The MI6 Community Religion and Faith Discussion Space (for members of all faiths - and none!)

Risico007

A quick science question Darth and I am genuinely asking this

When we figure out how old something is we measure it by decay or carbon 14 and we can figure out based by observing how long it decays ok fair enough how do we dertimene the original amount of carbon 14?

Thunderfinger

Of course the indoctrination doesn t take place while learning multiplication or such, but take a look at something like social science or history and it leaps at you.

TheWizardOfIce

Risico007 wrote: »

A quick science question Darth and I am genuinely asking this

When we figure out how old something is we measure it by decay or carbon 14 and we can figure out based by observing how long it decays ok fair enough how do we dertimene the original amount of carbon 14?

On the face of it a reasonable question and I'm ashamed to say I had no real idea until I spent 30 seconds googling it:

One of the frequent uses of the technique is to date organic remains from archaeological sites. Plants fix atmospheric carbon during photosynthesis, so the level of 14C in plants and animals when they die approximately equals the level of 14C in the atmosphere at that time. However, it decreases thereafter from radioactive decay, allowing the date of death or fixation to be estimated. The initial 14C level for the calculation can either be estimated, or else directly compared with known year-by-year data from tree-ring data (dendrochronology) up to 10,000 years ago (using overlapping data from live and dead trees in a given area), or else from cave deposits (speleothems), back to about 45,000 years before the present. A calculation or (more accurately) a direct comparison of carbon-14 levels in a sample, with tree ring or cave-deposit carbon-14 levels of a known age, then gives the wood or animal sample age-since-formation.

No doubt Darth can give a better and fuller explanation but even if you happens to have rock solid evidence that carbon dating can be completely debunked (presumably that is going to be your follow up after leading Darth onto your punch?) it still DOES NOT PROVE GOD EXISTS.

You seem to think proof consists of disproving something completely unrelated and we've been here numerous times.

Thunderfinger wrote: »

Of course the indoctrination doesn t take place while learning multiplication or such, but take a look at something like social science or history and it leaps at you.

I'll give you that up to a point to be fair. History is hardly just an objective presentation of the facts these days but rather just recounting the tales of woe of whichever minority group bleats loudest.

DarthDimi

Actually, @TheWizardOfIce has posted a very good explanation of the method, @Risico007.

CARBON-14

In the case of C-14 dating, we are aware of the exact ratio of C-14 to stable carbon in living tissue, which replenishes its C-14 levels on a constant basis thanks to its active metabolism. Some atoms decay, but new ones are brought in. Once the tissue has died, the replenishing of C-14 has stopped yet the C-14 isotopes already present continue to decay From now on, the C-14 content will gradually grow less compared to that of the other carbon isotopes. From simple observations, which can be performed in school even, we know the half-life of C-14 isotopes, resulting in graphs such as the following one:



Now then if, say, only half of the "living" amount of C-14 is present in a specific sample, we can tell the sample is approximately 5700 years old. If only 25 % remains, the sample must be dated around 11 000 years.

Obviously, C-14 dating only works for certain clothes, fossils, ... provided they aren't too old. Dinosaur bones for example, roughly 65 million years old (at the very least), cannot be examined via C-14 dating. The practical limit is set somewhere around 50 000 years.

URANIUM

Considering Earth's age, C-14 dating obviously won't help at all. But a clever solution was devised during the 20th century.

When uranium decays, it forms lead. All lead present in a sample of uranium ore must have come from such decay processes. Why? Well, "foreign" lead could never have been "mixed" with uranium atoms in a crystal during its formation, since chemically speaking lead and uranium don't bond.

Now, take a sample of naturally occurring uranium ore, containing no lead. Finding such leadless uranium ores is still possible since radioactive decay is based on probability; and with exceptionally large half-lives for several uranium isotopes, there's a small but still not zero chance one will find samples that haven't yet decayed. In these leadless samples, one can measure the relative amounts of all the present uranium isotopes. Since enough of these leadless uranium ore samples have been compared and since the relative abundances of their uranium isotopes have turned out to be the same in all of them, it's fair to assume that they are representative for all of Earth's initial uranium ore.

Now examine uranium ore samples with the highest lead contents one can find on Earth. Examining the relative amounts of the uranium isotopes and the lead, and taking into account our beloved half-lives, we can easily estimate how long these uranium ores have been decaying. From the ones highest in lead content, we can safely say that Earth is at least 4.5 billion years old. Any younger would be ridiculous. If Earth were only, say, 6000 years old, it's simply impossible that some uranium ores have already reached such high lead contents. And again, the lead cannot possibly have been present in the "magma" mix when Earth formed yet: it's a chemical impossibility these lead atoms would have entered the crystal phase with the uranium atoms.

But how can we be sure that Earth isn't older still? Perhaps we haven't found uranium samples with the highest relative amounts of lead yet. True, but uranium samples taken from meteorites, which were formed during the protoplanetary phase (i.e. the formating of our solar system) and are thus the oldest "rocks" in our solar system, have placed something of a limit on Earth's age: Earth cannot be any older than these meteorites, and they are about 4.54 billion years old.

