Religion

[Lady Blue03]

Question- I believe it was either Yorik or Cerek who posted this before, that you need faith to believe in Carbon Dating. What kind of faith though? Not faith in god, certainly, at least in my point of view(obviously). I do believe that carbon dating is mostly accurate, sure, it does have its foibles, but what doesnt? What I believe, I wouldn't call faith. Eh, i lost my train of thought, [img]graemlins/doh.gif[/img]

Ar-Cunin, I totaly agree with you [img]smile.gif[/img]

[antryg]

For those who don't think that they are putting faith (ie belief without supporting facts) in scientific research I would like to share ONE incident that occured while I was a research assistant. While collating the collected information on a project, the lead researcher looked at the data. Upon discovering that 32% of the data did not fit the expected progression curve for the expected result, he declared all of the disagreeing data as "wildshots" and not statistically significant. This data was then removed. Did I personally see the same thing on other projects? The answer is yes. When speaking with other research assistants and researchers they stated that they had also observed or done the same. Yorick is correct. Scientist are human. They make honest mistakes and they also lie to maintain funding and reputation. They are just as prone to the bad parts of human behavior as any other person. They aren't non-religious saints or clerics.

Also worthy of note is that in studying in comparative religions both science and politics fit all the criteria of religion for many people.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Hey Lady Blue.

It was I who mentioned that you had to have "faith" to accept carbon dating this time around, but that argument has been presented by Yorick many times before.

One of the primary arguments against Christianity (or any religion) is that the existence of God cannot be proven...it has to be accepted on faith. Most atheists I've talked with say they only believe that which can be proven by hard, scientific evidence. But Yorick is pointing out that - unless you have the knowledge and skill to conduct the experiments yourself - you have to trust that the scientists who do conduct the experiments don't allow any personal bias or outside factor to "taint" the results. In essence, the integrity of their work has to be "accepted on faith" by you.

And antryg has given first-hand testimony that the integrity of scientific research often is not purely objective and is influenced by outside factors (such as continued funding).

I'm not discounting the validity of carbon dating....I'm just challenging the assumption that it is always done accurately and objectively.

I'm just playing the devil's advocate. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[The Hunter of Jahanna]

Carbon dateing doesnt impress me , but dinosaurs do. Find me a dinosaur in the bible and I might start to consider believing it has some basis in fact. Also,claiming that "Adam" and "Eve" were the first humans and we are all decended from them doesnt take into account what repeated inbreeding does to a life form. Just let 1 boy mouse and 1 girl mouse start haveing babies and dont remove any of the offspring. In about a month you will see what inbreeding does to your pet mice. To get to the end result faster , just go to west virginia.

[Ar-Cunin]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: Ar-Cunin - Just out of curiosity, why do Creation Scientists not qualify as scientists in your opinion? They are trying to prove a hypothesis based on the study of physical evidence rather than theological evidence. Is that not the definition of a scientist? Is it just because the field is in the minority in the science community? Or is it because they are trying to prove Creation rather than Evolution? IF they go about their studies and data collection using the same methodology and protocol as other scientists, why do they not qualify as scientists? I am sincerely curious about this.

They are using a flawed hypothesis from the outset - the bible. They are trying to fit their finding into that narrow mould - regardless of the data. If that is science, it is bad science. Like when the Catholic church tried continuesly to modify the view of the universe, so the Earth was at the center, despite observations which showed that Earth circled around the Sun. And I don't doubt that there are 'bad apples' in the scientific comunity (cold fusion and the creation of heavy natural elements are two cases) - but I think that the majority of the scientist are honest - especially since their data will have to be repetable.

Ar-Cunin gave a good explanation of why carbon dating is used and how it works. Scientists use carbon dating because all life forms contain carbon in their make-up and carbon breaks down at a very consistent rate. That's well and good, but this answer begs another question. MagiK and Yorick pointed out that the Earth is generally considered to be about 4.5 billion years old, but there were NO living organisms around for the first 3 billion years (give or take a millenium ). If "carbon based life" has only been around for approx. 1/4 of the Earth's existence, why is it considered an accurate indicator of how old the planet really is? Surely there are other elements that are present in Earth's strata that have the same reliable half-life progression as Carbon, but that are found in objects that could conceivably pre-date life on Earth. Why do we not use one of those elements instead?

No - you don't use Carbon-dating to determine the age of the Earth - you 'resort' to geology. Just follow the sedimentary layers downwards. For instance the top layer of rock in the Kola Peninsula (Finland/Russia) is around 2 - 2,5 billion years old (can't find my geology notes for the exact age.)

