 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 9/11/2003 6:04 AM (GMT -6) |   | | http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994156 | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 9/11/2003 6:28 AM (GMT -6) | | Honorman,
The normal carbon dating method is to measure 14C, not 13C as stated in the article. Of course, one never really knows the atmospheric content of 14C at the supposed time of the demise of the plant material.
Such a short time, 2700 years, really casts doubts on the validity of any dating by U/Th.
It is difficult to accept the validity of radiometric dating for Biblical events and not accept the same dating as valid when indicating the age of the earth is 4.38 billion years. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 9/11/2003 9:48 AM (GMT -6) | | Modes,
The point I was trying to make is, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you accept one date, what grounds would you have to reject another date using the same dating method?
I am a Young Earth Creationist (YEC), but that doesn't mean my brains have leaked out at some point in time. I am aware of many technical problems involving radiometric dating methods and assumptions. One of those assumptions is the zero starting point for "daughter" isotopes, i.e. any "daughter" isotopes must be the result of radioactive decay. Another assumption, regarding 14C,is the level of 14C produced in the atmosphere has been almost constant throughout the ages. It is a well known fact that the 14C standard is calculated from 1950, but the wood used to make that calculation is actually 1890 wood with the appropriate corrections made to compensate for the date differences. The need to compensate tells us there is a difference in atmospheric 14C that was available during the two time periods and yet there is only 60 years difference in the two dates. The availability and utilization of non-atmospheric carbon also affects the ratio of 14C to 12C, since non-atmospheric carbon doesn't have any 14C, i.e. a living mollusk was dated at 2300 years old because it utilized non-atmospheric carbon (hard water, high in CaCO3).
Sorry, I didn't mean to write an essay on the subject, even though this is far from being a complete treatment of the subject. | | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 9/11/2003 2:09 PM (GMT -6) | | The Siloam tunnel was dated to 700 BC (2700 years before present), more or less matching the biblical date, using the radiocarbon (ie carbon-14) dating method. This method is based on the same principles of nuclear physics as other dating methods (for example, K-Ar (potassium-argon)), but to my knowledge is not completely identical to any other method.
For one thing, radiocarbon dating can only be used on organic material, like wood (most or all other methods apply only to various kinds of rocks). For another, the decay rate is such that radiocarbon dating is reliable, even in principle, for only a few tens of thousands of years (compare with other methods, whose decay rates allow dating in principle out to many millions or billions of years).
But the most significant characteristic of radiocarbon dating is its reliance in part on atmospheric carbon concentrations at the time-of-death of the organic material being dated. The atmosphere, being an open system with respect to all kinds of carbon sources and sinks, has fluctuating concentrations of carbon at any given time. So at first, the inability to know the atmospheric carbon concentration at the time-of-death was very problematic for the radiocarbon dating method, and would have spelled its end as a useful dating tool. But during the 1950's (and into the 1970's and 1980's, I believe) various techniques were developed for "calibrating" radiocarbon dating - that is, determining reliable past atmospheric carbon concentrations after all.
The most famous of the calibration methods is based on tree-ring (dendrochronological) sequences in bristlecone pines. Line-up tree rings from living and dead bristlecones and you get a consecutive tree-ring sequence thousands of rings long. Count those rings, apply the rule-of-thumb of one ring per year (and allowing for very rare multiple rings per year) and you get an approximate date for each ring. Then apply radiocarbon dating procedures to measure the carbon present in each ring, but stop short of calculating a date. Now, working backward from the measured carbon and the tree-ring-derived date gives you the atmospheric carbon concentration at the time. Repeat this with numerous bristlecone samples from numerous sites (across the Great Basin in the United States, the bristlecone's habitat) and they all cross-check.
But there are other calibration methods too. One is based on German oak tree-ring sequences from Europe (including ancient timbers recovered from old shipwrecks, I believe). Another is based not on tree rings at all, but on varves (ie, seasonal sediment deposits) at the bottom of lakes (eg, Lake of the Clouds in Minnesota). A varve collects seasonally each year; count them up and apply the same reasoning as above. When researchers have done all these things, guess what - everything cross-checks.
So in summary: The calibration methods are all independent of one another and come from fields of study that make no radiometric assumptions whatsoever. Furthermore, all the calibration methods back one another up, yielding the same results as to ancient atmospheric carbon. Thus scientists can now reliably use the radiocarbon method, not just in principle but in practice, since they know the ancient atmospheric carbon concentrations as far back as the calibration methods go - generally up to 10,000 years for bristlecone and varve calibrated dates - somewhat less than what the carbon decay rate would allow in principle, but still pretty good.
As a result, radiocarbon dating is considered extremely reliable and non-controversial in the mainstream science community. It is, in my view, anti-intellectual and cultic to refuse to at least tentatively accept radiocarbon dates and let the apologetic chips fall where they may. In some cases the historicity of biblical accounts is supported - as with this tunnel, and some aspects of the Israelite entry into Canaan (eg, Jericho). In other cases it is not - as with the account of Babel and the origin of the languages and dispersal of the people. In my view, we Christians do best to come to terms with this, in our understanding of both history and legend in the Bible.
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 9/11/2003 7:33 PM (GMT -6) | | Scott,
There are other factors than just atmospheric 14C. I make a practice of periodically adding lime to my pastures and gardens. The common lime that is necessary for calcium is also a source of carbonate. It's the same stuff that hard water has and it doesn't have any 14C in it. There are crops and grasses, like alfalfa, that don't grow well here because of the shortage of CaCO3. Two plant samples the same age, from different areas, will yield different radiometric ages,. The available CaCO3 will influence the determination just like it did with the mollusk.quote:
Calibration of radiocarbon determinations is in principle very simple. If you have a radiocarbon measurement on a sample, you can try to find a tree ring with the same proportion of radiocarbon. Since the calendar age of the tree rings is known, this then tells you the age of your sample.
In practice this is complicated by two factors:
* the measurements on both the tree rings and the samples have a limited precision and so there will be a range of possible calendar years
* given the way the atmospheric radiocarbon concentration has varied, there might be several possible ranges source
That quote was from a radiometric lab in New Zealand, which shows the precision isn't as precise as what you are led to believe. I would suggest that you read the whole article on Radiocarbon Calibration. BTW, there isn't any mention of cross checks in the calibration except dendrochronology and the assumption is that ALL of the carbon comes from the atmosphere.
I have always wondered about the supposed variation in 14C being a max of +/- 5% over the useful dating range (10 half lives, or 57,300 years). With the industrial revolution of the 1700's and 1800's the increase in coal as a fuel was tremendous. One of the main combustion products of coal is CO2 (more atmospheric CO2 affects the ratio of 14C available and atmospheric CO2 is a polution concern today) and yet there is still only supposed to be +/- 5% variation?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 9/12/2003 5:15 PM (GMT -6) | | Paul,
Regarding the impact of the possibility of contamination upon the validity of radiocarbon dating: as a layman I can't speak for the details, but researchers are aware of this threat and apply techniques to counter it. These techniques include discernment of clues in the nature or situation of the sample that would invalidate one radiocarbon technique or another; selection of samples made of material known to be more resistant to contamination than others; and application of other radiocarbon dating techniques than those based just on atmospheric carbon (eg oceanic carbon for marine material), when clues indicate that mere atmospheric radiocarbon dating would be invalid. When these techniques are applied again and again to sample after sample, we can be reasonably certain that valid dates are being determined most of the time. The techniques are not absolutely precise, but young-earth creationists need them to be off by far more than just 10-20% (often they would need them to be off by several hundred percent) in order for their case to be bolstered.
