Research Finds Carbon Dating Flawed 625
eldavojohn writes "New research funded by the National Science Foundation at the University of Miami is showing that carbon dating (the 13C/12C ratio used to infer age) in the ocean can only be trusted up to 150 million years ago. From the primary researcher, 'This study is a major step in terms of rethinking how geologists interpret variations in the 13C/12C ratio throughout Earth's history. If the approach does not work over the past 10 million years, then why would it work during older time periods? As a consequence of our findings, changes in 13C/12C records need to be reevaluated, conclusions regarding changes in the reservoirs of carbon will have to be reassessed, and some of the widely-held ideas regarding the elevation of CO2 during specific periods of the Earth's geological history will have to be adjusted.' While this research doesn't necessarily throw carbon dating out the window, it should cause people to rethink so many theories about early life that revolved around ages of sediment in the oceans."
Re:Damn... (Score:5, Interesting)
When I was 7 or 8, there was a kid up the road who was about my same age from a Pentecostal family. Being a kid and fascinated by anything that seemed bitey, I loved dinosaurs, and at some point during a neighborhood get-together I told him so. He promptly told me that I was going to hell for believing Satan over God. I, growing up in a family that could be charitably described as occasionally Catholic, asked him (in slightly different terms) what the fuck he was talking about, and how he could refuse to believe that dinosaurs walked the earth when there were so many fossils and such a well-constructed fossil record. The conversation ended when he, within hearing range of both his parents and mine, shouted "Shut up, Satan! I'm going home to get my Bible!", and left.
Now, don't get me wrong, kids can make up some damned creative things- but I would wager my bottom dollar that there isn't a kid alive that would come up with the idea that dinosaur bones were planted by the Devil all on his own. My guess is that we don't have to look too far from the ol' homestead to figure out where he found that particular line.
At least someone got it right (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Title (Score:3, Interesting)
Serious question to elucidate those who are misinformed (including myself): What effect does the Industrial Revolution and the subsequent history's use of fossil fuels have on carbon dating?
Re:Title (Score:3, Interesting)
Nuclear Decay Rates are Not Random, People (Score:4, Interesting)
Slashdot should have ran the more interesting story pertaining to nuclear decay rates that came up this week, which my nuclear physicist associate (Oliver Manuel) forwarded to me ...
Evidence for Correlations Between Nuclear Decay Rates and Earth-Sun Distance [arxiv.org]
Seach the Firehose for "decay rate" and you'll find my submission, which was rejected (not complaining actually, just a bit confused).
And it's not even that this result is the first time it's been noticed. Russian researcher Simon Schnoll has performed *thousands* of simple geiger counter isotope decay rate experiments and noticed the same exact thing -- that there is an astrophysical influence to decay rates ...
Russian Discovery Challenges Existence of 'Absolute Time' [21stcentur...cetech.com]
The idea that nuclear decay rates might not be random is pretty paradigm-changing. We can doubt the results, but shouldn't we at least be talking about it? It seems to me like a very important finding.
Isn't this even more pertinent to the concept of anthropogenic warming than the absolute dating article Slashdot went with???
Re:Title (Score:2, Interesting)
Where did you go to school? Of course it can be tested and of course there can be predictions made. That doesn't make a viable theory, no. But it *can* be tested. We may not have the capacity to perform those tests at this time but that's no reason to believe that there won't be additions to the science field in the future. To simply discount something because you don't want to believe (I don't believe in a whole lot personally unless I can sense it) belies your bias and unwillingness to maintain an open mind.
Re:Title (Score:1, Interesting)
Creationism is not a theory.
Of course not, it's many theories. Some of them are of recent vintage and are all but untestable, but others dominated scientific thinking for thousands of years and only recently have been disproved.
Re:Title (Score:5, Interesting)
If we substitute divine being for alien being, nothing changes in principle.
Everything changes. The alien hypothesis would lead immediately to further questions: ...
- Was it a single visit, or several visits of the aliens?
- If several, does a pattern emerge?
- If several, were they the same aliens? Or did different types of alien visit us?
- If several of the same type, can we detect a development in technology and goals of the aliens?