NicNac

You guys can argue the toss, but I know that without Religion we would have no Mother Theresa, no Jesus Christ Superstar, and no Father Ted.

thelivingroyale

Lets backtrack a second.

@TheWizardOfIce you used to be a teacher? What did you teach? I'm just picturing you laying into a bunch of 8 year olds like you do when you get on a roll on here and I'm finding that image hilarious.

Thunderfinger

NicNac wrote: »

You guys can argue the toss, but I know that without Religion we would have no Mother Theresa, no Jesus Christ Superstar, and no Father Ted.

And Thor wouldn t be an Avenger.

Risico007

DarthDimi wrote: »

Actually, @TheWizardOfIce has posted a very good explanation of the method, @Risico007.

CARBON-14

In the case of C-14 dating, we are aware of the exact ratio of C-14 to stable carbon in living tissue, which replenishes its C-14 levels on a constant basis thanks to its active metabolism. Some atoms decay, but new ones are brought in. Once the tissue has died, the replenishing of C-14 has stopped yet the C-14 isotopes already present continue to decay From now on, the C-14 content will gradually grow less compared to that of the other carbon isotopes. From simple observations, which can be performed in school even, we know the half-life of C-14 isotopes, resulting in graphs such as the following one:



Now then if, say, only half of the "living" amount of C-14 is present in a specific sample, we can tell the sample is approximately 5700 years old. If only 25 % remains, the sample must be dated around 11 000 years.

Obviously, C-14 dating only works for certain clothes, fossils, ... provided they aren't too old. Dinosaur bones for example, roughly 65 million years old (at the very least), cannot be examined via C-14 dating. The practical limit is set somewhere around 50 000 years.

URANIUM

Considering Earth's age, C-14 dating obviously won't help at all. But a clever solution was devised during the 20th century.

When uranium decays, it forms lead. All lead present in a sample of uranium ore must have come from such decay processes. Why? Well, "foreign" lead could never have been "mixed" with uranium atoms in a crystal during its formation, since chemically speaking lead and uranium don't bond.

Now, take a sample of naturally occurring uranium ore, containing no lead. Finding such leadless uranium ores is still possible since radioactive decay is based on probability; and with exceptionally large half-lives for several uranium isotopes, there's a small but still not zero chance one will find samples that haven't yet decayed. In these leadless samples, one can measure the relative amounts of all the present uranium isotopes. Since enough of these leadless uranium ore samples have been compared and since the relative abundances of their uranium isotopes have turned out to be the same in all of them, it's fair to assume that they are representative for all of Earth's initial uranium ore.

Now examine uranium ore samples with the highest lead contents one can find on Earth. Examining the relative amounts of the uranium isotopes and the lead, and taking into account our beloved half-lives, we can easily estimate how long these uranium ores have been decaying. From the ones highest in lead content, we can safely say that Earth is at least 4.5 billion years old. Any younger would be ridiculous. If Earth were only, say, 6000 years old, it's simply impossible that some uranium ores have already reached such high lead contents. And again, the lead cannot possibly have been present in the "magma" mix when Earth formed yet: it's a chemical impossibility these lead atoms would have entered the crystal phase with the uranium atoms.

But how can we be sure that Earth isn't older still? Perhaps we haven't found uranium samples with the highest relative amounts of lead yet. True, but uranium samples taken from meteorites, which were formed during the protoplanetary phase (i.e. the formating of our solar system) and are thus the oldest "rocks" in our solar system, have placed something of a limit on Earth's age: Earth cannot be any older than these meteorites, and they are about 4.54 billion years old.

Ok two obvious questions

1. How are we aware of the exact ratio?

2. “since radioactive decay is based on probability”. So radioactive decay is based on probability is that right because in essence your saying the decay is based on (in layman’s Terms) luck... surely you mistyped there right?

Ludovico

Probability is no luck. I'm a layman and I understand that much. You're using two completely different terms as synonyms.

DarthDimi

Very well then.

1. What ratio exactly are you referring to? And is your question a purely technical one, i.e. are you looking for an explanation for how spectrometers work?

2. Yes, for a single atom we cannot predict when decay will happen and so yes if you're going to observe a single atom, whether you'll see it decay or not is indeed a matter of luck. But since we're always dealing with billions of atoms, probability leads to statistical certainty in the form of Gaussian curves.

It's not unlike our conception. A single sperm cell has a very small chance of finding its way towards the ovum but since we ejaculate a great many of them, the chances of a successful fertilisation increase tremendously. The number of sperm cells released after male ejaculation is still only a tiny fraction of the number of uranium atoms in a uranium crystal.

It is highly unlikely, though not impossible (see further), that no uranium atom in an ore sample has yet undergone radioactive decay. It follows then that finding small samples of as yet undecayed uranium ore is a bit of a challenge because they are in the lower probability regions of the curve. But they are still not in the zero point and on top of that, uranium has a ridiculously large half-life. Undecayed samples are therefore rare but not impossible. (Same case with human conception. A healthy male and a healthy female, even in the female's most fertile phase, can still never be absolutely sure that the gametes will successfully fuse.)

