[zigzag]

The guy doesn't feel right about her. That's his prerogative. He doesn't have to justify it any more than she would have to justify feeling differently about him.

[ebuddy]

My interest in behavior also makes it quite apparent that the human mind is not well predisposed to scientific thinking. It can be done, but our human prejudices are quite difficult to tame.

I cannot disagree with that Scientist. Well put.

[itai195]

Originally posted by Logic:

I find it very disturbing that one of the biggest religions in the world has such a conservative stance on science still today. It is IMO working against God's greatest gift to man, that is the free mind and curiosity. This is one of the reasons I have chosen another religion(or it chose me), because that religion demands that the human seeks knowledge, instead of hindering it.

FWIW, opposition to evolution is more of an individual phenomena nowadays than institutional. Even the Catholic Church has come out in support of it.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Scientist:
Oh, I tried. She did not enjoy discussing the matter.

That's the point.

There is nothing wrong with fundamental differences between people in a relationship.

This DOES become a serious problem, though, when vital subjects are simply taboo. And before you say "views on evolution aren't 'vital'", remember that these two people are *scientists*. The subject is fundamental to their daily lives, to their sense of self.

I would have a very similar problem being with somebody who honestly believed music was the work of the devil. Love overcomes much, but not everything.

I have been in similar situations, though I've never been lied to like that. (I've been lied to in *extremely* serious matters, but somewhat different situations.)

-s*

[effgee]

Sorry Scientist, I honestly didn't mean to hijack the thread, I simply wanted a pointer to some info so I could read it and form my own opinion - but judging from the reaction here, that won't be necessary.

I did not attack anyone - I asked a question and in return a few of you guys reacted in a manner that would put the most obnoxious of Jehova's Witnesses to shame.

And Kilbey, next time before you crucify someone for his/her choice of words, you might want to consider the fact that this forum is frequented by people from more than one country - otherwise you might achieve little more than confirming other people's prejudices (which you did brilliantly, btw.)

*donepostinginthisthread*

[ryaxnb]

Originally posted by wang_himself:
Christian_Science = oxymoron;
Christian_Science != science;

while(sanity==true)
{
earth_age > 4000;
evolution = true;
religion = false;
wang = true;
}

LOL

[itai195]

Originally posted by wang_himself:
Christian_Science = oxymoron;
Christian_Science != science;

while(sanity==true)
{
earth_age > 4000;
evolution = true;
religion = false;
wang = true;
}

Shouldn't that be:

Code:
Christian_Science = !science;

[olePigeon]

Carbon dating isn't the the only way of maeasuing. Uranium decay is 500 million years. Suffice it to say, although it's only 1/13 the estimated age of Earth, it's 499,994,000 years longer than the estimated (excuse me, guessed) age of Earth by Chrisitans at only 6,000 years.

In many fields of science and including anthropologic archeology and other areas of history, you're taught to never use absolutes such as always, all, none, never, etc. However, it is safe to say that NONE of the so-called Chrisitian "scientists" have made a single major contribution to the world of science.

[ryaxnb]

In my view, ebuddy, and your xgirlfriend (tip: it's ex-girlfriend) have significant differences. Ebuddy began with an open mind and picked Creationism, whereas your ex-girlfriend never thought about anything else.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
However, it is safe to say that NONE of the so-called Chrisitian "scientists" have made a single major contribution to the world of science.

This is just ignorant, back in the day, many scientists that contributed vital scientific work WERE Christian. They may not have been--probably would not have been if they were alive today, but nonetheless, the contributions of scientists like Newton, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Boyle, Faraday, Mendel, Planck...even Einstein believed in God, although he probably wasn't a devout believer in all aspects of the Bible.

I'm not Christian, I don't believe in plenty of Christian things, but that doesn't keep me from respecting some Christian minds.

[itai195]

Einstein wasn't a Christian, either.

But what is enlightening about Christian scientists is that they didn't see science and religion as incompatible, though many creationists seem to.

BTW, I think olePigeon was referring too Christian Science, that capitalized initial is important.

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by effgee:
Sorry Scientist, I honestly didn't mean to hijack the thread, I simply wanted a pointer to some info so I could read it and form my own opinion - but judging from the reaction here, that won't be necessary.

