Science and the Bible

[AgeofKnowledge]

I have not been following this discussion nor have I read all of the posts in this thread by far. But I think you are now talking about self organization?

One way to explore this origin of life topic is to look at the minimum complexity of independent life and survey the microbial database for the smallest genome. I came up with: Thermoplasma acidiphilum Archaea -1,509, Aquifex aeolicius Bacteria -1,512, Methanopyrus Kandleri AVI 9 Archaea - 1,692, Methanococcus jannaschii Archaea -1,738, Methanobacterium thermoautotrophicum Archaea -1,855, and Thermotoga maritima Bacteria -1,877.

The data indicate that the microbes possessing the smallest known genomes and capable of living independently in the earliest environment that would support life are extremophilic archaea and eubacteria. These organisms also happen to represent what many scientists consider to be the oldest life on Earth. To exist independently, life requires a minimum genome size of about 1,500 to 1,900 gene products. (A gene product refers to proteins and functional RNAs, such as ribosomal and transfer RNA.)

So far, as scientists have continued their sequencing efforts, all microbial genomes that fall below 1,500 belong to parasites. Organisms capable of permanent independent existence require more gene products.

The late evolutionary biologist Colin Patterson acknowledges the 1,700 genes of Methanococcus are "perhaps close to the minimum necessary for independent life." A minimum genome size (for independent life) of 1,500 to 1,900 gene products comports with what the geochemical and fossil evidence reveals about the complexity of Earth's first life. Some 1,500 different gene products would seem the bare minimum to sustain this level of metabolic activity.

Theoretical and experimental studies designed to discover the bare minimum number of gene products necessary for life all show significant agreement. Life seems to require between 250 and 350 different proteins to carry out its most basic operations. That this bare form of life cannot 1 survive long without a source of sugars, nucleotides, amino acids, and fatty acids is worth noting.

These numbers define the minimum number of different proteins that must come together all at once to form the cell's structural features and execute the basic functions necessary to sustain life. To explain life's "ignition," both naturalistic scenarios and biblical creation must account for a simultaneous occurrence of all the essential gene products and for their perfectly engineered assembly.

Biophysicist Hubert Yockey's calculation for cytochrome C represents the best probability estimate for a single gene product or protein to come into existence exclusively by natural means. If one assumes that the value Yockey obtained for cytochrome C (approximately one chance in 10 to the power of 75 is roughly representative of all proteins contained in the minimum gene set, then it becomes unimaginable that even 250 different proteins could come into existence simultaneously, let alone 1,500.

At 1,500 Yockey calculates the probability as 10 to the power of 112,500... a statistical impossibility.

I apologize if I'm way off base with where this discussion is. It just looked to me like you were discussing self-organization and I always like to begin that discussion here and then work both backwards and forewards. Peace and God loves you .

 

[charisenexcelcis]

Thank you AoK. I knew there was simpler forms but could not quickly put my finger on the info. Go with 1700 genes then. It still does not add up.

 

[quidni]

My father-in-law is a Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Toxicology. He was a white-lab-coated scientist in every sense of the word during the many years of his tenure, and even now he thinks like a scientist.

He's also a Christian, with a deep and unshakable faith in a sustaining God of creation.

From him I learned "The Bible tells us Who, and the Why. It doesn't explain the How in any detail because the Bible is about our relationship to God. It was never meant as a chemistry/physics textbook." He delighted in science because to him, it revealed just how carefully planned everything in Creation actually is, down to the tiniest details.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

I'm glad I could assist with the discussion Beloved. The failure of the older hypothesis for self organization are going to be smothered to the taxpaying public which was forced to both pay for and undergo forced indoctrination in them as fact while a new revised paradigm is rolled out under the label extended evolutionary synthesis. The areas that will be looked to for proof of self organization will include Chaos Theory, a Fourth Law of Thermodynamics, the Butterfly Effect and similar theories that exclude God from consideration.

It will be interesting to see what happens with the new theories of self organization as self organization has been widely discussed for decades and despite repeated claims of breakthroughs and a strict party line of asserting they are factual, to date, have proven a total failure to explain biological evolution.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Science and the Bible

Peace be to you
2 scientists hack it out what do you think; God vs. Science - TIME
Love a friend in God

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Peace be to you
2 scientists hack it out what do you think; God vs. Science - TIME
Love a friend in God

I think the entire premises of making a statement that God and science are somehow at odds is a false assertion. There is no such thing as God versus science... only some scientists and their understanding versus God, science, and other scientists with a different understanding.

www.godandscience.org

Science - *The Reality and Life Institute

www.reasons.org

www.biologos.org

Etc...

 

[Consumed]

tree of life v tree of knowledge

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

tree of life v tree of knowledge

The tree of life conforms with beneficial knowledge. You couldn't even understand that the tree of life is a good thing unless you possessed that knowledge.

The tree of the knowledge of good and evil served a necessary role in providing both moral accountability and freewill in the Garden of Eden. The tree of life provides a good role as well.

God knows all things and declares in His word that His knowledge is good and that there are many things He wants us to know.

At what point did you become convinced that all knowledge, including that possessed by you which you exercised even to type your post, was evil Consumed?

Exodus 31:3
and I have filled him with the Spirit of God, with skill, ability and knowledge in all kinds of crafts-

Numbers 24:16
the oracle of one who hears the words of God, who has knowledge from the Most High, who sees a vision from the Almighty, who falls prostrate, and whose eyes are opened:

2 Chronicles 1:10
Give me wisdom and knowledge, that I may lead this people, for who is able to govern this great people of yours?"

