Are science and religion incompatible?

That's fine and dandy, but the gospels come from an oral tradition and these stories were being told for generations before anyone wrote them down, and we have no way of knowing how the written stories compare to the oral tradition, or how much the oral traditions changed over time.

We have the Dead Sea Scrolls that further verifies the the story of the New Testament. The fact the Gospels agree also helps verfy their accuracy.

How do we know when it was first written? All scripture and important texts of old had to be rescribed. The scribes worked copying the texts constantly because the paper wouldn't last.

We only know what we have heard from others about the history of any old text. Every bit of history of the Bible came from someone. So, we have to accept someone's account of where it first appeared. Do you accept the history of the begnning of the Gospels based on some other writtings/ If so, why do you accept their words?

All history is from someone's perspective. That means we can't accept any history unless we were there, and even then, we can only see from one perspective. Or we can believe what others say happened, whether it was written or oral.

C14 is only used for things which are recent (ie past 50,000 years); for older values (millions of years), heavier elements are used, such as Uranium, which have much longer half lives.

To get a particularly verified reading; sometimes a scientist will use multiple isotopes to ensure an accurate reading. C14 is the most common since it's highly abundant and generally fairly accurate, but other isotopes do exist, which can be used in conjunction (however this will vary based on the age of the sample, whether it is feasible or not).

-Adam

The half life of carbon 14 is 5730 years. One million years is equivalent to 174 half lives which would mean that the amount of carbon 14 left in a sample would be a factor of 3.2x10^-5 reduced. A cubic meter of carbon weighs 2267 kg, has a molar volume of 5.3x10^-6 m^3/mol and thus contains 1x10^29 atoms. Assuming this block was 100% carbon 14, after a million years, there would still be 3x10^24 carbon 14 atoms in it.

Based on your statements here, you have a tenuous understanding of radiocarbon dating and the mathematics behind it and thus are not qualified to comment on its efficacy (sorry). Read up on the basic science here.

~Ulrika~

"Radio Dating


One need only look in virtually any reference text to quickly find that the earth is thought to be some 4.5 billion years old. As the Encyclopedia Britannica notes, methods such as measuring radioactive decay (radiometric dating) make it possible to estimate the time period when earth’s rocks and associated fossils were formed.[67]


The most commonly used radiometric dating methods are potassium-argon, uranium-lead, and rubidium-strontium. The concept of how these methods work is simple: one element decays into another at a rather predictable rate. Potassium decays and becomes argon. Uranium decays into lead. And rubidium decays into strontium. All three of these decay processes have half-lives measured in billions of years. Half-life is simply the time required for half of the atoms in a pound of uranium, for example, to disintegrate into lead.[68] That time is approximately 4.5 billion years.


The accuracy of these dating methods depends “critically” on several assumptions.[69] To date a rock by radiometric means, one must first assume:


What the initial amount of the parent atoms was at the time that the rock formed.
That the original composition of the rock contained no daughter atoms.[70]
That neither parent nor daughter atoms have ever been added or removed from the rock.
That the decay rate of parent atom to daughter atom has always remained constant.


If these assumptions are correct, then the radiometric dates are correct. However, there is no way to independently test these assumptions. If they are wrong, the method could yield faulty dates that might be far too old.


To illustrate, suppose there is a burning candle sitting on the table. How long has that candle been burning? This can be calculated if the candle’s burn rate and original length is known. However, if the original length is not known, or if it cannot be verified that the burning rate has been constant, it is impossible to tell for sure how long the candle was burning. A similar problem occurs with radiometric dating of rocks. Since the initial physical state of the rock is unknowable, the age can only be estimated according to certain assumptions.


When dating a rock, the geochronologist (scientist who performs the dating procedure) must first assume the rock’s age before it is dated. For example, if a scientist believes a piece of rock is 4.5 billion years old, he or she may then use the uranium-lead dating method because it has a half-life of about 4.5 billion years. This involves circular reasoning, as is clearly evident in the article on dating in the Encyclopedia Britannica: “Most geologists must rely on geochronologists for their results. In turn, the geochronologist relies on the geologist for relative ages.”[71] The geochronologist must also be sure that the rate of decay, from uranium to lead for example, has remained constant in the rock over the past 4.5 billion years. Furthermore, the amount of uranium in the rock that was present to begin with must also be assumed. And neither uranium nor lead can have ever been added or removed from the specimen by any natural circumstances, catastrophic or otherwise. If all of these assumptions are correct, then the resulting dates are correct. However if even one of these assumptions is wrong, then the resulting dates are erroneous.


Why does radiometric dating repeatedly result in very old dates (such as billions of years)? While one explanation is that these dates show the specimens’ true age, another is that one or more of these large assumptions associated with this method of dating is wrong.