I did not attack anyone - I asked a question and in return a few of you guys reacted in a manner that would put the most obnoxious of Jehova's Witnesses to shame.

And Kilbey, next time before you crucify someone for his/her choice of words, you might want to consider the fact that this forum is frequented by people from more than one country - otherwise you might achieve little more than confirming other people's prejudices (which you did brilliantly, btw.)

*donepostinginthisthread*

Pot, meet kettle.

Words have meaning. They are not simply there for entertainment. Words have set in motion wars. Be careful what you say, it could come to haunt you someday.

[wang_himself]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
Pot, meet kettle.

Well put!

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by itai195:
Einstein wasn't a Christian, either.

But what is enlightening about Christian scientists is that they didn't see science and religion as incompatible, though many creationists seem to.

BTW, I think olePigeon was referring too Christian Science, that capitalized initial is important.

I never said he was Christian, I knew he believed in God, and thought that he probably didn't in the biblical, or Christian sense. Regardless, the other scientists were Christian, if I remember correctly.

And I don't think this thread was about Christian Scientists but rather scientists that are Christian. [Or veered in that direction, anyway...but I don't think his ex was a Christian Scientist, but a science major that is also Christian]

[Scientist]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
If however, you don't believe man here on earth to be God's greatest and most precious creation, it would be easy to separate you from your Creator by several billion years.

Originally posted by SCIENTIST:
My interest in behavior also makes it quite apparent that the human mind is not well predisposed to scientific thinking. It can be done, but our human prejudices are quite difficult to tame.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
I cannot disagree with that Scientist. Well put.

You might want to take a look at your first post, compare it to you last post and then to mine. How is this consistent with the statement I made? Just wondering...

[MisterX]

You practicly dumped her over evolution?? **** u must love it.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by MisterX:
You practicly dumped her over evolution?? **** u must love it.

Or the other way round?:

She lied to him over the Bible.

**** she must love it.



-s*

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by MisterX:
You practicly dumped her over evolution?? **** u must love it.

is it just me or does this post not make a whole lot of sense. "practically"? And "**** you must love it"?

[effgee]

Words have meaning. They are not simply there for entertainment. Words have set in motion wars. Be careful what you say, it could come to haunt you someday.

Ok, now this is just plain ridiculous - maybe you should take a second and actually read my initial post

I don't want to hijack the thread - a link and/or source that proves that carbon-dating is bogus would be much appreciated.

Then, take a peek at what "bogus" means:

bogus
\Bo"gus\, a. [Etymol. uncertain.] Spurious; fictitious; sham; -- a cant term originally applied to counterfeit coin, and hence denoting anything counterfeit. [Colloq. U. S.]
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, � 1996, 1998 MICRA, I

So - what I was asking was the following:

"Please provide a link/source that proves that carbon-dating is spurious/fictious"

How exactly is that offending anyone? I would understand your anger if I had said something to the extent that the point(s) you creationists were making was (supposedly) spurious/fictious/bogus. But I didn't - I merely asked for a source. Do I believe in what you creationist-supporting folks think is correct? Nope, not for a second. But neither did I attack anyone in my initial post. If you think I was insulting creationist theory and/or belief - re-read my post - you're barking up the wrong tree, my friend.

I have met way too many folks like you that I'd believe even for a second you might be capable of admitting you may have been wrong - I have no illusions about that. If you absolutely feel the need to continue your little pissing contest - do the folks here a favor, PM me and spare the others.

[fireside]

just because the dating methods of scientists could be wrong doesnt mean that the bible is automatically right, like some of you devote christians seem to believe.

"carbon dating has many flaws. so the bible is right. i dont care that im trusting a book."

[mrmister]

Thank you, fireside. Thank you.

[riverfreak]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
I agree with you Riverfreak, though it's quite possible your head is also buried under the riverbed. The difference in precision and accuracy is quite thin. Precision is repetitious consistency using a varied array of methodology. You may disagree with that assessment, but then your science may not be precise. Accuracy is hit and miss and usually consists of a +/- factor of umpteen thousand years. I'm not sold on either. Methodology requires change contingent upon environment of sample.

ebuddy -
yep, my head is stuck under the riverbed. Better there than in the midwest! But I digress.