Job 36:12
But if they do not listen, they will perish by the sword and die without knowledge.

Psalm 119:66
Teach me knowledge and good judgment, for I believe in your commands.

Proverbs 1:4
for giving prudence to the simple, knowledge and discretion to the young

Proverbs 1:7
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline.

I could find 100 more verses from God's Word easily declaring beneficial knowledge is GOOD.

 

[Consumed]

tree of knowledge is so good God said dont eat from it, it will bring you death. Sorry i failed the litmus test, i ate once from the tree of condemnation and death and have been redeemed for doing so, scripture posts from OT is not dividing the Word correctly, OT we study is the typology of Christ concealed thru out them and the bringing in of the new better covenant- Jesus Lamb of God, Paul and Peter emphasised and prayered we to have the knowledge of Jesus Christ(tree of life, bread of life,manna from God), the mind of Christ. Pharasies knew better than anyone, so well versed in the bible they missed who the bible is all about, Jesus.

Paul stated it beautifully, clanging cymbals. clang bang clang,

Science doesnt save - Jesus mision, salvation and restoration

New covenant, we eat from the tree of life..

academics make ABC Christianity as did the Pharasies at best of times, dont do this,do that, its not that etc etc,, hence

Jesus stated its been given to the foolish to understand to confound the so called wise

hallelujah, tastes good, once one eats nothing compares

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

You called it something it is not Consumed. It is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It is not the tree of knowledge.

One cannot logically assert that all knowledge is evil from a misinterpretation of scripture. Calling the tree of the knowledge of good and evil the tree of knowledge is an error.

It's like calling money the root of all evil and then living as a homeless wanderer refusing a penny and starving to death if you can't forage enough food from dumpsters or handouts when what the Bible really says is "For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil," (New American Standard) and exhorts us to have a very scriptural approach to money... instead of having to live completely without it.

Now we are under a New Covenant for sure and have been given a new heart with His law written on it and the mind of Christ. You definitely got that right and I am in agreement with you on that very good assertion

Still, has it ever occurred to you that to purposefully live in a state of ignorance from what God wants you to know is not a GOOD thing? That to claim that educating oneself to accurately divide the Word of Truth as God instructs us to do repeatedly in scripture, both Old and New Testament will somehow turn everyone who studies God's Word into Christless Pharisee is a false assertion. The Pharisees certainly didn't know "better than anyone" and Jesus (A Rabbi and a Teacher Himself who was well learned in scripture) pointed that out to them very clearly in an apologetical way. Jesus is our example and Jesus acquired knowledge. It is what He did with it that sets Him apart from the Pharisees who were a purity cult. Jesus apologetically refuted them. Cults are never a good thing.

God would not have communicated in His Word that we are to, "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth." -2 Timothy 2:15 and then condem us for doing exactly that.

But of course He wouldn't. What He wants us to do is accurately handle scripture and be edified by love both at the same time. That's what scripture teaches. It's not an either or proposition.

Now love is something that God works within us through God the Holy Spirit. Christians don't have to force themselves to walk in love of their own strength, out of their own emotions, and out of their own flesh though God the Father wants us to work with Him to get this quality into the core of our personalities. It's part of the process of transforming into the image of Christ and it is exactly that: a process of transformation that has a beginning and grows over time.

When God the Holy Spirit releases His love into us as one of His nine fruits, the very love of God Himself starts to flow into our personality. That's what you are emphasizing and it's true.

However, that in no way makes knowledge of God's Word unuseful or undesirable. God's knowledge is not evil Consumed. It certainly is not. It is God's will that we show ourselves approved properly handling scripture which itself ties the necessity of love and the good desire for the knowledge of God together for good.

Now we've strayed from the discussion of God's creation and the wonders He has performed. Back to the subject at hand in love.

tree of knowledge is so good God said dont eat from it, it will bring you death. Sorry i failed the litmus test, i ate once from the tree of condemnation and death and have been redeemed for doing so, scripture posts from OT is not dividing the Word correctly, OT we study is the typology of Christ concealed thru out them and the bringing in of the new better covenant- Jesus Lamb of God, Paul and Peter emphasised and prayered we to have the knowledge of Jesus Christ(tree of life, bread of life,manna from God), the mind of Christ. Pharasies knew better than anyone, so well versed in the bible they missed who the bible is all about, Jesus.

Paul stated it beautifully, clanging cymbals. clang bang clang,

Science doesnt save - Jesus mision, salvation and restoration

New covenant, we eat from the tree of life..

academics make ABC Christianity as did the Pharasies at best of times, dont do this,do that, its not that etc etc,, hence

Jesus stated its been given to the foolish to understand to confound the so called wise

hallelujah, tastes good, once one eats nothing compares

 

[charisenexcelcis]

One of the great problems concerning the evolution of life is the original sequence of system development. The question is whether the metabolic system developed before the genetic system. If the protobionts evolved as protein-containing systems and later incorporated nucleic acid templates, then how did the correct informational templates come to be associated with the precise group of proteins translated from such information? In other words, if the probiont began as a metabolic system, how did the DNA neccesary to repair and perpetuate that system develop which matched the proteins used by the probiont. On the other hand, if the protobiont contained the nucleic acid template without the related proteins, how could chemical reactions and synthesis occur. Information transfer from the template to the synthesis system and replication of the molecule require the participation of specific enzymes and energy sources. proteins will not reverse engineer the required DNA, and while naturally occurring amino acids will combine into mononucleotides, the oligomers that form do not match modern nucleic acids in design or function.
As the problem now stands, there is a presumption that an unknown form brought both systems together at the same time. A further presumption is that the later evolved forms were better adapted resulting in the complete extinction of this protobiont. This "missing link is the greatest since it bridged the gap between pure chemical systems and biological systems.

