Satan And Science

[Franktalk]

This horse has been pretty much been beat to death. There is no common ground between people of this earth and people of the spirit. Some see beyond the life of the body and some see only death. When your view of the world leaves out what life really is then death is your master. If life is truly a spirit then why do we care at all about where the body came from. Those who look at the body and see it rise by itself from some old goo in some old sea do not know about life at all. Our spirit existed before the creation of the earth, it will exist after the earth is burnt to a cinder. There is a purpose to us being here. Some will say that God sat on the sidelines and waited 12 billion years until the solar system came into being. Then they say He waited another 4.5 billion years for some creature to rise from dust that would be man. But there was no guarantee that man would ever come along. God waited for the right accident to come along. Is this God? Just who is the master? Nature or God? Once you go down the path of naturalism you let go of God as a supreme being. You make God subject to the rules of nature. Why would God who made the universe and everything in it suddenly turn from creating and wait for 16.5 billion years?

Everything seen came from the unseen. There are powers that are eternal. Matter and energy are the same thing. When you reach out your hand and touch something what is really happening is energy is interacting with energy. It is our perception that sees one form of energy different than another. Our senses are of this world, if you limit your sense of what is real to just those things of the world you are lost in the world.

Satan wishes to break the Word of God so that the prophecy concerning him may not take place. He is a liar and the father of lies. One of the first lies written is in the book of Job.

Job 4:18-21 (King James Version)

18Behold, he put no trust in his servants; and his angels he charged with folly:

19How much less in them that dwell in houses of clay, whose foundation is in the dust, which are crushed before the moth?

20They are destroyed from morning to evening: they perish for ever without any regarding it.

21Doth not their excellency which is in them go away? they die, even without wisdom.

Satan lies about man, he wants us to believe that we are that house of clay, that we perish for ever. Man is a spirit but Satan does not want us to know that. The better we are tied to this world the easier it is for him to lead us to destruction. And what better vehicle than science which refuses the spirit to bring down man and cast him off the path of righteousness. Science tells us there is no spirit. Science tells us that there is no life after the body is dead. Science tells us that life is an accident of nature. Science tells us that there are no morals except the ones we make ourselves. Science pretty much is point by point exactly what Satan wants us to believe. Quite the coincidence if you ask me.

[cinepro]

This horse has been pretty much been beat to death. There is no common ground between people of this earth and people of the spirit.

Really? So this doesn't count? Not even a little bit?

Some will say that God sat on the sidelines and waited 12 billion years until the solar system came into being. Then they say He waited another 4.5 billion years for some creature to rise from dust that would be man. But there was no guarantee that man would ever come along. God waited for the right accident to come along. Is this God? Just who is the master? Nature or God? Once you go down the path of naturalism you let go of God as a supreme being. You make God subject to the rules of nature. Why would God who made the universe and everything in it suddenly turn from creating and wait for 16.5 billion years?

Whoa...hold on now. Just how old do you think the universe and the Earth are? C'mon, it's time to be honest. Just tell us what you think. If 4.5 billion years isn't a good number, what number do you think is more compatible with a spirit-centered worldview?

Also, you never did answer my other questions:

- Do you believe dinosaurs roamed the Earth between 230 and 65 million years ago?

- When you get sick, do you visit medical doctors and hospitals that practice scientific medicine?

- Do you believe that Neil Armstrong walked on the moon in July of 1969?

[Franktalk]

Have you ever thought about people who need a sign. If that sign is in the physical world then that is all they believe, or choose to believe. But the greater reality is not of this world. When we receive a message direct from the Holy Ghost it is a small voice but with the impact of a large earthquake. It can not be ignored, it can not be forgotten. It becomes a tide which overwhelms a person.

Those of us of faith ask for and receive all kinds of messages in our life. Some strong like the verification of the core gospel and some very weak and we struggle to hear. These messages are few in number but very important to us. It is our call to faith, or better yet it is a gift of having faith. Over the last couple of years I have received some insight into some verses in scripture. I can not say if indeed these are the correct truth. It feels like it but I have not received a verification from the Holy Ghost. He is our witness on this earth. But we also have gifts which are with us all of the time. So even though we may all be Christians we all experience God differently. A unique relationship for each of us. And this is as it should be. I desire not a sign from the world and if one came I might think I was weak in spirit to require such a thing.

