Science and the Bible

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
L

Lashaun

Guest
Science does not neccesarily contradict the bible in any way.
 
C

charisenexcelcis

Guest
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.
Take a look at one of the latest finding. Then try to find what method of dating they used. When you can't, look at the next and the next and the next. The quotation you provided in answer does not give a single example, begins with a stated, and lacks technical reliability (dinosuar bones?)

Argon-Argon dating was developed specifically in order to deal with some of the issues that can arise in Potassium-Argon dating.
Really. Can you give me a source for that?

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

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.
Actually I am using my own notes, so no cutting and pasting going on.

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.
I will check it out.

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


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.
If you cannot predict the moment of decay of a single atom, then predicting the decay of a large number is called "probability" and the longer period that you are predicting the more likely that it is going to be inaccurate.

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

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.
The argon must be trapped inside the crystalization process, a problematic process to begin with. Anything from weathering to reheating will foul up the process.

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.
The key word here is non-radiometric, so that is only used to compare the C-14 to the ring count. C-14 is quite useful for short times, but it can be easily influenced at times by outside issues. Also, you don't date rock using C-14.

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

I said it was rare, not unknown.






Lurker
By the way, Lurker, you really don't have to get snarky. You are doing just fine. If you want a challenging conversation, I am up to it, but I deal with snarkiness all day long from the inmates and I don't have that much investment in our conversation, since I am not trying to convert you, only to rehone myself on the subject after a long break.
 
C

charisenexcelcis

Guest
The RNA is an amazing chemical. The amino acids are lined up in triplets and the triplets are grouped into fours. The RNA produces twenty different amino acids. All life utilizes the same twenty amino acids. The evolutionary theory is that the more common the amino acid, the more ancient. They believe that ancient life had short strands of nucleic acids which then, through some unknown catalytic process joined together to form longer and longer RNA. This RNA reverse engineered the DNA which is now the means by which the cell accomplishes information storage, information transfer, precise replication and, according to evolutionists, mutational potential.

It is interesting to read and hear how evolutionists speak of this process. The complexity of the end result (DNA) and the almost innumerable difficulties of chance occurance are answered by the expression, "it must of..."
 
Apr 17, 2010
205
2
0
Take a look at one of the latest finding. Then try to find what method of dating they used. When you can't, look at the next and the next and the next. The quotation you provided in answer does not give a single example, begins with a stated, and lacks technical reliability (dinosuar bones?)
Ok, here’s a few:


Further support for a Cretaceous age for the feathered-dinosaur beds of Liaoning,China:New 40Ar÷39Ar dating of the Yixian and Tuchengzi Formations

The Ischigualasto Tetrapod Assemblage (Late Triassic, Argentina) and 40Ar/39Ar Dating of Dinosaur Origins

40Ar/39Ar dating of Lujiatun Bed (Jehol Group) in Liaoning, northeastern China

Gondwanaland from 650–500 Ma assembly through 320 Ma merger in Pangea to 185–100 Ma breakup: supercontinental tectonics via stratigraphy and radiometric dating

The quotation I provided previously wasn’t technical, but it was an accurate overview of how scientists use both absolute and relative dating techniques.

Really. Can you give me a source for that?
“Argon-argon (or 40Ar/39Ar) dating is a radiometric dating method invented to supersede potassium-argon (K-Ar) dating in accuracy.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argon%E2%80%93argon_dating
If you cannot predict the moment of decay of a single atom, then predicting the decay of a large number is called "probability" and the longer period that you are predicting the more likely that it is going to be inaccurate.
Not really, since the probability of any single atom of a given isotope decaying during a set period of time is always the same. This probability is determined by the nuclear forces of the atom itself and thus is unaffected by terrestrial conditions such as chemical reactions, temperature, or pressure.

The argon must be trapped inside the crystalization process, a problematic process to begin with. Anything from weathering to reheating will foul up the process.
It’s not problematic at all for a gas to become trapped inside a solid, furthermore weathering and re-heating leave evidence behind which scientists can and do identify and account for.

The key word here is non-radiometric, so that is only used to compare the C-14 to the ring count. C-14 is quite useful for short times, but it can be easily influenced at times by outside issues. Also, you don't date rock using C-14.
Of course the key word is “non-radiometric”, that is the entire point as this is one example of a radiometric dating technique agreeing with multiple non-radiometric dating techniques out to 50,000 years b.p.. If C-14 wasn’t reliable these results would not agree. Furthermore, I have twice now provided you with examples of various radiometric dating techniques that do agree with each other, and since each isotope has a different decay rate we can once again say that if these different techniques were not reliable they would not agree with each other, yet they consistently do.

I said it was rare, not unknown.
Even if I grant this, it is undeniable that samples are dated using multiple dating techniques and that those various techniques overwhelmingly agree. This is a strong indication that the dating techniques actually work.




Lurker
 
Jun 19, 2010
4
0
0
Did someone call the 'school bus'? There's one outside waiting for charisenexcelcis.

From what I've been following there is a lot of 'schooling' in session.
 
C

charisenexcelcis

Guest
Did someone call the 'school bus'? There's one outside waiting for charisenexcelcis.

From what I've been following there is a lot of 'schooling' in session.
Are you in need of a tutor?
 