P.S. Great post Hierophant [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] - couldn't have written it better myself [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 12-04-2002, 07:27 AM: Message edited by: Ar-Cunin ]

[Grungi]

wow this topic suddenly picked up massively, was just me and ceric [img]tongue.gif[/img] anyhows to answer a few points -

yes ceric i agree my posts are rambling and hard to follow, but if people want to post alienating comments in reply they should read what i wrote fully IMO before passing judgement, as you seem to read them fully even if you do reread them, i agree as well my meaning is hard to follow as i find it hard to express fully in typing, but i try and i think people understand when they read it a 2nd time.

as for condescending? damn right, i was being sarcastic too, as i said its okay for me to be like that but not for a religious person to be like that when its at odds with their religion [img]tongue.gif[/img] thats how i feel on it.

as for that guy deserving the sarcasm, yeah he did bigtime, i felt like doing the same but i didnt think it right for someone who was also propounding religious views at me to two seconds later be quite mean (for want of a better word [img]tongue.gif[/img] ) to some poor newbie. Was just a point im picking up on.

Lady Blue - good point and one i been making alot - THERE IS NO PROOF! of anything so dont discount someone elses statements if your going to turn round and spout your own which too cannot be proved, thats why i say let the whole argument lie and believe what you wanna believe.

as for evolution in my own view i think its highly feasible, far more so than a divine being coming along and doing it in 7 days (6 days and a rest yeah yeah dont start on me [img]tongue.gif[/img] ) and yes i think we are descended from apes and i consider us animals, just civilised ones who were lucky enough to become the dominant species on the planet. btw this brings me to another point on which ill have to use my mother as an example, do animals have souls? she says they dont therefore humans are better than animals, now im strongly against that view, i feel were equal to animals only reason were better is we can think well and eat the things, considering yourself to be better as a whole is hugely arrogant, who says animals dont have religion or morals of their own? again its arrogant to assume its only humans that do, i quite happily eat an animal of whatever description, but my reasons are simple - i like the taste and im hungry but i dont say its okay because it doesnt have a soul , thats a pathetic excuse in my opinion, is this the view of all christians that animals dont have souls? i dont know this one as only my mother said this. (i believe a soul = conciousness, your being that which is not your body, thats what you lose when you die and it goes elsewhere, so im certain animals have the same kinda thing)

and another point on evolution , everything living adapts to its environment or will die/suffer - FACT anyone want to disagree on this?

therefore you EVOLVE to adapt and it takes a long long long time, thats what mutation in DNA are about and theres plenty of proof of that happening, like insects evolving to be more resistant to chemicals, as they are infinitely less complex than humans their evolution process is far quicker and again im pretty certain thats unassailable fact, so therefore evolution is fact and not theory, as for apes becoming human thats less certain and not possible to prove though i believe it myself.

[Grungi]

and jahnana i made that point earlier too, and i agree, am i the result of millenia of inbreeding? fck that i find that insulting frankly, im not the result of inbreeding, im the descendent of orangutans or someat [img]smile.gif[/img] thats far less insulting [img]smile.gif[/img]

[The Hierophant]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: I was researching another Biblical question when I came across an article explaining that the theory of the Earth being several million years old was actually a relatively new development. This idea is less than 100yrs old IIRC. The article went on to say that the scientific community never considered the Earth to be that old until the Theory of Evolution began to gain popularity. I forget what the prevailing theory of the Earth's age was at that time, but it certainly wasn't "millions of years". But, as the Theory of Evolution gained popularity, scientists realized it could not be true unless they "extended" the current hypothesis of the Earth's age by several million years. Carbon dating became the "accepted dating methodology" shortly thereafter. Surely there are other elements that are present in Earth's strata that have the same reliable half-life progression as Carbon, but that are found in objects that could conceivably pre-date life on Earth. Why do we not use one of those elements instead?

Indeed, most theories relating to the age of the Earth/life/universe rely upon mathematical formulae and assumptions that universal 'laws' of physics remain constant over time. For example, to determine how old a mountain range, desert or fjord might be a geologist might look at the directions and speeds at which tectonic plates move and sort've juxtapose on top of the that through mathematical means the amount of time necessary to create such a landscape. Likewise, measuring and calculating the rate at which hydrogen 'condenses', burns and 'disperses' is used in mathematical equations to 'deduce' the ages of suns and stars, which are basically just great big balls of burning hydrogen (sort of along the lines of "well, they're in this form now, so in order to get like 'this' they must have done 'that' for such-and-such an amount of time". Does that make sense?). Most of it is indeed pseudo-assumptive guess-work, (for example: essentially assuming that hydrogen operates in the same way out in the vacuum of space as it does in a lab in chicago for instance [img]smile.gif[/img] ) and alot of faith is put into the 'knowledge' of natural, physical law, ie: the much-heralded 'laws of physics'.