Stepping back, the simple fact is that thousands upon thousands of radiocarbon dates have been collected from thousands upon thousands of samples of all kinds worldwide, and they all converge on a standard mainstream picture of prehistory. Objects that appear (due to independent considerations like geographic proximity, physical similarity, etc) to be of thus-and-such culture more-or-less-consistently date to basically the same age range; objects that appear to be from some other culture which theoretically preceded the first (again based on independent considerations, such as superposition) more-or-less-consistently date earlier; and so on ad-nauseum, across all fields of science investigating recent prehistory (eg, archaeology, paleontology, etc). If contamination were rampant, undetectable and uncontrollable, those dates should be scattered all over the place. The congruency of the measurements in itself is the greatest evidence of the overall validity of radiocarbon dating.
Scott
PS. On varves: they are indeed used for calibration, but care is needed here as the processes by which varves are produced are more dynamic and variable than tree ring production. Thus you hear less about varve calibration than, say, bristlecone calibration, and it has been pursued less. However, where investigation has been done at lakes for which there is independent evidence of consistent yearly varve deposition, such as Lake of the Clouds and Lake Zurich, the varve-derived ages have overlapped the dendrochronologically-calibrated radiocarbon dates (of organic material trapped in the varves). Former young-earther Glenn Morton has some very brief information on this at http://home.entouch.net/dmd/age.htm ; see especially his reproduced diagram of Lake of the Clouds data at http://home.entouch.net/dmd/varve.gif . If you'd like to see an actual geological paper reporting on agreement between new calibrated atmospheric radiocarbon dates and varve dates in New England, look at http://www.erudit.org/revue/gpq/1999/v53/n1/004864ar.pdf . (Be warned - it is very dense reading (primary technical literature, after all) and I readily confess to not follow it all!)
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 9/13/2003 5:28 PM (GMT -6) | | Scott,
Is this what you wanted me to see?quote:
This 14C chronology is based on 14C ages from macrofossils of on-aquatic plants and is about 1500 yr younger than existing chronologies that are based primarily on 14C ages of bulk organic samples.
or maybe it was this onequote:
A rhythmite deposited in a lake near Interlaken in Switzerland consists of thin couplets each containing a light-colored layer rich in calcium carbonate and a dark layer rich in organic matter.
Rich in Calcium Carbonate (CaCO3)? Remember what I said about CaCO3 and the living 2300 year old mollusk?
BTW, I am not exactly a layman. I worked in labs for Dow Chemical for 9.5 years.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 9/15/2003 8:22 AM (GMT -6) | | Paul,
You asked (apparently regarding the paper at http://www.erudit.org/revue/gpq/1999/v53/n1/004864ar.pdf):
quote:
Is this what you wanted me to see?
quote:
This 14C chronology is based on 14C ages from macrofossils of on-aquatic plants and is about 1500 yr younger than existing chronologies that are based primarily on 14C ages of bulk organic samples.
I take it you are suspicious of the paper, the results, and perhaps even the whole concept of varve and radiocarbon date correlation because of this quote. If you'll go back to the paper, you'll see that what the authors were doing is correlating sequences from the Connecticut Valley spanning thousands of varves - correlating them with each other by both thickness (see Figs. 4 and 7 in the paper) and magnetization (made possible by magnetic fragments in the sediment, sensitive to fluctuations in the polarity of Earth's magnetic field - see Figs. 11 and 12). And they then calibrated dates throughout the sequence using pre-existing samples and some new ones. The convergence upon the same pattern of not two, but three, sequences (varve thickness, magnetization, and radiocarbon date) is powerful evidence of the validity of calibrated radiocarbon dating specifically, and the competency of mainstream science when it comes to investigating prehistory in general. Otherwise there is no explanation for this convergence (a convergence, I might add, which is not unique to this study but which repeats again and again across studies of prehistory by mainstream science worldwide)!
Anyway, turning to your point about the 1500 year discrepancy with some (not all) pre-existing dates, the authors of the paper clearly give reasonable hypotheses for why the correlated dates should be preferred. In brief, the correlated dates all used non-aquatic plant fossils found in the varves, like woody twigs (so the plants would have had no metabolic exposure to aquatic carbon) which had carbon-13 'delta' values within the expected range (suggesting that the plants were metabolically exposed only to atmospheric carbon during their lifetimes) and no physical evidence of contamination. In contrast, the non-correlated dates all came from "bulk organic samples", by which the authors mean generally-undifferentiated organic sediments found in the varves, all of which were significantly (even totally) aquatic. Ie, the non-correlated dates came from samples which included, in part or in whole, the remains of reeds, aquatic insects, algae, etc - all of which would not have been exposed solely to atmospheric carbon during their lifetimes, and incidentally all of which had carbon-13 'delta' values outside the expected range accordingly. Thus it is reasonably to be expected that the non-correlated dates would prove imprecise (erring on the too-old side) and fail to correlate with the varve paleomagnetic and thickness patterns - which is exactly what happened. So actually this "anomaly" is not - it all holds together.
For more information from the paper, see its Tables I and II, and its sections entitled "Radiocarbon Calibration of Varves", "Discussion: An Accurate Terrestrial 14C Chronology", and "Evaluation: Calibrated Varve and Paleomagnetic Chronology". From these sections you will not only find further discussion of what I've summarized above, but it will also become clear that these scientists were fully aware of the bounds within which atmospheric radiocarbon dating is valid. As such they are merely, in my opinion, emblematic of their community. The thought (I'm not necessarily saying this is your claim, though it seems like it is) that the 95+ percent of geologists, archaeologists, and paleontologists who are not young-earthers are simply unaware of the limitations of radiocarbon dating (while folks like you and me are), and often employ it outside its bounds, is (in my opinion) silly. And the idea that, because atmospheric radiocarbon dating has bounds, it is therefore suspect as a whole, makes about as much sense as concluding that because combustion requires oxygen, and most environments in the universe lack oxygen, therefore jet engines can't work and gasoline-powered automobiles are impossible.
Turning to your other quote, from Glenn Morton's Web site (in turn taken from Flint's Glacial and Quaternary Geology):
quote:
or maybe it was this one
quote:
A rhythmite deposited in a lake near Interlaken in Switzerland consists of thin couplets each containing a light-colored layer rich in calcium carbonate and a dark layer rich in organic matter.
Rich in Calcium Carbonate (CaCO3)? Remember what I said about CaCO3 and the living 2300 year old mollusk?
