• Register
  • Help
Page 1 of 23 123411 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 221

Topic: Intelligence design (part2)?

Share/Bookmark
  1. #1

    Intelligence design (part2)?

    sponsored links


    ***Advertisments***
    Quote Originally Posted by Nick Batzdorf
    ... On the other hand, dinosaur bones have been carbon-dated to have died out 60 million years ago. You really have to work hard to convince yourself that God screwed around with the carbon to make things look thousands of times older than they are.
    Radiometric dating of certain kinds, e.g, potassium/argon, of rock, yes. But radiocarbon dating in particular, no. Carbon dating is only accurate to about 40-50,000 years.

  2. #2

    Re: Intelligence design ?

    By the way, I don't do it, but I like the idea of not working on the 7th day. Putting lights on timers, etc. seems a little curious to me, but there's a lot to be said for forced time off.

    Blue laws are another story.

  3. #3

    Re: Intelligence design ?

    Sorry, wrong technology. But I think you get the point - all the bones that have been found are pretty old.

  4. #4

    Re: Intelligence design ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick Batzdorf
    Sorry, wrong technology. But I think you get the point - all the bones that have been found are pretty old.
    Yes. Pretty old indeed.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    380

    Re: Intelligence design ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick Batzdorf
    Then I apologize if my question about the psychological need to believe the mythology was over the line too. It's my honest feeling that taking any religion literally is depriving yourself of its broader implications, but you're right - to each his own.
    I think it's understood that mythology fills a need to give the young a sense of principles and laws that govern our lives such as good and evil and a sort of purpose for life. My brief was against a person being in dialogue with someone who says they've had an experience that was life changing to them and reducing it down to base psychology, simultaneously stripping them of any character or integrity whatsoever. That's a bit too much arrogance. (Not a response to anything you said.)

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Dorset, UK
    Posts
    470

    Re: Intelligence design ?

    Quote Originally Posted by dpc
    That's a completely different issue than what I'm addressing. To make such an uninformed hideous charge against someone becoming a blank slate is over the line. Every religion has it's creation myths and so on. Just because someone believes them literaly doesn't disqualify them as a human being. They may be perfectly true metaphorically and in some ways literally true. No one is standing in some perfect place of knowledge to put someone down as not knowing when they themselves don't know ~~~~. What they believe or think is probably perfectly wrong in some sense too. Certainly beyond their comprehension. If there's all knowing God how come so many all knowing people?
    I'm not sure how you get all of this out of my post. Your rant only makes (a little) sense if it is necessary to believe the mythology in the Bible literally in order to believe in God. It is not. In fact, for a schooled human adult, holding the mythology as fact is counter-intuitive.

    My point is only that when someone forms a new faith and looks for guidance they are receptive to all doctrine surrounding it and take everything as a package; fact. That is how cults expand. (I'm not equating Christianity to a cult, only this phenomenon).

    I don't know whether that is the reason why so many Christians take the Bible literally, or whether, to them, the book smacks of undiluted truth in its own right.

    I have nothing against the Bible, only its use of it. Like the Koran it contains much inspired wisdom. I believe it is a collection, full of metaphor (i.e. not to be taken literally), myth, pieces of history, and stories, many composed with an ulterior motive.

    Quote Originally Posted by dpc
    I think it's understood that mythology fills a need to give the young a sense of principles and laws that govern our lives such as good and evil and a sort of purpose for life.
    Not really. Mythology is mixture of folk-lore, -which may start with a true occurrence as a seed-, popular ideas behind natural and social phenomena, and ancient, ficticious narratives. It's not necessarily principled, nor is it moralistic or the basis for law. Don't confuse mythology with religion per se.

  7. #7

    Re: Intelligence design ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick Batzdorf
    In all fairness, there's a slight difference between a life-changing religious experience and believing that Native Americans in present-day Utah saw dinosaurs.

    Man as a species has been around for 150,000 years or so - or maybe it was longer; I vaguely remember reading about a 225,000-year-old discovery. On the other hand, dinosaur bones have been carbon-dated to have died out 60 million years ago. You really have to work hard to convince yourself that God screwed around with the carbon to make things look thousands of times older than they are.

    Dinosaurs can hardly be called a failed experiment, by the way - they were around for a couple of hundred million years or so.
    I'm not too surprised that you avoided the questions and stooped to mocking and insulting me. Do you have an explanation for the soft tissue? Do you have an explanation for the rock drawing - which incidentally is only one of many such evidences? Or are you too set in your paradigm to consider the possibility of other explanations?

    You're right about one thing: Some dinosaur bones have been carbon dated (the ones not completely fossilized) but the ones tested are found to be 1000-2000 years old.

