Speculation re. the "how" of miracles

[askandanswer]

On 5/23/2017 at 5:05 AM, Carborendum said:

It would help if one knew and understood the powers of heaven.  Then one would have a better understanding of how righteousness is related to them.  I for one, do not have a good comprehension of what they are and how they work.  

But we do have ways of experiencing them.

I lack the knowledge and expertise required to make a firm argument for the proposal but I think a good candidate for "the powers of heaven" would be the four fundamental forces - gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces. There is no scriptural or prophetic teaching that I know of to support this conclusion, but I think it is partly supported by the idea that almost every miracle that we know of would have required the ability to control these forces.

[JohnsonJones]

12 hours ago, Traveler said:

When Darwin (a very religious person) suggested in passing (not really that much of an agenda as research suggestion) that humans may have ape ancestors – he was excommunicated (either literally or figuratively) by almost every Christian sect there is.  In general I find that Christians will not consider research (especially willing to research on their own) any empirical study that they think will threaten their religious agendas and interpretations of scripture.

I'm not an expert on Darwin's history, but I don't think Darwin was excommunicated.  He'd have to be active in the specific religions that might want to excommunicate him in the first place, and though he was extremely religious, I don't think any religion he was a member of actually excommunicated him.

The Theory of Evolution has changed greatly since Darwin.  A LOT of that has to due with Darwin's religious fervor.  When he first thought of Evolution, he thought it occurred maybe over a few thousand years, not the millions it took.  He thought this due to his religious beliefs, rather than scientific evidence from what I understand.

Much of what we thought in regards to evolution today came later (especially the Man from apes from Western Africa which I believe is the Leakey theory).

I think the hard sciences are things which are pretty solid and have not caused wars.

The softer sciences on the otherhand...I'd say they definitely have had a hand in wars and perhaps some of the worst massacres and holocausts ever caused.  When you look into the supposed backgrounds of communism, Nazi Socialism, and other social politically charged ideas, they try to show that they have a foundation based solely upon science and scientific ideas typically. 

On the otherhand, if one considers Atheism as a sort of religion in and of itself (as opposed to agnosticism, or the more agnosticism where one definitely believes there may not be a deity, but is NOT as forceful in their beliefs as an Atheist), then in truth, one could say the above deaths and wars were all caused by religion, but not necessarily Christianity or Islam.

[Guest]

15 hours ago, askandanswer said:

I lack the knowledge and expertise required to make a firm argument for the proposal but I think a good candidate for "the powers of heaven" would be the four fundamental forces - gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces. There is no scriptural or prophetic teaching that I know of to support this conclusion, but I think it is partly supported by the idea that almost every miracle that we know of would have required the ability to control these forces.

I used to think that there were the four fundamental forces that man is allowed to explore through science, and then there were additional forces that are in the realm of Deity.

Then I read the phrase "all priesthood is Melchizedek".  This meaning that which we give other titles to (Patriarchal, Levitical, Aaronic, etc) are appendages to it.  Then it got me to thinking that all powers or forces are in the realm of Deity.  All things derive their "force" from faith (as a principle of power).

[Traveler]

21 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Evolution from a common ancestor requires an imagination and a lot of faith. Its not empirical as scientists think; its more like a religion.

 

I have at least one question for you concerning your view of imagination.  How do you explain or what do you understand in references to small percentages of our modern human population containing Neanderthal DNA?  Since this is obviously not an element of imagination or any faith – what is your response?  Are such individuals not to be considered human descendants of Adam and Eve?  Also, are you aware that the LDS church encourages DNA testing in helping to determine your ancestry.

Some other, perhaps trivial, questions – since you have not provided the information in your profile – do you consider yourself to be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and believe that the priesthood of G-d has been restored to the earth through Joseph Smith and that President Monson currently holds the keys of that priesthood?

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

1 minute ago, Traveler said:

 

I have at least one question for you concerning your view of imagination.  How do you explain or what do you understand in references to small percentages of our modern human population containing Neanderthal DNA?  Since this is obviously not an element of imagination or any faith – what is your response?  Are such individuals not to be considered human descendants of Adam and Eve?  Also, are you aware that the LDS church encourages DNA testing in helping to determine your ancestry.