Unfortunately I don't have the full context of that quote. However the quote clearly does not claim that radiocarbon dating was performed on those carbon-contaminated layers. The whole point of the Interlaken evidence is to show the seasonal (annual) regularity of some varves, of which Interlaken is an example. The Interlaken evidence shows that 7,000 such varves exist - which means that at least 7,000 years can be implied from that (possibly more, for example drought years with exceedingly low pollen production). If radiocarbon dating were possible on those varves, it would be expected to correlate with these derived dates - but as far as I can tell, no-one is claiming that such dating was in fact performed or is in fact possible, because everyone knows not to date carbonate formations based on atmospheric assumptions (just like everyone knows not to date mussel shells based on those assumptions too).
quote:
BTW, I am not exactly a layman. I worked in labs for Dow Chemical for 9.5 years.
So then I have to ask: why do you think so many people in the field are so wrong about carbon dating - thousands or tens of thousands of people over the last couple of generations, of all races, nationalities, religions, etc, with no common presuppositions or commitments besides scientific method and the desire to be right and recognized as such? You don't say what you did at Dow, but I'll assume enough to call these people your "colleagues". Why are all your colleagues so wrong within their fields of competence?
Let me put it another way. I'm a software engineer by training and profession, with 9 years of Web application development experience. Assuming this is not your field, and I made a claim regarding, say, HTTP that was in consensus with 90% or more of my colleagues across the whole community of Web software development professionals, why should anyone give credence to your counter-claim when, in the judgement of the community, it does not hold up to scrutiny?
This has always been my biggest disconnect with young- and old-earth creationists alike (but the more so the former due to their greater disregard for community consensus). Neither you nor I possibly have the time to become World Experts on everything, so at a certain point we must take peoples' word on things. Taking the word of a massive heterogeneous community of unallied people on something open to impartial examination, within their area of expertise, and which has survived scrutiny by them repeatedly is only the reasonable thing to do.
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 9/15/2003 6:54 PM (GMT -6) | | Scott,
For some reason the sites your referenced did not show me any illustrations. I did not see the varves that were supposed to be there.
I don't know that I would call the ones doing the radiocarbon dating "colleagues". I have been out of the lab since 1975. However, I do know the mussel was in an aqueous solution that must have contained an appreciable amount of CaCO3 and the varves are in an aqueous solution that has an appreciable amount of CaCO3 or you wouldn't have the CaCO3 in one of the couplet layers. Contamination from CaCO3 isn't even a question, it's a fact. There is no way a sample from the bottom of a lake could be dry and if it is wet, with enough CaCO3 to precipitate out in the varve, the non-aqueous organic matter is saturated with water that has an appreciable amount of CaCO3. When it is dried, it is similar to a boiler, with the water being evaporated off and the dissolved minerals remaining. This residual is commonly know as "boiler scale" with a composition of mainly CaCO3 and MgCO3. | | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 9/16/2003 8:01 AM (GMT -6) | | Paul,
You asked:
quote:
For some reason the sites your referenced did not show me any illustrations. I did not see the varves that were supposed to be there.
You mean neither of the sites I pointed you to are showing you any illustrations? I pointed to two sites. First, I referenced a technical paper at http://www.erudit.org/revue/gpq/1999/v53/n1/004864ar.pdf - this is a PDF document and as such all illustrations are included with the document. If you can see the document text, you should be able to see the illustrations, because they are not transported across the Internet to your browser separately (unlike with HTML-based Web pages) - its an all-or-nothing thing. Second, I referenced a non-technical page at former-young-earther Glenn Morton's site, http://home.entouch.net/dmd/age.htm - perhaps this is what you are talking about, because one of the illustrations in that document has a broken URL (Figure 2). But it doesn't matter, because Figure 2 isn't germane anyway. As you'll recall, we're discussing correlations between radiocarbon dating and varve sequences and how the one calibrates the other. The most impressive example of that which I've heard of is the Lake of the Clouds sequence, which Morton talks about in Figure 3 and the "Carbon 14 and Varves" section of that page. The rest of his page does not address radiocarbon dating vis-a-vis varves and you can ignore it - sorry I didn't explicitly say so before (though I did specifically draw your attention to Figure 3 in particular - the Lake of the Clouds radiocarbon calibration - at http://home.entouch.net/dmd/varve.gif).
quote:
I don't know that I would call the ones doing the radiocarbon dating "colleagues". I have been out of the lab since 1975. However, I do know the mussel was in an aqueous solution that must have contained an appreciable amount of CaCO3 and the varves are in an aqueous solution that has an appreciable amount of CaCO3 or you wouldn't have the CaCO3 in one of the couplet layers. Contamination from CaCO3 isn't even a question, it's a fact. There is no way a sample from the bottom of a lake could be dry and if it is wet, with enough CaCO3 to precipitate out in the varve, the non-aqueous organic matter is saturated with water that has an appreciable amount of CaCO3. When it is dried, it is similar to a boiler, with the water being evaporated off and the dissolved minerals remaining. This residual is commonly know as "boiler scale" with a composition of mainly CaCO3 and MgCO3.
Here you seem to still be talking about the Interlaken varve sequence and its carbonate-contaminated couplets. But I don't understand your point. Repeating from my last post: No-one has radiocarbon dated those layers, so far as I can tell, precisely because of that contamination. No-one is claiming that those layers would make fine-and-dandy samples for radiocarbon dating. Everyone is acknowledging that they are worthless from a radiocarbon dating standpoint. The Interlaken varves merely establish a seasonal record from which a history of at least 7,000 years can be reasonably inferred without any radiometric dating of any kind, just by counting layers. This in itself has very little to do with my point (the general correlation between varve sequences which are radiocarbon-dateable and the dates that obtain). I think you have erroneously fixated on the Interlaken stuff simply because it appeared in Glenn Morton's web page to which I pointed you, without realizing that I wasn't directing your attention to the whole page, but just to its Figure 3 and its "Carbon-14 and Varves" section.
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 9/16/2003 4:06 PM (GMT -6) | | Scott,
Evidently I didn't wait long enoungh for the whole PDF to load. I only have a dialup modem and it isn't too fast sometimes.  DSL isn't available out here in the boonies.  I will have to have time to read the PDF before I can comment on it. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 9/18/2003 6:25 PM (GMT -6) | | Scott,
Sorry to have taken so long, but I think I hurt my back trying to tilt my monitor to make the varves line up better. After all of the trouble, I never did see anything that even remotely lined up. Maybe I'm just too used to gas chromatograph charts that actually line up with a standard? Of course, if nothing lines up, who is to say anything actually lines up? 
EDIT: You may want to read this English translation from the French Academy of Sciences in Paris. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 9/18/2003 8:16 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by ModesofThought
I have actually been through this tunnel personally. It was pretty cool. The place where the two tunnels meet is obvious because of the zigzag you have to do to get through at one point.
Cool! I've been through it lots of times too. Used to take visitors through it. Very cool to do. Really personalizes what you read about it. Did you also visit "Mary's Grotto" in Bethelehem where (allegedly) Mary was breastfeeding Jesus and some of her milk spilled on the ground and permanently turned more than 100 square feet of the ground and rocks all white? Now THAT'S powerful baby-feed!
