Hakluyt's Voyages.......

[Hakluyt]

........just in case anyone fancies continuing them.

We were, I think, discussing the issue around dating dinosaur bones........among other things.

think how far man is from being able to create a universe. Whereas God is omnipotent so it would not be a problem for Him.

The problem with that is that you have based your first assumption on what you have observed but your assumption on god isn't based on anything is it. You've never seen god do anything have you? And that's without the massive leap from 'there's a god' to 'and it happens to be the one I was bought up with'.

www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/science-of-natural-history/the-scientific-process/dating-methods/index.html

So all you great believers in "goo to you" aka evolution, if the rocks and fossils aren't radio carbon dated, what exactly do they use to ascertain dates?

Please supply some nice clear links so everyone here can have a fighting chance to follow what they're reading ??

I'll start. By google searching "dating rocks evolution", the natural history museum says that there are various ways. The 'actual' dating method is radio carbon dating - either 12C and 14C, and then states that it is only good for rocks to a certain age so alternative dating can be then used. However it doesn't specify what alternatives are used. Hmmm. Why should that be excluded I wonder?

www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/science-of-natural-history/the-scientific-process/dating-methods/index.html

Of course we all know that other dating used can be the likes of uranium-lead dating. But this has the same problem as c14 insofar as it is based on three assumptions.

If you approach it from a world view that there is no God, then you will be looking for evidence of old earth. So you will accept a closed system view of it, meaning there are no external influences such as contamination. This approach also means that you have to insist there were no 'daughter isotopes' - lead-206 and lead-207 - from the very beginning (how can anyone know that since no one was there and it can't be tested or observed in a lab!?). If there were daughter isotopes present then it would support younger earth and so because it doesn't fit the model required, the assumption is held fast to. A belief, you might say!

Then there is the assumption that the rate of decay has no variation. But again, we weren't there billions of years ago to record what it was then and what it is now, so it relies on a certain assumption (a belief, one might say). And if the rate of decay is variable then it supports a young earth.

However we know that other radioactive isotopes can vary - such as radon-222 and silicon-32, and a known possible reason for variation is their proximity to the sun. Not all isotopes behave this way so there clearly are other unknown reasons for this. Other isotopes alter such as Th-228, Rn-22, and Si-32, although these aren't used for dating rocks specifically they still show radioisotope decay is not constant. So why don't scientists give a reason for accepting one isotope is not constant while insisting another one is, when they don't know why some are variable? Perhaps it is because the dates wouldn't tally with old earth.

Can anyone see how these assumptions, or beliefs, determine the results obtained? It's pretty easy really. And the trouble with a society that finds it popular to ditch God on every level, scientists are under as much pressure as anyone else to conform to the popular viewpoint; conform or be ostracised.

Someone earlier mentioned scientists who don't dare swim against the tide, for fear of not advancing in their career or even losing their jobs. Perhaps this could be a legitimate reason for a Christian scientist woman arguing against c14, or maybe she could be a nominal Christian, you know, one of those "Sunday best" type Christians who don't really walk the walk. Who knows but it's for sure there are plenty of possibilities.

I could go on but it's a busy weekend and I could only post this because I was up in the night with my DC!

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/philosophy_religion_spirituality/1719381-Young-Earth-Creationists

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/philosophy_religion_spirituality/1740513-YEC-2

Someone mentioned BestValue. It makes very interesting reading!

A minor but significant point- Mr Ruggles said several times on his television appearance that "people lived much longer" and that Adam lived for (I think) 500odd years and had 56 children.

This was taken as fact- but presumably the only evidence for the longer life span and the lots of children is that it is the only way that Biblical chronology can be made to work. Which sounds a bit circular to me. And which sort of calls into question other assumptions.

a bit old! but comprehensive for the time

article about the soft tissue in dinosaur fossils discovery. Interesting that the Christian scientist who made the discovery is distinctly unimpressed by it's hijack by the Young Earthers

Your 'old but comprehensive link' to the Aussie website discusses the use of isotope measurements for absolute age, the problems of which I have outlined in my post.

Interestingly they also claim that rocks form without the presence of uranium-238 but they don't give one single bit of evidence to cross reference this. A bit like reading the bible an accepting what's written. A bit like a belief you could perhaps say.