Some other, perhaps trivial, questions – since you have not provided the information in your profile – do you consider yourself to be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and believe that the priesthood of G-d has been restored to the earth through Joseph Smith and that President Monson currently holds the keys of that priesthood?

 

The Traveler

Neanderthal DNA doesnt really say much. There isnt really any solid proof to show exactly who they were, how intelligent they were, etc. There certainly is plenty of speculation on who they might of been, how smart they were, etc, but that isnt how one defines "empirical".

The interesting thing about DNA is that there is no empirical evidence to show how it came about. All the evidence we have points to it always being fully formed in all life forms. Scientists have yet to find any possible credible way that the complex blueprint for life has come about on this planet through an unintelligent process. Through logic alone, the only thing empirical about DNA is that it didnt evolve on its own.

[Rob Osborn]

12 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

Some other, perhaps trivial, questions – since you have not provided the information in your profile – do you consider yourself to be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and believe that the priesthood of G-d has been restored to the earth through Joseph Smith and that President Monson currently holds the keys of that priesthood?

 

The Traveler

I am LDS and yes I do believe in the restoration of priesthood keys and prophets who hold such proper authority.

[askandanswer]

5 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I used to think that there were the four fundamental forces that man is allowed to explore through science, and then there were additional forces that are in the realm of Deity.

Then I read the phrase "all priesthood is Melchizedek".  This meaning that which we give other titles to (Patriarchal, Levitical, Aaronic, etc) are appendages to it.  Then it got me to thinking that all powers or forces are in the realm of Deity.  All things derive their "force" from faith (as a principle of power).

In broad terms, I'm inclined to agree. The idea that all things derive their force from faith, to me, seems to have some resonance with Doctrine and Covenants 29:34 - Wherefore, verily I say unto you that all things unto me are spiritual, and not at any time have I given unto you a law which was temporal; neither any man, nor the children of men; neither Adam, your father, whom I created. I mention this scripture because it seems to reinforce the idea that all things belong to, or are derived from God, and it is only man that says things like this law over here is man's law, and this law over here is God's. I'm interested in exploring the possibility that it might be possible to increase our understanding of the physics, or the mechanics, and the mechanisms or processes by which faith is able to bring about changes in things. We can understand and explain how the application of, for example, hydraulic force brings about changes in the movement of an object. I'm hoping we might be able to move towards some understanding of how faith, or priesthood, brings about changes in things, whether it be an axe floating in water, or a person being healed.

[Traveler]

4 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Neanderthal DNA doesnt really say much. There isnt really any solid proof to show exactly who they were, how intelligent they were, etc. There certainly is plenty of speculation on who they might of been, how smart they were, etc, but that isnt how one defines "empirical".

The interesting thing about DNA is that there is no empirical evidence to show how it came about. All the evidence we have points to it always being fully formed in all life forms. Scientists have yet to find any possible credible way that the complex blueprint for life has come about on this planet through an unintelligent process. Through logic alone, the only thing empirical about DNA is that it didnt evolve on its own.

I am not concerned with what Neanderthal DNA does not say as much as I am interested in what it does say, empirically - even if it is just a very little insight to something.  We do know that Neanderthal, as a species, existed tens of thousands of years before that of modern human (us).   I was interested in your opinion about why only a small % of “us” have Neanderthal DNA.  What do you think are the possible reasons?  I will suggest one possibility – Some descendants of Adam and Eve produced offspring with creatures that were not descendants of Adam and Eve.  But such a supposition creates problems?  If you agree – can you think of a possibility that does not cause so many problems?  BTW – Just because we cannot think of an answer does not mean that the answer does not exist – just that we do not, between us,  know enough to provide an adequate conclusion.

As to the second part of your post - I agree but as an expert in industrial artificial intelligence I would add evolution cannot take place without intelligence.  The scientific definition of intelligence is the ability to learn and cause beneficial change.  Therefore, if there is beneficial change there must or likely be intelligence - unless there is some other demonstrable means that does not violate the known physical (empirical) laws – and the scientific definition is flawed.  I believe it has been proven, view artificial intelligence, that at least at very rudimentary levels – that intelligence can exist without what we define as life or living organisms.   But this is another discussion.