 

[Consumed]

oops i forgot, i missed the good and evil, man calls alot of things good which in the light of day is evil - science is a great example, theories on theories, moving sand, God is constant, stable and solid. Same meassge thruout old testament and new, Jesus - the messiah, reedemer, King

tree of life V tree of knowledge of good and evil

same thing, the topic is God v Science one tree v the other.
As i stated , the pharasies thought they had all the knowledge of good, they couldnt see that all scripture spoke about Jesus, Jesus made that statement to them Himself.

Knowledge puffs up when used to tear down the simplicity of life in Christ Jesus, its not about this world, we are just passing thru

blessings

 

[ItinerantLurker]

Look at your quote. What is the first thing that is said. This is the a priori of the entire statement, that dinosaur bones (which is funny, since fossils are rocks and the "bone" of it has ceased to exist) are millions of years old.

The first sentence is not assumed, it is a conclusion based on evidence. I understand that you disagree with this conclusion, but it’s simply untrue that it is an a priori assumption.

You do not think there is an orthodoxy of accepted presumptions? Does anyone ever say, maybe the proportion of mother-daughter elements aren't what we assume them to be? They may bicker over their pet variations, but no one would question the underlying presumption.

Lots of people have questioned various process’ of various dating methods which is one way that scientists have been able to refine those dating methods and make them better and come up with new, more accurate, dating methods.

Kerkut in Implications of Evolution gives three examples of errors ranging from 200 million years to 700 million years. Proceedings of the Second, Third, and Fourth Lunar Conferance; Earth and Planetary Letters reported that the Apollo sample materails when dated using three different methods revealed three different results ranging from two million years to twenty-eight billion.

Kerkut’s work is fifty years old and predates many advances in radiometric dating, so while I haven’t actually read it and am unfamiliar with his specific examples I don’t see how this represents actual evidence.

I am unfamiliar with the entire scope of the dating of samples from lunar missions, but I’ve never read, nor can I find, anything remotely similar to what you are claiming. What Apollo mission were these samples from? Where can I find specific mention of them? Why are these examples of yours so unbelievably vague?

Here’s a collection of lunar dating samples from Apollo missions using different dating techniques, I’m not seeing anything fantastic about those error bars.
http://www.fleming-group.com/Misc/Dalrymple/Dalrymple%20Table%205.5.html


Additionally, here's an abstract summarizing the finds of dating lunar samples from the Apollo 17 mission using various techniques and once again I don't see any indication of what you claim.

http://lunarscience2010.arc.nasa.gov/using-different-dating-techniques-characterize-lunar-surface-along-apollo-17-traverse

Actually, I would say the same of you. If the decay was steady than two single atoms of Uranium-238 would turn into Lead-206 at precisely the same time. A half life is a mathematically calculated probability. It says that in a certain amount of time (4.47 billion years for Uranium-238 to Lead-206)it is probable that half of a sample of the mother element would decay into a daughter element. If you had two sample, one pound, of U-238 would half of both samples be Pb-206 at precisely the same time? No. No true scientist would make that assertion.

“Steady” does not need to be synonymous with split-second-precision at the atomic scale in order to still produce a reliably stable decay rate. Yes, it is impossible to predict when a single atom of any radioactive element will lose energy by emitting particles, but each element has it’s own decay rate which is governed by nuclear properties. In essence, while we don’t know which particular atom in a given group will decay at a particular time, we do know that a certain number of those atom will decay over a given period of time. The implication of this calculated probability is not that the decay rate isn’t constant, just that larger sample sizes will make for better calculations.

​

"Simulation of many identical atoms undergoing radioactive decay, starting with either 4 atoms (left) or 400 (right). The number at the top indicates how many half-lives have elapsed. Note the law of large numbers: With more atoms, the overall decay is less random."
​

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay#Radioactive_decay_rates
​

The below curve shows, in fact that the decay rate slows.

It absolutely does not. The decay rate remains constant, there are simply less parent atoms left to decay.

Since Calcium-40 is the most abundant form of Calcium, you must also assume that there was a certain amount of Calcium-40 in the sample prior to reheating and recrystalization. I love the "we" bit. Have you ever actually done this?

Why would this be necessary if Calcium-40 is not being used to determine the age? It is a daughter product of potassium-40, but since we know the production ratio (88.8%) it becomes a non-factor in Potassium-Argon dating, to say nothing of Argon-Argon dating.

It is interesting that you will defend uniformitarianism when it is convenient. I think you will abandon it in some of the further discussions. Scientist have observed a fractional length of time for the half-lives assumed and concluded that atom #1 will not decay at the same rate as atom #2, therefore producing a curve rather than a straight line of decay.

That was certainly an entertaining series on sentences that don’t actually say anything in regards to the evidence I provided you, but I’m not sure what you expected them to accomplish. Decay rates for all isotopes used in radiometric dating are governed by nuclear forces that cannot be affected by planetary conditions.

First, they rarely agree. Second, any that would produce inconsistant data are discarded as inaccurate. Finally, it is rare that more than one method of dating rock is used.

