These next few weeks I'll post a series of email conversations I had with an atheist in response to me sending her what I wrote in my "Something to Think About" post. I will not be publishing her emails to me; however, by my series of responses, the bases of her claims and questions will be obvious. I've made some minor changes to make our conversations as clear as possible.
First off, where is the scientific evidence for life starting with some unknown bacteria, somehow as the result of the Big Bang? There is none, it’s just a theory. Just like the Big Bang itself, there is no proof: it's just a theory. It's true the moon reflects light from the sun, but it still is a light to the earth by night. Carbon dating assumes (and you know what happens when you assume) that carbon is lost at the same rate over time. If for some reason carbon is not lost at the same rate over time, there goes the dating process. However, the Bible doesn't say the earth is six thousand years old: again that's someone's theory. In the first chapter of Genesis it describes each period of creation as a day, but in the second chapter it says "these are the generations of the creation of the heavens and the earth, in the day God made the earth and the heavens." So clearly creation is a period of time not literal days. When we die, don't our bodies turn to dust?
If your cat had so much pain and discomfort during her pregnancy and giving birth, I suggest you call a veterinarian. Compared to humans, animals have minimal discomfort during their pregnancy. Why don't you ask some biologists? Or better yet, ask your mother about morning sickness and other women about their pregnancy and especially their delivery. And you still haven't answered all my questions, so I'll ask this one again. If an object at the quantum level can be in multiple locations at the same time, and matter at the quantum level behaves differently whether its being observed, isn’t it possible that an All Powerful Force said “Let the seas be gathered together in one place, and let the dry land appear.” the Bible's version of creation, if you're going to be honest about it, according to the recent discoveries in quantum physics has to be examined, of course unless you already have your mind made up.
The bottom line however, is that the Bible is not a scientific or archaeological book. It's a spiritual book, that summed up, tells of the redemption of mankind, although every archaeological find has confirmed what the Bible has said as being accurate. As far as human history goes, the recent scientific evidence that the universe is continually expanding and the earth being round, which was referred to in Isaiah 40:22 around 700 B.C., which again you haven't answered as to how a human during that time could have known that, unless God told him. Like many of the other points I've made, I see you already have your mind made up.
But a couple of other facts before I go; speaking of Ishmael, the father of the Arabs, God said in Genesis 16:12, "He will be a wild man; his hand will be against all men and all men's hand will be against him." Ishmael's descendants, one of whom was the founder of Islam said in Ishaq:204 "Do you realize what you are committing yourselves to in pledging your support to this man (Muhammad)? It is to wage war against all mankind." Research Islamic history from the 7th century to today, or go talk to the Africans in Sudan who are being slaughtered by Muslim militia, or the people in East Timor who last decade, 1/3 where killed by Indonesian Muslims, or the Thai's or Hindu. I'm sure you didn't hear about the Hindu holocaust or the Armenian genocide when you was in school or any of the Muslim violence during the 1400 year history of Islam. Then, there is the prophecy in Daniel 9:24 - 26, which was around 540 B.C.. 69 times 7 equals 483 years, but that's in Jewish years and that comes out to approximately 476 years as we know them today. 476 years from when the order for Jerusalem to be rebuilt by King Artaxerxes in 444 B.C., Nehemiah 2:3 - 8, gets you to 33 A.D. (there's no year 0 in the Gregorian calendar): so again, the Bible is accurate.
As I conclude, I don't mean to come off in a negative way. I just hope you will look at these facts which are proven, except the findings in quantum physics which are still being examined, and examine them with an open mind and find out for yourself if they are true. You will soon discover there is so much evidence on It's side, that the Bible has to be the word of God; just the mere fact of all these authors over more than a thousand year period tell such a consistent story should perk your curiosity. I wish you a good day and happy investigating.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
Hello-
I found this website via the YouTube video "Barack Obama Mocks And Makes Fun Of The Bible - No Christian would do this", which was posted on the science blog Pharyngula. I was curious what kind of person would post a video like that, and if I'm not mistaken, this blog belongs to the poster of that video.