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

49 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I am not concerned with what Neanderthal DNA does not say as much as I am interested in what it does say, empirically - even if it is just a very little insight to something.  We do know that Neanderthal, as a species, existed tens of thousands of years before that of modern human (us).   I was interested in your opinion about why only a small % of “us” have Neanderthal DNA.  What do you think are the possible reasons?  I will suggest one possibility – Some descendants of Adam and Eve produced offspring with creatures that were not descendants of Adam and Eve.  But such a supposition creates problems?  If you agree – can you think of a possibility that does not cause so many problems?  BTW – Just because we cannot think of an answer does not mean that the answer does not exist – just that we do not, between us,  know enough to provide an adequate conclusion.

As to the second part of your post - I agree but as an expert in industrial artificial intelligence I would add evolution cannot take place without intelligence.  The scientific definition of intelligence is the ability to learn and cause beneficial change.  Therefore, if there is beneficial change there must or likely be intelligence - unless there is some other demonstrable means that does not violate the known physical (empirical) laws – and the scientific definition is flawed.  I believe it has been proven, view artificial intelligence, that at least at very rudimentary levels – that intelligence can exist without what we define as life or living organisms.   But this is another discussion.

 

The Traveler

A correction if I may. You stated that we know Neanderthals existed, as a species, tens of thousands of years before modern humans. I would correct it in stating it is "a belief" by some that Neanderthals existed tens of thousands of years before modern humans. This is just one of the kinds of things that bother me about how scientists hazardly misuse principles and rules. Thats no different than me saying "we know Adam was the first man of all men some six thousand years ago." Its more proper to say " we believe..."

 See?

[Vort]

11 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

A correction if I may. You stated that we know Neanderthals existed, as a species, tens of thousands of years before modern humans. I would correct it in stating it is "a belief" by some that Neanderthals existed tens of thousands of years before modern humans. This is just one of the kinds of things that bother me about how scientists hazardly misuse principles and rules. Thats no different than me saying "we know Adam was the first man of all men some six thousand years ago." Its more proper to say " we believe..."

 See?

We know that we existed yesterday.

We believe that we existed yesterday.

See?

[Rob Osborn]

19 minutes ago, Vort said:

We know that we existed yesterday.

We believe that we existed yesterday.

See?

Completely different

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

 

As to the second part of your post - I agree but as an expert in industrial artificial intelligence I would add evolution cannot take place without intelligence.  The scientific definition of intelligence is the ability to learn and cause beneficial change.  Therefore, if there is beneficial change there must or likely be intelligence - unless there is some other demonstrable means that does not violate the known physical (empirical) laws – and the scientific definition is flawed.  I believe it has been proven, view artificial intelligence, that at least at very rudimentary levels – that intelligence can exist without what we define as life or living organisms.   But this is another discussion.

 

The Traveler

True intelligence only comes from an intelligent process by an intelligent being preceding it.

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

A correction if I may. You stated that we know Neanderthals existed, as a species, tens of thousands of years before modern humans. I would correct it in stating it is "a belief" by some that Neanderthals existed tens of thousands of years before modern humans. This is just one of the kinds of things that bother me about how scientists hazardly misuse principles and rules. Thats no different than me saying "we know Adam was the first man of all men some six thousand years ago." Its more proper to say " we believe..."

 See?

 

You have touched on a theme that causes me wonder.  What is the foundation of knowledge and how can someone “know” anything as opposed to thinking they know.  Can we even be sure our memories are “knowledge”? 

If we apply the same rules of what is knowledge opposed to what is believe as something different – how can you or anyone say with impunity that there is a difference between knowledge and belief?  This leaves us with no common ground but that which is empirical as a possibility for actual knowledge or communicable belief.  It would mean that the unverifiable (meaning unempirical) is belief and without commonality – all but one specific believe (if any –) is false.  I can verify carbon-14 dating and get the same results as all others testing the process – as I can do the same with gravity and much more. 

However, I must admit that it is not my experience that those the purport that knowledge of G-d, his works and attributes is possible – would go down such a path of questioning knowledge against belief.  Because of my background in mathematics: I accept as true that knowledge can include understanding of things beyond just that which is empirical.  In short - logic can extend our knowledge.  But is there anything else?