Now I sincerely hope, @Risico007, that you're not going to try to refute the science behind the determination of Earth's age. If so, please understand that:

- this is the science that makes smoke detectors work;

- this is the science that allows for many of the trickiest diagnoses and therapies in hospitals;

- this is the science that allows for some of the most complicated toxicological analyses of waste and drinking water;

- this is the kind of science that physics teachers have their students observe firsthand, every day, everywhere on the globe;

- this isn't even top-of-the-bill science anymore. We have probed matter even deeper than at the level of alpha or bèta decay. We now understand this game at the level of quarks and other fundamental particles; we have observed these processes with the aid of particle accelerators in America, Geneva, ... We have unlocked hidden mechanisms behind it all and learned to use them to our own benefit. Our understanding of the processes we make use of to determine Earth's age outgrew doubt and scepticism decades ago, when we moved on to the next (and then the next) stage.

I'm not saying you have the intention to question the validity of this beautiful bit of science but if you have, please understand, @Risico007, that it would be like walking into an exposition of modern, fully autonomous cars and say, "now, let's see if we can agree on this thing you call a 'wheel'." ;)

LeonardPine

NicNac wrote: »

You guys can argue the toss, but I know that without Religion we would have no Mother Theresa, no Jesus Christ Superstar, and no Father Ted.

Ah good old Mother Theresa. The catholic church changed its rules to make her a 'saint'

Her one 'miracle' was apparently a female was cured of cancer because she held an amulet with Mother Theresa's face on it to her body. The woman's ex disputes this and says she had medical help.....

Watch the Chris Hitchins documentary 'Hell's Angel' for an interesting look at this 'saint'

TheWizardOfIce

thelivingroyale wrote: »

Lets backtrack a second.

@TheWizardOfIce you used to be a teacher? What did you teach? I'm just picturing you laying into a bunch of 8 year olds like you do when you get on a roll on here and I'm finding that image hilarious.

Missionary work of a kind old son. Teaching ignorant foreigners God's own language. And to be fair when a class of 5 year olds couldn't grasp something I was fine with them as they were 5 year olds FFS!

It's when you have grown adults still believing in fairy stories I do my nut at the sheer idiocy of it all.

Risico007 wrote: »

DarthDimi wrote: »

Actually, @TheWizardOfIce has posted a very good explanation of the method, @Risico007.

CARBON-14

In the case of C-14 dating, we are aware of the exact ratio of C-14 to stable carbon in living tissue, which replenishes its C-14 levels on a constant basis thanks to its active metabolism. Some atoms decay, but new ones are brought in. Once the tissue has died, the replenishing of C-14 has stopped yet the C-14 isotopes already present continue to decay From now on, the C-14 content will gradually grow less compared to that of the other carbon isotopes. From simple observations, which can be performed in school even, we know the half-life of C-14 isotopes, resulting in graphs such as the following one:



Now then if, say, only half of the "living" amount of C-14 is present in a specific sample, we can tell the sample is approximately 5700 years old. If only 25 % remains, the sample must be dated around 11 000 years.

Obviously, C-14 dating only works for certain clothes, fossils, ... provided they aren't too old. Dinosaur bones for example, roughly 65 million years old (at the very least), cannot be examined via C-14 dating. The practical limit is set somewhere around 50 000 years.

URANIUM

Considering Earth's age, C-14 dating obviously won't help at all. But a clever solution was devised during the 20th century.

When uranium decays, it forms lead. All lead present in a sample of uranium ore must have come from such decay processes. Why? Well, "foreign" lead could never have been "mixed" with uranium atoms in a crystal during its formation, since chemically speaking lead and uranium don't bond.

Now, take a sample of naturally occurring uranium ore, containing no lead. Finding such leadless uranium ores is still possible since radioactive decay is based on probability; and with exceptionally large half-lives for several uranium isotopes, there's a small but still not zero chance one will find samples that haven't yet decayed. In these leadless samples, one can measure the relative amounts of all the present uranium isotopes. Since enough of these leadless uranium ore samples have been compared and since the relative abundances of their uranium isotopes have turned out to be the same in all of them, it's fair to assume that they are representative for all of Earth's initial uranium ore.

Now examine uranium ore samples with the highest lead contents one can find on Earth. Examining the relative amounts of the uranium isotopes and the lead, and taking into account our beloved half-lives, we can easily estimate how long these uranium ores have been decaying. From the ones highest in lead content, we can safely say that Earth is at least 4.5 billion years old. Any younger would be ridiculous. If Earth were only, say, 6000 years old, it's simply impossible that some uranium ores have already reached such high lead contents. And again, the lead cannot possibly have been present in the "magma" mix when Earth formed yet: it's a chemical impossibility these lead atoms would have entered the crystal phase with the uranium atoms.

But how can we be sure that Earth isn't older still? Perhaps we haven't found uranium samples with the highest relative amounts of lead yet. True, but uranium samples taken from meteorites, which were formed during the protoplanetary phase (i.e. the formating of our solar system) and are thus the oldest "rocks" in our solar system, have placed something of a limit on Earth's age: Earth cannot be any older than these meteorites, and they are about 4.54 billion years old.

Ok two obvious questions

1. How are we aware of the exact ratio?

2. “since radioactive decay is based on probability”. So radioactive decay is based on probability is that right because in essence your saying the decay is based on (in layman’s Terms) luck... surely you mistyped there right?