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 9/19/2003 3:55 PM (GMT -6) | | Paul,
You wrote:
quote:
Sorry to have taken so long, but I think I hurt my back trying to tilt my monitor to make the varves line up better. After all of the trouble, I never did see anything that even remotely lined up. Maybe I'm just too used to gas chromatograph charts that actually line up with a standard? Of course, if nothing lines up, who is to say anything actually lines up?
I'm afraid I completely fail to understand what you're getting at. The only varves actually pictured in either of the pages I referenced (see above in this thread for URLs) are those in Fig. 9 of the PDF. These varves, arranged as you see in columns A, B, C, and D, are not claimed by the authors of the paper to correlate with one another; and according to the understanding propounded by the authors, they will not and should not correlate with one another, because they are not understood to have come from overlapping sequences. In fact, Fig. 9 is grist for something else entirely (the authors' understanding of flood events and lake level change at Newbury, Vermont, which has nothing to do with what you and I are talking about here anyway). If it is Fig. 9 you are talking about not lining up, I can only conclude you haven't read and comprehended the paper - I'm sorry if I sound harsh here, my intention is certainly not to offend.
The whole point that I wanted to draw from the paper, was that it is an illustration - just one mundane one, really, among many - of how radiocarbon dating (getting back to the point of our discussion in this thread :-) correlates with certain varve sequences (and, in the case of the research performed in this paper, with the paleomagnetic record in those varves, too). The paper shows how varve sequences collected in New England correlate with one another (Figs. 4 and 7 for example) and thus show a many-thousand-layer sequence back into prehistory; and how radiocarbon dating correlates with those layers, marching back into history in step with them (Figs. 13 and 14 for example); and how furthermore the paleomagnetic record correlates similarly (Figs. 11 and 12).
Of course such correlation alone is not the authors' real point in the paper - such correlation is so commonplace and mundane in mainstream science that correlation, in itself, is not particularly interesting. The authors' real point in the paper is to use the overall chronology established by the correlation to make inferences on various geological happenings over that time (such as glacial retreat from New England, local flood events - that is what Fig. 9 which you seemed to fixate on is about - etc).
But for our purposes here, all you need to do is understand the correlation evidences and claims in the paper (ignoring the consequent inferences made by the authors about glacial retreat, flooding, etc), in order to take away the point I wanted you to take away: that radiocarbon dating is validated and calibrated, not just by dendrochronology, but by many such parallel and mutually-reinforcing methods, of which those displayed by this paper are just a small example. It is for this reason that we can have so much confidence in radiocarbon dating's overall validity today.
You know, radiocarbon dating has sometimes supported biblical claims. (Returning to the topic of this thread: we find this with respect to the Siloam tunnel, for example.) I've never understood why young-earthers are so hot-and-heavy to discredit that technology (good luck to them, they need it :-) when it helps to establish the historicity of some parts of the Bible. Young-earth creationism, after all, is essentially evidentialist apologetics married with biblical inerrancy and literalism, so you'd think the occasional radiocarbon-based evidence in support of some biblical historical point or another would warm young-earthers hearts.
Anyway, its been good discussing this with you, Paul. Best regards,
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 9/19/2003 5:05 PM (GMT -6) | | Scott,
I don't know what your point is, because this is what your PDF says,quote:
FIGURE 4. The overlap and match
of normal curves (Antevs, 1922,
1928) from different drainage basins
and glacial lakes. Included on the
200-year plots are normal curves
from the Connecticut, Hudson,
Ashuelot, and Merrimack Valleys.
Many sequences are scaled to fit on
the plots and then shifted an
increment of the vertical axis ( e.g.
+6 cm) to allow easier comparison.
Varves plotted on the top axis of a
graph are excessively thick varves
that actually plot well off the graph.
Note: The best way to view the varve
records is to hold the page at a low
angle, looking across the page from
bottom to top.
and I am telling you no matter how you tilt the paper/monitor,there isn't anything that matches. Which means that the whole thing may be a figment of your imagination. I suppose the French Academy of Science doesn't carry any weight, since it discredits the concept of varve years? | | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 9/22/2003 9:55 AM (GMT -6) | | Paul,
quote:
Scott,
I don't know what your point is, because this is what your PDF says,quote:
FIGURE 4. The overlap and match
of normal curves (Antevs, 1922,
1928) from different drainage basins
and glacial lakes...
and I am telling you no matter how you tilt the paper/monitor,there isn't anything that matches. Which means that the whole thing may be a figment of your imagination.
First, I apologize for reading too much into your previous reply and misunderstanding you as a consequence. As an explanation: you'd said in your previous reply that you'd been "trying to make the varves line up better" - note you said "varves" not "graphs" or "curves" or some-such - and you didn't give a page or figure reference, or even describe which of the couple of URLs I'd referenced you were even talking about. I jumped to the conclusion that you'd been trying to align the actual varves illustrated in columns A through D of Figure 9 in the PDF, since those were the only actual varves (as opposed to graphs or tables thereof) shown anywhere. I'm sorry to have been hasty and hope I didn't offend.
In any event, if you'll look again at Figure 4 of the PDF, I think you'll see the clear alignment/correlation which the authors claim is there. (Note they are not alone in this, but in Figure 4 are actually citing previous, and accepted, research.) As I understand it, since these are varves and thus their absolute thickness is dependent on local conditions, it is not their absolute thickness which you should be comparing - it is their relative waxing and waning from one layer to the next. This makes sense to me (though I'm not a geologist by a long shot): local geology determines how much sediment there is to deposit, but regional conditions determine whether it is a year with normal runoff/melt, above-average runoff/melt, or below-average runoff/melt across all the localities. If the varves are not co-incident in time with one another, then over a long series of varves there should be essentially a random distribution of ups-and-downs, of highs, mediums, and lows in the curves, and thus no correlation whatsoever between them. But if they are co-incident in time, then over a long series we should find correlation in the variation of the curves - and that's what I see when looking at Figure 4, for what my judgement is worth (neither you nor I being experts in this).
Just starting with graph A in Figure 4, for example, in varve year 5400, compare the two curves (varve samples from the lower Connecticut valley, apparently). In 5400, they are each "normal" with respect to their own average thicknesses (note: not with respect to each other's average thicknesses, but their own). In 5401, they are both "low". In 5402, they are both "high". In 5403, "normal"; 5404, "high". In 5405 there is a questionable case: both are "high" but they trended opposite for the year. But in 5406 both trend down to "normal" again; 5407, "high"; and so on. Its the same way for all the curves in all the graphs.
So I conclude these correlations are not a figment of my imagination, and I apparently rest with the greater scientific community of experts who think the same. You and I are dilettantes in this and I'm sure would look quite silly to a glaciologist or geologist; do they not know their own profession? And it is their consensus that accepts varve records like these as just another point in the overwhelming convergence of evidence to an ancient earth (one older than merely a few thousand years).
quote:
I suppose the French Academy of Science doesn't carry any weight, since it discredits the concept of varve years?