You’re 0 for 3 there I’m afraid. When you make a claim it is up to you to support it, I made the claim that radiometric dates are consistent both with each other and with other non-radiometric dating techniques so here’s my evidence:

Consistent Radiometric Dates

Tree Rings and other Calibration Records

http://www.geo.arizona.edu/palynology/geos462/10radiometric.html

Your assertion that inconsistent data is thrown out wholesale lacks any evidence. Similarly, your assertion that more than one dating method isn’t used to date rock is also lacking evidence and is actually contradicted several times in this post alone. These types of bare assertions only impress people who either already agree with you or don’t know the science, I belong to neither of these groups.




Lurker

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Wrong again Consumed Beloved. It's not God versus science, it's some scientists versus God, science, and other scientists.

oops i forgot, i missed the good and evil, man calls alot of things good which in the light of day is evil - science is a great example, theories on theories, moving sand, God is constant, stable and solid. Same meassge thruout old testament and new, Jesus - the messiah, reedemer, King

tree of life V tree of knowledge of good and evil

same thing, the topic is God v Science one tree v the other.
As i stated , the pharasies thought they had all the knowledge of good, they couldnt see that all scripture spoke about Jesus, Jesus made that statement to them Himself.

Knowledge puffs up when used to tear down the simplicity of life in Christ Jesus, its not about this world, we are just passing thru

blessings

 

[wisdomseeker]

I think the entire premises of making a statement that God and science are somehow at odds is a false assertion. There is no such thing as God versus science... only some scientists and their understanding versus God, science, and other scientists with a different understanding.

www.godandscience.org

Science - *The Reality and Life Institute

www.reasons.org

www.biologos.org

Etc...

Peace be to you
Dont be such a jerk and read the article;

Collins' devotion to genetics is, if possible, greater than Dawkins'. Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute since 1993, he headed a multinational 2,400-scientist team that co-mapped the 3 billion biochemical letters of our genetic blueprint, a milestone that then President Bill Clinton honored in a 2000 White House ceremony, comparing the genome chart to Meriwether Lewis' map of his fateful continental exploration. Collins continues to lead his institute in studying the genome and mining it for medical breakthroughs.
He is also a forthright Christian who converted from atheism at age 27 and now finds time to advise young evangelical scientists on how to declare their faith in science's largely agnostic upper reaches. His summer best seller, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (Free Press), laid out some of the arguments he brought to bear in the 90-minute debate TIME arranged between Dawkins and Collins in our offices at the Time & Life Building in New York City on Sept. 30. Some excerpts from their spirited exchange:​

TIME: Professor Dawkins, if one truly understands science, is God then a delusion, as your book title suggests?​

DAWKINS: The question of whether there exists a supernatural creator, a God, is one of the most important that we have to answer. I think that it is a scientific question. My answer is no.​

TIME: Dr. Collins, you believe that science is compatible with Christian faith.​

COLLINS: Yes. God's existence is either true or not. But calling it a scientific question implies that the tools of science can provide the answer. From my perspective, God cannot be completely contained within nature, and therefore God's existence is outside of science's ability to really weigh in.​

TIME: Stephen Jay Gould, a Harvard paleontologist, famously argued that religion and science can coexist, because they occupy separate, airtight boxes. You both seem to disagree.​

COLLINS: Gould sets up an artificial wall between the two worldviews that doesn't exist in my life. Because I do believe in God's creative power in having brought it all into being in the first place, I find that studying the natural world is an opportunity to observe the majesty, the elegance, the intricacy of God's creation.​

DAWKINS: I think that Gould's separate compartments was a purely political ploy to win middle-of-the-road religious people to the science camp. But it's a very empty idea. There are plenty of places where religion does not keep off the scientific turf. Any belief in miracles is flat contradictory not just to the facts of science but to the spirit of science.​

TIME: Professor Dawkins, you think Darwin's theory of evolution does more than simply contradict the Genesis storey.​

DAWKINS: Yes. For centuries the most powerful argument for God's existence from the physical world was the so-called argument from design: Living things are so beautiful and elegant and so apparently purposeful, they could only have been made by an intelligent designer. But Darwin provided a simpler explanation. His way is a gradual, incremental improvement starting from very simple beginnings and working up step by tiny incremental step to more complexity, more elegance, more adaptive perfection. Each step is not too improbable for us to countenance, but when you add them up cumulatively over millions of years, you get these monsters of improbability, like the human brain and the rain forest. It should warn us against ever again assuming that because something is complicated, God must have done it.​

COLLINS: I don't see that Professor Dawkins' basic account of evolution is incompatible with God's having designed it.​

TIME: When would this have occurred?​

COLLINS: By being outside of nature, God is also outside of space and time. Hence, at the moment of the creation of the universe, God could also have activated evolution, with full knowledge of how it would turn out, perhaps even including our having this conversation. The idea that he could both foresee the future and also give us spirit and free will to carry out our own desires becomes entirely acceptable.​

DAWKINS: I think that's a tremendous cop-out. If God wanted to create life and create humans, it would be slightly odd that he should choose the extraordinarily roundabout way of waiting for 10 billion years before life got started and then waiting for another 4 billion years until you got human beings capable of worshipping and sinning and all the other things religious people are interested in.​

COLLINS: Who are we to say that that was an odd way to do it? I don't think that it is God's purpose to make his intention absolutely obvious to us. If it suits him to be a deity that we must seek without being forced to, would it not have been sensible for him to use the mechanism of evolution without posting obvious road signs to reveal his role in creation?​

TIME: Both your books suggest that if the universal constants, the six or more characteristics of our universe, had varied at all, it would have made life impossible. Dr. Collins, can you provide an example?​

