Challenge from the Learner

J

JeffTheLearner

Registered Senior Member
Hello,
I'm new here and I signed on because I was google searching and stumbled upon a post and read it and looked at some of the post here and seen and noticed how much zeal many here have that is not positive toward God. I also noticed many here commented in an abstract manner that science is the argument that Christians cannot contend with. Well I here am not a scholar nor smart enough to be working as a higher up in an office somewhere, no I am but a simple and humble machinist and not even a good one, but I do much biblical research and dab a bit into what I believe to be scientific proof that God exist through evidence found through researchers called Creationist. I have also seen and read many scriptures that contain information that pre-dates major information events found, and proved through science. My Challenge is that you tell me why God cannot exist and the scientific evidence that supports it, so you can see if I can not give you a viable argument based on scientific evidence in reply that proves God exist.

-I will make clear now that my responses could take up to two weeks, because I'm busy and also unable to immediately pull up the information needed for myself.
-&My point: is to prove that God exist, and to show that Christians (The type that read the Word and believe) can have good arguments, which should be taken into consideration in the field of scientific research.
 
-Decay of the Earths magnetic field:
Dr. Thomas Barnes, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Texas at El Paso, has published the definitive work in this field. Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth's magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1,400 years. In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the atoms necessary for life processes could not form. These data demonstrate that earth's entire history is young, within a few thousand of years.

-Helium Content in Earth's Atmosphere... Physicist Melvin Cook, Nobel Prize medalist found that helium-4 enters our atmosphere from solar wind and radioactive decay of uranium. At present rates our atmosphere would accumulate current helium-4 amounts in less than 10,000 years.

-Population Statistics proving the time from Noah till now is very close to accurate:
World population growth rate in recent times is about 2% per year. Practicable application of growth rate throughout human history would be about half that number. Wars, disease, famine, etc. have wiped out approximately one third of the population on average every 82 years. Starting with eight people, and applying these growth rates since the Flood of Noah's day (about 4500 years ago) would give a total human population at just under six billion people. However, application on an evolutionary time scale runs into major difficulties. Starting with one "couple" just 41,000 years ago would give us a total population of 2 x 1089. The universe does not have space to hold so many bodies.

-Carbon Dating has its flaws:
A less-common form of the carbon atom, carbon-14, is used today by scientists as a method to date once-living organisms. Many people believe that carbon dating disproves the Biblical time scale of history. However, because of the difficulties with current C14 dating techniques, the dates produced have been shown to be faulty.

Carbon-14 is produced in the upper atmosphere by action of cosmic rays. Once the C 14 has been formed, by converting nitrogen-14 into carbon-14, it behaves like ordinary carbon-12, combining with oxygen to give carbon dioxide, and freely cycling through the cells of all plants and animals. Carbon-14 is used for a dating material because once it has been formed, C14 begins to decay radioactively back to nitrogen-14, at a rate of change that can be measured. As soon as an organism dies, the C14 atoms which decay are no longer replaced by new ones through respiration. Consequently, the ratio of C14 to C12 in that once-living organism decreases as time goes on. The problem with the carbon dating method is—scientists can not be sure of what the C14/C12 ratio was when the organism died. Carbon dating assumes that the ratio has remained constant; however, events, such as the industrial revolution, are known to have raised C12 levels. Other possible factors, such as the presence of a water canopy, would have lowered the amount of C14 in the pre-Flood world. Because pre-Flood specimens had so little carbon-14 in them, some might appear to have been decaying for tens of thousands of years. Also, the decay of the earth’s magnetic field would have direct effects on C14 level, again, giving artificially old ages the farther you go back in time. Finally, carbon dating has been shown untrustworthy with some present day aquatic specimens that were concluded to be thousands of years old. For example, the shells of living snails’ were carbon dated and showed that the snails had died 27,000 years ago. Other specimens have been carbon dated more than once, each time producing a different date varying by thousands of years. In overview, we see that the radiocarbon dating method is certainly no embarrassment to the Biblical creationist who believes in a young earth. In fact, when all data, such as the decay of the magnetic field and the canopy, is taken into accord, carbon dating seems to support a young earth.