1) Creation Science is neither. It is a misnomer designed to equate science and religon, deliberating obfuscating important issues. Religion is not science. So let's stop comparing apples and oranges and call "Christian Scientists" something more appropriate - how about "christian folklorists"?

2) science and christianity are not mutually exclusive despite the efforts of christian folklorists to make a mockery of both christianity and the scientific method.

3) I'd love to see a single solitary testable hypothesis put forth by the Christian Folklorists.

4) Finally, at the risk of being called close-minded, none of this matters. What neo-luddites holed up in mud huts through the long grey midwest winter believe just doesn't matter. The earth isn't the center of the solar system, it isn't 4000, 6000, or 10,000 years old, jesus wasn't white, probably not a carpenter, and probably didn't have long hair (sorry borrowed that from history),

Science marches on, revealing who we are and our place in the world.

[riverfreak]

Oh, and finally, Scientist -

You completely did the right thing getting rid of her. People certainly are entitled to their beliefs - but to be so soft-headed! Yikes! How could you ever respect her?

[riverfreak]

Originally posted by fireside:
just because the dating methods of scientists could be wrong doesnt mean that the bible is automatically right, like some of you devote christians seem to believe.

Fireside -

What's wrong with my dating methods? Should I play hard-to-get? Maybe I should try to pick somebody from a higher socio-economic class? I'm sick of having to pay for everything.

[Chemmy]

Originally posted by fireside:
"carbon dating has many flaws. so the bible is right. i dont care that im trusting a book."

The crux of any anti-evolutionary argument is creating a straw man out of "flaws in carbon dating" and attacking that, as if it's an important or relevant issue.

[ebuddy]

The absolute most ignorant statement I've ever read was posted not long ago. There was some mention of Christians not having anything valuable to bring to the table.

Arthur Eddington, an important mathematical cosmologist, was a Quaker.
Georges Lema�tre, a Roman Catholic priest, proposed the Big Bang theory.
I don't know whether Michael Polanyi, the notable physical chemist and philosopher, was Christian at the end of his life, but I know that he was when he wrote Science, Faith and Society, the best introduction to his thought.
Henry F. "Fritz" Schaefer is one of the foremost theoretical chemists of our day.
William Phillips was co-recipient of the 1997 Nobel Prize in Physics.
Francis Collins is the director of the U.S. Human Genome Project.
Rustum Roy, one of the world's foremost materials scientists, holds three chairs at the Pennsylvania State University

More non-contributing scientists that believed in God?

Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
William Thompson (1824-1907)
Max Planck (1858-1947)
Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

In fact, I'd like to add that the most influential men of history thought they had a higher calling and believed in God.

I can understand your disagreement with Christianity or religion in general, but please don't be moronic about it. eesh.

[adamk]

Originally posted by fireside:
just because the dating methods of scientists could be wrong doesnt mean that the bible is automatically right, like some of you devote christians seem to believe.

"carbon dating has many flaws. so the bible is right. i dont care that im trusting a book."

most of the arguments i have seen against science's use of radiometric dating is to show, that in a few cases, the results of dating a rock do not match the actual age of the rock. this is analogous to saying that miracles don't exist and should be wholeheartedly discounted because they don't occur each time they are sought. in one case, one odd, unexpected event happens and whoa and behold, it's a miracle of god, and in the other it provides definitive proof that science is inherently flawed and we just need to put faith in the scripture to find the truth.

science, as any true scientist will tell you, is an evolutionary (heh!) act, in that each year, new techniques are discovered and old techniques refined, because, yes!, i daresay it, flaws existed that prevented a more accurate and precise knowledge of events and processes from being fully understood. for instance when a modern model for the solar system emerged, it was dismissed outright by the church as being wrong, since it did not jive with their beliefs. that is not to say that that early model of the solar system was the absolutely correct model, rather it has been, since then, and still to this day, revised to the point where we can say with 99% certainty where a planet will be within several 100 meters accuracy at some point in the distant future.

it is the same with geochronology. do we know exactly when the earth, was created, no! and we never will know, not due to the limitations of science and the scientific method, rather, that the earth was not created in a single event, and rather is the product of an ongoing process, even to this day, of accretion of material from outer space. we do know that, asteroids landing on earth today, which remarkably (miraculously?) have the same abundances of minerals and elements encountered in the earth today, are dated at ~4.57 Ga (Giga-annos) and lead many to speculate, hey, our earth has the same ratio of compositions, meteor impacts are abundant on all terrestrial planets, moons, asteroids, etc, that we are able to observe, including on the earth. could it be our earth formed from the accretion of these bodies, even as they fall on us today, at a point in time reflected by their age? no rocks are found on the earth that are older than 4.57 Ga and actually the oldest known rocks that are found are ~3.6 Ga.