Many of the posts I write may seem like I know about the world. I am not sure I care to know about the world. Maybe this gives me a unique view so I can properly see the sorting out of the chaff from the wheat. And that crunching sound you hear is the wheel of truth cracking the shell of the grain so the outer skin can be blown away in the wind. But that wheel is also a wheel of tribulation which will cause many to call upon God in their time of need. God will do what He has to do to get the spirit of man on the right path. If the Word does not work then the small voice. And if you still will not hear then tribulation in this world. And if that does not work then you are given to Satan so you can see what the other side is all about. But some seek Satan in some form. Anything which leads from God is of the world and is in Satan's camp. It is a hard thing to live in this world and stay on the right path. Hard but worth the effort.

But many live in the world and embrace the world. They seek truth in the world where there is no truth.

[shalamabobbi]

This horse has pretty much been beat to death

I don't beat horses and I'm presently vegan so don't feel the inclination to either. I believe the horse is OK and is very much still alive.

The situation has arisen where you have gone beyond disagreement to throwing up the defense of God is on your side and everyone who disagrees with you is of the devil. There is no way over that wall. So people shrug their shoulders and move on.

Maybe this is as it should be if accepting something means forcing you to abandon your faith in something greater. That is not my intent and I don't believe anyone elses that has responded to your posts, even those who have no faith themselves in the existense of God. Some need all the answers all the time and cannot live with any degree of uncertainty about anything and still maintain their faith.

Go in peace. No further discussion from me. And a warning for you..

If a faith based discussion board is abrasive, for heaven's sake stay away from a true science debate forum..

[thesometimesaint]

shalamabobbi:

It amuses, and amazes me that the creationists inevitably resort to claiming that scientists can't believe in God.

Nice of them to dismiss http://www.famousmormons.net/sci.html

Edited May 31, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[cinepro]

Here we have a thread about the manipulation and influence of Satan over "science".

Honestly, we're 305 posts into the discussion and I'm still not sure what the heck Satan is supposed to have done. But I can see clearly what certain LDS are doing to science, and between Satan and them I'm not sure I could say who is doing more damage to the cause.

Edited May 31, 2011 by cinepro

[Franktalk]

The situation has arisen where you have gone beyond disagreement to throwing up the defense of God is on your side and everyone who disagrees with you is of the devil. There is no way over that wall. So people shrug their shoulders and move on.

Go in peace. No further discussion from me. And a warning for you..

If a faith based discussion board is abrasive, for heaven's sake stay away from a true science debate forum..

The only thing I have talked about is how hard it is to be of this world and still do the will of God. Many people take this path and I don't judge them. I can not look into the heart of another. But I can warn people of the danger of following a path where you embrace the creation instead of the Creator. If you can work in science and limit your discussion to the rules of science and not have it effect your world view or relationship with Christ then more power to you. It would be difficult to do that. And those who may not have that kind of will power may by example fall due to the example you set. In that sense we all are to be held accountable for what we teach. I tell people to embrace God and then play in science. Many people embrace science and play with God. God is supposed to be our first love.

Yes I do debate pure science forums. I of course change my message. This is a discussion board not a science forum. This section is General Discussions and this thread is Satan and science. I hold to the idea it is OK to talk about God. I also feel it is OK to talk about the ideas of men. I say make your best case and let the chips fall where they fall. I do not claim that God is on my side. God loves us all. But I do reject the notion that the ideas of men in science represent truth. At best science offers a detailed description of the creation.

We are arguing ideas and also examining a possible connection between Satan and science. I will tell you that Satan is more involved in the churches than he is in science. If for some reason you feel I am only focusing on science in my life I will tell you you are wrong. I love science but it is not my first love. And I read the various articles that come my way with a critical eye. Where is the problem?

