cartermia Posted December 7, 2013 Share Posted December 7, 2013 Before you start reading this, beware my mind is crazy and you will surely get lost in my thoughts. The other day in science class we were talking about the 400,000 year old bone human bone found in Europe lately. I was thinking about how the world was only 6,000 years old and how a 400,000 year old bone could co-exist. My mind started seeing similarities with numbers; 6,000 years and 6 days of creation. The 4,000 years after Felix Culpa, the fall of man, and the 400,000 year old bone. Did it say anything in the Bible how long Adam and Eve stayed in the Garden of Eden? I don't think it did, so they could have stayed there for thousands of years but then the Devil tempted Eve and we all know the rest of the story. Also with carbon dating, how do we know that it is so accurate? No one has ever been around (let's use 400,000 since that is the age of the bone) 400,00 year to see if it is accurate. Maybe a half life should be an eighth life or sixty-fourth life we don't truly know. My rant is over for now maybe I will come back to rant some more... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnneLine Posted December 7, 2013 Share Posted December 7, 2013 CarterMia, if you asked me, I'd tell you to give up on the 6000 year old number. Because it really has NO scientific basis, Cartermia. It comes from the work of protestant Bishop, James Usher, who did a series of calculations from the old testament and new to figure out how many generations were 'documented' in the bible. lHe wanted to prove the literalness of biblical teaching -- and that literalness is NOT required in Catholic thought, by the way.... Bishop Usher calculated back and determined that the earth had been created about 4,004 years before Jesus' birth, and that means it's about 6000 years if you accept this info. I don't think that is a valid way of doing science, myself. I don't take the bible as a good reference book for science. They are both true, but in different ways. You will NOT be able to reconcile the recent dating discoveries on ancient fossils with the Usher date. Don't even try. Having said that, if you are in a class that requires you to use the Creationism viewpoint (i.e., require you to accept the 6000 date), you better word your comments preeeeeety carefully. I don't know if this one belongs in the lame board, debate table or whatever, but it could turn into a pretty lively discussion! Are you inclined to take the 6000 year old date at face value (i.e., literally?) Are your teachers encouraging this? I'm just curious.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cartermia Posted December 7, 2013 Author Share Posted December 7, 2013 Oh, no I always take the 6000 year somewhat literal, I believe it is probably closer to that then to 1 billion years old don't you think? Should I move this to the debate table? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnneLine Posted December 7, 2013 Share Posted December 7, 2013 I dunno about moving it... i'm not sure it is a lame thing, but people are more laid back & friendly down here.... We could end up with a whole lot of trolls in here if you take it to the debate table, Cartermia. I'm cool with discussing this in a friendly way if you want.... certainly neither of us knows for sure..... I am curious about why you like the 6000 year figure. I don' t know about billions upon billions of years, but to me there is just way more change in geology and animals and human beings than I could account for in 6000 years. But I'm open to hearing where you are coming from if you want to write about it... I may be busy much of this afternoon, however! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deus te Amat Posted December 7, 2013 Share Posted December 7, 2013 No offense, Cartermia, but the church does not teach that Genesis be taken literally. The majority of Catholics understand the creation story as an analogy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted December 7, 2013 Share Posted December 7, 2013 Also with carbon dating, how do we know that it is so accurate? No one has ever been around (let's use 400,000 since that is the age of the bone) 400,00 year to see if it is accurate. Maybe a half life should be an eighth life or sixty-fourth life we don't truly know. My rant is over for now maybe I will come back to rant some more... What logical basis do you have for doubting the usefulness of carbon dating? Do you know the scientific basis behind it? Do you know how it is tested? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cartermia Posted December 7, 2013 Author Share Posted December 7, 2013 What logical basis do you have for doubting the usefulness of carbon dating? Do you know the scientific basis behind it? Do you know how it is tested? My science teacher has explained about 5 time to my class so yes I know the scientific basis behind it. I also believe everything is based on faith in science also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cartermia Posted December 7, 2013 Author Share Posted December 7, 2013 (edited) What logical basis do you have for doubting the usefulness of carbon dating? Do you know the scientific basis behind it? Do you know how it is tested? double post Edited December 7, 2013 by cartermia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted December 8, 2013 Share Posted December 8, 2013 My science teacher has explained about 5 time to my class so yes I know the scientific basis behind it. I also believe everything is based on faith in science also. Ok, so you have a basic idea of how it works. What basis do you have for doubting it then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnneLine Posted December 8, 2013 Share Posted December 8, 2013 hmmm... looks like this thread has migrated (or at least in part migrated) to the debate table.... oh my.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cartermia Posted December 8, 2013 Author Share Posted December 8, 2013 Yes I like to see people get upset over things like politics, social ideas, and such. So much fun is ahead of us! Nihil, I am doubting because I do not see how accurate this can be when we cannot see it with our own eyes, we cannot live to see the half live pass. Call me a doubting Thomas, that is what I am feeling like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted December 8, 2013 Share Posted December 8, 2013 Yes I like to see people get upset over things like politics, social ideas, and such. So much fun is ahead of us! Nihil, I am doubting because I do not see how accurate this can be when we cannot see it with our own eyes, we cannot live to see the half live pass. Call me a doubting Thomas, that is what I am feeling like. Is it such a wise idea to doubt everything that cannot be seen with the naked eye? I have a feeling you might want to rethink that basis, because if that is truly how you feel then perhaps the doubting Thomas metaphor is more apt than you thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cartermia Posted December 8, 2013 Author Share Posted December 8, 2013 I hate it when I cannot put all of my ideas into words because I can just see the pictures of my ideas in my head. I don't doubt every thing that cannot be seen with a naked eye. I know there are bacteria swimming around in my grandparent's creek and cells make up everything, but some ideas are a little harder to grasp for me; like carbon dating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted December 8, 2013 Share Posted December 8, 2013 (edited) Also it is not really relevant to any kind of radiometric dating if a particular isotope's half-life is longer than a human lifetime. It can be extrapolated based on shorter observations. E.g. if you observe a sample of Beryllium for X time, and find that the proportion of Beryllium-7 decreased by Y with such and such characteristics, then you can use that data to find out how long it would take for precisely half of the Beryllium-7 to decay. (Just over 52 days, apparently.) Edited December 8, 2013 by Nihil Obstat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted December 8, 2013 Share Posted December 8, 2013 I hate it when I cannot put all of my ideas into words because I can just see the pictures of my ideas in my head. I don't doubt every thing that cannot be seen with a naked eye. I know there are bacteria swimming around in my grandparent's creek and cells make up everything, but some ideas are a little harder to grasp for me; like carbon dating. Why do you find radiometric dating harder to accept? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now