Originally posted by force10jc: c) In general I agree with this statement but I also believe that while if something cannot be explained you don't jump right into "God did it", I also do not believe that you can necessarily explain away some theories that may seem outlandish just because we can't prove them with today's technology. Today's science fiction has on many occasions become tomorrow's science.
This post was edited on 2/1 12:45 PM by force10jc
I do not claim that I know that God does not exist nor that I know that biblical accounts are false. That said, under modern understandings of science and history, many biblical accounts are either inconsistent with the accepted consensus or not considered to be possible under the scientific understanding of the universe that is currently the consensus. While scientific changes as new data arises and future discoveries could prove it to be true, if you assert something that is counter the the way humanity best understands the universe, I will argue that you have to present compelling evidence. For extraordinary claims, you require extraordinary evidence.
Originally posted by force10jc: d) Agree with the general premise of this but I also feel like there are scientists that hold on to some theories as fact out of arrogance making them no better than biblical literalists.
Science is not determined by the opinions or career aspirations of singular groups. Science utilizes the scientific process (particularly peer review and the requirements of replication and independent verification) to weed out error. Even beyond that, the scientific community requires consensus before theories are considered accepted. Part of this process also includes a natural counterbalance to the desire to prove something to further oneself. Disproving something has equal standing in the scientific community as proving something. A good example of this would be Hawking, one of the more "proud" physicists who was harangued over his claims that black holes violated the laws of conservation of energy. He was b&tch slapped in the community until he finally admitted he was wrong.
Originally posted by force10jc: f) I do feel that carbon dating as we understand it is accurate within 500 to 1000 year anyway. In many cases this is close enough. The problem usually arises when bones or ashes that can be carbon dated are found within a stone structure. An example would be carbon dating dates the bones and ashes to a couple of thousand years ago so it is assumed that the stone structure is the same age. Since stone cannot be carbon dated, there is really no way of knowing how old the structure really is. Baalbek in Lebanon might have gone down as a Roman structure forever had someone not realized the Roman architecture was built upon a much older structure. How did they move those giant stone slabs anyway?
Carbon dating is one of only a few types of radioactive dating methods that rely on half lives and known rates of decay between pairs of isotopes. C14 dating is used only for certain living organisms and can only date out to between 30K and 40K years on the high end because data must be controlled for, among other things, the amount of carbon in the air. This control is done through ice cores from which carbon parts per million can be determined (with ice cores providing the necessary record for up to 40K years). C14 dating can not be done on certain subjects, such as, as it turns out, shellfish because of the impact of a filtration consumption cycle. The accuracy of carbon dating varies between the methods. People commonly use the term "carbon dating" in the lay community to cover all types of radioactive dating methods. Folks (myself included) we be better off using more accurate terms when we can. That said, I'm not an expert in this field.