[keith_brian]

Here we have a thread about the manipulation and influence of Satan over "science".

Honestly, we're 305 posts into the discussion and I'm still not sure what the heck Satan is supposed to have done. But I can see clearly what certain LDS are doing to science, and between Satan and them I'm not sure I could say who is doing more damage to the cause.

I agree.

Especially annoying are Frankentalk's responses. You've been trying to pin him down for 13 pages on very simple question about his personal beliefs about science and yet he still finds a way, post after post, to not answer them.

I think that's why sometimes I get bored with discussions like this one on religious message board. When the people who accept science try to pin down the science deniers, the deniers usually throw out a lot of red herrings and, when those get shot down, start waxing philosophical about matters of the spirit, etc.

Contrary to what Frankentalk says, it is possible for people to both accept science and have faith in a religion. The Bishop of Canterbury accepts evolution, as did the last Pope, the entire microbiology department at BYU, and scores of other people. For me, I can't accept the cognitive disconnect necessary to do so (and even if I could, I'm not sure that the God presented in the Bible is a God worthy of worship), but I do accept the fact that lots of people do believe in God while accepting science. Even board member thesometimessaint seems to take the position of accepting science while maintaining faith in the Mormon church.

[Stargazer]

Sorry for the delayed response. I got frustrated with this place with everyone trying to read things into others writings that weren't there.

Stargazer, if you were an LDS geologist and were formulating a theory about plate tectonics and predicting earthquakes, would you include any LDS doctrines in your theory? If so, which ones? If not, would that be evidence that you were being influenced by Satan?

Of course not. Are you serious? I know God created the Universe, that much is certain, but I regard the study of science as an activity (whether the individual researcher knows it or not) designed to discover how God put it together and made it work. God doesn't lay out geology texts, nor physics lectures, in the scriptures. It is all a wonderful puzzle that He gave us and it should be clear (unless you are a complete loon) that He intended to let us figure it out on our own.

Silly question, cinepro. Why does one have to insert God into one's theories just because one believes God created it all?

Anyone, if you were an LDS doctor and epidemiologist and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation offered you $50m to formulate theories on how to more effectively eradicate polio (or another preventable disease), would you include any LDS doctrines in your theories? If so, which ones? If not, would that be evidence that you were being influenced by Satan?

See my previous response.

I suppose it is possible that Satan influences researchers, but good luck pinning the blame. And against that, well, I guess we'll have to let God defend us.

[Stargazer]

CFR that I have done something similar.

OK, nevermind, I couldn't find anything that exactly matched. It was just a general impression.

[shalamabobbi]

The only thing I have talked about is how hard it is to be of this world and still do the will of God. Many people take this path and I don't judge them. I can not look into the heart of another. But I can warn people of the danger of following a path where you embrace the creation instead of the Creator. If you can work in science and limit your discussion to the rules of science and not have it effect your world view or relationship with Christ then more power to you. It would be difficult to do that. And those who may not have that kind of will power may by example fall due to the example you set. In that sense we all are to be held accountable for what we teach. I tell people to embrace God and then play in science. Many people embrace science and play with God. God is supposed to be our first love.

This reflects the false dichotomy that you entertain between science and God IMO. I do not believe in the dichotomy, and I also believe that promoting this false dichotomy is something we might be held accountable for, and something which might cause someone (who takes the time to educate themselves) to leave their faith over. Science in my view is a blessing that comes from God.

Yes I do debate pure science forums. I of course change my message. This is a discussion board not a science forum. This section is General Discussions and this thread is Satan and science. I hold to the idea it is OK to talk about God. I also feel it is OK to talk about the ideas of men. I say make your best case and let the chips fall where they fall. I do not claim that God is on my side. God loves us all. But I do reject the notion that the ideas of men in science represent truth. At best science offers a detailed description of the creation.

Agreed. Science cannot determine God's involvement one way or the other. But then science does not claim to be *ultimate truth*. And I agree with your desire to talk about God being behind the science. That's perfectly fine in this faith based discussion forum. No one said otherwise.

