by Caupon 81 Replies latest jw friends
Seriously, after all that Science has accomplished in the past few years, people still have the nerve to bash it...
I mean, really?
I think the general consensus when carbon dating is brought up with the JWs, the standard reply is that that the flood must have messed everything up, so it can't be trusted..
Sadly, I've heard that response on more than 1 occasion.
Cofty, yes. I did bother to read the article. However, once it got to that hard chemistry, had to tune out. If only that stuff was simpler, but then again, it's trying to predict how old rocks are so that is not going to be easy. Being honest, it seems the more I read about dating, the more confused I get. So I think its good for me to stop and maybe wait to get a better understanding of it.
As for Mash, It was no understanding of the particular science involved. Was never good at understanding it in the first place anyway. I just wish it were in simpler terms.
But when we are talking about something that they say is possibly 65 million years old, and I meant million not billion, you cannot test that
Sure you can. Using numerous scientific approaches, you can estimate a time when KT extinction event (when "dinosaurs died") happened 65 million years ago with accuracy being already narrowed to +-8000 years since this impact. The argon-argon dating is pretty much standard, but not only one. 10 years ago the best universities in USA estimated the impact that caused KT extinction to +-40000, but we have better equipment to measure radioactive decay. Also these dating are based on statistical calculation after numerous measures to ensure a confidence interval easily explained by mathematics.
I am in Earth Science field although I am not geologist, but developer of IT systems used in this field, I can tell you that there is nothing much complicated to date geological features old 65 million years.
...........................................................
I'll make an assumption about JWS and other religionists that they are mostly poorly educated people who compartmentalized their knowledge by virtue of their beliefs in ancient mythology.
As its known science wont offer to redeem your sins or promise an earthly paradise in the future.
Science wont even empower men who seek self empowerment and control over others.
Christian religions do not want for humanity to improve, they thrive in suffering. They need ignorance and poverty, because this give them a reason to exist. Improvement will come either afterlife or with Armageddon. If science can cure diseases, feed more people, prolong quality of life, and minimize impact of natural disasters, it makes Christian religion obsolete. Therefore, religion opposes science, because it fears losing its importance.
Science has proven to be very forthright about correcting mistakes in this field. It's quite easy to get a grasp of the fundamentals of carbon dating. Also, you may find that reading about the different strata of rocks, and how scientists arrive at the age of mountain ranges and such, is indeed. interesting, and just makes lot of sense to the average person whose willing to take a bit of time and study up on the subject.
As a general comment, I get the point about 'pure' science. I instantly thought of this;`
Tesla = profound curiosity, genius and the passion to *discover* and *share* ('pure' science)
Edison = brilliant, perhaps, but corrupted by self-interest ('not-so-pure' science)
..............
Sheesh, where would we be without people who questioned the current norm? And as for Mathematics being 'cut and dried' and 'easily taught' ........ ahaha, you have just betrayed a profound ignorance of the ART of higher mathematics.
" Mathematics being 'cut and dried' and 'easily taught' ........ ahaha, you have just betrayed a profound ignorance of the ART of higher mathematics"
If I would pick another field of my study, it would be mathematics. My grandfather who was a member of Academia told me that mathematics is the queen of the science. People who encounter math, get generally burned out after Calculus encounter, and they are not aware of higher mathematics which often works with theoretical models. Differential geometry like Riemannian is hard (at least was to me). I personally dislike statistics and especially spatial statistics, which I have to deal on regular bases. At least we have tools for it to do various modeling and simulations. In previous job, we had team where we built geospatial statistical models and we had to do write ups reports for the clients explaining what these calculations represented. The math behind the processes was established on level that I had encountered at graduate courses.
Any case, measuring the age of geological features are fairly standard, well established by numerous fields in the industry (even insurance companies use it for probability risk like earthquake risk), and is well explained. Radioactive decay detectors are norm in labs around universities around the world, and thousands of people use it every day.
I love math, too. And yes, that's why it begins as a seemingly rigid science, and then it becomes even more, science and art, as you advance past the equations and enter a new place of reasoning. One which requires imagination, and the ability to conceptualize in 3-D, not just the formulae on paper.
The gifted mathematician, like many scientists, can often be described as having her/his head in the clouds
Caupon: In my experience the fact that some science is difficult to understand provides an opportunity for young earth creationists (for example) to offer flawed, incorrect or oversimplified explanations of the science to fit their viewpoint. Creationist often point out the flaws in the dating methods as if to say science ignores these issues, when this is not the case.
A video that gives an understanding of K-Ar dating: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMZ5kJEviD0