C

charisenexcelcis

Guest
Ok, here’s a few:


Further support for a Cretaceous age for the feathered-dinosaur beds of Liaoning,China:New 40Ar÷39Ar dating of the Yixian and Tuchengzi Formations

The Ischigualasto Tetrapod Assemblage (Late Triassic, Argentina) and 40Ar/39Ar Dating of Dinosaur Origins

40Ar/39Ar dating of Lujiatun Bed (Jehol Group) in Liaoning, northeastern China

Gondwanaland from 650–500 Ma assembly through 320 Ma merger in Pangea to 185–100 Ma breakup: supercontinental tectonics via stratigraphy and radiometric dating

The quotation I provided previously wasn’t technical, but it was an accurate overview of how scientists use both absolute and relative dating techniques.
Interesting, but not terribly convincing. I found it particularly interesting that there was great disagreement over the dating of the Lujiatin Bed and finally they ran the AR-AR dating.


“Argon-argon (or 40Ar/39Ar) dating is a radiometric dating method invented to supersede potassium-argon (K-Ar) dating in accuracy.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argon%E2%80%93argon_dating

Not really, since the probability of any single atom of a given isotope decaying during a set period of time is always the same. This probability is determined by the nuclear forces of the atom itself and thus is unaffected by terrestrial conditions such as chemical reactions, temperature, or pressure.
You cannot predict when the single atom will decay because the same forces that work on each atom produces differnet results, so you must come up with a probability. It is a prediction of likelihood based upon a relatively small period of time.



It’s not problematic at all for a gas to become trapped inside a solid, furthermore weathering and re-heating leave evidence behind which scientists can and do identify and account for.
the k-Ar dating is one of the most hated because of the wide variety of cases where it is inaccurate.



Of course the key word is “non-radiometric”, that is the entire point as this is one example of a radiometric dating technique agreeing with multiple non-radiometric dating techniques out to 50,000 years b.p.. If C-14 wasn’t reliable these results would not agree. Furthermore, I have twice now provided you with examples of various radiometric dating techniques that do agree with each other, and since each isotope has a different decay rate we can once again say that if these different techniques were not reliable they would not agree with each other, yet they consistently do.
C-14 isn't terribly inaccurate, but it is often reinterpreted to get longer results. The amount of C-14 in most tissues is so small that after a few "half-lives" it is cannot be measured accurately. In addition there can be huge differences in original concentration.



Even if I grant this, it is undeniable that samples are dated using multiple dating techniques and that those various techniques overwhelmingly agree. This is a strong indication that the dating techniques actually work.
Not undeniable, just unexceptable to your point of view.




Lurker
I have been observing this for many years. When I was younger, the evolutionists were on top of the world. They could make all sorts of crazy claims (remember the old embryo illustration?). But over the years they have closed rank. As the opposition has become better prepared, this appeal to orthodoxy has increased. Those who would question are shunned. Try telling a non-theistic evolutionist that you believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. You will see how that step from orthodoxy would come back to haunt you.
 
C

charisenexcelcis

Guest
The DNA is a complex bio-computer, which responds to the needs of the cell. It's double helix structure is uniquely equipted to preserve the genetic coding while allowing for transmission of the pattern. the DNA is like a twisted ladder. When a particular amino acid is needed, the DNA "unzips" breaking at the rungs to form a template. The surrounding enzymes then match up the amino acids that fit the template and connect them into a near mirror of the strand of DNA. This "mirror" differs from DNA in that it's base sugar is different, one of the amino acid used as a template is different, and it is a single strand rather than the double strand. This "unzipping" and transmission allows the DNA to perminently protect the template.
There are no life forms that do not use this comples molecule as the basis of their metabolism.

 
V

vahn

Guest
What exactly is the argument at hand?
 
P

peachetty

Guest
the bible. it gives an acurate acount of what was happening back there! sience true sience is revealing the works of God!
 
P

peachetty

Guest
ooohh okeay! so then ppl accually are saying that that is true??? i mean ik ppl do and lots off ppl do but i mean wheres there evidence?
 
C

charisenexcelcis

Guest
ooohh okeay! so then ppl accually are saying that that is true??? i mean ik ppl do and lots off ppl do but i mean wheres there evidence?
Lol. If you do not believe in creation, then you have to ask, where did this come from. You end up with Sherlock's maxim: "When all other possibilities are eliminated, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the solution."
 
P

peachetty

Guest
Lol. If you do not believe in creation, then you have to ask, where did this come from. You end up with Sherlock's maxim: "When all other possibilities are eliminated, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the solution."
yes true.... .... though why fight it? i mean ik why but it just is like they have no solution! they just have so manny questions that have yet to be answerd and the bible answers them all perfectly!
 
C

charisenexcelcis

Guest
yes true.... .... though why fight it? i mean ik why but it just is like they have no solution! they just have so manny questions that have yet to be answerd and the bible answers them all perfectly!
At one time, macroevolution was defended on the basis of time--it could happen given enough time. Now creation is attacked on the basis of time--how can creation be true when the earth is so old. From a strickly biological point of view, the more we learn, the more complex our biology is found to be, the more difficult to reconcile the present complexity with the presumed simplicity of the past life forms.
 
A

AgeofKnowledge

Guest
There are various creation models. Not all Christians hold to a 24 hour interpretation for the Hebrew word 'yom' as 6 literal days with sunrises and sunsets.

There is plenty of time available for Old Earth creation and progressive creation models, for example.

Plus, young earth creationists do argue there is enough time for their interpretation also though they often argue for an 'appearance of age' (though I am seeing less of this argument lately from my YEC brothers and sisters in Christ).

At one time, macroevolution was defended on the basis of time--it could happen given enough time. Now creation is attacked on the basis of time--how can creation be true when the earth is so old. From a strickly biological point of view, the more we learn, the more complex our biology is found to be, the more difficult to reconcile the present complexity with the presumed simplicity of the past life forms.
 
C

Crazy4GODword

Guest
Science and Christianity work together!!! I believe so