We are arguing ideas and also examining a possible connection between Satan and science. I will tell you that Satan is more involved in the churches than he is in science. If for some reason you feel I am only focusing on science in my life I will tell you you are wrong. I love science but it is not my first love. And I read the various articles that come my way with a critical eye. Where is the problem?

There isn't a problem. If someone disagrees with your criticism where is the problem with that?

That's why dialog is valuable. It increases the scrutiny of our views about things.

Show a wise man his error and he will thank you..

[cinepro]

Silly question, cinepro. Why does one have to insert God into one's theories just because one believes God created it all?

From what I can tell, that kind of seems to be the entire point of this thread.

Besides, the threshold for silliness in this discussion seems to be sufficiently low that I felt comfortable asking it.

OK, nevermind, I couldn't find anything that exactly matched. It was just a general impression.

[cinepro]

Hey Franktalk, any chance you could at least answer my question about dinosaurs? I'm seriously dying to know if you believe there were dinosaurs living on this planet between 250-65 million years ago.

Edited June 2, 2011 by cinepro

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

I'll second that question.

ps: It could be that Franktalk is an old earth creationist. How they reconcile that I don't know, but they seem to.

Edited June 2, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[Franktalk]

Hey Franktalk, any chance you could at least answer my question about dinosaurs? I'm seriously dying to know if you believe there were dinosaurs living on this planet between 250-65 million years ago.

We have bones found in the ground that were from beast which do not walk the earth now. When exactly did they walk the earth I don't know. I can tell you what science believes but I am sure you already know that.

Let me ask you. How old do you think the Mississippi river delta is? Do you think we could find the age by dividing the volume of material that comes down the river in one year into the volume of the delta?

Does this sound right?

The foundation of the modern Mississippi Delta was constructed during the Pleistocene (ice age), when melt water from ice sheets poured down the Ohio, Missouri and Mississippi valleys. These melt-water floods transported huge volumes of sediment that accumulated in the delta. Since the end of glaciation, the delta has undergone continual change during the past several millennia.

So I guess we will not find dinosaur bones in the delta?

[cinepro]

We have bones found in the ground that were from beast which do not walk the earth now. When exactly did they walk the earth I don't know.

Obviously no one knows (not even the scientists). That's not the question. I'm just curious if your broad conception of the history of the planet is broad enough to accept dinosaurs living and dying on the Earth between 230 and 65 million years ago. Do you think it is likely or even possible?

Let me ask you. How old do you think the Mississippi river delta is? Do you think we could find the age by dividing the volume of material that comes down the river in one year into the volume of the delta?

Does this sound right?

The foundation of the modern Mississippi Delta was constructed during the Pleistocene (ice age), when melt water from ice sheets poured down the Ohio, Missouri and Mississippi valleys. These melt-water floods transported huge volumes of sediment that accumulated in the delta. Since the end of glaciation, the delta has undergone continual change during the past several millennia.

So I guess we will not find dinosaur bones in the delta?

I can honestly say I have no idea how old the Mississippi Delta is and whether or not I would expect to find dinosaur bones there. From your presentation of the situation, it sounds like you are saying dinosaur bones shouldn't be found there, but I suspect they have, and this should present some sort of conundrum to scientific theories about the timeframe?

Edited June 3, 2011 by cinepro

[keith_brian]

We have bones found in the ground that were from beast which do not walk the earth now. When exactly did they walk the earth I don't know. I can tell you what science believes but I am sure you already know that.

Let me ask you. How old do you think the Mississippi river delta is? Do you think we could find the age by dividing the volume of material that comes down the river in one year into the volume of the delta?

Does this sound right?

The foundation of the modern Mississippi Delta was constructed during the Pleistocene (ice age), when melt water from ice sheets poured down the Ohio, Missouri and Mississippi valleys. These melt-water floods transported huge volumes of sediment that accumulated in the delta. Since the end of glaciation, the delta has undergone continual change during the past several millennia.

So I guess we will not find dinosaur bones in the delta?