    Rob

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Dorset, UK
    Posts
    470

    Re: Intelligence design ?

    Quote Originally Posted by robh
    I'm not too surprised that you avoided the questions and stooped to mocking and insulting me. Do you have an explanation for the soft tissue? Do you have an explanation for the rock drawing - which incidentally is only one of many such evidences? Or are you too set in your paradigm to consider the possibility of other explanations?

    You're right about one thing: Some dinosaur bones have been carbon dated (the ones not completely fossilized) but the ones tested are found to be 1000-2000 years old.

    Rob
    Rob, I share Nick's paradigm, I think, and am too set in it to consider the possibility of "other explanations", -as you are in yours. For me the overall weight of evidence for evolution is so heavy that some pieces of confounding evidence are nowhere near enough to tip the scales, and I would be confident that a scientific expalnation exists, even if it has not yet been discovered.

    To take the eveidences you present. I had read that the soft tissue found on supposedly 60m yr old dinosaur bone was from inside the bone, where the marrow was, with bloodvessels. Normally soft tissue is eaten by bugs or rots away with bacteria. But this tissue had been completely sealed off in an intact bone. Normally dinosaur bones, because of their rarety, are not broken open.

    It is thoght that this "soft tissue" simply represents a different kind of fossilisation. In regular fossilisation mineral crystals replace the original tissue at a macro-structural level, so that the structure is retained in stone, but the animal material is lost. The soft tissue found could have been preserved by fossilisation at molecular level, where protein molecules, e.g. collagen, react in situ to form an inert polymer, a plastic type material that is resistant to degradation. I consider that a more likely explanation than creation.

    Carbon dating? I thought this method was meaningless in anything over 50,000 yrs. (Coal was carbon dated as 1000yrs old). I don't know too much about that, but maybe we don't know enough about the levels of atmospheric C14 60m years ago. It could have been 1000x greater. There could be other confounding factors. Could more C14 be created in fossilising remains by, say asteroid strikes nearby (this is just ignorant speculation).

  9. #9

    Re: Intelligence design ?

    Yeah, e SEB pointed out that I'm wrong about carbon dating. I'm not sure how they figured out how old the dinosaur bones are.

    Rob, I'm sorry for ridiculing your beliefs. If you want to believe that everything was created recently and the Anastazis comingled with dinosaurs, knock yourself out. You may also believe that the moon is made of cheese, or that Monte Python's floating witch logic is serious. Whatever works for you.

  10. #10

    Re: Intelligence design ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Beckers
    Rob, I share Nick's paradigm, I think, and am too set in it to consider the possibility of "other explanations", -as you are in yours. For me the overall weight of evidence for evolution is so heavy that some pieces of confounding evidence are nowhere near enough to tip the scales, and I would be confident that a scientific expalnation exists, even if it has not yet been discovered.

    To take the eveidences you present. I had read that the soft tissue found on supposedly 60m yr old dinosaur bone was from inside the bone, where the marrow was, with bloodvessels. Normally soft tissue is eaten by bugs or rots away with bacteria. But this tissue had been completely sealed off in an intact bone. Normally dinosaur bones, because of their rarety, are not broken open.

    It is thoght that this "soft tissue" simply represents a different kind of fossilisation. In regular fossilisation mineral crystals replace the original tissue at a macro-structural level, so that the structure is retained in stone, but the animal material is lost. The soft tissue found could have been preserved by fossilisation at molecular level, where protein molecules, e.g. collagen, react in situ to form an inert polymer, a plastic type material that is resistant to degradation. I consider that a more likely explanation than creation.

    Carbon dating? I thought this method was meaningless in anything over 50,000 yrs. (Coal was carbon dated as 1000yrs old). I don't know too much about that, but maybe we don't know enough about the levels of atmospheric C14 60m years ago. It could have been 1000x greater. There could be other confounding factors. Could more C14 be created in fossilising remains by, say asteroid strikes nearby (this is just ignorant speculation).
    Ahh, your touching something I've maintained all along (regarding carbon dating, etc.) Many of us amteur or armchair scientists are taking the C14 and radiometric dating as gospel truth, undisputable, infallible. These tests could be skewed by these confounding factors that may have occured. As you probably know the C14 test is based on the ratio of C14 to C12. An upset in the C12 part of the ratio, such as in Noah's flood, (a somewhat well documented speculation - even outside the Bible ) could skew the results as well.

    And yes, carbon dating would be meaningless over 50,000 years because there wouldn't be any traceable C14 left to measure. Let's assume your speculation is true: Wouldn't the levels of C14 you proposed be considered too high for organic life to handle - too toxic? (My ignorant speculation.)

    Rob

Go Back to forum
Page 1 of 23 123411 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •