literal, fundamental interpretation of Genesis possible).

So, here we are. A non-Christian scientist who disgrees with evolution:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/188058224...802449?n=283155

As for your other contentions--possibly worthy of a string each, if detailed discussion were the goal, I'll offer these simple responses:

1. No evidence that Moses authored the five books of Moses. While there is debate on this issue, there are plenty of reputable biblical scholars who give strong arguments that Moses did indeed author the books, with perhaps some additions by others later on.

2. Red Sea vs. Sea of Reeds. I suppose the whole contention comes down to whether you believe the writers, and trust that they were prophets, kings, and scribes of God or not. Did the writers exaggerate, turning intelligent tricks into miracles of God, or did God perform miracles? Call me dogmatic, but I believe an omnipotent God could certainly perform supernatural acts.

3. Science vs. Scripture. The ultimate Truth is Jesus (John 14:6). Science is the study of God's creation. Scripture is the word of God. Properly understood, they are both truth about the Truth.

[prisonchaplain]

Originally posted by sgallan@Jan 3 2006, 02:36 PM

FWIW, despite the good work of folks like Snow, it is people like you ,and more than a few others, who have this godless heathen thinking it far far better to raise a child in a secular household.... perhaps to be non-religious. Oh, and since you are apparently so anti-science might I just suggest the next time you or a loved one get ill or hurt.... JUST.... pray about it. Don't see the doctor. Because that would be hypocritical. Modern medicine is very much science, and you would be relying on the arm of 'man' to get well.

Oh come sgallan! You were right on the verge of theism...of believing in intelligent spirituality, and Red's apologetic tipped you back towards Deism! You're trying to making feel bad, aren't you? I seriously doubt that Red's posts had much impact on you one way or the other. As Snow would say, take responsiblity for your own actions, beliefs, and spirituality.

BTW...me thinks you set up a false dichotomy. Most Christians value science, and believe all truth ultimately comes from God. It's common, even for fundamentalists, to refer to science as the study of God's creation. Additionally, my view that perfect science will harmonize perfectly with perfected biblical study is a common one. We thank God for doctors, and yet, many of us all believe God can work through and beyond doctors.

[Snow]

Originally posted by sgallan@Jan 3 2006, 01:36 PM

RED -

FWIW, despite the good work of folks like Snow, it is people like you ,and more than a few others, who have this godless heathen thinking it far far better to raise a child in a secular household.... perhaps to be non-religious. Oh, and since you are apparently so anti-science might I just suggest the next time you or a loved one get ill or hurt.... JUST.... pray about it. Don't see the doctor. Because that would be hypocritical. Modern medicine is very much science, and you would be relying on the arm of 'man' to get well.

FWIW again, I one time joined this particular faith thinking it was a religion that had outgrown a fundamentalist take on science (especially since they graduate so many scientists).... had given up the reliance on mythology and so forth. Yet despite the terrific 'scientist' demographic, I found this to be mostly not all that true among the rank and file. That was the beginning of the end with regards to my last shot at religion or religious beliefs. 

Just a couple of observations and comments.

←

Sgallan,

Red is an evagelical critic, not a Mormon.

[Snow]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain@Jan 3 2006, 08:11 PM

I've never argued that there were many, but had to take of the challenge of looking for ONE scientist who is not religiously motivated who questions Darwinism and macro evolution (note my broader inquiry, versus the narrow 6-10K year one.  Even many creationists believe that 25-30K would still rendor a literal, fundamental interpretation of Genesis possible).

So, here we are.  A non-Christian scientist who disgrees with evolution:

Okay, but I'm not talking about evolution. I am talking about a young earth.

1.  No evidence that Moses authored the five books of Moses.  While there is debate on this issue, there are plenty of reputable biblical scholars who give strong arguments that Moses did indeed author the books, with perhaps some additions by others later on.

This was a bit of a trick question. There isn't any evidence that Moses was the author, one significant reason why is that there is no real evidence that there was ever a real flesh and blood Moses.

3.  Science vs. Scripture.  The ultimate Truth is Jesus (John 14:6).  Science is the study of God's creation.  Scripture is the word of God.  Properly understood, they are both truth about the Truth.