The fossil record is just one source of knowledge about the history of the world. Radiological dating is another, better method to determine the age of things. I suspect that, in places where the fossil record is ambiguous, radiological dating is used as the primary method for determining the age of fossils.

[shalamabobbi]

We have bones found in the ground that were from beast which do not walk the earth now. When exactly did they walk the earth I don't know. I can tell you what science believes but I am sure you already know that.

Let me ask you. How old do you think the Mississippi river delta is? Do you think we could find the age by dividing the volume of material that comes down the river in one year into the volume of the delta?

Does this sound right?

The foundation of the modern Mississippi Delta was constructed during the Pleistocene (ice age), when melt water from ice sheets poured down the Ohio, Missouri and Mississippi valleys. These melt-water floods transported huge volumes of sediment that accumulated in the delta. Since the end of glaciation, the delta has undergone continual change during the past several millennia.

So I guess we will not find dinosaur bones in the delta?

http://www.nola.com/speced/lastchance/multimedia/credits.swf

www.nola.com/speced/lastchance/multimedia/flash.ssf?flashlandloss1.swf

http://www.iptv.org/mississippi/landmarksandlegends/answers.html

So in a young earth scenario, (correct me if you think I'm wrong here), since dinosaurs would have existed simultaneously with the formation process of the mississippi delta we would expect to find dinosaur remains strewn throughout the delta?

I haven't been able to find any claims of dinosaur fossils being found in the mississippi delta. From the last link above the reasoning is that the delta is too young and the rock formations it cuts through too old.

[Franktalk]

Thanks for your replies. It is my understanding that the delta is quite young so no I would not expect to find dinosaur bones there unless they had been moved by some transport system. Now I am curious if we look at other ways to date the features of the earth if you would then start to question the atomic dating of rocks? If it could be shown by straightforward simple techniques that some of the atomic dating of geology is wrong should that cast doubt on all atomic dating? Or would you just put it aside as an anomaly and ignore it like most do? What I presented in biology is a simple technique on a complex system. The same can be done in geology. But in geology the data is much more solid and is not subjective like biology. What if we went down this path and we found that atomic dating is wrong. Would you then consider that since one field is so wrong that another could also be in error? Would you then question the link between atomic dating of rock and the projections of fossil remains back in time?

[cinepro]

Would you then consider that since one field is so wrong that another could also be in error?

Why would the error in one field increase the likelihood for error in another? Certainly, if there were other methods of dating that relied on a flawed understanding of carbon dating, those would need to be reevaluated, but your question seems to imply that other unrelated fields might also be suspect.

[shalamabobbi]

Thanks for your replies. It is my understanding that the delta is quite young so no I would not expect to find dinosaur bones there unless they had been moved by some transport system. Now I am curious if we look at other ways to date the features of the earth if you would then start to question the atomic dating of rocks? If it could be shown by straightforward simple techniques that some of the atomic dating of geology is wrong should that cast doubt on all atomic dating? Or would you just put it aside as an anomaly and ignore it like most do? What I presented in biology is a simple technique on a complex system. The same can be done in geology. But in geology the data is much more solid and is not subjective like biology. What if we went down this path and we found that atomic dating is wrong. Would you then consider that since one field is so wrong that another could also be in error? Would you then question the link between atomic dating of rock and the projections of fossil remains back in time?

I went down this path already. I even looked into the idea of a falling earth in some higher plane of existence and say a particular atomic species splitting into various ratios. All the possible scenarios have been explored I think by groups like ICR. There are several problems that arise with each of them. Primarily the correlation or agreement between various methods that are completely unrelated is hardest to ignore.

I don't mind reviewing them again for you if you will give them honest thought and consideration. And I am certainly open to looking at what you think you have that casts some doubt on atomic dating but I don't hold high hopes that you have anything other than a rehash of something I've seen before.

As far as putting aside atomic dating I think an analogy will illustrate why I believe your thinking is in error here.