COLLINS: The gravitational constant, if it were off by one part in a hundred million million, then the expansion of the universe after the Big Bang would not have occurred in the fashion that was necessary for life to occur. When you look at that evidence, it is very difficult to adopt the view that this was just chance. But if you are willing to consider the possibility of a designer, this becomes a rather plausible explanation for what is otherwise an exceedingly improbable event--namely, our existence.​

DAWKINS: People who believe in God conclude there must have been a divine knob twiddler who twiddled the knobs of these half-dozen constants to get them exactly right. The problem is that this says, because something is vastly improbable, we need a God to explain it. But that God himself would be even more improbable. Physicists have come up with other explanations. One is to say that these six constants are not free to vary. Some unified theory will eventually show that they are as locked in as the circumference and the diameter of a circle. That reduces the odds of them all independently just happening to fit the bill. The other way is the multiverse way. That says that maybe the universe we are in is one of a very large number of universes. The vast majority will not contain life because they have the wrong gravitational constant or the wrong this constant or that constant. But as the number of universes climbs, the odds mount that a tiny minority of universes will have the right fine-tuning.​

COLLINS: This is an interesting choice. Barring a theoretical resolution, which I think is unlikely, you either have to say there are zillions of parallel universes out there that we can't observe at present or you have to say there was a plan. I actually find the argument of the existence of a God who did the planning more compelling than the bubbling of all these multiverses. So Occam's razor--Occam says you should choose the explanation that is most simple and straightforward--leads me more to believe in God than in the multiverse, which seems quite a stretch of the imagination.​

DAWKINS: I accept that there may be things far grander and more incomprehensible than we can possibly imagine. What I can't understand is why you invoke improbability and yet you will not admit that you're shooting yourself in the foot by postulating something just as improbable, magicking into existence the word God.​

COLLINS: My God is not improbable to me. He has no need of a creation story for himself or to be fine-tuned by something else. God is the answer to all of those "How must it have come to be" questions.​

DAWKINS: I think that's the mother and father of all cop-outs. It's an honest scientific quest to discover where this apparent improbability comes from. Now Dr. Collins says, "Well, God did it. And God needs no explanation because God is outside all this." Well, what an incredible evasion of the responsibility to explain. Scientists don't do that. Scientists say, "We're working on it. We're struggling to understand."​

COLLINS: Certainly science should continue to see whether we can find evidence for multiverses that might explain why our own universe seems to be so finely tuned. But I do object to the assumption that anything that might be outside of nature is ruled out of the conversation. That's an impoverished view of the kinds of questions we humans can ask, such as "Why am I here?", "What happens after we die?", "Is there a God?" If you refuse to acknowledge their appropriateness, you end up with a zero probability of God after examining the natural world because it doesn't convince you on a proof basis. But if your mind is open about whether God might exist, you can point to aspects of the universe that are consistent with that conclusion.​

DAWKINS: To me, the right approach is to say we are profoundly ignorant of these matters. We need to work on them. But to suddenly say the answer is God--it's that that seems to me to close off the discussion.​

TIME: Could the answer be God?​

​

DAWKINS: There could be something incredibly grand and incomprehensible and beyond our present understanding.​

​

COLLINS: That's God.​

​

 

[wisdomseeker]

DAWKINS: Yes. But it could be any of a billion Gods. It could be God of the Martians or of the inhabitants of Alpha Centauri. The chance of its being a particular God, Yahweh, the God of Jesus, is vanishingly small--at the least, the onus is on you to demonstrate why you think that's the case.​

TIME: The Book of Genesis has led many conservative Protestants to oppose evolution and some to insist that the earth is only 6,000 years old.​

COLLINS: There are sincere believers who interpret Genesis 1 and 2 in a very literal way that is inconsistent, frankly, with our knowledge of the universe's age or of how living organisms are related to each other. St. Augustine wrote that basically it is not possible to understand what was being described in Genesis. It was not intended as a science textbook. It was intended as a description of who God was, who we are and what our relationship is supposed to be with God. Augustine explicitly warns against a very narrow perspective that will put our faith at risk of looking ridiculous. If you step back from that one narrow interpretation, what the Bible describes is very consistent with the Big Bang.​

DAWKINS: Physicists are working on the Big Bang, and one day they may or may not solve it. However, what Dr. Collins has just been--may I call you Francis?​

COLLINS: Oh, please, Richard, do so.​

DAWKINS: What Francis was just saying about Genesis was, of course, a little private quarrel between him and his Fundamentalist colleagues ...​

COLLINS: It's not so private. It's rather public. [Laughs.]​

DAWKINS: ... It would be unseemly for me to enter in except to suggest that he'd save himself an awful lot of trouble if he just simply ceased to give them the time of day. Why bother with these clowns?​

COLLINS: Richard, I think we don't do a service to dialogue between science and faith to characterize sincere people by calling them names. That inspires an even more dug-in position. Atheists sometimes come across as a bit arrogant in this regard, and characterizing faith as something only an idiot would attach themselves to is not likely to help your case.​

TIME: Dr. Collins, the Resurrection is an essential argument of Christian faith, but doesn't it, along with the virgin birth and lesser miracles, fatally undermine the scientific method, which depends on the constancy of natural laws?​

COLLINS: If you're willing to answer yes to a God outside of nature, then there's nothing inconsistent with God on rare occasions choosing to invade the natural world in a way that appears miraculous. If God made the natural laws, why could he not violate them when it was a particularly significant moment for him to do so? And if you accept the idea that Christ was also divine, which I do, then his Resurrection is not in itself a great logical leap.​

