Re: slightly OT, but still connected


"Cousin Ricky" <rickyusvi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1114737704.465008.249760@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Clayton Doyles wrote:
> > On the other side of the coin, I don't see any evidence that the
> > universe is
> > really billions of years old.
>
> Well, just because you don't see it doesn't mean that generations of
> scientific effort haven't seen it either.

Have they? Are you 100% sure? How are we so sure that these generations
are correct? In 10 years, they may be totally disproven despite the fact
that their current experiments produce perfect results each time.

> > We have two schools of thought here that are
> > similar in one way: both ages come from man. Man, through the
> > disciples,
> > wrote The Bible with Divine guidance;
>
> For which we have only the say-so of the theologians who read the
> documents centuries after they were written, compiled, or spliced
> together.

Isn't it the same situation for a person who takes over doing the same
research as one before him who has now passed on? Surely, some of the
previous researcher's material will be in error and will have to be accepted
on "faith".

> > and it has also been man who has
> > determined the age of the universe in the billions of years.
>
> After looking at countless evidence.

Perhaps in some peoples' minds, yes, but I'm not convinced.

> > Are we so
> > sure that radiocarbon and other methods of dating aren't invalid?
>
> The weaknesses of radiocarbon dating were exposed a long time ago, and
> the method has since been recalibrated against samples of *known* age.
> Today, the method is *known* to be acurate for its domain.

Take a "known" weight from the NIST and calibrate a scale. Now, weigh your
item. Now, reweigh after doing the same calibration the next day. Continue
to do this process for a period of time. No matter what you do, small
amounts of error will occur whether or not your equipment is sensitive
enough to notice them or not. Also, are you certain you're NIST certified
weight is really the weight it's supposed to be? What if their master scale
was off by 0.000001 g that day?

> Trouble is that its domain is only a few thousand years back, and only
> over articles that were once alive. When you use "age of the universe"
> and "radiocarbon" in the same argument, you only confirm what any
> scientist can deduce just by hearing your thesis: that you haven't done
> enough research to form a credible argument. Here's a start:
>
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/methuselah/
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
>
> > Are we so
> > sure that The Bible is correct?
>
> Those who are so sure that the Bible is correct cannot be convinced
> otherwise. I strongly recommend you stop courting them *now*, and move
> onto far easier pursuits--such as observing QSO 3C-273 in a 50mm
> refractor at high noon.

Observing this quasar- in radio or optically? "High noon" as you suggest
sounds more like a radio observation request. In any case, I'm not so sure
this object lies at the distance they currently say it does. And, a 6"
aperture is the least required to see it visually, so 50mm isn't going to
cut it.
>
> > The point is... no matter how you look at
> > it, you must pick what you believe is the most correct and depend on
> > man's
> > correctness (or lack thereof).
>
> Believing in the literal inerrancy of a document penned by man is to
> depend on man's correctness.
>
> Believing in the concrete evidence standing in the world in front of
> you, or passing through a spectroscope from the sky above you is to
> depend not on man's correctness, but upon God's very universe.
>
> Think about it.

Depends on how you look at it. Should I believe a researcher's son's son,
who is now carrying on the work of three generations of science? Oh, they
have all recorded the data precisely over the last 75 years or so. I do see
little marks here and there with crossed out and initialled data. Guess I
should just ignore that. On the other hand, a whole group of experiments
were performed that produced data quite outside the 'norm' that would
normally be obtained. No note was made as to why. Guess I should just
ignore that too. After all, it's only a couple of weeks out of nearly 75
years. The evidence here is "concrete" alright and I have to have the
"faith" that it was gathered correctly.

> > To me, there's just as much "evidence", if you will, that the
> > universe is
> > 6,000 years old that there is 20 billion and I remain unconvinced by
> > the
> > so-called evidence that it is anything but.
>
> Oh. In other words, you in fact are one of the people that i warned
> you not to debate. Sorry. My mistake.

Like I said and hopefully made clear above, no matter whose book you look
at, man or God's, there will always be things you have to accept on "faith".
I choose the latter.

Clay

> (That'll teach me not to read the whole article before i press Reply.)
>
> > However, that is my "belief"
> > just as you must "believe" that it's 20 billion.
> >
> > Davoud wrote:
> > > Mainstream Christians, both Protestant and Catholic,
> > > have long since come to terms with the fact that the Universe is
> > > about
> > > 14 billion years old, and the Earth about 4.5 byo.
> >
> > Not necessarily.
>
> Y'know, speaking of Catholics, your talk about picking our beliefs is
> exactly the sort of relativism that Pope Benedict XVI has condemned.
> You've now lost credibility with me not only as a scientist, but as a
> Christian. Time for me to hunt for that ancient Tasco; QSO 3C-273
> awaits!
>
> (Double challenge since, at this time of year, i'd have to look through
> 12,000 km of rock in order to see 3C-273 during the daytime.)
>
>
> Clear skies!
>
> ------------------- Richard Callwood III --------------------
> ~ U.S. Virgin Islands ~ USDA zone 11 ~ 18.3N, 64.9W ~
> ~ eastern Massachusetts ~ USDA zone 6 (1992-95) ~
> --------------- http://cac.uvi.edu/staff/rc3/ ---------------
>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Creationism is religion not science
    ... I think creationists are only entitled to say that their ... And, for that matter, including creating a universe ... great age in the universe; some may well be because the universe (as opposed ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: The Case for a Designer
    ... between us is that I consider recognition of 'evidence of design' to ... They say, "Just give me the evidence, and give me the arguments, ... the universe is designed 'subjectively'. ... scientific objectivity. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Is a fact something that has been proven?
    ... Did mind come before matter in the universe or matter come before mind? ... Thus how well a new theory or a new piece of evidence fits within our ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Science versus religion fnord
    ... "God created the universe" is an empirical claim. ... universe" so specially privileged that it doesn't require evidence? ... against the presence of a teapot out there. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: How Our Brains Ignore Unpleasant Facts was: Re: The Reasonable
    ... apparent age argument cannot be disproved. ... "get the universe to operate properly". ... I just look at the evidence. ... and to provide man with a consistent set of outcomes for his ...
    (talk.origins)