- If a single visit, did they come and leave again, or are they still present?
- If a single visit, can we determine when and where they landed?
-
All those questions can be handled scientificially. With an omnipotent being, none of those questions makes any sense.
Re:Title (Score:2, Interesting)
Radioactive dating is not the only branch of science that assumes constancy over a long time.
Well, yes. But if you want to take that stance and question the well -evidenced assumptions in the 'God-wants-to-test-our faith' game, why not be properly scientific (as you seem to want to be) and test all your assumptions and not just some. For example, the assumption that the Bible is actually the word of God. I hear creationists go on and on about the minutiae of evolutionary science, but deafening silence about how to choose between the numerous holy books that claim to be the one and only.
Given the number of religions in the world (~2000) I can only come to the conclusion that not only did God plant fossils and such like to test us, but that he also planted the false holy books for the same reasons. How can you be so certain that you're following the right one?
Personally, I'd say that the Bible doesn't look so hot. Its got references to genocide, sexual deviancy and oppression of women (all sanctioned by God [wikipedia.org]) and the 10 commandments are a very poor attempt at a universal moral code. Things like 'Thou shalt not keep slaves' or 'Thou shalt not abuse children' spring to mind as obvious oversights.
Re:Damn... (Score:3, Interesting)
"I don't believe we, as a species, decended from monkeys or apes but I suspect (strongly) that we've adapted over time to the current form we have today."
I suspect you mean you don't believe we had a common ancestor.
if that's the case, may I ask why?
There's a whole heap of evidence.
Re:Title (Score:5, Interesting)
i'll agree with what you say.
No believer in creation should be afraid of what science concludes. but many are. It's silly.
The fact that scientific discovery is ongoing is not proof that it's flawed, it's just proof that we continue to learn about the things around us.
That is important. In fact I think God would be pleased that his creation was using thier thinking abilities to the full. Because if a person believes in creation and an omnipotent being that started it. How better to learn about that creator than by examining the creation.
Where the ID and creationist loudmouths fall short is that they don't leave any room in thier interpretations for any new information that arises.
These people forget that the bible is not a text book on science but a message concerning God and his Soveriegnty.
"In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth" does not specify any time periods of methods. I won't get into the whole "days" issue and the parallel creation accounts in genesis, but there's a lot of room to examine scientific discovery and correlate it with what the Bible has to say and there not be any conflict on most matters.
Faith doesn't need proof, but when facts jive with faith it's faith strengthening.
And when scientific theory does not fall in line with my Faith I don't worry. This is because whats postulated in any theory is usually based on the best knowledge of the time. When that knowledge changes the theory will change or eventually it may be confirmed. And if some scientific matter is confirmed and it seems to disagree with the bible, the faithful person should re-examine thier understanding of the issue involved.
I'll point to the calculation of Pi in the bible. At face value it's wrong according to current understanding. To dogmatically insist that it is exactly 3 would make for all sorts of errors if needing the value for anything.
It doesn't mean that the bible is wrong, it just means that the understanding of the dimensions presented in 1 Kings 7:23 may be off. One would have to know that he measurements are given in round numbers (as the Hebrews tended to round off measurements to whole numbers), that cubits were not exact units, or that the basin may not have been exactly circular, or that the brim was wider than the bowl itself.
Re:Best cure for fundamentalists: scripture. (Score:2, Interesting)
Except that Jesus said that he did not come to abolish the Laws (first 5 books of the Bible as you know it) or the Prophets;
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."
Matthew 5:17-20
Following Jesus' advice would not necessarily make the world a better place, then.
Please realise I am Christian, with no background in academic theological studies, though I am actively curious about the very types of questions you are raising.
I will go under flak for this, but you must read the Bible in context. Concerning infanticide; I confess, I did not know of Psalm 137:9, and I also cannot solidly explain this instance, as I find infanticide abhorrent as well. This does not mean that there does not exist an explanation that does not break the foundations of Christianity; it's only that I don't know. My pastor (who has a Theological degree) will know.