Well - better said that "scripture" is dogmatically believed by some/many to be the word of God. God himself is silent on the matter. The difference in science is that it can be independently tested and verified. Outside the unmeasurable difference the scriptures make in the inner hearts and minds of believer, scriptures are not testable and verifiable.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Red@Jan 3 2006, 12:19 AM

He assumes that the continents were spread out like today when a world-wide upheaval (which is what the flood really was) would separate the continents very quickly and/or raise up and throw down land masses.  So it is possible that there was just one big continent at the time, allowing easy travel.

Well yes, it's true. At one time (actually two times) there was one giant land mass. The most recent one was called Pangea.

Unfortunately it came 300 million years too early for Noah.

Missed it by ][ that much!

[Snow]

Originally posted by Red+Jan 3 2006, 12:48 AM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Snow@Jan 2 2006, 11:59 PM

I will not allow current scientific understandings to trump simple and clear readings of Scripture.

That's dogmatic. I am a seeker of truth not dogma.

←

You have lost your compass. Your dogma is that the Bible is NOT the chief source of truth by which all others must be tested.

Without your compass, your search for truth will never end, going in circles and become futile.

You are leaning on the wisdom of men, not God's revelation.

←

The scriptures are the chief source of spiritual or gospel truth but have proven to be a lousy source of scientific truth and not a particularly strong historical source. You and I simply have a difference of opinion. Unfortunately for you, my opinion can be independently checked and confirmed through biology, linguistics, archeology, history, anthropology, etc, while yours cannot.

[sgallan]

Red is an evagelical critic, not a Mormon.

My bad.

[sgallan]

Oh come sgallan! You were right on the verge of theism...of believing in intelligent spirituality, and Red's apologetic tipped you back towards Deism! You're trying to making feel bad, aren't you? I seriously doubt that Red's posts had much impact on you one way or the other. As Snow would say, take responsiblity for your own actions, beliefs, and spirituality.

The history is..... when I was about 13 I asked "what about the dinosaurs". It was a Southern Baptist church. The answers didn't make sense. So I ended up being agnostic for the next 26 years. Then I attempted Mormonism. It seemed a little more rational with a nicer version of a posited God. But what I found was the same sort of anti-science, literal global flood mythology type nonsense. I think it was an Ensign articlein Dec2000. Well in such a top down organization, I figured any group that could get it so wrong.... while supposedly have the gifts of the HG.... wasn't worth listening to in a religious sense. So that was the end of that. Basically I have been and godless heathen for all except one year of the last 32. Even in that one year I think I had more doubt than belief but I did try. Anyhow, the science issues are one big reason why I prefer a secular household and education for my child.

[Traveler]

Originally posted by Snow+Jan 2 2006, 11:39 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-LionHeart@Jan 2 2006, 10:28 PM

Actually, the traveler pointed out in another thread that the dinosaurs were structurally unsound for the current earth gravity. (interesting fellow, he is)

←

That would be an extremely extreme minority position, one not shared by the overwhelmingly vast majority of scientists.

←

Sometime ago I provided, in a post for Cal, the math associated with a comparative structural analysis of large dinosaurs with current large land dwelling animals of our era. This analysis also included structural comparisons between modern horses and elephants. Most of what I provided in relationship to dinosaurs can also be found in Robert T. Bakker’s book “Dinosaur Heresies”. If you are wondering to Bob Bakker is – he was the scientist modeled in the character of the dinosaur scientist in the book and movie “Jurassic Park”.

I have yet to find any scientific study that includes even the rudimentary math that I provided for Cal that disagrees with my findings. I have never found any structural study of anything in conflict with my major premises – that the supporting cross section (given in units squared) must increase exponentially faster than the volume size (given in unites cubed), thus for an animal (or any other structure) twice the size, the cross section support area must be 8 times larger to give the same structural support without changing the design (this is why I included the structural analysis of horses and elephants that use different structural design in my post to Cal). Thus for a dinosaur that is 4 times the size of a modern era elephant the cross sectional support area must be 64 times as large to give the same support and mobility. The largest dinosaurs are more that 8 times as large as an elephant and the support cross section is not even close to what is needed. It was thought that such large animals could only exist where most of their body was supported in water – but that has been proven to not be true.