Much more info is available:
-----(information taken from creationevidence.org)
 
JeffTheLearner said:
Hello,
I'm new here and I signed on because I was google searching and stumbled upon a post and read it and looked at some of the post here and seen and noticed how much zeal many here have that is not positive toward God. I also noticed many here commented in an abstract manner that science is the argument that Christians cannot contend with. Well I here am not a scholar nor smart enough to be working as a higher up in an office somewhere, no I am but a simple and humble machinist and not even a good one, but I do much biblical research and dab a bit into what I believe to be scientific proof that God exist through evidence found through researchers called Creationist. I have also seen and read many scriptures that contain information that pre-dates major information events found, and proved through science. My Challenge is that you tell me why God cannot exist and the scientific evidence that supports it, so you can see if I can not give you a viable argument based on scientific evidence in reply that proves God exist.

-I will make clear now that my responses could take up to two weeks, because I'm busy and also unable to immediately pull up the information needed for myself.
-&My point: is to prove that God exist, and to show that Christians (The type that read the Word and believe) can have good arguments, which should be taken into consideration in the field of scientific research.
Click to expand...


Honey, what makes you think that the scientifc method is THE one to prove that God exists? Or that science has anything to do with God, either proving God or disproving God?
 
JeffTheLearner said:
Hello,
Click to expand...
welcome, appropriate name.
JeffTheLearner said:
I'm new here and I signed on because I was google searching and stumbled upon a post and read it and looked at some of the post here and seen and noticed how much zeal many here have that is not positive toward God.
Click to expand...
why would it?.
JeffTheLearner said:
I also noticed many here commented in an abstract manner that science is the argument that Christians cannot contend with. Well I here am not a scholar nor smart enough to be working as a higher up in an office somewhere, no I am but a simple and humble machinist and not even a good one, but I do much biblical research and dab a bit into what I believe to be scientific proof
Click to expand...
i'm glad it subjective to you, as it's cant be classed as scientific.
JeffTheLearner said:
that God exist through evidence found through researchers called Creationist.
Click to expand...
research means to check other avenues beside the bible, creationists Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.
JeffTheLearner said:
I have also seen and read many scriptures that contain information that pre-dates major information events found,
Click to expand...
see above answer, have you any information to back up this assumption.
JeffTheLearner said:
My Challenge is that you tell me why God cannot exist and the scientific evidence that supports it, so you can see if I can not give you a viable argument based on scientific evidence in reply that proves God exist.
Click to expand...
the onus is quite clearly on you, it would be infantile to try and prove non-existence, it's blatently obvious.

this was posted by mis-t-highs,

Proving Existence or Non-Existence.

The existence of a thing can be conclusively proved by producing one single instance of the thing.

To put that another way: -
When the existence of a thing is denied, This can be proven wrong by producing one single instance of the thing said not to exist

The non-existence of a thing can never be conclusively proved because there is always the theoretical assumption that the thing exists but has not been seen yet or it exists in a place that can not be visited. Unless all places in the universe have been visited and are being constantly observed, we can not be absolutely certain.

From this we can say that there are only two possible statements we can make about the existence of a thing:


The thing exists.

It is unknown if the thing exists or not.

It is not possible to prove that a thing "does not exist" without further qualifying criteria.

If a thing does NOT exist it can not leave any evidence of it's non-existence. Only things that DO exist can leave evidence. From this we can derive that conclusive proof can only come from the person that claims that a thing exists. It is nonsensical to demand proof of non-existence.


JeffTheLearner said:
I will make clear now that my responses could take up to two weeks, because I'm busy and also unable to immediately pull up the information needed for myself.
My point: is to prove that God exists, and to show that Christians (The type that read the Word and believe) can have good arguments, which should be taken into consideration in the field of scientific research.
Click to expand...
two weeks is but a blink, to the eternity it will take for you to prove a god exists.
 
Ahh Jeff...

All of your information from "creationevidence.org" is bogus. They have but one goal - prove creationism is right at all costs. This is not how science is done. Creationists presuppose the answer and then go looking for evidence to support it, tossing contrary evidence.

-Decay of the Earths magnetic field:
Dr. Thomas Barnes, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Texas at El Paso, has published the definitive work in this field. Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth's magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1,400 years. In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the atoms necessary for life processes could not form. These data demonstrate that earth's entire history is young, within a few thousand of years.
Click to expand...
The earths magnetic field goes through periodic reversals and has many times over the long history of the planet. It weakens and then reverses. The current trend is just one of weakening and may indicate an imminenet reversal (in several thousand years) or just a minor fluctuation. Dr. Barns is lying by omission in order to support his cause. He's not a real scientist, or his words have been misused. I guarantee it.