I will try and give you other instances for reading the Bible in context. You've quoted the food laws, specifically, the one about seafood (from Leviticus, I forget which chapter though I read it a few days ago). *Modern day* Christians generally believe the reason for the food laws if for hygiene purposes. Eating shell fish is still a common cause for food-poisoning and enteritis even in this day and age..
If a scientist-like mind existed back then, he would have preferred an attempted explanation of pathogens, but God's message was meant to be understood universally, and if not understood (for I'm sure my parents still don't know much at all about infectious disease) then at least followed for their safety and health - see Leviticus' advice on the treatment of infectious diseases, for example, which involved isolation to prevent contamination etc.
The crux of the difference between a myself (a Christian) and yourself (?) is that I believe in the infallibility of the Bible, which is something that can't be proved 100% but only, ultimately, believed in.
(A lot of my information has come from 'The Lion Handbook to the Bible' - I bought it from Amazon; it's very good for answering questions like the one's you've raised.)
Re:LULZ with Fundamentalists! (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not a Christian. I'll happily educate you.
The New Testament and "Jesus Christ" is the part you're looking for, the part where it specifically says the ways of the Old Testament are no longer applicable.
Everything read is "interpreted" by definition. There are no written "truths", biblical or otherwise. I don't know why you think that "interpreting" something must necessarily debase it's value. Even the best Science ever done is at best an interpretation of physical truth; despite this it's still extremely useful and valuable.
There is an explanation for the 'bad stuff' from the Old Testament, it's very clearly stated: Original Sin, also known as Man's Fall from Grace, or Satan's Seduction of Man.
It did go: God says stone people, people get stoned, God says stop stoning people, here's new laws, according to the faily commonly shared foundational tenets of Christianity.
All those people who were stoned to death, and a good deal of the people who weren't all were subjected to eternal damnation, the really bad stuff, well worse than a rock to the head.
We're "supposed" to recognize our lack of qualifications to 'judge' God. We're supposed to trust him and know that everything that happens is 'right'.
If you don't believe in the whole Christian God thing, feel free to do and think what you want, I know I do. But honestly, I don't think many people really care about people getting stoned to death. Far worse happens on huge scales everyday. Unless it's in my neighborhood (Darfur and 2,000BC both surely aren't), I don't really feel obliged to do anything about it.
Yeah, you're also supposed to feel the laws weren't arbitrary. See, according to the doctrine, Jesus came here and redeemed us. That's why the eternal damnation and stoning all stopped. Jesus then went and got all the stoned people and the damned people out of Hell and sent them to Heaven to make up for their torment and trouble.
God made the old law because Man 'deserved' it, being Satan-fodder. Man was unique, having free-will. Man was also special, being made in God's image. Man did bad things which God had granted license for Man to do under penalty. God enforced these penalties to improve Man. I imagine it's somewhat like the theory behind the Department of Corrections in the US.
You're asking for a rational response and hoping you don't get one? Jeez. Christianity doesn't need to be rationalized or accepted as truth. But before you start using your mouth to pass shit all over something, you might want to double check what windmills you're tilting at first, Mr Quixote.
Re:LULZ with Fundamentalists! (Score:3, Interesting)
The New Testament and "Jesus Christ" is the part you're looking for, the part where it specifically says the ways of the Old Testament are no longer applicable.
Care to point out the passage? It's been a few years since I read the bible, but the only thing I remember Jesus saying that came close to this was a specific case about the 'unclean' laws from Leviticus. The rest was not touched. Did he invalidate the ten commandments? I remember him adding two (love the Lord your god with all you heard, mind, and soul, and love your neighbour as yourself - the ordering of which pretty much put the Christian Church on the path of bloodshed for the next two thousand years) but I don't remember him invalidating the old ones, or the laws about stoning other than to say 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone,' which didn't invalidate the laws, just the punishments.
Re:So much hate... (Score:5, Interesting)
From a correspondence between Ensign Guy H. Raner and Albert Einstein in 1945 and 1949. Einstein responds to the accusation that he was converted by a Jesuit priest: "I have never talked to a Jesuit prest in my life. I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist." "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one.You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from religious indoctrination received in youth." Freethought Today, November 2004
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." From a letter Einstein wrote in English, dated 24 March 1954. It is included in Albert Einstein: The
From a letter Einstein wrote in English, dated 24 March 1954. It is included in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, published by Princeton University Press. Albert Einstein, Out of My Later Years (New York: Philosophical Library, 1950), p. 27.
