Wednesday, 26 January 2011
Creationism rejected as non-science!
To think that the creationist position is rejected as a non-science is quite honestly a joke. I am amazed that evolution is considered to be 'science'. It has all the hallmarks of nothing more nor less than a set of beliefs. Lets face it we are all in the same boat as far as time past is concerned. This is chiefly because we are all at the great disadvantage of not being able to turn the clock back. Science tries to delve back with its view that fossils indicate the passage of time and that radio-dating is a legitimate method of 'dating' the past. But these things are certainly not 'proven'. They rest on assumptions which may or may not be true. How do we test them? Well we cannot. The dreadful thing is that modern science has shackled itself to one view of the world - a materialist non-spiritual evolution driven view. Nothing else is acceptable. Have they discovered this as the true framework? Of course not they have set the parameters like a giant 'statement of faith' and utterly reject anyone who states anything contrary to the currently accepted dogma. It is rich that modern scientists rant about fundamentalist Christians claiming that the Bible is 100% true and that God created the world and that their position is myth and hidebound and outdated! And yet modern science pontificates to the extent that no one dare breathe. If you are ion any public position today woe-betide you if you take any view contrary to the modern science dogma!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
All so called "assumptions" are tested rigorously in science, otherwise they would not be accepted by the scientific community as useful. Also, all tests are easily reproducible and many are quite simple (with many experiments easy to find on the internet today).
ReplyDeleteIt's not "radio-dating" it's radiocarbon dating (carbon dating for short). It is absolutely proven to be an accurate way to measure the age of any carbon-containing artifacts by measuring their current level of carbon decay.
Here is a quick carbon-dating 101 lesson:
You see the earths atmosphere is bombarded by cosmic rays which cause many atoms to eventually collide with the nuclei in the denser lower atmosphere. And because nitrogen molecules are everywhere, these collisions will produce an isotope of carbon by emitting a proton (basically neutrons collide with the nuclei of a nitrogen atom and that atom loses a proton creating the isotope). This isotope is unstable (radioactive) and eventually decays back to nitrogen, but before it does so, it can still chemically react with oxygen to form carbon dioxide which is taken in by plants. This means all living things on earth contain some carbon-14 (because plants contain it, and animals eat plants or other animals eat animals that eat plants, etc..). Eventually carbon-14 decays back to nitrogen by emitting an election and stabilizing the nucleus. But because plants continue to take in carbon dioxide, carbon-14 is constantly replenished while alive. In this way a radioactive equilibrium is reached where there is a constant ratio of about one carbon-14 atom to every 100 billion carbon-12 atoms (which is a non-radioactive isotope commonly occurring in nature). But when a plant dies, replenishment of carbon-14 stops (thus when an animal dies and stops eating plants or other animals that eat plants, the same thing happens). The percentage of carbon-14 decreases at a constant rate given by its half-life. The longer an organism is dead, therefore, the less carbon-14 it contains relative to the constant amount of carbon-12. With this knowledge scientists can calculate the age of any carbon-containing artifacts.
In laymen's terms: All things decay. Decay is simply a chemical reaction of carbon isotopes turning to nitrogen. We can measure decay by sampling the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12. :)
But this isn't the only way to determine the age of a fossil. It can be determined by the depth and layers buried.
Can you really tell me that dating fossils is science? I mean even in the literature you get candid assertions that the assumptions just don't add up. The amount of C14 in the atmosphere is constantly changing. The proportion in living things is not constant. And so on. Someone once referred to carbon dating as just 13th century alchemy!
ReplyDeleteI notice also that you highlight one of the things I am constantly talking about - the fact that science has become the new priesthood. You state:
"All so called "assumptions" are tested rigorously in science, otherwise they would not be accepted by the scientific community as useful. "
It is then 'the scientific community' which acts to accept or reject what is a valid assumption or not, and laymen must simply bow the knee! This sounds so much like a synod or council whereby doctrine is decided. The only difference is that the Bible is an objective witness. Creation also is a witness and it witnesses to the God who created it. That science misses this obvious point is a remarkable testimony to the sinfulness of man. Notice also that creation - the data of science - is a 'given' but the great problem is we and all men have different world views and these influence how we see the evidence. Someone somewhere once claimed that evidence demands only one verdict. However we need to consider how people use their eyes and ears!
One final point about fossils. I have been a fossil collector for some thirty years. Anyone who has done some fossil collecting and who has some knowledge of the vast graveyards of fossils the world over knows that the idea that sediment layers linked to ages is simply a nineteenth century manufactured idea. To conclude that the depth of a fossil means it must be of a certain age depends on making the pre-determined decision that the strata are assigned certain ages. Don't say to me that these are determined by radio-dating techniques because radioactivity was unknown when the geological column was constructed. This was constructed on the basis that evolution was true without any objective or external information (read Godel's incompleteness theorem). Add to this that when the geological column was established it was based mainly on UK and some European rocks, and when geologists began studying further afield they found some areas where so-called older rocks in huge sections lay neatly on top of younger rocks. There are so many examples of these that they ought to falsify the connection between rock strata and age. It doesn't because men want to believe in the theory at all costs! Any idea that science advances bit by bit and thought by thought towards the truth is an utter nonsense. King Solomon came to that conclusion long before modern philosophers!
Eh... that's disappointing. To think we wasted everyone's time when we discovered antibiotics, vaccination, antiseptics, or the power of flight. When science created the light bulb, the combustion engine, information technology uniting the world in easy communication. To think it was a complete falsehood that a combination of Newtonian mechanics and relativity got us to the moon. It was all a waste of time, because all of this information which has inspired man, prolonged life, and prevented disease, was all provided by the bible and the revealed word of god... Oh wait, it isn't? Look, an omni-benevolent god isn't going to punish you for having some honest skepticism, even towards the dogma surrounding your religion. I would strongly suggest you do so.
ReplyDelete