Where's all this leading one is tempted to ask? Perhaps @Risico007 has seen the light and is genuinely interested in how we know that earth dates back longer than creationism states but I can't help feeling he's setting us up for a massive fall as he unleashes his Carbon 14 refuting thesis on us. I can't wait to see what he's got in store to leave silly old Darth with scientific egg all over his face as his theories are destroyed with religious logic.

Thunderfinger

How old is the Earth, then?

TheWizardOfIce

Thunderfinger wrote: »

How old is the Earth, then?

Just need to carbon date the talking snake to find out.

Risico007

See darth a few points

1. The age of the earth has nothing to do with God nor does it prove or disprove God I read my Bible cover to cover and see nothing about 6000 years I do however see a lot of people on both sides claiming the age of the earth is proof of something and I haven’t the foggiest idea what or how it is determined
2. I, inspite of wizard’s beliefs, want to learn all I can about science and the latest science again truth is truth and there is no scientific explanation for the resurrection so Untill you give me evidence that proves either A) the resurrection was made up or B) a scientific explanation for how one can naturally be raised from the dead the hows who’s and why’s are almost inconsequential but interesting none the less
3. Unlike you darth I am willing to look at the evidence and see things for what they are. Old earth or new there is a severe lack. Of evidence on part of the skeptic to explain away things like the resurrection... again I think it was lud who said it best

You don’t have evidence you may think you have evidence someone may have convinced you it was evidence but you don’t and I hate to throw Jose words back on you but seriously explain Christ’s resurrection....

Oh and Lud also said he disciples took the body congrats you hit on the oldest excuse in the book and the issue with that is which disciples the ones who hid ran denied they new Christ and hid for fear of the Jews even after his resurrection? Or is there some secret group that we don’t know about?

Thunderfinger

Scientists best guess is that Earth is approximately 4,6 billions years old, and that it took between 10 and 20 million years to be formed.

Ludovico

@Risico007 You're like the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail: beaten, humiliated but thinking you are actually still standing and capable of fighting. @DarthDimi just served you an epic beating. And YOU were the one questioning the validity of Earth's dating and carbon 14, now you say it has nothing to do with any of your claims? Of course it doesn't disprove God. It just debunks the Biblical linearity AND Genesis account. If there's a God he created the world very differently than the Bible tells us.

As for the resurrection... first demonstrate it happened! And I never ever said the disciples took Jesus body! For all I care if Jesus existed his body must have long rotten in the communal tomb he was thrown in. If he existed at all.

Thunderfinger

How do you carbon date the Earth? That isn t how they found that age, that is really silly.

Ludovico

Thunderfinger wrote: »

How do you carbon date the Earth? That isn t how they found that age, that is really silly.

Sorry was typing fast.

Dragonpol

Thunderfinger wrote: »

Scientists best guess is that Earth is approximately 4,6 billions years old, and that it took between 10 and 20 million years to be formed.

Yes, of course they were around back then so they would know to the nearest million. Guesswork indeed!

Ludovico

Dragonpol wrote: »

Thunderfinger wrote: »

Scientists best guess is that Earth is approximately 4,6 billions years old, and that it took between 10 and 20 million years to be formed.

Yes, of course they were around back then so they would know to the nearest million. Guesswork indeed!

No offence but that's a ridiculous argument. Did you pay any attention to @DarthDimi previoud posts?

Dragonpol

Ludovico wrote: »

Dragonpol wrote: »

Thunderfinger wrote: »

Scientists best guess is that Earth is approximately 4,6 billions years old, and that it took between 10 and 20 million years to be formed.

Yes, of course they were around back then so they would know to the nearest million. Guesswork indeed!

No offence but that's a ridiculous argument. Did you pay any attention to @DarthDimi previoud posts?

No need to worry as I've already been offended plenty in this thread. I haven't read those posts as I'm trying to ignore this thread from now on. I'm reminded now why that was. I'll return to radio silence now though. Sorry to have spoiled the show as it were.

Risico007

Ludovico wrote: »

@Risico007 You're like the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail: beaten, humiliated but thinking you are actually still standing and capable of fighting. @DarthDimi just served you an epic beating. And YOU were the one questioning the validity of Earth's dating and carbon 14, now you say it has nothing to do with any of your claims? Of course it doesn't disprove God. It just debunks the Biblical linearity AND Genesis account. If there's a God he created the world very differently than the Bible tells us.

As for the resurrection... first demonstrate it happened! And I never ever said the disciples took Jesus body! For all I care if Jesus existed his body must have long rotten in the communal tomb he was thrown in. If he existed at all.

Hahahaha that is pathetic

First how does it eliminate genesis in any way shape or form and also dr Bart erhman is an atheist who wrote a wonderful book I put s link to a few pages back discussing how Jesus definitely did exist...

But sure keep living with your head in the sand

j_w_pepper

Dragonpol wrote: »

Thunderfinger wrote: »

Scientists best guess is that Earth is approximately 4,6 billions years old, and that it took between 10 and 20 million years to be formed.