Now, 'law' is much too stern a word to be using in relation to these sorts of matters in my opinion. Perhaps 'rule', or 'guideline' of physics would be more appropriate. I mention this simply because by and large, things just don't seem to stay the same over time. There is some degree of organization in the way the multiverse seems to operate, certainly, but to say that these methods of physical interaction and construction are unchanging laws is where alot of people perhaps get a little ahead of themselves. They may have remained unchanged since humans began consciously noting them down in the past couple of thousand years, or at least that is how it would appear. But they may , just may, have worked differently a long time ago in a galaxy far far away. Indeed, just how time itself operates is an entirely different topic of endless debate (as was demonstrated in a thread that Yorick began a month or two back [img]smile.gif[/img] ).

Ar-Cunin: yes, most definately the observation of various layers of mineral deposits has been accepted as a generally viable way of measuring earth-date. However, the question that remains is how can you be sure of the actual, numerical date of the various layers? You can use mathematical techniques ("well, it takes such-and-such an amount of time for sedentary silt to settle here. The sedentary silt is this thick, so it must have taken this long" sort of thing), but is there any other way of doing it? There needs to be a base-assumption of how old a various layer must be in order for the layer-method to work. Although I am certainly no geologist, so please fill me in on the proper, established techniques. I'm interested in knowing.

[Callum Kerr]

Well well well... a simple homework request??? Ah! Such is life...

I personally DO believe only what I consider proven. That is, I think that God does not even remotely exist by current scientific rules. I also do not consider the dates of this happening and so forth billions of years ago very conclusive proof. (hell! i don't even pay attention to 'em)

Of course, it is the NATURE of scientists to be totally stubborn about their current theories. All through history, today's laws of science have been rejected for years.

I was once told by my English teacher that I have a scientific mind - which is why I wanted help on that debate - so I am JUST as stubborn as the best of 'em. So faith does not work for me...

[Cloudbringer]

Grunji said

as for condescending? damn right, i was being sarcastic too, as i said its okay for me to be like that but not for a religious person to be like that when its at odds with their religion thats how i feel on it. as for that guy deserving the sarcasm, yeah he did bigtime, i felt like doing the same but i didnt think it right for someone who was also propounding religious views at me to two seconds later be quite mean (for want of a better word ) to some poor newbie. Was just a point im picking up on.

Hmmm...so it's ok for you, as a non-believer, to be mean, rude, sarcastic and condescending, but if someone says they believe in Allah, Jehova, Yaweh, God...etc they have to sit back and let you or anyone else treat them poorly without saying anything other than 'thanks, I'm sure I deserve to be reviled because I am not allowed to ever be angry or irritated or even to have a bad feeling." ? ? ?

OH boy! Grunji, you are laboring under some pretty odd beliefs there! I'm not criticizing here, I'm hoping to open your eyes a little bit, ok? [img]smile.gif[/img]

'Religious people' be they Christians or Budhhists or Jews or Muslims...etc etc etc...) are human beings who follow their sets of religious beliefs and codes. I can't speak for the other groups as I 'm not seriously educated on the details of their belief systems, but for Christians, I definitely can say something.

NOWHERE in the Christian code of behavior does it say a person isn't allowed to be sarcastic, angry or use a condescending tone. It says we should treat our neighbors as ourselves, meaning we should try to behave with all others as we wish to be treated. But it doesn't say we can't be frustrated, offended or just plain ticked off by other people's actions and words! It means I sure as heck shouldn't attack you with a baseball bat just for saying you don't believe I'm right, but it doesn't mean I can't think and say 'geez what at rude person' or "man, you are soooooo wrong!".

It looks like you are applying a different standard to religious folk...a rather old and one-sided one. It appears you think religious people are supposed to be beatific, smiling cherubs, always acting like an old movie's version of a saintly priest or nun. I'm sorry to say that even priests and nuns get angry sometimes or feel irritated by something. Heh, I've heard my own priest, Father H. (a VERY faithful and good Christian man) get downright outraged over some subjects and news events. So maybe you need to realize that just being 'religious' doesn't take feelings and emotions away from us, it simply gives us additional codes of behavior and belief to live by.