I'm passingly familiar with Guy Berthault's work and the creationist claims that have been made from it. Young-earthers greatly overreach, in my opinion, when they state that Berthault's work (which is by no means revolutionary) discredits the concept of varves (sedimentary layers caused by annual deposition). Geologists have long known that not all sedimentary layers - ie laminar deposits - are varves because there are a number of processes that can create apparently-similar formations, and Berthault has merely demonstrated some of them. But those are not the processes that produce varves, and it is possible to tell actual varves from Berthault-like laminar sediments in a number of ways.
Briefly, Berthault's experiments were done with sand and silica powder - pretty coarse-grained stuff, from 20 microns to many hundreds of microns in size. However varves are constructed generally of a mix of some, typically-seasonal, organic material - algae and what-not - with clay and silt. Silts are as little as 4 microns in size, while clays are even smaller: 1 micron or less. The dynamics of these materials in water are completely different from sand and silica powder - to my knowledge, Berthault's non-varve laminations are not produced with silt/clay mixtures (at least, I've never heard of a paper establishing otherwise). Its like how sand behaves differently in both standing and moving water than, say, flour does (to borrow an analogy I remember hearing somewhere).
Why is this relevant? Because the laminations compared in the PDF reference (ie the Connecticut valley sequences, etc) are composed of silt and clay and are thus known to be true varves (see page 2 of the PDF). Thus Berthault's work does not discredit these varves or the correlations they exhibit with each other and with radiocarbon dating and geomagnetic declination and inclination measurements. (For more on distinguishing authentic varves from other laminar deposits, you might want to see http://www.google.com/groups?selm=82f8u3%245ti%241%40news.uky.edu and/or http://www.google.com/groups?selm=36CB48EC.CF19A8CF%40prodigy.net - you'll have to skim through those UseNet postings to find the relevant parts.)
I don't know about you, Paul, but I think we've discussed this enough. I'm willing to continue if you would like, but I suggest that we've diverted the thread from the original topic (radiocarbon dating w/r/t the Siloam tunnel and the validity thereof). We've also probably glazed-over enough eyes that we ought to call it a day. Again, its been good discussing with you, and if you wish to continue the discussion, please reply and let me know specifically. Otherwise this will be my last post, and you can reply and have the final word.
And if anyone else is still reading this: if you're wondering about science and Christianity, I suggest you do what I did: take the time - lots of time - to research the issues thoroughly and openly yourself (I can offer many suggestions). I think you'll find that you do not have to embrace creationism, whether of the young-earth or old-earth variety - mainstream science and history are reconcilable with a God-honoring faith.
Thanks and best regards,
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Laplace
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 138
| Posted 9/22/2003 11:57 AM (GMT -6) | | Ah, another interesting exchange of scientific theories and intellectual chest beating.
It DOES seem a bit strange on the surface that on instance "religious folk" denounce carbon dating as unreliable and in the next claim it supports Biblical accounts.
No, I haven't read all the articles, nor do will I attempt to qualify or refute the results of these "experts".
I did however wish to ask scott a question. Since you claim to be a Christian and yet support things which SEEM incompatible with classic Christian theology (the most notable being evolution as is taught by mainstream science), what convinces YOU that the Christianity is true (meaning exclusively true from other religions)?
I ask this because many of these same scientists which you trust their conclusions would also say to you that the stories of the Bible (including the Resurrection) are impossible.
You see the conundrum I have? On the one hand you state that these scientists are "correct" on issues like evolution (or closer to actual truth than Christian views of scientific history), and yet "wrong" on other issues like Jesus' life. Because if you apply the same scientific methods to analyzing the question of Biblical miracles, you will find it highly improbable.
You then are claiming in essence that you know something that's true that these scientists say is false (and replace 'scientist' with 'Creationist').
This will eventually lead to one of two conclusions. That the "faith" of scientific conjectures are not truly more reliable than they claim (I've already posted how a history of science revealed many incorrect theories accepted for generations) because you accept claims not in accordance with the experts. Or, that the implications of the Bible (God and His plan for redemption of humans) are correct, but the accounts of the Bible as we know it are skewed to where they are exagerations or history muddled with myth. The latter fuels the popularity of the Universalist theory, which if true, would make just about ANY sort of truth finding irrelavent.
Can one be a Christian and an staunch supporter of classical evolution? Certainly. But I believe in the same way one can be a Christian and believe that the world is flat. All I'm asking from you is consistency which is a tenent of the scientific method. And I am proposing you are not being consistent with your beliefs. Since you believe you are, that is why I want to hear your reasons for accepting Christianity as fact.
With much respect,
Laplace
"I say we blast the meatbag, Master" -HK-47, Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic | | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 9/22/2003 1:57 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Laplace,
quote:
...
Can one be a Christian and an staunch supporter of classical evolution? Certainly. But I believe in the same way one can be a Christian and believe that the world is flat. All I'm asking from you is consistency which is a tenent of the scientific method. And I am proposing you are not being consistent with your beliefs. Since you believe you are, that is why I want to hear your reasons for accepting Christianity as fact.
These are fair questions. First, is it inconsistent to believe in the incarnation, resurrection, and other miracles while accepting what mainstream science and history say? Second, why would someone who thought they were consistent be a Christian anyway? I'm really sorry, because I'm going to consume a lot of words in my answer, but I don't know any other way to do it (my wife tells me I'm too wordy, and if I'd been able to fix that, I think I would've done it by now :-).
There are two aspects to the first question: (a) are miracles always inconsistent with a proper understanding of science and (b) is mainstream science inconsistent with an acceptable understanding of the Bible.
On (a): the method of modern science and historical investigation is the "critical method" - empirical evidence plus reason plus some very basic operating assumptions like methodological naturalism and parsimony. Its important to note that this is the same method by which we all live our daily lives. I accept the applicability of this method to questions of historical and prehistorical events in this world, because it is clear that, in this world, real events leave real traces of greater or lesser magnitude behind them - again, this general principle is something that we live everyday. From these traces, the postulated responsible events can be verified; and conversely, from the absence of whatever traces should be expected, the postulated events can be falsified. The greater the number and diversity of traces (or absences thereof) that converge to a postulated event, the greater (or lesser) can be our confidence in the likelihood of the event. Importantly, note that the absence of traces which should not be expected anyway, consists of neither verification nor falsification of the postulated event.
So, when they are applied, what do these principles of critical method uncover regarding, say, the question of the age of the earth, or the deep history of life on earth, or a worldwide flood? All of these questions concern deep global events for which we would expect many traces to have been left behind, and so the critical method can apply to them. And what does it reveal? It reveals, by massive convergence of numerous lines of investigation, a story very different from that told in Genesis 1-11 literally interpreted. So why do I accept this outcome? Because not only does it come from a competent and fair investigation into multitudinous traces by the professional community operating within its bounds of competence - but also because there are literary clues within Genesis itself, that the genre there is not modern historical chronicle anyway (and further this is reconcilable with the fact of back-references to Genesis from Jesus, Paul and such).