Before you call this a minority scientific opinion, please provide at least one scientific opinion that disagrees with it.

The Traveler

[BenRaines]

Interesting Traveler. I had never thought of it that way or heard it talked about either. What you are saying is that the body mass of an earthly dinosaur based on todays gravity would not have allowed it to move around or support itself. Could this have been the cause of the death of the dinosaurs? The change in gravity on earth? Interesting.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Traveler@Jan 4 2006, 03:52 PM

Sometime ago I provided, in a post for Cal, the math associated with a comparative structural analysis of large dinosaurs with current large land dwelling animals of our era.  This analysis also included structural comparisons between modern horses and elephants.  Most of what I provided in relationship to dinosaurs can also be found in Robert T. Bakker’s book “Dinosaur Heresies”.  If you are wondering to Bob Bakker is – he was the scientist modeled in the character of the dinosaur scientist in the book and movie “Jurassic Park”.

The dinosaur scientist?

You mean the paleontologist? Jack Horner was the inspiration for the lead character while the minor role might have been modeled after Bakker.

I have yet to find any scientific study that includes even the rudimentary math that I provided for Cal that disagrees with my findings.  I have never found any structural study of anything in conflict with my major premises – that the supporting cross section (given in units squared) must increase exponentially faster than the volume size (given in unites cubed), thus for an animal (or any other structure) twice the size, the cross section support area must be 8 times larger to give the same structural support without changing the design (this is why I included the structural analysis of horses and elephants that use different structural design in my post to Cal).  Thus for a dinosaur that is 4 times the size of a modern era elephant the cross sectional support area must be 64 times as large to give the same support and mobility.  The largest dinosaurs are more that 8 times as large as an elephant and the support cross section is not even close to what is needed.  It was thought that such large animals could only exist where most of their body was supported in water – but that has been proven to not be true.

Before you call this a minority scientific opinion, please provide at least one scientific opinion that disagrees with it.

I don't know what you originally claimed but if you are claiming that gravity of earth was significantly different than it is now - that would be news to me. Please refer me to a known credible source that discusses it.

[prisonchaplain]

Originally posted by Snow@Jan 3 2006, 09:55 PM

Okay, but I'm not talking about evolution. I am talking about a young earth.

I suppose I made YOUR point anyway. It was hard enough finding one that was willing to question macro evolution. I could probably dig around and find one...but it goes without saying that the vast majority...well over 99%, of scientist do not buy into a young earth creationism.

My understanding is that Intelligent Design proponents have abandoned that position as well. Young Earth Creationism is clearly an effort of fundamentalists with science degrees, trying to justify their biblical interpetations. I.D. at least avoids that error.

This was a bit of a trick question. There isn't any evidence that Moses was the author, one significant reason why is that there is no real evidence that there was ever a real flesh and blood Moses.

I supposed by a strict biological or historical standard you may be right. The following article provides a good introduction the the different schools of thought on the authorship of the "five books of Moses."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_tora.htm

Well - better said that "scripture" is dogmatically believed by some/many to be the word of God. God himself is silent on the matter.

He may have been "silent" to you, but some claim to have audibly heard his voice. Ultimate, whether claimed Scriptures are the word of God or not is a matter of some evidence mixed with much faith. Even those who say they've literally heard, must exercise faith that what they heard was God and not something else.

The difference in science is that it can be independently tested and verified. Outside the unmeasurable difference the scriptures make in the inner hearts and minds of believer, scriptures are not testable and verifiable.

←

Scriptural accounts are sometimes verified through archeology and other findings, but granted, such evidence is never as conclusive as pure scientific inquiries.

[prisonchaplain]

Originally posted by sgallan@Jan 4 2006, 08:34 AM

The history is..... when I was about 13 I asked "what about the dinosaurs". It was a Southern Baptist church. The answers didn't make sense. So I ended up being agnostic for the next 26 years. Then I attempted Mormonism. It seemed a little more rational with a nicer version of a posited God. But what I found was the same sort of anti-science, literal global flood mythology type nonsense. I think it was an Ensign articlein Dec2000. Well in such a top down organization, I figured any group that could get it so wrong.... while supposedly have the gifts of the HG.... wasn't worth listening to in a religious sense. So that was the end of that. Basically I have been and godless heathen for all except one year of the last 32. Even in that one year I think I had more doubt than belief but I did try. Anyhow, the science issues are one big reason why I prefer a secular household and education for my child.