Scientists have dated lava rock samples from various active volcanoes with the radiometric method. Because the formation of these rocks has recently been observed, radiometric dating should not give them an age of millions of years.[72] Yet there are many such examples. Consider the following:


Rock which was formed in 1986 from a lava dome at Mount St. Helens volcano was dated by the potassiumargon method as 0.35 ± 0.05 million years old.[73]


Rocks from five recent lava flows at Mount Ngauruhoe in New Zealand were dated using the potassium-argon method, and resulted in dates ranging from <0.27 to 3.5 million years — but one lava flow occurred in 1949, three in 1954, and one in 1975.[74]


Salt Lake Crater on Oahu was determined to be 92–147 million years, 140–680 million years, 930–1,580 million years, 1,230–1,960 million years, 1,290–2,050 million years, and 1,360–1,900 years old, using different radiometric dating methods.[75]


How did 1,000-year-old carbon-dated trees in the Auckland volcanic field of New Zealand get buried under 145,000-465,000 year old potassium-argon-dated lava rock?[76]


One explanation given by scientists for some of these incorrect dates is that excess argon was retained in the rocks when they solidified from a molten state. According to the Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, “It is common to discard ages which are substantially too high or too low compared with the rest of the group or with other available data such as the geological time scale. . . . The discrepancies between the rejected and the accepted are arbitrarily attributed to excess or loss of argon.”[77]


But if excess argon can cause exaggerated dates for rocks of known age, then why should this dating method be trusted for rocks of unknown age?


No one knows for sure if any of the assumptions of radiometric dating are correct, however this is the only method of dating that is considered “absolute.”[78]Physics professor and researcher Dr. Saami Shaibani, a leading consultant for America’s Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), who has 100 scholarly articles to his credit and has been designated “international expert” in his field by the U.S. Departments of Labor and Justice, realizes, “In man-made dating methods, there is assumption upon assumption, plus a couple of more assumptions sprinkled in, plus some blind guesswork. And this masquerades as wonderful, legitimate methodology, but it’s not.”[79] "

Well, I'm actually not convinced that oral tradition is a less accurate means of transmission than written documents over time. Written documents are destroyed as time passes, and from Greek and Roman documents we can see a great deal of variation over time from errors in all forms of texts. Oral tradition when taken seriously could be a very accurate transmission. When an entire society knows the stories, professionals in the task are allowed to spend their time doing nothing but passing on their memorization to apprentices, and the words spoken are considered sacred by the listeners, I doubt there is much room for modification. I would be more concerned with a written text in a society where most people are illiterate.

There has also been some evidence from the dead sea scrolls that at least one period of history has seen little change in the scripture. Before the dead sea scrolls, we are out of luck. For those starting from the faith side to begin with, there should be some trust that God protects his word, ecspecially when there is no evidence that the word has changed a great deal.

I think the bigger issue on a faith level is if you approve of the words that are supposed to belong to God. I personally don't find the God in the Bible appealing. Others do, and they would like to put their faith in him. That is their right.

I think individuals actually change religion more than the scriptures themselves change. The denominations have changed a great deal over time. What would have been considered heresy in the past is now considered common knowledge. Even amongst the same religion during the same period of time, every single person has a different idea of who God is. We would not have the denominations to begin with if people did not have different opinions even after looking at the same book. It is not a changing book that makes religion change, it is changing perception.

The key difference between science and religion in my opinion is the method by which they change. The beliefs of the scientific community strive to only changes after a repeatable observation. Like religion, scientist can look at the same world that was looked at 20 years ago and come up with completely different ideas of what is true. Religion does not go to observation first before they make the changes to their belief structure. Religion tends to go to authority. It goes to a sacred scripture, the words of a divinely inspired man, or in some cases the divine inspiration people claim to hear from God himself. They then interpret this instead of the observation to come up with their belief system.

I do not think that either system has a monopoly on the truth or fails to change from individual to individual, however they do go to completely different sources for their adaptations over time. There can't be a blending of the two, because they do not operate in the same way. The second a scientist goes to divine inspiration to come up with their conclusion, then they have left the realm of science and entered the realm of religion. The second the religious goes to the observable world to come up with their conclusion, then they have left the realm of religion and entered the realm of science. The two are a true dichotomy. Blending of the two would be nothing more than flip-flopping between two different methods that will never be the same.

I think individuals actually change religion more than the scriptures themselves change. The denominations have changed a great deal over time. What would have been considered heresy in the past is now considered common knowledge. Even amongst the same religion during the same period of time, every single person has a different idea of who God is. We would not have the denominations to begin with if people did not have different opinions even after looking at the same book. It is not a changing book that makes religion change, it is changing perception.

The key difference between science and religion in my opinion is the method by which they change. The beliefs of the scientific community strive to only changes after a repeatable observation. Like religion, scientist can look at the same world that was looked at 20 years ago and come up with completely different ideas of what is true.