I appreciate your candor and would ask – what do you trust as knowledge and why.  For me – I trust things that are empirical and things not empirical that logically do not contradict the empirical.  This is because though I “believe” G-d to be somewhat non-empirical – I believe G-d (at least the G-d I believe to be and exist) – is a G-d of truth and does not lie even; including the empirical trail he leaves behind his actions - to be part of and a means of truth and enlightenment of mankind - not to be a means of deceiving mankind.   My logic in this matter is; that if G-d does not intend to enlighten mankind, including through the empirical universe he has created, that whatever we believe or think we know does not matter and there is no reason or logic I can think of the “believe” otherwise.

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

True intelligence only comes from an intelligent process by an intelligent being preceding it.

I believe I can demonstrate that intelligence can come from intelligence - I am not sure I can prove or disprove the negative.  But I believe it to be - even the example of the second law of thermal dynamics.  But there is a small problem - if we assume a space time where the speed of light is zero then the second law of thermal dynamics fails mathematically.  But for me I find comfort in the LDS belief that even G-d does not create intelligence but that intelligence is something eternal that cannot be created nor destroyed.  But it can evolve intelligently – and that the glory and work of G-d is to evolve our intelligence beyond what is otherwise possible for such intelligence to learn for itself. 

This whole idea sits well with me as I behold all things empirical and how even this empirical universe evolves intelligently.

 

The Traveler

Edited May 24, 2017 by Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

3 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

You have touched on a theme that causes me wonder.  What is the foundation of knowledge and how can someone “know” anything as opposed to thinking they know.  Can we even be sure our memories are “knowledge”? 

If we apply the same rules of what is knowledge opposed to what is believe as something different – how can you or anyone say with impunity that there is a difference between knowledge and belief?  This leaves us with no common ground but that which is empirical as a possibility for actual knowledge or communicable belief.  It would mean that the unverifiable (meaning unempirical) is belief and without commonality – all but one specific believe (if any –) is false.  I can verify carbon-14 dating and get the same results as all others testing the process – as I can do the same with gravity and much more. 

However, I must admit that it is not my experience that those the purport that knowledge of G-d, his works and attributes is possible – would go down such a path of questioning knowledge against belief.  Because of my background in mathematics: I accept as true that knowledge can include understanding of things beyond just that which is empirical.  In short - logic can extend our knowledge.  But is there anything else?

I appreciate your candor and would ask – what do you trust as knowledge and why.  For me – I trust things that are empirical and things not empirical that logically do not contradict the empirical.  This is because though I “believe” G-d to be somewhat non-empirical – I believe G-d (at least the G-d I believe to be and exist) – is a G-d of truth and does not lie even; including the empirical trail he leaves behind his actions - to be part of and a means of truth and enlightenment of mankind - not to be a means of deceiving mankind.   My logic in this matter is; that if G-d does not intend to enlighten mankind, including through the empirical universe he has created, that whatever we believe or think we know does not matter and there is no reason or logic I can think of the “believe” otherwise.

 

The Traveler

Knowledge or "knowing" in this context is a sure absolute knowledge of something. For instance- we "know" that we can eat apples. We "know" that cats and dogs generally have 4 legs a tail, two ears, one nose, two eyes. We "know" that fire is destructive. 

We can go further and even make statements such as- We "know" George Washington was the first president and that he was a real person. We have absolute sure evidence if this fact. We can even state- We "know" Joseph Smith was the founder of our church and he was a real person also.

"Belief" on the other hand is subjective and up to ones personal opinions and interpretations of which lack the necessary real evidence to make it factual. C-14 dating is one such "belief" because it lacks the proof to verify it as being factual. Evidence has shown that dating things in this manner can be highly subjective and often give conflicting results. In fact, most types of carbon and radio isotope dating is subjective and not always agreeable. These dating processes do not prove factual history at all. 

[Traveler]

11 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Knowledge or "knowing" in this context is a sure absolute knowledge of something. For instance- we "know" that we can eat apples. We "know" that cats and dogs generally have 4 legs a tail, two ears, one nose, two eyes. We "know" that fire is destructive. 