Anyway, I read this essay, and I'll just say that I'm highly entertained, and not the least bit surprised, by your lack of understanding of science. That's nothing unusual; a depressingly large percentage of this country is scientifically illiterate. However, that apparently hasn't stopped you from pretending to know what you are talking about.
If you're interested, a good way to start learning about science is to look up what scientists mean when talk about a scientific theory. I'll give you a hint: a scientific theory is different from my personal theory that the narrator of the Obama video is about 19 years old.
deejay
You haven't shown me where I'm wrong, you've only criticized.
You haven't shown me where I'm wrong, you've only criticized.
Hi David-
Thanks for posting my comment. It's true that most of my post is criticism, but I did point out one thing you did wrong: you misused the term "theory", saying that there is "no evidence" for the Big Bang, nor for common descent of life on earth. So to clarify, you are wrong to use your understanding of what a theory is to describe the Big Bang.
I understand that you are aware that there are people out there who accept the evidence for carbon dating. They accept that evidence for good reason: it works. Nuclear decay is not only a valuable tool for dating objects; it's also used in a wide variety of applications on day to day basis. The predictable rates of nuclear decay are used in nuclear power plants, Geiger counters, and radiation treatment of cancer, to give just a few examples.
Nuclear decay works, and the model developed to explain nuclear decay fits the evidence. I realize that the folks at Answers in Genesis bring up the claim that decay rates could be variable, but there is no evidence to support this view.
deejay
There is also no evidence that the decay rates are not variable either. If you look at the account in Genesis chapter one and the beginning of chapter two that says "these are the generations of the creation of the heavens and the earth" the creation account in Genesis is consistent with modern scientific theory. To further clarify, listen to my "God our Creator" video.
One more time David: the evidence shows that decay rates are steady. The nuclear weaponry used to defend this nation depends on that assumption. Should we give up our nuclear weapons because there’s a chance they won’t work? That’s basically what you’re arguing when you claim that radiometric dating methods should be disregarded as unreliable.
To say that nuclear decay rates could vary is like saying a person could turn into a pile of cheese. It could happen, right? Just because we haven’t seen it happen before doesn’t mean it never will, right? Again, this is an equivalent to the position you are taking. You are making an extraordinary claim. To make an extraordinary claim and defend it scientifically, you must come up with a testable hypothesis. How could decay rates vary? How would you test this? Again, it’s not enough to simply say “it could happen.”
The last paragraph of your reply doesn’t make any sense. Modern scientific theory puts the age of the earth at about 4.5 billion years. As I understand them, literal readings of Genesis put the age of the earth at about 6-10,00 years. Those figures are not consistent.
deejay
How can you say the decay rates have been proven steady when there's no way to prove that something is thousands or millions of years old? In short, if carbon dating says thatsomething is 50,000 years old there's no way to prove that over 50,000 years that carbon was lost at the same rate to come up with the 50,000 year age of the item.
In Genesis chapter one, the creation story follows how scientists say life happened on earth: life began first in the oceans, then on land, and lastly man appeared. In Genesis chapter two, the Hebrew says the earth was created in generations, meaning a long period of time. The Bible and science are more in agreement than people realize.
David, let me rephrase the statements in the first paragraph of your last comment as a question: If carbon dating says an object is 50,000 years old, how do we know that the rate of decay was the same for that entire 50,000 years? That’s actually a good question, and guess what? Scientists thought of that question as well. The answer to that is to use other methods for dating and see whether those different measurements agree with each other. For a given age estimate, decay of other radioactive isotopes can be measured, and another age estimate can be determined. Scientists aren’t restricted to nuclear decay for dating techniques; they can use tree ring data. If the number of tree rings says a tree is 5,000 years old, and carbon dating techniques show that the same tree is 5,000 years old, then you can say with a high degree of confidence that the tree is 5,000 years old. We can say that with even more confidence if we use different samples, or if another dating technique shows the same age.
You ask good questions, but here’s a hint for you: if you thought of this question, it’s a safe assumption that someone else thought of it before you.