Yes, of course they were around back then so they would know to the nearest million. Guesswork indeed!

Scientists can live with uncertainties. They just keep searching. I definitely won't be around when it happens, but I am totally sure that one of these days, all things that ever happened in this world can be explained scientifically, and there's no need to resort to what people(!) up to 3,000 years ago thought up for their contemporaries, with whatever agenda they may have had to do so.

DarthDimi

Risico007 wrote: »

See darth a few points

1. The age of the earth has nothing to do with God nor does it prove or disprove God I read my Bible cover to cover and see nothing about 6000 years I do however see a lot of people on both sides claiming the age of the earth is proof of something and I haven’t the foggiest idea what or how it is determined
2. I, inspite of wizard’s beliefs, want to learn all I can about science and the latest science again truth is truth and there is no scientific explanation for the resurrection so Untill you give me evidence that proves either A) the resurrection was made up or B) a scientific explanation for how one can naturally be raised from the dead the hows who’s and why’s are almost inconsequential but interesting none the less
3. Unlike you darth I am willing to look at the evidence and see things for what they are. Old earth or new there is a severe lack. Of evidence on part of the skeptic to explain away things like the resurrection... again I think it was lud who said it best

You don’t have evidence you may think you have evidence someone may have convinced you it was evidence but you don’t and I hate to throw Jose words back on you but seriously explain Christ’s resurrection....

Oh and Lud also said he disciples took the body congrats you hit on the oldest excuse in the book and the issue with that is which disciples the ones who hid ran denied they new Christ and hid for fear of the Jews even after his resurrection? Or is there some secret group that we don’t know about?

@Risico007

1. Correct! It doesn't. Which is why I always feel jolted when students/parents of a certain religious persuasion start making a fuss when in a very neutral, objective manner, we discuss the radiometric dating of our planet in physics class. I'm never the instigator, friend; in fact, I'm always at the receiving end of the insults. And then I strike back of course, but only when provoked.

The thing about the Bible is that YE Creationists truly do make calculations based on certain dates (e.g. Moses lived in 1200 BC, around the time when the Greek alliance, allegedly, stormed Troy) and then count back all the way to Adam and Eve. Lest we forget, there's an entire chapter in Genesis devoted to stuff like this:

"And Shem lived after he begat Arphaxad five hundred years, and begat sons and daughters. 12 And Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, and begat Salah: 13 And Arphaxad lived after he begat Salah four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughters. 14 And Salah lived thirty years, and begat Eber: 15 And Salah lived after he begat Eber four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughters. 16 And Eber lived four and thirty years, and begat Peleg: 17 And Eber lived after he begat Peleg four hundred and thirty years, and begat sons and daughters."

After all that silly stuff: 6000 years. Voila. It took God 4000 years to give us Christ and since then, another 2000 have passed.

When I tell my students--no, show them something else, I cripple one of the essentials of YE Creationism without even spelling out that that's what I'm doing. In fact, to me, that's also just incidental. I want them to understand particle physics; any unpleasant conclusions they derive which may influence their religious lives, are entirely their own responsability. Look, I'm not the one making that idiot speak up. But there you have it. Along with the Flat Earthers and the "I want my 4000 virgins so I'm gonna kill you all" jihadis, we have YE Creationists, ready to be committed in the insane asylum. Point is, they exist. They live among us.

I'm afraid, and this may be my own fault so I apologise, that you have a very negative idea about me and about my being a gruesomely assholish science teacher, whose personal mission it is to offend the religous at any given opportunity. While I will concede that I'd be very pleased if the religious commit themselves to a critical bit of self-reflective thinking, all I want is that all my students, of any given persuasion (or none at all) learn to think for themselves. That's my primary function as a teacher. The rest is incidental. But here, on this forum, I'm not a teacher. I'm among my peers, and we're all here sitting at the bar, having a few good laughs, drinking some beers, and chatting the place up about all sorts of things. With @Dragonpol's blessing, we're also discussing religion. And some of us can't see eye to eye. Fine, that's the stuff good debates are made of. But at the end of the day, we're all going home, drunk and sleepy, singing songs and knocking over trash cans, the good Bondian friends we all are.

2. Not sure I understand you but if you're challenging me to prove anything regarding the resurrection of Christ, either to prove it as right or as false, then all I can say is: that . is . not . what . science . is . about. The resurrection is evidently made up. To confirm or disprove that which is made up is a fool's game. Say I were to present you with the following statement:

The Wiz, Ludovico and I were abducted by aliens, probed with invisible higher-dimensional instruments and then dropped back in our beds but with time turned back a bit so that no-one would have noticed anything.

Could you possibly verify or falsify this statement? Of course not. Nothing can be measured, events supposedly took place which can only be described as "supernatural" and our anything but impartial testimony is the only thing to work with. What you're going to do instead is shrug, say "I recognise false news when I hear it" and walk away thinking you have so many better things to do than waste your time on this.

So here we are. The resurrection of Christ: we can't measure a bloody thing, the events are supernatural and therefore of no interest to science, we have only some written texts, dating back to times of extreme superstition, to work with. The "witnesses", furthermore, had every bit of interest in making people believe it. Christianity was a cult, delivering hope to the oppressed, nothing more. It did then what George Lucas did in '77, no more, no less. Christianity might have been wiped out for all we know had Constantine not discovered the political opportunities presented by acknowledging Christianity as a religion.