Again, your link about Mary says she 'takes it personally' and really could mean anything, as I've already discussed a few posts ago.

Perhaps she is a bit like Peter in the bible who got a bit hot under the collar and claimed "who me? No, I don't know HIM!" Just so she can continue her practise. Or maybe she is one such Christian that honestly believes you can cherry pick from the bible. Only she can truthfully answer that and I am not so sure you'd get a real answer published.

Oh and Adam died young if you compare him to Methuselah.

No they don't.

"Uranium is present in many different rocks and minerals, usually in the form of uranium-238"

"Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzer’s work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzer’s work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.”

This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” For her, science and religion represent two different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science. After all, she says, what God asks is faith, not evidence. “If you have all this evidence and proof positive that God exists, you don’t need faith. I think he kind of designed it so that we’d never be able to prove his existence. And I think that’s really cool.”

They don't say how they "know" something is present in rocks when they form. You are taking their word for it if thy don't cite and example for how they'd know this.

The same with your terrible article about Mary by the way. There is morning single reference as to how thy dates the dinosaur. It's assumed you will just accept the age they say it is blindly. A bit like faith really

Are you cut and pasting without a reference? Tut tut!

That seems pretty clear to me. Unless we are getting into "no true Scotsman......" territory again........

Where did you get your cut and paste bit from?

Those are just C&P from the articles I have just linked to- sorry, I thought that would be obvious. My mistake.

It was from what you described as the 'terrible article' about Schweitzer and her paradigm-shifting discovery. Which is a pretty good example of science being open to new ideas and changing when presented with evidence that its assumptions are wrong.

If you want in-depth, have you tried textbooks and university courses rather than museum websites?

Ah, I'm on my phone and clicked 'one page' but nothing changed so I assumed that I already was on one page. Having looked back I realise the phone malfunctioned and I've read the second part. The thing is, how do you know she wasn't afraid they'd rip her off her lab seat and throw her into a deadens job if she dates side with those pesky creationists? It's known to happen to people - someone gave you a link about that earlier in this thread and I'm sure if you google it you'll find more cases.

Your cut and paste still doesn't prove anything Hakluyt, it doesn't say 'how' they dated the bones. It just says it's accepted that it's however many years old, but had they used isotope measurements then they are still making assumptions about the closes system, parent and daughter content, all of the rest I mentioned earlier. The same problems exist.

Yes I have a few books Jassy but it's easier to give links online because most people don't rush out to buy a book, read it, then pop back here to reply.

Or were you referring to Hakluyt's Aussie museum article?

Jassy, evolutionary scientists usually only accept new evidence if it fits with their world view, i.e; evolutionary model. Otherwise it gets swept under the carpet or they try to explain it away. Unsuccessfully. But most if the time they don't get called on to do that because everyone is too scared to say boo for fear of losing their jobs.

It's pretty sad how little faith you have in your co-religionists, and your assumption that they must be lying rather than doing as they state - taking an open-minded approach.

I mean, this is a person who has already successfully challenged a number of prevailing scientific beliefs.

"The thing is, how do you know she wasn't afraid they'd rip her off her lab seat and throw her into a deadens job if she dates side with those pesky creationists? It's known to happen to people - someone gave you a link about that earlier in this thread and I'm sure if you google it you'll find more cases"

I don't. Obviously. How do you know that she was?

Which books are you referring to please? You are falling into a cycle of demanding information that's online then dismissing it as not detailed or scholarly enough.

Can you provide actual evidence of scientists 'sweeping under the carpet' new evidence that doesn't fit the prevailing evolutionary model? Where they have lost their jobs? Preferably evidence documented by an independent source, please.

But she doesn't sound either cowed or pusillanimous.

I know Hakluyt, the thing is we don't know do we?

Jassy, I'd be delighted to poor you in the right direction but am not at y home bookshelf so will have to get back to you on that.

However, here are just 3 links to people fired for stepping out of the evolutionary line.

I'll be back as soon as I can but likely not until mid-week I'm afraid.

losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/07/24/scientist-alleges-csun-fired-him-for-discovery-of-soft-tissue-on-dinosaur-fossil/

www.postperiodical.com/creationist-claims-university-fired-religious-beliefs/

www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/12/07/biologist_fired_for_beliefs_suit_says/?page=full