-Helium Content in Earth's Atmosphere... Physicist Melvin Cook, Nobel Prize medalist found that helium-4 enters our atmosphere from solar wind and radioactive decay of uranium. At present rates our atmosphere would accumulate current helium-4 amounts in less than 10,000 years.
Click to expand...
It's also a common decay product for other radioactive elements as well. Did you know that helium (even helium 4) is very light? That it escapes from the atmosphere at a rate that eventually balances with it's production? Please don't post responses from any of the dozens of "creation research institutes" or whatever. I've read em all. No science contained in any of them.

-Population Statistics proving the time from Noah till now is very close to accurate:
World population growth rate in recent times is about 2% per year. Practicable application of growth rate throughout human history would be about half that number. Wars, disease, famine, etc. have wiped out approximately one third of the population on average every 82 years. Starting with eight people, and applying these growth rates since the Flood of Noah's day (about 4500 years ago) would give a total human population at just under six billion people. However, application on an evolutionary time scale runs into major difficulties. Starting with one "couple" just 41,000 years ago would give us a total population of 2 x 1089. The universe does not have space to hold so many bodies.
Click to expand...
Human populations have gone through "bottlenecks" - environmentally stressful times - throughout our history. The most recent one was estimated to be some tens of thousands of years ago in which the population was greatly reduced. The linear progression you provide is childishly naive and a lie perpetrated by creationists.

-Carbon Dating has its flaws:
A less-common form of the carbon atom, carbon-14, is used today by scientists as a method to date once-living organisms. Many people believe that carbon dating disproves the Biblical time scale of history. However, because of the difficulties with current C14 dating techniques, the dates produced have been shown to be faulty.

Carbon-14 is produced in the upper atmosphere by action of cosmic rays. Once the C 14 has been formed, by converting nitrogen-14 into carbon-14, it behaves like ordinary carbon-12, combining with oxygen to give carbon dioxide, and freely cycling through the cells of all plants and animals. Carbon-14 is used for a dating material because once it has been formed, C14 begins to decay radioactively back to nitrogen-14, at a rate of change that can be measured. As soon as an organism dies, the C14 atoms which decay are no longer replaced by new ones through respiration. Consequently, the ratio of C14 to C12 in that once-living organism decreases as time goes on. The problem with the carbon dating method is—scientists can not be sure of what the C14/C12 ratio was when the organism died. Carbon dating assumes that the ratio has remained constant; however, events, such as the industrial revolution, are known to have raised C12 levels. Other possible factors, such as the presence of a water canopy, would have lowered the amount of C14 in the pre-Flood world. Because pre-Flood specimens had so little carbon-14 in them, some might appear to have been decaying for tens of thousands of years. Also, the decay of the earth’s magnetic field would have direct effects on C14 level, again, giving artificially old ages the farther you go back in time. Finally, carbon dating has been shown untrustworthy with some present day aquatic specimens that were concluded to be thousands of years old. For example, the shells of living snails’ were carbon dated and showed that the snails had died 27,000 years ago. Other specimens have been carbon dated more than once, each time producing a different date varying by thousands of years. In overview, we see that the radiocarbon dating method is certainly no embarrassment to the Biblical creationist who believes in a young earth. In fact, when all data, such as the decay of the magnetic field and the canopy, is taken into accord, carbon dating seems to support a young earth.
Click to expand...
The carbon dating technique is regularly calibrated against known historical eventd (e.g. known ancient egyptian dynastic artifacts) and is reasonably reliable. All of the sources of error your info points to are taken into account in the error statements provided with any carbon date. The paragraph you provide is propaganda for the simpleminded who don't have the faintest clue as to how this is really done. Pointing out snail dates which scientists already know are suspect due to the nature of their environment is completely disingenuous. What about isochron dating? This is used to provide dates for the oldest rocks on earth - 3.5by or more.

Here's a better source of info:

http://www.talkorigins.org/
 
Superluminal,

What makes you think that the scientifc method is THE one to prove or disprove that God exists? Or that science has anything to do with God, either proving God or disproving God?
 
Water,

I don't give a crap about whether god exists or not anymore. It's a useless concept. All I did was respond to some scientific assertions by Mr. TheLearner. He posted bogus statements, I countered them. That's all.

What makes you think my post had anything to do with god at all?
 