It's a general misconception that science cares about disproving the supernatural. Hollywood and comic books keep telling us that, but scientists really aren't interested! Scientists, like myself, are coerced into having debates on the subject in their spare time. But in the end, we honestly don't care. When we probe matter, try to understand how the universe works, figure out the relative nature of time, search for life on moons of Jupiter, search for better treatments and possible cures for cancer, ... we really aren't doing it with the plan to overthrow the God concept. It's there, we know it, some scientists are a part of it even, but in end, it's irrelevant. It only becomes our battlefield when the religious try to debunk science in favor of God with the help of statements which are so obviously false.

I never start my lessons by saying, "hey guys, today we're going to learn that God doesn't exist". Instead, "hey guys, today we're going to talk about the relativistic interpretation of gravity". Now if some boys or girls unexpectedly take offence in the math and physics I deliver or help them build, if they find some hidden anti-theist agenda in my otherwise perfectly neutral and objective teachings, then so be it. But if they start making trouble for no apparent reason, that's a whole other thing.

I once played a documentary in class, presented by Sam Neill by the way, called Hyperspace or in some markets just Space. He talked about how the Sun came into existence, what keeps it going and how it shall eventually end. Two normally sweet young girls started laughing at first, then mocking the episode, then insulting Neill, the makers of the documentary, me and the entire school system!!! That came quite out of the blue, I can tell you. You know what they said? The Sun was "put" here by God, and it's to stay here as long as God wills it. Oh, and that hocus pocus about fusing hydrogen into helium? None of it is true. The "power of God" keeps the Sun "burning". I thought I was about to soil my undies.

I'm telling you this to show you that it really isn't I who seeks to pro-actively drain my religious students of all their (in my opinion) dreadful misunderstandings. Instead, it is some of them who keep feeding me a lot of nonsense to keep their very cemented Creationist thoughts clear from doubt and unwanted scepticism. It is this:



"La La La!!!"

3. See, you're getting things mixed up. Dating the Earth is a geologist's job. A geologist is a scientist. Scientists don't care about the resurrection. Some don't believe in it and others no doubt do. But once they enter the lab, Christ and his alleged resurrection are left at the door. In the lab, there's nothing but observable facts and the scientific method. I've got a feeling we're talking at cross purposes here. I honestly thought you were referring to a post of mine from a few days ago, when I exemplified how strangely hostile some (!) religious students can respond to simple high school science lessons and how talk about the origin of the universe, evolution etcetera seems to jerk them into aggression. None of that makes sense to me, which is ultimately the point I was trying to make, along with the fact that some of the brighter ones understand the science and secretly start to see the light, but aren't ready to give up their parental teachings about God's Creation just yet. It confuses them and ultimately, they make a choice. You'd be surprised how many of them, over the course of a few years (I teach students of ages 15 to 18 and sometimes older), turn to "the other side", i.e. the sciency one. May have something to do with my methods. I don't just "tell" them stuff; I let them experience, observe and deduce stuff on their own. It's hard to go against your own experience, isn't it? Especially when it's reproducible and shared by everyone else in the lab.

Risico007

DarthDimi wrote: »

Risico007 wrote: »

See darth a few points

1. The age of the earth has nothing to do with God nor does it prove or disprove God I read my Bible cover to cover and see nothing about 6000 years I do however see a lot of people on both sides claiming the age of the earth is proof of something and I haven’t the foggiest idea what or how it is determined
2. I, inspite of wizard’s beliefs, want to learn all I can about science and the latest science again truth is truth and there is no scientific explanation for the resurrection so Untill you give me evidence that proves either A) the resurrection was made up or B) a scientific explanation for how one can naturally be raised from the dead the hows who’s and why’s are almost inconsequential but interesting none the less
3. Unlike you darth I am willing to look at the evidence and see things for what they are. Old earth or new there is a severe lack. Of evidence on part of the skeptic to explain away things like the resurrection... again I think it was lud who said it best

You don’t have evidence you may think you have evidence someone may have convinced you it was evidence but you don’t and I hate to throw Jose words back on you but seriously explain Christ’s resurrection....

Oh and Lud also said he disciples took the body congrats you hit on the oldest excuse in the book and the issue with that is which disciples the ones who hid ran denied they new Christ and hid for fear of the Jews even after his resurrection? Or is there some secret group that we don’t know about?

@Risico007

1. Correct! It doesn't. Which is why I always feel jolted when students/parents of a certain religious persuasion start making a fuss when in a very neutral, objective manner, we discuss the radiometric dating of our planet in physics class. I'm never the instigator, friend; in fact, I'm always at the receiving end of the insults. And then I strike back of course, but only when provoked.