←

Anti-intellectualism has been a curse in fundamental/evangelical/pentecostal/charismatic/"conservative" churches for quite some time. The problem is definitely less than it was, say a generation ago, when my own movement started a graduate school offering courses in biblical studies etc., but could not initially call it a "theological" seminary, because of the "liberal" connotations some fealt the word communicated. Today, we proclaim "knowledge on fire," yet still struggle against those fear knowledge from "secular" sources.

On the other hand, if anti-intellectualism is your own complaint against Christianity, you might consider searching out the writings of some reputable scientists who are also Christians, and seeing what types of churches they go to. My undergraduate studies at a Presbyterian Church USA college had none of the undertones you found so illogical.

I'm sure there's more to you Deism than this issue, but thought I'd throw out an obvious solution.

[Snow]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain@Jan 4 2006, 08:35 PM

He may have been "silent" to you, but some claim to have audibly heard his voice.  Ultimate, whether claimed Scriptures are the word of God or not is a matter of some evidence mixed with much faith.  Even those who say they've literally heard, must exercise faith that what they heard was God and not something else.

←

That's right and I believe that I have been taught by the Spirit of God that the scriptures are true but that is a truth or knowledge internal to me that cannot be observed or tested outside myself.

And yes, I agree that archeology verifies a historical basis to many Bible accounts (and dis-verifies others) but not amount of archeology or any other science has ever verified the key and most important aspects of the Bible, for example: that God spoke to Abraham or that Christ atoned for our sins...

[sgallan]

I'm sure there's more to you Deism than this issue, but thought I'd throw out an obvious solution.

Err.... I am an athiest. And that is just one reason. The biggest reason I live in a secular way, and raise a child in that same way, is I see no additional value than what I am already doing, and several things which I do not consider valuable.

[Traveler]

Originally posted by Snow@Jan 4 2006, 07:44 PM

I don't know what you originally claimed but if you are claiming that gravity of earth was significantly different than it is now - that would be news to me. Please refer me to a known credible source that discusses it.

←

Okay lets consider the evidence. Dinosaurs are just way to big to be structurally supported according to current parameters. But dinosaurs are not the only things structurally too big during their era. Insects also came in sizes structurally too large for their exoskeletons. For example some dragon flies had wing spans of 3 feet and this is a species that is not extinct but alive and doing well today, but on a much smaller scale. Also there are some giant plants that also exist today but not on the large scale. Do we have any thing on large scale today. Yes we do - mammals that live in the seas - whales.

Not only are whales large but they are larger than the dinosaurs but they did not exist in the era of dinosaurs. So what parameters can explain the largeness of things on land during the era of the dinosaurs?

I will not pretend that I know the answer or that I have any prof but I will suggest an idea. And until someone can prove that this idea has no merritt, I suggest it be a consideration. That is that the reason the dinosaurs were so big, long, long ago is because the forces acting on their structure were not the same as the forces acting today. I’m just thronging this idea out there so we have at least one thing on the list. I personally do not like those that bring up problems without any solutions. And just so everybody understands my position - I’m not going to live or die on this theory. I would be most glad to entertain other possibilities.

BTW: Bob Bakker has a good theory of why the dinosaurs became extinct that I think is a very good one but the concept of changing environment is not so bad either. The interesting thing about the killer of dinosaurs is that any freshwater or small animals survived. However, there were small dinosaurs that did not survived - or did they??? Bob also suggest that birds are dinosaurs that survived. If birds are direct link to dinosaurs, the changing of forces in the environment (over a 2 million year period known to have been a period of high volume meteor hits of earth) might not be something we want to eliminate just yet.

Actually Snow, I know of no answer to the too big structural problem being discussed anywhere other than a brief mention in Bob’s book - but even Bob has not suggestions on this problem.

Ben Raines: Thanks for your heads up.