TIME: Doesn't the very notion of miracles throw off science?​

COLLINS: Not at all. If you are in the camp I am, one place where science and faith could touch each other is in the investigation of supposedly miraculous events.​

DAWKINS: If ever there was a slamming of the door in the face of constructive investigation, it is the word miracle. To a medieval peasant, a radio would have seemed like a miracle. All kinds of things may happen which we by the lights of today's science would classify as a miracle just as medieval science might a Boeing 747. Francis keeps saying things like "From the perspective of a believer." Once you buy into the position of faith, then suddenly you find yourself losing all of your natural skepticism and your scientific--really scientific--credibility. I'm sorry to be so blunt.​

​

COLLINS: Richard, I actually agree with the first part of what you said. But I would challenge the statement that my scientific instincts are any less rigorous than yours. The difference is that my presumption of the possibility of God and therefore the supernatural is not zero, and yours is.​

​

TIME: Dr. Collins, you have described humanity's moral sense not only as a gift from God but as a signpost that he exists.​

COLLINS: There is a whole field of inquiry that has come up in the last 30 or 40 years--some call it sociobiology or evolutionary psychology--relating to where we get our moral sense and why we value the idea of altruism, and locating both answers in behavioral adaptations for the preservation of our genes. But if you believe, and Richard has been articulate in this, that natural selection operates on the individual, not on a group, then why would the individual risk his own DNA doing something selfless to help somebody in a way that might diminish his chance of reproducing? Granted, we may try to help our own family members because they share our DNA. Or help someone else in expectation that they will help us later. But when you look at what we admire as the most generous manifestations of altruism, they are not based on kin selection or reciprocity. An extreme example might be Oskar Schindler risking his life to save more than a thousand Jews from the gas chambers. That's the opposite of saving his genes. We see less dramatic versions every day. Many of us think these qualities may come from God--especially since justice and morality are two of the attributes we most readily identify with God.​

DAWKINS: Can I begin with an analogy? Most people understand that sexual lust has to do with propagating genes. Copulation in nature tends to lead to reproduction and so to more genetic copies. But in modern society, most copulations involve contraception, designed precisely to avoid reproduction. Altruism probably has origins like those of lust. In our prehistoric past, we would have lived in extended families, surrounded by kin whose interests we might have wanted to promote because they shared our genes. Now we live in big cities. We are not among kin nor people who will ever reciprocate our good deeds. It doesn't matter. Just as people engaged in sex with contraception are not aware of being motivated by a drive to have babies, it doesn't cross our mind that the reason for do-gooding is based in the fact that our primitive ancestors lived in small groups. But that seems to me to be a highly plausible account for where the desire for morality, the desire for goodness, comes from.​

COLLINS: For you to argue that our noblest acts are a misfiring of Darwinian behavior does not do justice to the sense we all have about the absolutes that are involved here of good and evil. Evolution may explain some features of the moral law, but it can't explain why it should have any real significance. If it is solely an evolutionary convenience, there is really no such thing as good or evil. But for me, it is much more than that. The moral law is a reason to think of God as plausible--not just a God who sets the universe in motion but a God who cares about human beings, because we seem uniquely amongst creatures on the planet to have this far-developed sense of morality. What you've said implies that outside of the human mind, tuned by evolutionary processes, good and evil have no meaning. Do you agree with that?

DAWKINS: Even the question you're asking has no meaning to me. Good and evil--I don't believe that there is hanging out there, anywhere, something called good and something called evil. I think that there are good things that happen and bad things that happen.​

COLLINS: I think that is a fundamental difference between us. I'm glad we identified it.​

TIME: Dr. Collins, I know you favor the opening of new stem-cell lines for experimentation. But doesn't the fact that faith has caused some people to rule this out risk creating a perception that religion is preventing science from saving lives?​

COLLINS: Let me first say as a disclaimer that I speak as a private citizen and not as a representative of the Executive Branch of the United States government. The impression that people of faith are uniformly opposed to stem-cell research is not documented by surveys. In fact, many people of strong religious conviction think this can be a morally supportable approach.​

TIME: But to the extent that a person argues on the basis of faith or Scripture rather than reason, how can scientists respond?​

COLLINS: Faith is not the opposite of reason. Faith rests squarely upon reason, but with the added component of revelation. So such discussions between scientists and believers happen quite readily. But neither scientists nor believers always embody the principles precisely. Scientists can have their judgment clouded by their professional aspirations. And the pure truth of faith, which you can think of as this clear spiritual water, is poured into rusty vessels called human beings, and so sometimes the benevolent principles of faith can get distorted as positions are hardened.​

DAWKINS: For me, moral questions such as stem-cell research turn upon whether suffering is caused. In this case, clearly none is. The embryos have no nervous system. But that's not an issue discussed publicly. The issue is, Are they human? If you are an absolutist moralist, you say, "These cells are human, and therefore they deserve some kind of special moral treatment." Absolutist morality doesn't have to come from religion but usually does.​

We slaughter nonhuman animals in factory farms, and they do have nervous systems and do suffer. People of faith are not very interested in their suffering.