"During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution, human fantasy created gods in man's own image who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate influence, the phenomenal world... The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old conception of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes... In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vase power in the hands of priests." Albert Einstein, reported in Science, Philosophy and Religion: A Symposium, edited by L. Bryson and
"Thus I came...to a deep religiosity, which, however, reached an abrupt end at the age of 12. Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached a conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true....Suspicion against every kind of authority grew out of this experience...an attitude which has never left me." The Quotable Einstein
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
Re:Title (Score:4, Interesting)
There could have been evolutionists who have changed their opinions as well
Possible, though I have never seen it. I guess it's fair to say many people on the evolution side haven't really looked at the evidence might be persuadable. In my experience the anti-evolution arguments are only good for preaching to the highly motivated choir, or to present the uninvolved uninformed general public with a general impression that a scientific controversy exists. The claims never hold up under informed critical review.
The debate has been more heat than light
Yes, sadly. However there is still some light amidst all the heat. I personally have completely won over a few converts to the evolution side. There are many many people convinced evolution==atheism or somesuch, people who rant against evolution with no interest in mutually discussing and honestly considering each other's evidence on the subject, and of course conversations with them go nowhere. However I have also had people come in asserting some doubts, challenges, questions against evolution and honestly examining the response. And such people are inevitably amazed by the examples of science and evidence that exist backing up evolution. People saying wow, I didn't know all that was out there. People suddenly coming to a very strong decision about which side is grossly guilty of pushing false claims.
Just to cite a single example and to squeezed it down to a single sentence, there is a chunk of the fossil record that is completely continuous and gap-free showing the intermediate forms spanning thousands of species - a chunk of evidence which is pretty well sufficient all by itself to establish the validity of evolution beyond any reasonable doubt. If you want me to back that up I can copy-past a several paragraphs from one of my old posts explaining it in detail.
-
Re:Title (Score:3, Interesting)
n the exact same respect, Evolution cannot be a theory with that logic
Testing a theory works like this:
1. Prediction: Think of a way that the world can be obeserved that could contradict the theory in question.
2. Preparation: If the observation can not be found or is more difficult to do in nature, create it artifically, otherwise find it in nature.
3. Observation: Make the observation and see if the observation matches or contradicts the theory.
A common misconception seems to be about points number two. Creationists seems to have the misconceptions that tests has to be done in labs and be infinitly repeatable in the exact same way. This is simply not true. As long as similar tests can be done on the same prediction, that is more than enough.
There exists more than enough fossiles to implement the scientific method. While there aren't an infinite number of fossiles, there are enough to provide for an acceptable amount of repeatable observations. Of course, we could one day run out of new fossiles to study and that would mean we could no longer make tests based on finding new fossiles. Still, even then it would be possible to study existing fossiles.
and when it is decided that it is several thousand years old, life just evolved a bit faster. "Theory" status only fits on limited perspectives, such as gravity on earth and the laws of thermodynamics.
Oh, that reminds me. The grandparent is slightly incorrect. Creationism actually had a theory which was disproven. The 6000 year old prediction simply didn't work out. Too many scientists has found how it contradicts various observations.
He may be talking about intelligent design which distanced itself from anything that could be disproven.
Re:Title (Score:2, Interesting)
Why is the "supposed omnipotency of a deity" not attributable to a sufficiently advanced alien race? Are we, as human-kind, so egotistical to think that we have unlocked enough of the mysteries of science to believe that we know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that certain things are impossible? I, for one, think that we can not *ever* rule out the possibility of life forms so far advanced beyond us that they are indistinguishable from a deity.
What would we seem like to an amoeba? Can't we essentially "create" the amoeba's universe, even with characteristics that would make an amoeba think that it was an naturally evolved universe over a period of millions of years? Who's to say that we're not amoebas in someone else's petri dish?
Re:As a creationist, this I don't get. (Score:4, Interesting)