In learning physics I misunderstood something about capacitors and thought I'd stumbled onto something akin to free energy. I showed it to my older brother who had graduated by then, and his reply was "well we know that the law of energy conservation cannot be violated, so you made a mistake somewhere. Go back and work through it again until you find your error". After some time going over it, I found my error.

In a similar manner we know that atomic dating works so something that disagrees with it is the thing that is misunderstood.

The decay constants are the result of quantum mechanics, not some unexplained phenomenon of nature that is simply measured and then for the sake of simplicity assumed to remain unchanging. The weak nuclear force governs radioactive decay. Ignoring atomic dating is like ignoring gravity. It is not a soft science at all.

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/aug06.html

[Franktalk]

shalamabobbi,

The discussion of atomic dating and decay rates is complex and extremely subjective. It is just like biology in that sense. If I were to say that the assumptions in physics were wrong and decay rates are not constant going back in time we could argue for years and never come to any common understanding just like biology. All atomic reactions can be traced to certain qualities of space. If those qualities change then so do rates of decay. But that argument has no teeth because I can not prove the qualities changed and you can not prove they stayed the same. You would then say that most scientist would take your position and we come to the same conclusion we reached in evolution. A show of hands which is meaningless to me but meaningful to others. So let us sidestep atomic dating. Let us instead date some features in geology that use erosion and not atomic means. Then once we come to some conclusions about time frames we can compare those time frames against what is obtained by other methods. If indeed the time frames are way off then we have to decide which is more likely in error. Actually a simple process. Shall we try it?

[blarsen]

shalamabobbi,

The discussion of atomic dating and decay rates is complex and extremely subjective. It is just like biology in that sense. If I were to say that the assumptions in physics were wrong and decay rates are not constant going back in time we could argue for years and never come to any common understanding just like biology. All atomic reactions can be traced to certain qualities of space. If those qualities change then so do rates of decay. But that argument has no teeth because I can not prove the qualities changed and you can not prove they stayed the same. You would then say that most scientist would take your position and we come to the same conclusion we reached in evolution. A show of hands which is meaningless to me but meaningful to others. So let us sidestep atomic dating. Let us instead date some features in geology that use erosion and not atomic means. Then once we come to some conclusions about time frames we can compare those time frames against what is obtained by other methods. If indeed the time frames are way off then we have to decide which is more likely in error. Actually a simple process. Shall we try it?

I've just done limited sampling on this thread. But this is a common topic on LDS forums. Here is a little discussion of radiometric dating and science that may be useful. Maybe covered elsewhere in this thread, but a little repetition should be OK.

One of the important aspects of science is the principle of Uniformitarianism, without which you really can't have science. Removing the aspect called Uniformity of Degree from Charle's Lyell's formulation of that concept, and which applies to geologic rates being essentially non-catastrophic (presently regarded as not true), you are left with the basic idea that nature's laws are constant through time and space. If they were not, you could not say much about using scientific laws to describe processes that are allegedly predictible and repeatable.

In terms of radiometric dating, one of the powerful reasons for relying on them is the principle of concordant dating. Concordant dating is the reality that you can date the same rock using different parent-daughter radiometric content having different but overlapping effective dating ranges, and come up with the same relative date.

Normally, the kind of rocks you date are of the igneous variety that come from cooled liquid rock or magma. The idea is that when the rock cools, various crystals lock in the partiucular parent mineral in the crystalline structure. If this crystal has an element or elements with radiometric nuclides, their decay products will build up in the particular cyrstal containing their parent elements. The decay can be described with a standard arrenius differential equation incorporating dm/dt and the decay constant for the particular parent daughter combination. The ratio of the measured decay product(s) and the determined original amount of parent, allows you to calculate a reasonable date; provided decay product has NOT escaped and the decay constant has not changed. Again, the fact that you can get concordant dates for the same rock using different radionuclides, indicates there has been none, or very little change in the decay 'constant'. It is much more likely that some of the decay product has escaped via degraded crystal structure. But these cases can nomally be eliminated statistically.