The thing about the Bible is that YE Creationists truly do make calculations based on certain dates (e.g. Moses lived in 1200 BC, around the time when the Greek alliance, allegedly, stormed Troy) and then count back all the way to Adam and Eve. Lest we forget, there's an entire chapter in Genesis devoted to stuff like this:

"And Shem lived after he begat Arphaxad five hundred years, and begat sons and daughters. 12 And Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, and begat Salah: 13 And Arphaxad lived after he begat Salah four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughters. 14 And Salah lived thirty years, and begat Eber: 15 And Salah lived after he begat Eber four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughters. 16 And Eber lived four and thirty years, and begat Peleg: 17 And Eber lived after he begat Peleg four hundred and thirty years, and begat sons and daughters."

After all that silly stuff: 6000 years. Voila. It took God 4000 years to give us Christ and since then, another 2000 have passed.

When I tell my students--no, show them something else, I cripple one of the essentials of YE Creationism without even spelling out that that's what I'm doing. In fact, to me, that's also just incidental. I want them to understand particle physics; any unpleasant conclusions they derive which may influence their religious lives, are entirely their own responsability. Look, I'm not the one making that idiot speak up. But there you have it. Along with the Flat Earthers and the "I want my 4000 virgins so I'm gonna kill you all" jihadis, we have YE Creationists, ready to be committed in the insane asylum. Point is, they exist. They live among us.

I'm afraid, and this may be my own fault so I apologise, that you have a very negative idea about me and about my being a gruesomely assholish science teacher, whose personal mission it is to offend the religous at any given opportunity. While I will concede that I'd be very pleased if the religious commit themselves to a critical bit of self-reflective thinking, all I want is that all my students, of any given persuasion (or none at all) learn to think for themselves. That's my primary function as a teacher. The rest is incidental. But here, on this forum, I'm not a teacher. I'm among my peers, and we're all here sitting at the bar, having a few good laughs, drinking some beers, and chatting the place up about all sorts of things. With @Dragonpol's blessing, we're also discussing religion. And some of us can't see eye to eye. Fine, that's the stuff good debates are made of. But at the end of the day, we're all going home, drunk and sleepy, singing songs and knocking over trash cans, the good Bondian friends we all are.

2. Not sure I understand you but if you're challenging me to prove anything regarding the resurrection of Christ, either to prove it as right or as false, then all I can say is: that . is . not . what . science . is . about. The resurrection is evidently made up. To confirm or disprove that which is made up is a fool's game. Say I were to present you with the following statement:

The Wiz, Ludovico and I were abducted by aliens, probed with invisible higher-dimensional instruments and then dropped back in our beds but with time turned back a bit so that no-one would have noticed anything.

Could you possibly verify or falsify this statement? Of course not. Nothing can be measured, events supposedly took place which can only be described as "supernatural" and our anything but impartial testimony is the only thing to work with. What you're going to do instead is shrug, say "I recognise false news when I hear it" and walk away thinking you have so many better things to do than waste your time on this.

So here we are. The resurrection of Christ: we can't measure a bloody thing, the events are supernatural and therefore of no interest to science, we have only some written texts, dating back to times of extreme superstition, to work with. The "witnesses", furthermore, had every bit of interest in making people believe it. Christianity was a cult, delivering hope to the oppressed, nothing more. It did then what George Lucas did in '77, no more, no less. Christianity might have been wiped out for all we know had Constantine not discovered the political opportunities presented by acknowledging Christianity as a religion.

It's a general misconception that science cares about disproving the supernatural. Hollywood and comic books keep telling us that, but scientists really aren't interested! Scientists, like myself, are coerced into having debates on the subject in their spare time. But in the end, we honestly don't care. When we probe matter, try to understand how the universe works, figure out the relative nature of time, search for life on moons of Jupiter, search for better treatments and possible cures for cancer, ... we really aren't doing it with the plan to overthrow the God concept. It's there, we know it, some scientists are a part of it even, but in end, it's irrelevant. It only becomes our battlefield when the religious try to debunk science in favor of God with the help of statements which are so obviously false.

I never start my lessons by saying, "hey guys, today we're going to learn that God doesn't exist". Instead, "hey guys, today we're going to talk about the relativistic interpretation of gravity". Now if some boys or girls unexpectedly take offence in the math and physics I deliver or help them build, if they find some hidden anti-theist agenda in my otherwise perfectly neutral and objective teachings, then so be it. But if they start making trouble for no apparent reason, that's a whole other thing.

I once played a documentary in class, presented by Sam Neill by the way, called Hyperspace or in some markets just Space. He talked about how the Sun came into existence, what keeps it going and how it shall eventually end. Two normally sweet young girls started laughing at first, then mocking the episode, then insulting Neill, the makers of the documentary, me and the entire school system!!! That came quite out of the blue, I can tell you. You know what they said? The Sun was "put" here by God, and it's to stay here as long as God wills it. Oh, and that hocus pocus about fusing hydrogen into helium? None of it is true. The "power of God" keeps the Sun "burning". I thought I was about to soil my undies.

I'm telling you this to show you that it really isn't I who seeks to pro-actively drain my religious students of all their (in my opinion) dreadful misunderstandings. Instead, it is some of them who keep feeding me a lot of nonsense to keep their very cemented Creationist thoughts clear from doubt and unwanted scepticism. It is this:



"La La La!!!"