the beauty of science is that nothing is ever accepted until it has passed the test of reproducibility. in that regard, geochronology is no stranger. i have yet to see any proof that any scientific methods or discoveries in the bible that have meet that criteria. and yes, they talk about a flood in the bible and yes, there are evidences of floods in the geological record, yet those stretch the span of time for over 500 Ma to the present. and there are also evidence for global sea-level rising and falling (on the order of tens of meters mind you, not enough to engulf all land). the bible was written by people who lived on the earth, same as you and i, but it does not make them the authoritative voice for how the universe is, and/or was.

[Il Duce]

Interesting discussion (even if it has deviated slightly from where it started)

My 2 cents (just to spice things up a bit) - I went to a Christian school, and was told by one of the pastors that the word 'day' in genesis (as in 'on the first day') actually translates more correctly into 'period of time'.

This has an interesting effect on the evolution vs. creation debate. If you accept this translation as correct (which I assume it is, although I might be wrong) then it is no longer 6000 years vs. 6 billion, but simply did God create the universe or not.

If you are among the pro-science group, go and read genesis again, exchanging 'day' for 'unspecified period of time' - find it a little more bearable? I did.

So, like in all religious debates, we return to the everpresent matter of faith (that's all religion is, really). I have not yet found science and religion to be mutually exclusive, although both have often been presented in suspect ways to make it appear so.

BTW, before somebody brings it up, I'm not trying to convert anybody. This has been a surprisingly civil debate thus far, and I hope it remains that way.

Some background info for those interested - the pastor I spoke did his PhD in science (can't remember which field) before studying theology. He was fluent in Greek and Hebrew.

So anyway - just a little food for thought. Take it or leave it.

[adamk]

Originally posted by Il Duce:
So, like in all religious debates, we return to the everpresent matter of faith (that's all religion is, really).

amen.

[ebuddy]

Riverfreak, I'm not exactly sure what your problem is. I don't know if it was the fact that your mother dressed you up all funny and made you go to church or what, but you've got a serious chip bro.

Actually, it was a very nice and sunny day, yes even here in the midwest. I'm not sure of the dark hole that is Strong Island, but you are aware of high and low pressure systems no? You're aware of how they have a way of varying weather patterns so that winter doesn't always equate to cold and grey? Just checking as kind of a test control of your scientific intellectual prowess because frankly you were beginning to scare me.

You obviously have your religion. I have mine.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
The absolute most ignorant statement I've ever read was posted not long ago. There was some mention of Christians not having anything valuable to bring to the table.

...

Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
[+Einstein blurb]

It was brought up earlier (and in your quoted blurb) that Einstein was NOT a Christian.

[CharlesS]

The theory of gravity is only a theory. Therefore, it is unproven.

So the whole thing about the sun being the center of the solar system, binding the earth into an elliptical orbit with its gravitational field, is just one possible theory. Scientists are extremely arrogant for presenting this as fact.

The theory that the earth is the center of the universe because God made it is therefore equally valid to the heliocentric model of the solar system. The theory that the earth, the sun, the stars, and everything else all revolve around God's balls is another theory that must be taken into consideration. We should teach all these parallel theories in the classroom, as well as the theory that the universe is all just a simulation and we are really living in the holodeck of the USS Enterprise, NCC-1701-D.

Beam me up...



edit: This post has been retrofitted with Smileys� for the humor-impaired... (I can't believe I have to do this)

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by Il Duce:
I went to a Christian school, and was told by one of the pastors that the word 'day' in genesis (as in 'on the first day') actually translates more correctly into 'period of time'.

Very good point. Along these lines, I heard that "virgin" is meant to mean "young lady" (as it used to) instead of the strict definition usually used today (hasn't had sex yet), thus making Jesus's not-so-immaculate conception more believable.