Superluminal,

You have responded to Jeff's post. I think Jeff's position is a strawman, and you were fighting a strawman.
I don't know why attack strawmen and treat them as if they weren't that.
So, in case you insist that you were not fighting a strawman, you are in fact quietly accepting that science has somehting to do with proving/disproving God.
 
Water

Science isn't interested in gods, proving existence or anything else. Science is only interested in how things work.

The problem begins when people compare the hard evidence of science to religious dogma, and one is left to either ignore the evidence in favor of dogma or understand that the evidence clearly contradicts dogma. As time marches on and more hard evidence is found, we begin to conclude that gods may not exist afterall.

Perhaps one day, we may find enough hard evidence to conclude that gods could not possibly exist.

And then hopefully, religion will begin its final demise and be irradicated from the Earth.
 
Jeff's "position" is just some quotes from a creationist website about matters of physical reality (age of the earth, etc...). He wasn't arguing anything. And I wasn't attacking. I was correcting. Are you trying to start a fight with me water darling?
 
If

(Q) said:
Science isn't interested in gods,
Click to expand...

why


As time marches on and more hard evidence is found, we begin to conclude that gods may not exist afterall.

Perhaps one day, we may find enough hard evidence to conclude that gods could not possibly exist.
Click to expand...

?

That is still using science to prove/disprove God.
 
superluminal said:
Jeff's "position" is just some quotes from a creationist website about matters of physical reality (age of the earth, etc...). He wasn't arguing anything. And I wasn't attacking. I was correcting. Are you trying to start a fight with me water darling?
Click to expand...

I can't stand a bad scientist, and I can't stand a bad theist. And I can't stand bad scientists fighting with bad theists and vice versa. Or even attempt to fight, or what might turn into a fight.

:mad: :mad: :mad:
 
JeffTheLearner said:
- to the Biblical creationist who believes in a young earth.

Much more info is available:
-----(information taken from creationevidence.org)
Click to expand...

-Decay of the Earths magnetic field:
Dr. Thomas Barnes,
Simply put, Dr. Barnes was wrong.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea.html#proof11

Helium Content in Earth's Atmosphere... Physicist Melvin Cook
Search for "cook" on this page and you will find his calculations were flawed. He overlooked facts while making his calculations, leading to his calculations being based on flawed numbers, therefore the results could not produce fact.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea.html

Population Statistics
Simply put. Using this math you get this: "At the time the Israelites entered Canaan, for instance, we get a world population of 2024!"

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea2.html

Carbon Dating has its flaws
Yes, it does. Science is aware of that.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_3.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_4.html

a more complicated read which helps explain multiple methods used to date things:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html

I would suggest you speak with someone familiar with carbon dating and its errors, and what researchers do to validate their date/time claims. If no one here can answer that clearly for you, try a post to talk.origins and ask for someone to explain specifically how this is done, and how science resolves these issues.

As far as the website you posted, I skimmed some contents and found it to be lacking in any proof at all. For example: A coal formation that was not formed the way most coal formations occur, does not negate the existance, nor the method by which most coalbeds are formed. It simply indicates there may be more than one way to form coal. Additionally, I found no date estimated for this Powder Basin coal formation, so that part is a complete unknown and may in itself predate the flood story, negating even further the conclusion in this part of your link. Being as other portions of that website used dates to try to prove their conclusion, I would have to suspect, the age of the Powder Basin coal formation Does impead their conclusion so therefore, it was discarded.

I am no expert on coal so this is as far as I will go.
 
I would suggest that the scientific evidence seems to point out that the earth is not the age the hyper-creationist insists upon and then "proves" by attacking what is quite possibly solid science, i.e. an accurate representation of physical processes.

I would also suggest that dalahar has something when he points out the lack of sun thing. How do you decide what the bible really means?
This is the question better answered by the religious than the scientist. Not the "carbon-dating has it's issues" thing.

I tend to go with the kabbalists description of the cycles of creation, since it was their book long before I ever read any of it, and because it results in an approximate age of the earth which is pretty close to scientific approximations, long before they had the science to do such approximations.
 
water:

I can't stand a bad scientist, and I can't stand a bad theist. And I can't stand bad scientists fighting with bad theists and vice versa. Or even attempt to fight, or what might turn into a fight.
Click to expand...

And I can't stand your inane babbling.
 
That is still using science to prove/disprove God.
Click to expand...
Why can we not use science to prove/disprove god? Why do theists insist on using logic, and reason only to dump it in the trash whenever it does not suit them best?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top