We can go further and even make statements such as- We "know" George Washington was the first president and that he was a real person. We have absolute sure evidence if this fact. We can even state- We "know" Joseph Smith was the founder of our church and he was a real person also.

"Belief" on the other hand is subjective and up to ones personal opinions and interpretations of which lack the necessary real evidence to make it factual. C-14 dating is one such "belief" because it lacks the proof to verify it as being factual. Evidence has shown that dating things in this manner can be highly subjective and often give conflicting results. In fact, most types of carbon and radio isotope dating is subjective and not always agreeable. These dating processes do not prove factual history at all. 

 

I disagree with your speculation and opinion concerning the idea that carbon 14 does not have a stable half-life or that we have insufficient samples to know over time and place atmospheric carbon 14 isotopes.  If you have found a more reliable solution that consistently validates your opinion about the instability of carbon 14 – I would be most interested.

In regards to individuals in our history such as George Washington and Joseph Smith – we are left to accounts of things that they may have done from various accounts.  And as Mark Hofmann has demonstrated; what we think to be historical accounts of individuals can be quite easily counterfeited.

There is another option – which is the Holy Ghost.  However, my personal experience is that some that have been given the gift of the Holy Ghost have been most inconsistent.  I am personally convinced that divine revelation will guide and help a person understand the great Plan of Salvation and accompanying revelations but for me; a quest for truth is a journey and not a destination.  A journey that very often takes me places that I did not expect and sometimes did not intend.  To be honest – I am skeptical of those that think they know the answers but refuse to consider all the possible evidence or at least listen to new possibilities.  How someone formulates their opinion (knowledge and beliefs) is far more interesting to me than their opinion.

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

19 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

I disagree with your speculation and opinion concerning the idea that carbon 14 does not have a stable half-life or that we have insufficient samples to know over time and place atmospheric carbon 14 isotopes.  If you have found a more reliable solution that consistently validates your opinion about the instability of carbon 14 – I would be most interested.

In regards to individuals in our history such as George Washington and Joseph Smith – we are left to accounts of things that they may have done from various accounts.  And as Mark Hofmann has demonstrated; what we think to be historical accounts of individuals can be quite easily counterfeited.

There is another option – which is the Holy Ghost.  However, my personal experience is that some that have been given the gift of the Holy Ghost have been most inconsistent.  I am personally convinced that divine revelation will guide and help a person understand the great Plan of Salvation and accompanying revelations but for me; a quest for truth is a journey and not a destination.  A journey that very often takes me places that I did not expect and sometimes did not intend.  To be honest – I am skeptical of those that think they know the answers but refuse to consider all the possible evidence or at least listen to new possibilities.  How someone formulates their opinion (knowledge and beliefs) is far more interesting to me than their opinion.

 

The Traveler

C-14 dating is not provable for dating things tens of thousands of years old let alone thousands of years. We could shoot back and forth but there is just no way you can prove its reliable. There is just no way, no evidence to show.

If you dont believe George Washington was not real or have an argument he was fake- good luck but the evidence overwhelmingly is factual.

If the bible is true, and there was a global flood then all of c-14 dating beyobd 5,000 years ago has to be thrown out.

Edited May 25, 2017 by Rob Osborn

[Vort]

4 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

C-14 dating is not provable for dating things tens of thousands of years old let alone thousands of years. We could shoot back and forth but there is just no way you can prove its reliable. There is just no way, no evidence to show.

This is simply false. There is all sorts of proof of the validity of C-14 dating.

Close your eyes if you want to, but don't close your eyes and then claim the room is dark.

[The Folk Prophet]

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

close your eyes and then claim the room is dark.

A brilliant summary of apostasy in all it's forms.

[Rob Osborn]

17 minutes ago, Vort said:

This is simply false. There is all sorts of proof of the validity of C-14 dating.

Close your eyes if you want to, but don't close your eyes and then claim the room is dark.

Keep a dreamin

[Traveler]

3 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

C-14 dating is not provable for dating things tens of thousands of years old let alone thousands of years. We could shoot back and forth but there is just no way you can prove its reliable. There is just no way, no evidence to show.

If you dont believe George Washington was not real or have an argument he was fake- good luck but the evidence overwhelmingly is factual.