COLLINS: Do humans have a different moral significance than cows in general?​

DAWKINS: Humans have more moral responsibility perhaps, because they are capable of reasoning.​

TIME: Do the two of you have any concluding thoughts?​

COLLINS: I just would like to say that over more than a quarter-century as a scientist and a believer, I find absolutely nothing in conflict between agreeing with Richard in practically all of his conclusions about the natural world, and also saying that I am still able to accept and embrace the possibility that there are answers that science isn't able to provide about the natural world--the questions about why instead of the questions about how. I'm interested in the whys. I find many of those answers in the spiritual realm. That in no way compromises my ability to think rigorously as a scientist.​

​

DAWKINS: My mind is not closed, as you have occasionally suggested, Francis. My mind is open to the most wonderful range of future possibilities, which I cannot even dream about, nor can you, nor can anybody else. What I am skeptical about is the idea that whatever wonderful revelation does come in the science of the future, it will turn out to be one of the particular historical religions that people happen to have dreamed up. When we started out and we were talking about the origins of the universe and the physical constants, I provided what I thought were cogent arguments against a supernatural intelligent designer. But it does seem to me to be a worthy idea. Refutable--but nevertheless grand and big enough to be worthy of respect. I don't see the Olympian gods or Jesus coming down and dying on the Cross as worthy of that grandeur. They strike me as parochial. If there is a God, it's going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed. ​

I find the debate funny and I also note the christian is the more qualified scientist.​

​

​

Love a friend in God​

 

[charisenexcelcis]

The first sentence is not assumed, it is a conclusion based on evidence. I understand that you disagree with this conclusion, but it’s simply untrue that it is an a priori assumption.
What you quoted here is teaching material. It does begin with an a priori, is presenting the material as already established and does not examine the method critically.




Lots of people have questioned various process’ of various dating methods which is one way that scientists have been able to refine those dating methods and make them better and come up with new, more accurate, dating methods.
Sure. Name one.



Kerkut’s work is fifty years old and predates many advances in radiometric dating, so while I haven’t actually read it and am unfamiliar with his specific examples I don’t see how this represents actual evidence.
Have the laws of physics changed in fifty years? Would the newer radiometric dating methods give us even more variations to choose from?

I am unfamiliar with the entire scope of the dating of samples from lunar missions, but I’ve never read, nor can I find, anything remotely similar to what you are claiming. What Apollo mission were these samples from? Where can I find specific mention of them? Why are these examples of yours so unbelievably vague?
The Kerkut examples are from Implications of Evolution. The Moon dating data is from the Apollo 12 mission, published in Science, vol 167.

Here’s a collection of lunar dating samples from Apollo missions using different dating techniques, I’m not seeing anything fantastic about those error bars.
http://www.fleming-group.com/Misc/Dalrymple/Dalrymple%20Table%205.5.html


Additionally, here's an abstract summarizing the finds of dating lunar samples from the Apollo 17 mission using various techniques and once again I don't see any indication of what you claim.

http://lunarscience2010.arc.nasa.gov/using-different-dating-techniques-characterize-lunar-surface-along-apollo-17-traverse





“Steady” does not need to be synonymous with split-second-precision at the atomic scale in order to still produce a reliably stable decay rate. Yes, it is impossible to predict when a single atom of any radioactive element will lose energy by emitting particles, but each element has it’s own decay rate which is governed by nuclear properties. In essence, while we don’t know which particular atom in a given group will decay at a particular time, we do know that a certain number of those atom will decay over a given period of time. The implication of this calculated probability is not that the decay rate isn’t constant, just that larger sample sizes will make for better calculations.
Let's try to straighten this out. If the "half life" was based upon a steady rate then the "half life" of one pound of parent material would be twice as long as the "half life" of a half pound. I don't know why that you think that just because decay is governed by nuclear properties. A "half life" is a predicted probability.

​

"Simulation of many identical atoms undergoing radioactive decay, starting with either 4 atoms (left) or 400 (right). The number at the top indicates how many half-lives have elapsed. Note the law of large numbers: With more atoms, the overall decay is less random."
​

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay#Radioactive_decay_rates
​

It absolutely does not. The decay rate remains constant, there are simply less parent atoms left to decay.
Let's take the example of a billion atoms of Uranium-238. In 4.47 billion years, you will have get roughly a half billion of those atoms decayed into Lead-207. Now will you have a half billion decay in the next 4.47 billion years? No, this time you will get roughly a quarter billion. The half-life is a predicted probaility based upon observing and measuring what is an unsteady rate of change from Uranium-238 to Lead-207.



Why would this be necessary if Calcium-40 is not being used to determine the age? It is a daughter product of potassium-40, but since we know the production ratio (88.8%) it becomes a non-factor in Potassium-Argon dating, to say nothing of Argon-Argon dating.
Because the Potassium-40 decays into both Calcium-40 and Argon-40. Because the Argon-40 is gaseous much of it will escape. So how do they know how many half-lives did it go through. Comparison with the Potassium-40 that is left will produce wrong data. But so will verifying it using the Calcium-40 since Calcium-40 is so common in the earth.



That was certainly an entertaining series on sentences that don’t actually say anything in regards to the evidence I provided you, but I’m not sure what you expected them to accomplish. Decay rates for all isotopes used in radiometric dating are governed by nuclear forces that cannot be affected by planetary conditions.



You’re 0 for 3 there I’m afraid. When you make a claim it is up to you to support it, I made the claim that radiometric dates are consistent both with each other and with other non-radiometric dating techniques so here’s my evidence:

Consistent Radiometric Dates

Tree Rings and other Calibration Records

http://www.geo.arizona.edu/palynology/geos462/10radiometric.html
This isn't a comparison between two radiometric methods. Also one of the shortest half-lives, that of carbon. Have you ever seen a comparison of U-238 dating to U-235 dating and Rubidium-87?