Well then, what does critical method reveal when applied to other biblical claims about past events? First, it is worthwhile to note that science and history verify the most broad-scale of biblical historical claims - that there actually was an ancient Egypt, an Israel, a Ninevah, a Rome, etc. In other words, the Bible makes claims regarding whole civilizations, big cities, huge conquests, and so forth - the sorts of things which we would expect to have left numerous traces behind. And critical method verifies most of those really broad-scale claims when investigating them. We too often take this for granted, but compare with the Book of Mormon for a counter-example!
But what about specific claims - what does critical method reveal concerning the historicity of the resurrection, for example? What it reveals is very slight to nothing - and why? Because the events around the crucifixion and resurrection were so small-scale, involving mere individuals instead of whole civilizations, that (in my opinion) enough traces to convince one way or another could not be expected to have been preserved thousands of years later.
So I do not feel that sciences rules out-of-hand at the beginning either a worldwide flood or the resurrection. But whereas we would expect an event on the scale of the flood to have left copious evidence behind, we would not expect the same of the resurrection - and thus science rules against the former but is silent on the latter.
Incidentally, I have no sympathy for views (sometimes expressed by scientists) that science does rule miracles out-of-hand. That is a metaphysical presupposition which is not necessarily entailed in the critical method. The global flood, for example, is falsified, not by the claim that it would have had to have been miraculous and, since miracles can't happen, the flood couldn't have happened. It is falsified because it should have left tremendous evidence behind, but instead we only find tremendous evidence that is consistent with no such worldwide flood ever having taken place. It would be a miracle that so much positive evidence has been swept away or hidden from us, and furthermore replaced with so much contrary evidence; and yet there is no biblical claim for any such miracle. So the resurrection is not ruled-upon by science on the basis of its a-priori possibility, but on the basis of the traces it would have left behind - and as a small-scale event in a local setting it would have left behind too little for any confident scientific verdict today.
On to (b) - is mainstream science inconsistent with an acceptable understanding of the Bible? Earlier in this response I hinted that I felt there were literary clues in Genesis that suggested it was not strictly historical. These include anthropomorphisms, liturgical repetitions, and so on. More than this, there are also allusions in Genesis (and throughout the Bible) that, literally interpreted, imply a pre-modern cosmology (a flat earth suspended over the deep, etc), which we know to be strictly false (again, by competent application of the critical method in science to questions of the actual shape of the earth, nature of the seas, etc). All these observations together inductively lead me, at least, to the conclusion that the Bible, as a pre-modern text, naturally includes from its context pre-modern legendary material - and further that this is what we would expect from a God who accommodates himself to the understanding of his children in extraneous matters (such as details of geography and science). Further, if God can accommodate himself in such a way, so too can Jesus and the prophets (who may or may not have been aware of it) who spoke his message and alluded to the ancient cosmologies and creation legends in doing so.
And so this is how I see the Bible. The real question is, why is this so offensive to the modern mind? The answer is, precisely because the modern mind measures everything against the yardstick of factual veracity. But this positivist approach is completely foreign to the cultures in which the Bible was composed; if we are to truly believe that the Bible is God's word in human words, and that the most accurate interpretation takes into account the cultural and historical context, I think we have to conclude that non-historical chronicle - a mix of history and legend, particularly in the older parts - would be among the material. Jesus himself recounted stories that we recognize as parables even though he himself never indicated they were not historical; it is only by their literary genre that we recognize them as non-historical. I merely think that the modern positivist mind is resistant at being similarly flexible elsewhere in scripture, instead thinking that no God worthy of the name would stoop so low. Well, I believe in the God of the incarnation, who humbled himself even to the point of death on the cross, so that his children - children of all cultures and capacities - might most readily accept and know him. And this means relating to us in our inadequacies and imperfections, legend included.
So then, does this mean that we might as well write off everything in the Bible as legend? No - my view is that it contains a mix in material as the culture and time permitted, and that there are ways to discern the gross boundaries between the two - ways I illustrated above with respect to Genesis, involving the relevant and competent judgement of extrabiblical scientific and historical investigation, as well as intra-biblical literary analysis. For example, for various reasons I believe the gospels are mostly (not entirely, but more so than not) historical chronicle.
Yet still there is no proof, is there? I think creationists are yearning for proof of God, the Bible, and the Christian faith - for if it can be shown scientifically that everything really was created via miraculous processes in six days, and destroyed by a global flood, and so forth - all things for which not only is there no scientific explanation, but only the Bible which attests to them - then the Bible is proven and so is our faith. But I see nothing in the Bible's recounting of God's relationship with people to suggest that it is through "signs and wonders" that he primarily relates to people.
Why then do I believe? I believe in part based on reason, though I readily confess the reasons are not conclusive and it is possible to be rational and atheist. My reasons for theism include the (what seems to me) ontological necessity for a ground of all being; the haunting particularities in the fine-tuning of the constants and laws of physics; and the intriguing sense of supernatural and moral awareness among all peoples at all times (what C. S. Lewis calls "the numinous" and "the moral law" in his Mere Christianity). My reasons for believing the Christian message include the combined testimony of the witnesses, saints, and followers in the early days and henceforth, and their explosive success in the world. My reasons for believing that Christian message generally exclusively, include the logical inconsistencies between the doctrines of the world religions.
But these reasons are only part of it and, I think, would alone be inadequate. If you ever watched the original Star Trek shows, you'll remember that Captain Kirk was fond of melodramatic monologues along the lines of "We are human! We have emotion!" and so forth. Interesting how truth sometimes finds its way into pop culture. We are one part intellect, to be sure, but we are also equal parts of emotion and spirit, and these parts of me make belief inescapable. Even when I've found myself in rebellion against God - acting as if, and even telling myself, that he didn't exist - I've found myself unable to cease talking to him. Faith in God seems to well up in me irrepressibly. And faith in Jesus as well - for Jesus strikes me as a wellspring of love like no other and that fills the mold my emotive and spiritual side expects of God for reasons I can't quite articulate.
Now, it has to be said also that I'm sure a significant reason for why I believe is simply because I was raised in my faith. Thus I must admit it could all be conditioned illusion, without objective value. Yet the same is true of everything about me. I'm sure a significant reason why I pursued a well-rounded university education is because I was trained from childhood to value education. Is education therefore just a subjective illusion? I can't be so nihilist. I prefer to test what I was raised with against what I hope to be valid criteria - and on this basis I feel my faith is real despite its childhood grounding.
I hope this answers your questions, and I hope it proves to be of some value to at least some readers here. Best regards,
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Laplace
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 138
| Posted 9/23/2003 6:04 AM (GMT -6) | | scott,
Thank you for your response. Believe it or not, I think we agree on a lot more than you might suspect. I won't address every point you made, but will give a (hopefully) brief comment on your clarifications.