If the bible is true, and there was a global flood then all of c-14 dating beyobd 5,000 years ago has to be thrown out.

 

I am still looking forward to being informed on the better source of dating the age of organic (carbon based things – that you trust and believe.  And since it is the preponderance of evidence that convinces you – I anxiously await your response of what is proven superior to carbon 14 dating.

It was a lesson I learned from my father – that in evaluating a critic – their opinion is flawed and worthless unless they are willing to provide a better example of what they criticize.  Until you provide something better I will continue to trust carbon 14 dating - until something better comes along.

 

he Traveler

 

[Rob Osborn]

2 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

I am still looking forward to being informed on the better source of dating the age of organic (carbon based things – that you trust and believe.  And since it is the preponderance of evidence that convinces you – I anxiously await your response of what is proven superior to carbon 14 dating.

It was a lesson I learned from my father – that in evaluating a critic – their opinion is flawed and worthless unless they are willing to provide a better example of what they criticize.  Until you provide something better I will continue to trust carbon 14 dating - until something better comes along.

 

he Traveler

 

We dont have anything out there that is reliable as "proof". Thats my whole point. I dont really care how old something is, we just need to be careful in our wording, our language, so that we are not misinforming people. Scientists are famous for doing this smoke and mirrors stuff. One can believe c-14 dating is accurate and empirical but that doesnt make it truly empirical or factual. It is still just a belief system that lacks the proof needed to make it factual.

[Traveler]

40 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

We dont have anything out there that is reliable as "proof". Thats my whole point. I dont really care how old something is, we just need to be careful in our wording, our language, so that we are not misinforming people. Scientists are famous for doing this smoke and mirrors stuff. One can believe c-14 dating is accurate and empirical but that doesnt make it truly empirical or factual. It is still just a belief system that lacks the proof needed to make it factual.

 

I am very confused – without a more reliable source – by what authority can you say carbon 14 dating is not accurate?  I am getting the impressions that if something is inconvenient to your speculation – you reject it.  Sorry if this sounds a little harsh but I am honestly trying to get a handle on how you evaluate things and if I can trust your opinion.  BTW - I make my living as a scientist and I often work with other LDS scientists that do not fit at all into your criticism for making their living “doing smoke and mirrors stuff.”  I have never heard President Eyring reference his father (who is a noted scientist) has you have.  Do you really meant what you have said about scientist?

 

he Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

8 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

I am very confused – without a more reliable source – by what authority can you say carbon 14 dating is not accurate?  I am getting the impressions that if something is inconvenient to your speculation – you reject it.  Sorry if this sounds a little harsh but I am honestly trying to get a handle on how you evaluate things and if I can trust your opinion.  BTW - I make my living as a scientist and I often work with other LDS scientists that do not fit at all into your criticism for making their living “doing smoke and mirrors stuff.”  I have never heard President Eyring reference his father (who is a noted scientist) has you have.  Do you really meant what you have said about scientist?

 

he Traveler

If you are not aware of the huge debate over the accuracy of radio carbon dating then you dont understand it at all. But I am betting you are aware of the debate. The problem that arises here is that there just isnt a way to verify events going back in history where we have no viable witness or second hand account. It requires a lot of assumptions on their part. Assumptions do not nor cannot pass to make something factual knowledge though. The question I ask is- on deciding the absolute date of something tens of thousands of years old, is it possible the date could be wrong? If you can honestly say that that all doubt is removed and it has exactly been verified then I would believe you. The truth is, I already know, that c-14 dating does not remove all doubt. Thats all I am getting at here. Its not to say whether or not Neanderthals lived tens of thousands of years before modern humans, its to just clarify that it is a belief by some that they did indeed live tens of thousands of years before modern humans. That belief though is just that, its not an empirical scientific fact. 

[Vort]

4 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

If you are not aware of the huge debate over the accuracy of radio carbon dating then you dont understand it at all.

Huh. I confess that I am not a scientist. But I got my first degree in physics and went to grad school at Penn State in their physics program. I have made an effort to stay at least reasonably current with physics trends and items of interest. Yet I have never heard of this "huge debate over the accuracy of radio carbon dating". Perhaps you can provide a few links to said "huge debate"?