The Traveler

[Red]

Originally posted by sgallan@Jan 3 2006, 04:36 PM

RED -

FWIW, despite the good work of folks like Snow, it is people like you ,and more than a few others, who have this godless heathen thinking it far far better to raise a child in a secular household.... perhaps to be non-religious. Oh, and since you are apparently so anti-science might I just suggest the next time you or a loved one get ill or hurt.... JUST.... pray about it. Don't see the doctor. Because that would be hypocritical. Modern medicine is very much science, and you would be relying on the arm of 'man' to get well.

FWIW again, I one time joined this particular faith thinking it was a religion that had outgrown a fundamentalist take on science (especially since they graduate so many scientists).... had given up the reliance on mythology and so forth. Yet despite the terrific 'scientist' demographic, I found this to be mostly not all that true among the rank and file. That was the beginning of the end with regards to my last shot at religion or religious beliefs. 

Just a couple of observations and comments.

←

Since when is science a bad thing? Its the study of God's creation!! And when people I love get hurt they go to the hospital and I pray that God will be with the doctors and even heal the person if it is His will. It is not hypcritical because God allowed us to have science and doctors in the first place--just like He allowed the existence of Christians.

Now, my problem is not with science, but it is with science when it crosses the line. When science says "we know" when they don't really know for sure I take issue with that. You see, they don't really know how old the earth is or whether or not older fossils are deeper.

Radio Isotope dating has three serious flaws/falty assumptions. We'll use the potassium/argon method as an example (it is used for volcanic rocks):

1) It is not known how much potassium or argon was first present in any given rock. If we do not know how much of each was there at the start then we cannot accurately calculate how much potassium decayed into argon.

2) We do not always know if the decay rate is stable or fluctuates--if somehow the environment might slow or spead up the decay.

3) We also do not know how much potassium or argon was added or subtracted away from the rock as it endured its environment.

After seeing that, I decided to forget about radio-isotopes. That, and any month-old lava rock can be dated as being millions of years old. They don't spoon-feed me, I did the homework, litterally (I am a junior at small Christian college, going for a Bible major). You could also check out the Institute for Creation Research, icr.org. These guys know what they're talking about, don't just blow them off as somehow religiously blinded. When you're on the site keep an eye out for a new book they published, "Thousands, not Billions." It is the results of an 8 year research project into radio-dating, put in laymen's term (I doubt anyone wants to read the big fat technical version).

Now I'll risk getting scientific for a second: The earth drifts away from the sun each year at a certain rate. There is no reason that I know of as to why that would or even could change. At this rate the earth will drift too far away from the sun and become an ice-cube in a million years, unable to support life. Likewise, a million years ago it would have been to close and so too hot to support life, which just might cast doubt on whether there were dinosaurs 65 million ya. So based on this, the earth can't be older than a million years. Same story with the moon in relation to the earth and the tidal varinces that would be caused. If you would like exact numbers I could find them.

You say you are an atheist correct? Is that a logically sound belief? I do not think so. Are you possibly more of a man of faith than me? Probably. I'll explain:

Origin models which leave out the act of God are flawed, they only push the question further back, the question being: where did it come from/how did it start? If you believe the universe began as a singularity or some super-hot dot of matter then I would have to ask 'how'd it get there?' You might say matter is eternal, or something (I can't read your mind). But matter is subject to entropy and tends toward chaos not stasis. But say it was in stasis, 'how'd it blow up?' when inertia would dictate that it stay in stasis--it would not have gone bang but stayed a singularity. Oh but entropy caused the instability and it blew, but then again how did a self-decaying piece of matter get there in the first place and how could the debris become anything close to what we see now?...order to chaos, not the other way around.

A self-existent, trancendant God had to be in the picture. He is the only explanation. SomeONE had to make the decision to start it all. Now it follows that that same One made you whether directly or indirectly, you are His creation and would be accountable to Him. He gave you life and it seems fairly obvious that he put you here to do good things, yet you don't (me neither). In fact you have likely wronged people one way or another (me too). These wrongs might as well have been done against the Creator Himself, and we my friend are both traitors. So what does our king do? He put his his head on the chopping block in our place, and then lived to tell about it. All we need to do is recieve His pardon (a free, un-earnable gift) and accept His Lordship over us. He is a good King, I highly recommend Him.