I will first say that you adopt a philosophy towards the Bible that a good number of Christians (esp of the apologetic type) have. That they accept God's word as "inspired", "infallible", but not necessarily "inerrant" (meaning it may be, but do not hold the claim as dogma). That perhaps the exact details are not factual, but the message remains the same. So what if it took 6 days or 250 million years to form the earth with humans, or Jesus asked his disciples to take a bag with them or not? Such stories may be literal or simply symbolic (when contrasted with evidence we gather) but God's message is still clear. You state all of this while not denying supernatural miracles can and in fact have occured and adhere to the fundamental miracle of the resurrection. I accept this as a possibility of how God worked through human writers.
Correct me if I'm wrong in my assessment, but your faith then is founded upon both conclusions based upon "general revalation" (Natural Law, etc.) and the consistency and impact of the Gospels, when taken into account with the rest of the Bible, taking into account possible "folk tales" still jives together.
And finally, I'm glad to hear that you (as well as I) admit that it is impossible to have a completely objective worldview towards things. Being post-modernistic and "accepting nothing" is not only impossible, but would be highly impractical. Were we raised initially in Eastern thought (pantheistic tendancies), our explanations of the Bible might be radically different.
All that being said, my main concern (and yours as well it would seem) is finding what is true, not ONLY what makes us feel warm and fuzzy inside. Yes, I agree there is some subjectiveness to any faith, but since you can grab people from all kinds of religions with sufficient convinctions and prove their loyalty to their faith through actions (say being a suicide bomber), feelings alone are not enough for me.
Again, you and I both seem to analyze the logic and "structure" of different faiths. These include of course external evidence (mainly historical but also scientific), implicational evidence (if this,...then that), and reliability of witnesses (founders of faith). And again, we seem to agree that a lack of evidences (such as lack of any evidence of Mormon North American civilizations) casts much doubt on their doctrine since it is so foundational to their faith. We may not be 100% sure, but we all know you can never be 100% sure because we are all in a closed system, and futhermore, the Bible says that without faith it is impossible to please God. Not unreasonable, because in essence we all take actions based upon faith (axioms) which are unprovable. But that doesn't mean we can't reach conclusions which are reasonable or deny those which are unreasonable (the we-could-all-be-plugged-into-the-matrix theory).
This leads us then to the question of, "Which beliefs in the Bible are dogmatic and which are not?" Certainly the Resurrection, and we both agree on its occurance. And without going into every example, for the most part, the accounts and stories after Genesis.
To be clear once again, I do not think denying the 6 day literal creation is heresy that will make you burn in Hell. I must admit that since I began to seriously consider what it must be like for someone back in ancient times to comprehend some concepts without the scientific knowledge we know today (or even the critical thinking process) or Western mindsets how they very well might accept or even need stories which may be exaggerations or even legend.
However, here is where you and I differ in opinion (I think it's acceptable that we do. I believe we are [have been] mature enough to have a civil debate on the topic without the mudslinging). I tend to be more suspect of these "conclusions" arrived by scientists partly because of their tract record throughout human history, and I recognize that many things I accept (including issues of faith) because I accept the authority of others.
Even as a student, we often accept mathematical equations in all the sciences as "true" even though we do not prove them ourselves, nor do most of us go out and actually conduct geological surveys or conduct radiocarbon dating on everything. We rely upon both the logic of the text/author and the general acceptance of the scientific community.
This is where my inherient suspicion lies. The more I have learned, the more I understand about what people tell me "true", the more I've come to realize that many do not admit (or just realize) how unobjective people really are. And that's the ironic part of it all. Sometimes the people who we think are the least biased (scientists) because they tout an unbiased methodlogy can be the most blatently biased people of all. What's really scary about this is mainstream accept what these people say automatically because they have an acronym before of after their name.
Up until the Enlightenment, it used to be the opposite. The scientists were burned at the stake because they contradicted what the priests claimed. Now it's just the opposite.
I could bring up many examples, but let's just focus on the classic hot topic of evolution. If you asked most scientists that believe in classical evolution (humans from ameboes) how they arrived at that conclusion, they will tout all these studies and evidence. To be fair, it is somewhat reasonable. But the moment that you even SUGGEST that the hypothesis may be wrong or to examine other possibilities (including Intelligent Design), you will immediately be branded as "uneducated" and polluting science with religion. They may say it's unfair to compare since you cannot apply the same methodologies (how do you measure a miracle?). But again, is that you do say miracles can NEVER occur, or that it needs to be tested?
Even if you wanted to separate from the science/religion example, take a clinical study about the effect of the benefits of chocolate funded none other by the Mars corporation. Gee, what a surprise, that these scientists arrive at a conclusion that chocolate is good for you. And I'll (once again) repeat what someone said. When is the last time you saw a retraction of a conclusion in a journal or in the news saying, "Oops. I was wrong in my conclusions."
All I'm asking for is for the scientists to say that the theory of evolution is just that, a theory. However, it is almost never taught as so, and I'm claiming giving the tract record of human scientific conclusions that it seriously disrupts people's ability to answer the questions of Genesis as objectively as possible.
You may have arrived at the conclusion that evolution as mainstream science explains it did occur, and I respect your research into the question (moreso than my own research). However, I'm just saying that I'm putting the microscope on science as much as I do on other religions. And quite frankly, don't like what I'm seeing, at least in terms of how they present their findings.
And that is where the uniqueness of Jesus Christ comes into play. Unlike other religious leaders, He claimed to be the Son of God, sent by the Father, even God Himself by His words and actions. Calling Him a liar would be calling God such (in John Jesus talks about who testifies about Him). And as we both agree, because He rose from the dead and the following impact it had afterwards gives that reason to have faith in Him and believe His words. These include affirmations He gave about Noah's ark (again, may be just confirming a story), Daniel, and Jonah.
And herein lies the BIG mystery to which I don't even have a response which will satisfy most or even some: "If there is only one true God, and Jesus is THE way, why then does He allow all these people who claim to be interested in truth not be led towards THE TRUTH?" Is it as simple as Calvinistic determinism? Or that all these people are lying and they don't really WANT a God like the one talked about in the Bible? I don't know. I readily admit I may be wrong about all that I believe. But everyone must accept something as true and take action on it, regardless of what one says. I accept Christianity partly because of the beforementioned reasons you and I stated, the uniqueness of Salvation by Faith, and because Jesus said He was the Truth, as well as the Way and Life. So that's where I'm placing my bets, and hopefully it is the right one, because if it is not, as Paul said, "We should be pitied more than any others".
Laplace
"I say we blast the meatbag, Master" -HK-47, Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic | | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 9/23/2003 9:38 AM (GMT -6) | | Laplace,
Thanks for your reply. I really enjoyed it and agree with you that we actually agree on quite a bit. For example, it would appear that you cannot affirm the necessity of the so-called "doctrine of biblical inerrancy" (such as Norm Geisler espouses) - and if I did not clearly say as much in my previous post, I will say now that neither do I. As another example, I agree that many scientists are too defensive when reminded of the ultimate tentativeness of their discipline (though you should understand that when scientists use the word "theory" they are not implying anything about a level of confidence - the scientific and colloquial definitions of "theory" are quite different - thus it is consistent to acknowledge that, for example, evolutionary common descent is a theory in the scientific sense, but one whose level of confidence is so high that it would be inappropriate to call it a theory in the colloquial sense).