Unfortunately, many people read the Bible word-for-word, and don't realize that the translations aren't perfect and meanings change with time, for one, and that the Bible isn't always meant to be taken literally (sometimes it's symbolic; I know a Catholic woman that is completely convinced that she is drinking the actual flesh and blood of Christ during communion, and that it's NOT symbolic or anything along those lines).

[theolein]

Allow me to introduce my calm and considered opinion to this wise and significant debate: I was reading up this afternoon on a man called Copernicus, and another man of his time called Pope Paul III. The people who listened to the considered opinion of Pope Paul III had this image of the earth being the centre of the universe. According to them, the Sun and the Moon and all those billions of stars revolved around the earth.

The Church at that time had a fixed view of what the universe was, and there was more than one astronomer that was sentenced to death for challanging that view. Copernicus, Gallileo, Kepler, Newton and others of their time were lucky not to share that fate, and there were numerous members of the Church that wanted to see Gallileo sentenced to death by the Inquisition.

But, with time, as their theories were advanced, sometimes changed, often extended, it became obvious that not only was the earth definitely not the center of the universe, but neither was the Sun, around which the earth rotated.

Unwittingly, those great minds of the renaissance not only proved a dogmatic and inflexible religious interpretation to be wholly untrue, but they also laid the founding of my proof of the death of ebuddy's creationist theories tonight, and those of Scientist's ex.

Take a reasonably good telescope, preferably go to an observatory where a very large telescope is mounted. If you are very lucky, you might see something as beautiful as the image of the Papillon nebula in the image below. It is in the Large Magellenic Cloud galaxy and is over 170'000 light years away. That means that the image that you are seeing there is over 170'000 years old. Even you will not dispute the speed of light (I hope), although in your personal universe I can imagine it being closer to that of a snail on barbituates, which would make that nebula evenolder than the above mentioned number of years.

Nebulae are the birth places of suns and stellar systems such as ours. They are literal acts of creation. There are large numbers of Nebulae, some as close a 1500 light years, some 7'000 light years.

In short: Creation didn't start 4000 or 6000 years ago, and those Nebulae are visual proof of the matter, regardless of your affinity with Jurassic park.

[Scientist]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
The absolute most ignorant statement I've ever read was posted not long ago.

I was going to reply in a similar way, but then I realized that OlePigeon was probably referring to those christian "scientists" whose only goal is to disprove those scientific ideas that conflict with the bible.

Until recently it wasn't very socially acceptable to be atheist. Before that it probably wasn't even considered as an option by many. I feel I was lucky when growing up because my mom was a christian and my dad, an atheist. I went to a christian grade school and jr high and a public high school and college. I was exposed to both ideas since the moment I was born. I made my own choice. Most of these scientists didn't have that option. Children are impressionable. No matter how intellegent, inquisitive and logical someone is there isn't much most people can do about what they were taught as children.

One of my friends is a fairly influential professor and he recently related to me how horribly difficult it was for him to fight his faith. He even kept it until highschool. I can't relate to you as well as he can, but it is hard and emotionally traumatizing...even disabling act. I can tell that he still misses it.

So you really can't expect these scientists to completely drop their faith. Even if they did most wouldn't do so publically. To this dad my mom or sister or brother don't know that I don't believe in God. Some of these scientists also considered themselves role models. As role models they may have tried to cover a lot of the less acceptable parts of their lives.

Some children growing up now are finally able to have a choice (although limited) in what religion they are taught early in life (My Ex-G certainly didn't). So you are going to see a lot more atheist/agnostic scientists from now on...

[RooneyX]

Spinoza and Einstein, both born Jewish, did not believe in creationism. Thus they rejected the Bible. You can't mention their names in your arguments.

And it annoys me that Bible and Koran bashing theocrat sympathizers think their religious view is the only valid one for the advent of existence. What about Buddhists and Hindus who do believe in a higher power creating the universe but at least push the date back millions of years? They believe the universe has a force behind it but also evolves and goes through different cycles of birth, destruction and rebirth. Carl Sagan mentioned that religion can be a beautiful thing if it understands how beautiful science's view of the universe is.

Remember 'Man made God in his own image'. A personal God doesn't work both theoretically, practically and scientifically. Not only is the very first page of Genesis so totally screwed (lack of knowledge about photosynthesis being the biggest problem) but it must have been very funny for God to say 'I'm going to create a man.' without prior knowledge of what man looked like and was. That requires knowledge of something that exists or existed before.