You ducked my request for clarification on what you believe the age of the earth is. Is it 4.5 billion years or 6,000 years?
deejay
Just because the rate of carbon is consistant for a 1000 to 2000 or so year period, for the life of a tree for example, that doesn't mean the rate of decay or cardon loss is the same after that. The rate of carbon loss could or could not vary over time the older an item is. So to say that carbon dating dates something 100,000 or millions of years old may not be accurate.
The Bible does not say the earth is 6000 years old. Genesis chapter one has in general terms the creation of the universe and the world as scientist do, except the Bible says God created the universe and the world. Day one, "let there be light and there was light." Scientist, the formation of the sun. Scientist say life began in the oceans, then it came on land, and lastly humans came along, Genesis chapter one says, God created life in the oceans, then on land, and lastly humans. Scientist say the earth is millions of years old. Genesis chapter two in the Hebrew says, "these are the generations of the creation of the heavens and the earth." In other words, a long period of time. So the days in Gensesis chapter one are not literal 24 hour days. The second part of Genesis 2:4 says, "in the day the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." So you see, science and the Bible are more in agreement than people realize.
If you want an exact number, I don't know how old the earth is; but as from the evidence I just discussed, I beleive the Bible is saying the earth is older than 6000 years.
David-
Carbon dating doesn’t say that anything is “millions of years old,” as you put it. Carbon 14 dating is used to age objects that are up to about 50,000 years old. Other radioactive isotopes are used to determine ages of objects older than that. You obviously don’t know some very fundamental things about carbon dating. Why should your criticisms of carbon dating techniques carry any weight? Do you think you are persuading anyone?
So you say that the earth is “older than 6,000 years.” Is that the end of the discussion as far as you are concerned, or should we try harder and find a better answer than what one interpretation of the Bible suggests?
deejay
David-
Waiting three days to respond to my latest comment is one thing, but failing even to post my latest comment after three days is another. What's up?
I've already laid out my case. The Bible in Genesis chapter one follows the same patter of life on earth as the scientist, except Genesis says that God created the heavens and the earth. In Genesis 2:4 in the original Hebrew, the Bible says the earth was created in generations; so I rest my case, the Bible and science are more in agreement than people realize.
I understood you the first time you said that the earth was older than 6,000 years. Could you please put an upper limit on the age of the earth?
Thanks,
deejay
Any number I come up with would be speculation, so I really don't want to guess.
Fair enough. It's very good of you to admit that whatever you say on the issue of the age of the earth is speculation. The next step is to realize that when scientists discuss the age of the earth, they don't speculate. They hypothesize and test. They also make informed criticisms of each other's work. Through informed criticism, new hypotheses and new tests, scientific knowledge progresses.
When you talk about variable decay rates, it sounds like you think you are making informed criticism of scientists' work. As I noted above, you don't know some of the barest essentials of radioactive decay models, and I asked why anyone should take you seriously when you clearly don't know what you are talking about. Do you still think you are offering informed criticisms of radioactive decay models?
deejay
Common sense will tell you that no one can tell for certain that any decay rates are constant for a million years because recorded human history has not been around to verify it. So to say a bone for example is one million years old is a guess; an educated one, but a guess just the same.
David, do you think scientists lack common sense? Science doesn't deal with absolute truths. Scientists don't say "This bone is absolutely 1,000,000 years old, and there is absolutely no way it could be any other age." It's something they can say with a high degree of confidence because of the reliability of nuclear decay models and the agreement of nuclear decay models with other dating methods. These are tests that have been done thousands of times in the past century.
Scientists have a VERY strong incentive to prove each other wrong; that's how you make a name for yourself in science. The data cited in the Wikipedia article on the age of the earth are from 1956. That means that thousands of people over the past 50 years, all of them infinitely more knowledgeable than you, and with access to increasingly sophisticated methods, have had the opportunity to show how an age of around 4.6 billion years is incorrect. Guess what? So far, they haven't. Now you come along and tell them they don't know what they are doing.
Two questions for you, David, and please answer them:
1) For the third time, do you think you are offering informed criticism of nuclear decay models?
2) How do decay rates change?
deejay
I've said all I can say on the matter. I rest my case.
If you can't stand the heat...
deejay
Post a Comment