Your point about applying skepticism to science as much as anything else is also very well-taken. The less research, based on the fewer data points, that has been done on any particular scientific claim, the more vulnerable that claim is to biasing factors ranging anywhere from outright fraud, to "spin" in a desire to please others whose acceptance is sought (whether they be funders of one's research or one's expectant peers) to honest error. Thus it is best to grant trust to claims of science (and historical investigation - scientists and historians both follow the critical method and as such are essentially doing the same thing) only in direct proportion to the number of data points and threads of investigation that have interwoven broadly and deeply throughout the competent community over time.
Seen in this light, though, I've had to admit that mainstream views of prehistory and origins by and large, at least in broad-brush strokes, rank high in confidence as judged by those criteria. That the earth is ancient and lacking indication of a recent global flood, for example, is a conclusion whose basis has been swelling constantly over the last 200-250 years. That the kinds of organisms which are extant at any given time has varied radically over time, in a pattern of branching nested hierarchies, likewise is a conclusion whose basis has grown consistently over the same time period. That inheritable variation, acted upon by natural selection, is a major driving mechanism in this organismic change, is a claim whose basis in science has similarly grown, albeit "only" over the last 150 years in comparison.
During these time periods, tens if not hundreds of thousands of researchers without any common presuppositional background other than critical method and the hunger to be right and acknowledged as such (more on this below) have performed thousands of investigations that, directly or indirectly, largely corroborate these claims. Furthermore, it is worth keeping in mind that these claims grew up to supplant ones based on literal interpretation of Genesis - it is not as if the literal Genesis claims were never considered and tested as well and found to fall short in comparison.
My only conclusion can be that the probability of the above, broad-brush, mainstream views being noticeably in error (as required by some forms of old-earth creationism) is somewhat low. And the probability of them being, not just noticeably, but radically in error (as required by all young-earth creationism) is lower. And the probability of the literal Genesis claims being substantiated after all, at this late date (as required by all young-earth creationism), is lowest of all. Nothing like the debacle that young-earth creationism requires of science has ever happened before in the history of science.
Now, to be sure, as we zoom-in from the broad-brush claims to more particular ones, the level of uncertainty grows. Is the universe 10, or 15, or 20 billion years old? What precise evolutionary lineage leads to humanity? Is Archaeopteryx an ancestor of birds or a long-dead cousin? Do the Connecticut Valley varves overlap or not? By necessity, each specific claim gets less attention from the scientific community over time - fewer data points, fewer researchers, fewer investigations - than all of them added-up. So certainly various specific claims may be wrong (and in fact get refuted and revised and refined all the time - I have to disagree with you that this never happens, and can provide an example or two if you'd like). But there are never enough specific claims that are radically in question to shake the overall confidence in the whole broad-brush story, in my judgement. In like manner, regarding various specific conclusions concerning AIDS and other diseases, there is necessarily greater uncertainty than there is in the basic germ theory of disease as a whole; but even though the latter is supported only by the convergent lines of evidence from all the former, uncertainty in some aspects of the former does not shake our confidence in the latter.
So, although science certainly could be wrong in even its broad-brush views of prehistory and origins, the possibility seems to me remote. But if its there, I suspect that one day "the truth will out" and it will be the mainstream community that discovers it (not Christian inerrancy apologists, which is essentially how creationists function, bucking-up their flocks on the sidelines). The reason I have confidence in the critical method as applied to the natural world by the scientific community (especially when thousands of such applications converge toward the same general conclusions, as with the mainstream views today) is not just because I think the method, if honestly applied, works. It is because I trust the scientific community, when there are thousands or tens of thousands of researchers of all kinds involved, to overall work in such a way that the method actually is honestly applied, in the net-net.
I came very close to going into the sciences when I started my higher education (I went into engineering instead - seeking after manna, I suppose :-). I believe I share a mindset with most scientists. And I suspect you do, too. It is a mindset that, despite its own personal and individual inclinations to shade truth (something all humans have in common in various situations where they are so inclined - scientists included), it nonetheless craves being acknowledged as right by its peers - and the more, the better.
In short, scientists crave being luminaries in their profession, recognized as discoverers and geniuses, lauded by their colleagues and down into the history books - not for being brave, or beautiful, or inspirational, but for being right. But there's the rub - being "right" as judged by...what? By the only other thing that scientists have in common: the critical method. Not correctness to ideology, or religion, or politics, or nationality, for science in the modern world is a global activity and scientists have none of these in common. The only thing they all assent to, is the critical method. And so I believe that, by and large, all the presuppositional differences among individual scientists get "smeared out" and lost in the grinder - it has to be that way, because scientists have a personal self-interest in it being that way, for otherwise they can never hope to measure-up as "right" in their peers' eyes, and thus never have a chance of achieving the elite "sage" status they all crave by being "right" about something big and new.
So, if evolution and the whole mainstream are wrong, I believe the mainstream community will eventually sort that out. Sure, no scientist wants to be seen as a nut by his colleages, so there is self-interest in not "rocking the boat" with discordant theories that go against the grain of established conclusions and win, not praise, but scorn. But the promise of fame, fortune, and the ages is, I believe, more than enough, on balance, to overcome that and ensure progress toward the truth, even if that means bucking the trend, so long as the reasoning fits the evidence. After all, nobody ever got famous doing research that just confirmed, for the umpteenth time, what Scientific Saint So-and-So first suggested. They got famous by being that Saint in the first place. We all know Einstein and Darwin, because they toppled paradigms. But how many of us know Ridge and Besonen? None of us do, because, as far as the big claims go, they just confirmed the status-quo for the jillion'th time. So this quite self-interested lure to glory, I think, ensures that when a question receives the massive and intense study of tens of thousands from all over the world, all backgrounds, and over hundreds of years, we can be rather confident in the outcome.
Best regards,
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 12/23/2004 11:11 AM (GMT -6) | | Scott,
quote:
So this quite self-interested lure to glory, I think, ensures that when a question receives the massive and intense study of tens of thousands from all over the world, all backgrounds, and over hundreds of years, we can be rather confident in the outcome.
I agree with you to some point. Many scientists make no bones about the fact that they will adhere to counter-intuitive positions before they acknowledge the possibility of design. It is precisely THOSE scientists who form the prestigious clubs that have the greatist influence over academe. So there is a limit to the extent to which ambition alone will lead to objectivity.
What is interesting, too, is the degree to which many of these scientists, like Denton, Hawkings, Dawkins, Davies, Weinberg, etc. appeal to the problem of evil to RULE OUT DESIGN. They are admitting, albeit hypocritically in my opinion, that philosophy is MORE fundamental than empirical science. I, and others who post here, agree with them. For if the problem of evil is not solvable, as some in the ID movement would argue, Chrisitan theism is ultimately not coherent and needs no defense.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:40 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|