Now you could just reject Him and remain a traitor. You can remind yourself that all of this is mythology, but you wouldn't really know that would you? No, you don't know at all, yet you insist it is so. Isn't that what so many people are calliing "faith" these days?

[Red]

Originally posted by Snow@Jan 4 2006, 12:14 AM

The scriptures are the chief source of spiritual or gospel truth but have proven to be a lousy source of scientific truth and not a particularly strong historical source...

←

If that is true, how can we trust the scriptures on gospel truths? We can't.

So many gospel truths, like the resurrection, depend on historical accuracy. Perhaps you should re-think your sources.

[sgallan]

A self-existent, trancendant God had to be in the picture. He is the only explanation. SomeONE had to make the decision to start it all.

Err.... that is a logical fallacy. Just because one does not understand something is not proof of a specific diety named as God.

Now you could just reject Him and remain a traitor.

I am familiar with the evangelical God. NOt a very nice diety. I would rather be a traitor to this particular god. It's not a nice one. Fairly vicious actually.

You can remind yourself that all of this is mythology, but you wouldn't really know that would you? No, you don't know at all, yet you insist it is so.

I can't 'prove' anything. Not even my existance. But try this one on for size.... try to disprove the invisible fire breathing Dragon living underneath my house. Why shouldn't I just worship this Dragon. He is nicer than your god.

Isn't that what so many people are calliing "faith" these days?

I am too smart to fall for that trap. Look at my handle. When you figure out why you deny the existance of the thousands of other possible gods, and various things that are supernatural, then you can understand why I deny the existance of yours.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Red+Jan 6 2006, 03:09 AM-->

Originally posted by Snow@Jan 4 2006, 12:14 AM

The scriptures are the chief source of spiritual or gospel truth but have proven to be a lousy source of scientific truth and not a particularly strong historical source...

←

If that is true, how can we trust the scriptures on gospel truths? We can't.

So many gospel truths, like the resurrection, depend on historical accuracy. Perhaps you should re-think your sources.

←

You mean YOU can't.

I can and do.

Originally posted by Red@Jan 6 2006, 03:09 AM

<!--QuoteBegin-Snow@Jan 4 2006, 12:14 AM

The scriptures are the chief source of spiritual or gospel truth but have proven to be a lousy source of scientific truth and not a particularly strong historical source...

←

If that is true, how can we trust the scriptures on gospel truths? We can't.

So many gospel truths, like the resurrection, depend on historical accuracy. Perhaps you should re-think your sources.

←

You mean YOU can't.

I can and do.

Saying my sources are suspect does nothing to make the Bible more historically or scientifically accurate. If you are aware of all the biblical error, maybe you should check them out. It not like their isn't a boatload of material on it available.

[Traveler]

Originally posted by Red@Jan 6 2006, 04:05 AM

Radio Isotope dating has three serious flaws/falty assumptions.  We'll use the potassium/argon method as an example (it is used for volcanic rocks):

1) It is not known how much potassium or argon was first present in any given rock.  If we do not know how much of each was there at the start then we cannot accurately calculate how much potassium decayed into argon.

2) We do not always know if the decay rate is stable or fluctuates--if somehow the environment might slow or spead up the decay.

3) We also do not know how much potassium or argon was added or subtracted away from the rock as it endured its environment.

After seeing that, I decided to forget about radio-isotopes.  That, and any month-old lava rock can be dated as being millions of years old.  They don't spoon-feed me, I did the homework, litterally (I am a junior at small Christian college, going for a Bible major). 

←

I really do not want to turn this into a accusation session but in the conflict of science and religion, most educated people tend to side with science (sooner or later) because religion has relied on unverifiable, ridiculous and unrelated excuses for their stand creating what has commonly become known as “junk” science. I believe the term used in scripture for such nonsense is “turning into fables”. I recommend against using fables as a basis of truth – I do not believe this is a matter of faith.