Your assertion that inconsistent data is thrown out wholesale lacks any evidence. Similarly, your assertion that more than one dating method isn’t used to date rock is also lacking evidence and is actually contradicted several times in this post alone. These types of bare assertions only impress people who either already agree with you or don’t know the science, I belong to neither of these groups.




Lurker

Radiometric dating is an expensive and very technical methodology which few are equipped to do. It is not done often and rarely done using more than one methodology. In addition, with the exception of carbon-dating, it does not date the fossil. In fact, since sedentary rock, the location of almost all fossils, canot be acurately dated by this methods, the rock used date the fossils can come from miles away.

 

[charisenexcelcis]

There is much more to be said about the difficulty of the "evolution" of DNA. The DNA is the heart of a complex biological process that might be diagrammed in this way:
DNA--->RNA--->enzymes--->end products.
Now in order for this process to occur, there must be enzymes that act as catalysts and pre-synthesized building blocks. In other words, the end products must already exist in order to produce the end products. This is why the evolutionist speaks of the metabolic systems having to develop at the same time as the genetic systems and that they must be matched in order for the right building blocks to be present for information transfer to occur and for the information transfer to produce those same building blocks.

 

[charisenexcelcis]

I would like to say a few things about evolution in general.
1. If I was an atheist, evolution would be the best possible answer to the diversity of life on our planet. It is a matter of observing life doing what God designed it to do, adapt and thrive, and then extending it beyond the boundaries that I believe God set on the process.
2. Theistic evolutionists are not the devil. The biggest problem I have with theistic evolution is that it is more likely to be deistic evolution coupled with deistic interpretation of scripture.
3. For some people this is candy, for others it is the dentist drill. If it is the dentist drill for you, please don't torment yourself.

 

[ItinerantLurker]

What you quoted here is teaching material. It does begin with an a priori, is presenting the material as already established and does not examine the method critically.

The material was presented to correct your error about how absolute and relative dating methods are actually used, not to examine the method of absolute dating itself. You claimed that “. . .when the paleontologist finds a dinosaur fossil, does he then say, "Let's put together some data from the surrounding soil in order to date this." No, he says, "this strata is such and such era" based upon the fossil that he found.” I corrected your obvious error by showing you that in fact paleontologists do use data from the surrounding strata to determine the date of the fossil.

Sure. Name one.

Argon-Argon dating was developed specifically in order to deal with some of the issues that can arise in Potassium-Argon dating.

Have the laws of physics changed in fifty years? Would the newer radiometric dating methods give us even more variations to choose from?

No the physics haven’t changed but our ability to measure things related to radioactive decay certainly have. Think “mass spectronomy”.

The Kerkut examples are from Implications of Evolution. The Moon dating data is from the Apollo 12 mission, published in Science, vol 167.

Again, those aren’t specific at all. Provide a direct quote from Kerkut and a direct reference to the lunar samples, as it stands it simply looks like you are just cut and pasting from another source and haven’t actually taken the time to examine if these sources actually support that conclusion.

Update: I’m looking at the source material now, and it’s not supporting your claim that “. . .when dated using three different methods revealed three different results ranging from two million years to twenty-eight billion.”. I call baloney. . .again.

Rubidium-Strontium, Uranium, and Thorium-Lead Dating of Lunar Material

Let's try to straighten this out. If the "half life" was based upon a steady rate then the "half life" of one pound of parent material would be twice as long as the "half life" of a half pound. I don't know why that you think that just because decay is governed by nuclear properties. A "half life" is a predicted probability.

The half-life is a predicted probaility based upon observing and measuring what is an unsteady rate of change from Uranium-238 to Lead-207.

The rate of decay is an exponential constant where an individual atoms probability of decaying at any given time is constant. That probability is governed by nuclear forces and does not change, what changes is the ratio of un-decayed atoms to the overall number of un-decayed atoms to begin with.

You can view a great visualization of this here: http://www.walter-fendt.de/ph14e/lawdecay.htm

Because the Potassium-40 decays into both Calcium-40 and Argon-40. Because the Argon-40 is gaseous much of it will escape. So how do they know how many half-lives did it go through. Comparison with the Potassium-40 that is left will produce wrong data. But so will verifying it using the Calcium-40 since Calcium-40 is so common in the earth.

Gas particles have a hard time escaping from solid rock, and even if this were true it would make rocks appear younger than they actually are. Your other points are moot, neither potassium-argon or argon-argon dating requires one to use Calcium-40.

This isn't a comparison between two radiometric methods. Also one of the shortest half-lives, that of carbon. Have you ever seen a comparison of U-238 dating to U-235 dating and Rubidium-87?

Apparently you missed the first link I provided which is a comparison between multiple radiometric methods, here it is again: Consistent Radiometric Dates.

The following graph was a comparison of a radiometric dating technique (C-14), to multiple non-radiometric dating techniques that shows a high level of agreement out to 50,000 years. Would you like more? Knock yourself out: Age Correlations and an Old Earth.

Radiometric dating is an expensive and very technical methodology which few are equipped to do. It is not done often and rarely done using more than one methodology. In addition, with the exception of carbon-dating, it does not date the fossil. In fact, since sedentary rock, the location of almost all fossils, canot be acurately dated by this methods, the rock used date the fossils can come from miles away.

You’ve already been provided with examples of events that have been dated using multiple techniques that all agree, but here’s a few more just for fun

Application of Multiple Geochronologic Methods to the Dating of Marine Terraces in South-Central California


Reconstruction of the Late Quaternary Glaciation of the Macha Khola valley (Gorkha Himal, Nepal) using relative and absolute (14C, 10Be, dendrochronology) dating techniques






Lurker