3. See, you're getting things mixed up. Dating the Earth is a geologist's job. A geologist is a scientist. Scientists don't care about the resurrection. Some don't believe in it and others no doubt do. But once they enter the lab, Christ and his alleged resurrection are left at the door. In the lab, there's nothing but observable facts and the scientific method. I've got a feeling we're talking at cross purposes here. I honestly thought you were referring to a post of mine from a few days ago, when I exemplified how strangely hostile some (!) religious students can respond to simple high school science lessons and how talk about the origin of the universe, evolution etcetera seems to jerk them into aggression. None of that makes sense to me, which is ultimately the point I was trying to make, along with the fact that some of the brighter ones understand the science and secretly start to see the light, but aren't ready to give up their parental teachings about God's Creation just yet. It confuses them and ultimately, they make a choice. You'd be surprised how many of them, over the course of a few years (I teach students of ages 15 to 18 and sometimes older), turn to "the other side", i.e. the sciency one. May have something to do with my methods. I don't just "tell" them stuff; I let them experience, observe and deduce stuff on their own. It's hard to go against your own experience, isn't it? Especially when it's reproducible and shared by everyone else in the lab.

I apologize as I am quite busy but I must point out you are one of the few rational atheists here. I honestly think due to some misinformation given to you that you believe certain things. Not in terms of the age of the earth but that the resurrection was made up. I will do a longer post later on touching on this (though I kind of would love to actually just talk one on one with you as I see you as a seeker of truth a scientist in the classic view of the word as after all what is a scientist but a seeker of truth) and let me stress my invitation to darth is due to him seeming reasonable not for any fear of last ditch efforts again I throw insults and point out embarrassing mistakes made by scientist and atrocities done by atheists but really what would be the point except to see Wizard and others try and excuse it like I said I will go into greater lengths in a bit but darth I offer a one on one dialogue any time you sant

Ludovico

Risico007 wrote: »

Ludovico wrote: »

@Risico007 You're like the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail: beaten, humiliated but thinking you are actually still standing and capable of fighting. @DarthDimi just served you an epic beating. And YOU were the one questioning the validity of Earth's dating and carbon 14, now you say it has nothing to do with any of your claims? Of course it doesn't disprove God. It just debunks the Biblical linearity AND Genesis account. If there's a God he created the world very differently than the Bible tells us.

As for the resurrection... first demonstrate it happened! And I never ever said the disciples took Jesus body! For all I care if Jesus existed his body must have long rotten in the communal tomb he was thrown in. If he existed at all.

Hahahaha that is pathetic

First how does it eliminate genesis in any way shape or form and also dr Bart erhman is an atheist who wrote a wonderful book I put s link to a few pages back discussing how Jesus definitely did exist...

But sure keep living with your head in the sand

Eve

Risico007 wrote: »

Ludovico wrote: »

@Risico007 You're like the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail: beaten, humiliated but thinking you are actually still standing and capable of fighting. @DarthDimi just served you an epic beating. And YOU were the one questioning the validity of Earth's dating and carbon 14, now you say it has nothing to do with any of your claims? Of course it doesn't disprove God. It just debunks the Biblical linearity AND Genesis account. If there's a God he created the world very differently than the Bible tells us.

As for the resurrection... first demonstrate it happened! And I never ever said the disciples took Jesus body! For all I care if Jesus existed his body must have long rotten in the communal tomb he was thrown in. If he existed at all.

Hahahaha that is pathetic

First how does it eliminate genesis in any way shape or form and also dr Bart erhman is an atheist who wrote a wonderful book I put s link to a few pages back discussing how Jesus definitely did exist...

But sure keep living with your head in the sand

Everything we know and have discovered about this earth and the living creatures inhabiting it debunked Genesis.

I am not a mythicist, I told you before, but as again I told you before, if I find the existence of a Jesus on whom the accounts of the Bible were based very likely, I would not say beyond the shadow of a doubt that he existed, or what part of truth, if any, the stories based on the maybe historical character contain. And Bart Erhman defends his existence fairly well, but he did not prove beyond any doubt that Jesus existed. In his opinion and mine, he probably existed. (Still that word: probability). But from the possible yet still uncertain existence of a rabbi Jesus who preached something or other to the alleged resurrection, there is a gigantic gap that you jump as if it was a detail.

Risico007

The issue is you all live in ignorance of the fact the letters of Paul and the gospels were written between 60 and 90 ad

How do we know this fact look up Jewish history I believe 95 ad.. if I am off by a year or two so sue me but trust me when you see what happened and realize the gospels never make mention of it inspite of Jesus saying it would indeed happen maybe you all can realize how you have been duped by pop culture and “experts”

Ludovico

Risico007 wrote: »

The issue is you all live in ignorance of the fact the letters of Paul and the gospels were written between 60 and 90 ad

How do we know this fact look up Jewish history I believe 95 ad.. if I am off by a year or two so sue me but trust me when you see what happened and realize the gospels never make mention of it inspite of Jesus saying it would indeed happen maybe you all can realize how you have been duped by pop culture and “experts”

I have absolutely no idea what you're rambling on about. Jesus said something would happen even though the gospels never made mention of it? Whatever it is...

And if you're talking of the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem the allusion were equivocal at best.

RC7

Utterly depressing.