'God' as a generalized term for all that exists, the balance between order and chaos, is fine. But please let go of those backwards beliefs, the same ones those terrorists and others have. You're only encouraging the problems we've suffered from for centuries.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
The theory of gravity is only a theory. Therefore, it is unproven.

The shite just hit the fan.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
Spinoza and Einstein, both born Jewish, did not believe in creationism. Thus they rejected the Bible. You can't mention their names in your arguments...[+entire post]...You're only encouraging the problems we've suffered from for centuries.

[wolfen]

Intelligent and otherwise ok, but for some philosophical disparity you're willing to toss it? Musta been more to it than that. I mean, love is love. What you had wasn't.

Hell, gimme an intelligent, interesting underwear model and she could think the world was flat for all I care.


wolfen

[theolein]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
The theory of gravity is only a theory. Therefore, it is unproven.

...
Beam me up...

Taking a step off a high building can do wonders for that "theory"...

[SomeToast]

Originally posted by adamk:
[some blur of characters snipped]

God wants you to use capitalization in your sentences.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Arthur Eddington, an important mathematical cosmologist, was a Quaker . . .

eBuddy, I don't doubt that these great scientists are said to have believed in God in some fashion (although I suspect that some faked it out of sociopolitical necessity). In any case, my question is: do (or would, if they are deceased) any of them buy into the idea that the earth or universe is only 4-6000 years old?

[Scientist]

DISCLAIMER: SHOOT, IM SORRY BUT THIS MIGHT OFFEND PEOPLE I respect a lot of people on this board, especially those who respectfully disagree with me. This is one way that I see the world sometimes when I am feeling a little cynical...


This link leads to a nice astronomy program called Celestia.

http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/13290

If you believe in the basics of astronomy you might find this at least mildly interesting. Using this program zoom backwards away from the earth while watching it shrink into a spec of nothingness. Do you feel significant...insignificant? Ok. Now zoom away to a far away star. Choose the function that draws the constellations for you. Pretty huh? NO...they are not...try it.

People are self centered. Evolution offers a good explanation for why this is. Believing you are at all important in the big picture of the universe is rather conceited. Friends, family, love, life, etc are all beautiful things. But realise that the beauty is all in our minds...we are not really special people unless a conscious being such as a friend make us special to them by appreciating us. There is no god out there loving you and talking to you personally. I'm sorry but that it is just so arrogant to believe that. But it is something everyone does (in some way)...it's practical and life would suck any other way.

Do you see how those constellations look so distorted and insignificant from our new perspective in space? Consider your perspective when asking big picture questions and choosing conclusions. We see and believe what is important for us to believe for our biological (and therefore emotional) needs. Reality is an entirely different game and you shouldn't play if you can't handle truth (or more appropriately the lack of assurance provided by halftruths and mistruths).

Ok, sorry for that rant.

[adamk]

Originally posted by SomeToast:
God wants you to use capitalization in your sentences.

then why did he take my left pinky finger!?

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Scientist:
Geology really isn't my field of interest. Even if I dedicated my life to it I don't know if I would be particularly successful at independently verifying/disproving the age of the earth. I'm no chemist... I do know that the earth has to be quite old based on my interest in evolution (which is not at all casual) as well as my personal observations of fossils, erosion, etc. My interest in behavior also makes it quite apparent that the human mind is not well predisposed to scientific thinking. It can be done, but our human prejudices are quite difficult to tame.

I got your back, bro. I'm not technically a geologist, but I am a physicist.

Here's the way radioactive decay works:

d = s *exp(-k*t)

Where d is the amount of radioactive stuff left, s is the amount you started with, and k is the decay constant (ln(2)/k is the half life). The reason it works this way basically comes down to probability and statistics. I won't go in to it, but suffice it to say that in any macroscopic sample (number of atoms ~10^22) the statistics have a relative error of about 10^(-11) (i.e. random variation doesn't play much of a role).

This equation assumes that the sample remains isolated (i.e. it isn't exchanging a significant amount of atoms with the surrounding world). Given that, in order to use this equation to find t, the age of the sample, we need to have d, s, and k. k is the easy part - it only depends on the nature of the nucleus in question (carbon-14, uranium-2xx, etc). d is also very easy - you just need a geiger counter and a sample with a known amount to calibrate the measurement against. s is the hard part.