Historically the collision of science and religion is littered with such concepts as the Ptolemaic verses Copernican model of the solar system (universe). Traditional Christians attempted to explain known data with layered epicycles to justify their interpretation of scripture with scientific data. There has also been the flat earth, and heavy objects fall faster and Ether concepts to name a few. Though such unfounded, unverified fabled nonsense has become an embarrassment over time such non scientific methods have not abandoned – rather they has been selectively replaced with more ill conceived and non demonstratable but sound-good logic. Take for example Potassium-argon dating.

Lets look at how it works before we criticize it:

Potassium-argon dating is used to determine the age of igneous rocks based on the ratio of an unstable isotope of potassium to that of argon. Potassium is a common element found in many minerals. The isotopic distribution of potassium on the earth is approximately 93% 39K and 7% 41K. Since these values are only approximate, the total percent abundance of these two isotopes is not 100%, but 99.9883%. The remaining 0.0117% is 40K -- an unstable isotope with a half life of 1.26 × 109 years (1.26 billion years). Potassium 40 has three decay modes: beta decay, positron emission, and electron capture.

When 40K undergoes positron emission or electron capture it transmutes into 40Ar. Argon is an inert substance, which means that it basically will not combine chemically with other elements. It is also a gas over an extremely wide range of temperatures, which means that any 40Ar would escape while the rock was molten like carbon dioxide escaping from a glass of soda. After solidification, those 40Ar nuclei that appeared as a result of radioactive decay would be trapped by the crystal structure and accumulate as the mineral aged.

Now let us consider the exceptions offered as proof this method is invalid.

. That the quantities of Potassium and argon were not known when the time clock started. The particular isotope of potassium is, in reality, very rare and the expected ratio of potassium 40 can be compared to the stable potassium 39 and 41. As for argon since it is a gas it would escape from the strata while that stratum was non solid. Once the strata is crystallized the potassium isotopes for potassium 40 is fixed in the strata.

. Variant environmental parameters. Any environmental conditions able to alter that stability would leave traces. There have never been an exception demonstrated – Why would someone suggest something that has not nor can be demonstrated? Such method is the only way to justify stuff like a “flat earth”. If someone can produce an exception then I will eat my words and change my opinion.

.Adding to the solid rock: Once substance sealed inside; the effect would be variant the closer the material was to the changing environmental parameters to add material giving a variety of ageing dates rather and a stable output and most likely cause the rock to appear younger – not older. (How could gaseous argon be captured within the existing and stable lattice crystal structure without somehow changing the crystal structure?)

For all the claims that such methods are flawed, has there been a recorded study where any such claim has been verified? Not that I have heard of. Therefore, I see all such claims as fables and until they are verified I consider them and those that purport them as false.

Other radioisotope dating methods:

Lead-210

Uranium series disequilibrium

Uranium-lead

Rubidium-strontium

Has there ever been a demonstration that all these methods can be affected to give the same or consistent false reading? I do not think so. But this is a free country you can pay to have a teacher teach you what ever you want. It has been my experience that if you have the money, someone will teach what ever you want to hear in exchange for that money. And, if you like, you can hang your eternal salvation on it.

The Traveler

[Red]

....

Now let us consider the exceptions offered as proof this method is invalid.

. That the quantities of Potassium and argon were not known when the time clock started. The particular isotope of potassium is, in reality, very rare and the expected ratio of potassium 40 can be compared to the stable potassium 39 and 41. As for argon since it is a gas it would escape from the strata while that stratum was non solid. Once the strata is crystallized the potassium isotopes for potassium 40 is fixed in the strata.

. Variant environmental parameters. Any environmental conditions able to alter that stability would leave traces. There have never been an exception demonstrated – Why would someone suggest something that has not nor can be demonstrated? Such method is the only way to justify stuff like a “flat earth”. If someone can produce an exception then I will eat my words and change my opinion.

.Adding to the solid rock: Once substance sealed inside; the effect would be variant the closer the material was to the changing environmental parameters to add material giving a variety of ageing dates rather and a stable output and most likely cause the rock to appear younger – not older. (How could gaseous argon be captured within the existing and stable lattice crystal structure without somehow changing the crystal structure?)

....

The Traveler

Well I've gotta hand it to you, you definitely schooled me there. Looks like I've got a few more years of reading ahead of me before I make a solid case in this area. If only life were like the Matrix and we could just plug all the information we need into our heads.