Now the way these dates are used is to bracket other, non-datable rocks. I.e., rocks superimposed above a certain dated igneous body will be younger than that body and older than dated rocks above them. Additionally, there are correlation techniques based on similar rock sequences and fossil assemblages that extend and fine tune the dating derived from radiometric means. Sedimentation rates have even been used to give fairly consistent relative dates, and in a few cases have been found to broadlly support radiometric dating.

Science by itself is a method. It is neutral. Can it be used dishonestly or unethically? Of course. And this reality opens the way for satanic influence. But generally speaking, science works because it is repeatable, which results in good concensus from a wide array of people. Of course, even a wide array of people can be trapped by a particular model or paradigm and miss observations that don't fit the model.

My two cents to this subject.

[Franktalk]

Blarsen,

The rate of decay of atomic nuclei is an interesting study. But one that is not suited for a board like this one. You have stated that:

"Sedimentation rates have even been used to give fairly consistent relative dates, and in a few cases have been found to broadlly support radiometric dating."

That is fine. But I rather check for myself. I mean if the math is so simple why don't we just check it out. We measure the dirt going down a river. We measure the size of the river delta. We divide the yearly rate into the delta size and find out how long it took for the delta to form. Simple. So why is it that you responded in defense of atomic dating when I clearly said we are not to use that method to form any conclusions? Should we just follow the numbers and see what they say before we defend something that has not been shown to be in error?

The reason I have not posted any numbers is to get these types of posts out of the way first. It is obvious that my intent is to show that atomic dating is flawed and if so then it throws out the dates of a common ancestor. But that is much later if I can make a case. So why be so defensive? If indeed the dates are so supportive then I will not be able to show them to be wrong. I would think that someone who embraced atomic dating would welcome an opportunity to settle this crazy idea that erosion is somehow showing different results. I mean after all just take a vote of the scientist. Surely there is no need to actually test to see if it true.

[blarsen]

Blarsen,

The rate of decay of atomic nuclei is an interesting study. But one that is not suited for a board like this one. You have stated that:

"Sedimentation rates have even been used to give fairly consistent relative dates, and in a few cases have been found to broadlly support radiometric dating."

That is fine. But I rather check for myself. I mean if the math is so simple why don't we just check it out. We measure the dirt going down a river. We measure the size of the river delta. We divide the yearly rate into the delta size and find out how long it took for the delta to form. Simple. So why is it that you responded in defense of atomic dating when I clearly said we are not to use that method to form any conclusions? Should we just follow the numbers and see what they say before we defend something that has not been shown to be in error?

The reason I have not posted any numbers is to get these types of posts out of the way first. It is obvious that my intent is to show that atomic dating is flawed and if so then it throws out the dates of a common ancestor. But that is much later if I can make a case. So why be so defensive? If indeed the dates are so supportive then I will not be able to show them to be wrong. I would think that someone who embraced atomic dating would welcome an opportunity to settle this crazy idea that erosion is somehow showing different results. I mean after all just take a vote of the scientist. Surely there is no need to actually test to see if it true.

Franktalk. No offense, but I've seen the subject repeatedly brought up in posts of this thread. It is also a subject brought up many times in similar LDS boards/forums relative to creation and the age of the earth, seemingly implied by the scriptures. So I'll have to disagree with you on that assertion. I'm a geologist, by the way. And you misread me in thinking I was being defensive in my post. Not at all. I just thought it might be useful to share my experience with such things.

From my perspective, I see a few problems with your idea about being able to determine the age of the delta from sedimentation rates. Again, no offense. Some of these consist of flood events, long-sure currents and storms and undersea sediment slumps. I could go into detail if asked.

I've actually seen examples of radiometric dating being very coherent and consistent, so I'm afraid I would not be able to go along with your desire to throw them out. That being said, however, you really don't have to worry about the kind of radiometric nuclides used for old dates in deltaic sediments. Even if you found them, I doubt very much you would be able to get consistent dates out of them. Radiocarbon is another matter, if you could find consistent, undisrupted layers with high organic content in the delta using coring techniques.

Using sediment mass balance techniques to date sedimentary deposits has its own set up problems, a few of which I've indicated in my second paragraph, above.