The process which creates carbon-14 in the atmosphere is well understood, and dependent on only two variables: concentration of Nitrogen (only dependent on the long term air pressure [not day to day], and that doesn't vary by much from ~10^5 Pa), and the rate at which the atmosphere is bombarded with high energy protons ("cosmic rays"). Here is an illustration of the process. Note well that the cosmic rays cannot penetrate the atmosphere far enough to generate carbon-14 at low altitudes. If they could, we'd be dead. So, it comes down to getting good measurements on two variables: the historic values of atmospheric carbon-14 concentration (s) likely caused by variations in cosmic ray activity, and whether or not the sample was actually "isolated" (as in, not exchanging carbon with it's environment). The former can be measured, and the latter is up to archaeologists to try to determine.

Dating rocks, however, is far more reliable. For starters, since we date from when the rock solidified, of course a solid will be isolated (in the sense that molecules are not free to migrate around rapidly). The problem, again, is that sticky s. I don't know enough about how rocks form to explain why minerals seem to concentrate in to deposits, but if you start with a deposit that contains all radioactive isotope, and little of the decay products, then you simply need to add the amounts of each up later.

The astronomy examples, however, that olePigeon provided are far more concrete. We can cross check the distance of stars using things like parallax from the earth changing position around the sun through the year, measuring doppler shift to determine speeds, etc.

Getting too tired, g'night folks.

BlackGriffen

[fireside]

Originally posted by adamk:
then why did he take my left pinky finger!?

to challenge you. god works in mysterious ways.

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by adamk:
then why did he take my left pinky finger!?

He left you the right one for the Shift key. The left one was for the nose picking. He doesn't like that.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Scientist:
People are self centered. Evolution offers a good explanation for why this is. Believing you are at all important in the big picture of the universe is rather conceited. Friends, family, love, life, etc are all beautiful things. But realise that the beauty is all in our minds...we are not really special people unless a conscious being such as a friend make us special to them by appreciating us. There is no god out there loving you and talking to you personally. I'm sorry but that it is just so arrogant to believe that. But it is something everyone does (in some way)...it's practical and life would suck any other way . . . We see and believe what is important for us to believe for our biological (and therefore emotional) needs. Reality is an entirely different game and you shouldn't play if you can't handle truth (or more appropriately the lack of assurance provided by halftruths and mistruths).

I pretty much agree. The conceit of religion (in many if not all cases) is that mankind is the ultimate creation of God and is here for some higher purpose. The conceit of secular humanism is that mankind is the ultimate creation of nature and is here for some higher purpose. Either way, it's pretty much designed to make us feel better about what is ultimately an unfathomable and in many ways cruel process.

And all because Scientist dumped his girlfriend.

[Scientist]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
I got your back, bro. I'm not technically a geologist, but I am a physicist.

Here's the way radioactive decay works:

d = s *exp(-k*t)

Thank you for taking the time to lay that out for us so nicely. It's been quite awhile since I've delt with this stuff (and then only in class).

[adamk]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Dating rocks, however, is far more reliable. For starters, since we date from when the rock solidified, of course a solid will be isolated (in the sense that molecules are not free to migrate around rapidly). The problem, again, is that sticky s. I don't know enough about how rocks form to explain why minerals seem to concentrate in to deposits, but if you start with a deposit that contains all radioactive isotope, and little of the decay products, then you simply need to add the amounts of each up later.

technically, not deposits. the elements used for dating rocks, specifically uranium (U) (and consequently lead (Pb) ie U235->Pb207 and U238->Pb206), can substitute readily for certain elements very easily. for instance zircon contains zirconium which is rather large and can easily substitute for uranium. therefore, zircon (as well as titanite and monzanite to name a few) are used because they have relatively large abundances of uranium in them. the only naturally occuring (ie non-radiogenic) Pb isotope is Pb204. all other isotopes of Pb are daughter products from a decay scheme and in this case, two separate parent:daughter ratios can be determine and both are used to calculate an age on a concordia plot, basically, an "idealized" curve plotted (in U238/Pb206 / U235/Pb207 space) along which a system would evolve based on known half-lifes of those elements.