Religion does not go to observation first before they make the changes to their belief structure. Religion tends to go to authority. It goes to a sacred scripture, the words of a divinely inspired man, or in some cases the divine inspiration people claim to hear from God himself. They then interpret this instead of the observation to come up with their belief system.

I do not think that either system has a monopoly on the truth or fails to change from individual to individual, however they do go to completely different sources for their adaptations over time. There can't be a blending of the two, because they do not operate in the same way. The second a scientist goes to divine inspiration to come up with their conclusion, then they have left the realm of science and entered the realm of religion. The second the religious goes to the observable world to come up with their conclusion, then they have left the realm of religion and entered the realm of science. The two are a true dichotomy. Blending of the two would be nothing more than flip-flopping between two different methods that will never be the same.

Yes, exactly my point. There's no reason to trust the veracity of any of it. As far as historical records go, there's far more reason to believe in Zeus than in Jesus. Why, for example, if Jesus had recently lived on earth, performed miracles, and miraculously resurrected and ascended to heaven, do Paul and other first century Christian writers make no mention that Jesus ever lived on Earth? You'd think maybe it would still be a bit of a big deal to them. These are events that are supposed to have happened less than 100 years before. Inconsistancies like that shed a great deal of doubt on the historicity of the bible or the existence of Jesus as anything more than a mythical hero figure. It truly requires faith because the historical proof is completely lacking.

If you're interested in how the historicity of ancient texts is evaluated, do some reading on it. We've covered it before and you mysteriously seem to have forgotten all of it

As for science and religion being incompatible, I'd say yes. They're different modes of thinking that don't mix well. They're not mutually exclusive though, at least for people who can compartmentalize them. Faith doesn't belong in the lab, and materialist rationalism doesn't belong in a church, but that doesn't mean people can't be capable of both when it's appropriate.

Does it hurt to hold so many conflicting viewpoints in your head all the time? We're not talking about a dutiful historian here working to preserve a sacred piece of text (which it was not at the time). We're talking about an enterprising bard collecting oral traditions, wise sayings, creation stories (there are indeed more than one in the bible), and collating them into the books. THEN someone else does the same thing to his work collating it together with other works until you finally have something that represents those greek and hebrew texts. Probably the most telling is that the bible is literally divided up into books (which are themselves a compilation). That makes any whole compilation of the new or old testament much newer than the individual books themselves.

Who needs to think for themselves when cutting and pasting is so much easier?

~Ulrika~

Denial does strange things to a person's memory.

~Ulrika~

Chip,

I have no idea what you mean when you say "the writers make no mention that Jesus ever lived on Earth". The 4 Gospels are all about Christ's life. Paul came after Christ was crucified.

Where did you get your data? Did you figure it out or read it?

Everything you posted was right out of every website on the topic.

Of course Paul came after Christ was crucified. If he hadn't, then it wouldn't be strange that he makes no reference to Jesus having been a living man at one point in recent history. Paul never speaks of Jesus in earthly terms.

Some good reading on the subject: http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/partone.htm

I recognized that a fallacy was made (humans have a lot of problems understanding exponentials and long periods of time). Using the equations for exponential decay which I have memorized (I could derive them for you if you'd like), I then took the given duration of a million years, looked up the half life and molar volume of carbon 14 in my physics book (never sell your physics book back), and worked out the solution on my scientific calculator (I have identical ones sitting to the left of my monitor at work and home). Finally, I provided the analysis that even after a million years carbon 14 atoms would still be very much in abundance. I could do it for a billion years if you'd like too.

That is the difference between looking something up with google and dropping it into the blue text area box (copying, following, and repeating) and thinking for one's self (inspiration, derivation, and presentation).

~Ulrika~

Fool.

I'm sorry Chip,

But this guy is nutty. Every single time Paul or one of the other's speak of Jesus Christ they are verifying we are indeed speaking of Jesus, and calling Him the Christ verifies that. Yet the author you directed me to says....

"And yet there is a resounding silence in Paul and the other first century writers. We might call it "The Missing Equation." Nowhere does anyone state that this Son of God and Savior, this cosmic Christ they are all talking about, was the man Jesus of Nazareth, recently put to death in Judea. Nowhere is there any defence of this outlandish, blasphemous proposition, the first necessary element (presumably) in the Christian message: that a recent man was God."

Read Acts, Romans, the Corinthians etc etc and you will see references to Jesus as the Christ.

I wish people would spend as much time reading the Bible as they do trying to discredit it.

I wish people would spend as much time reading the bible as they do trying to prove it.

Ok, that's great, you memorized equations for exponential decay, I'm very impressed. From where did that equation come? Have you personally verified it to be correct? Have you tested it? Memorizing information is why we have book smart people graduating with a 4.0 while the thinkers are labeled rebellious.

I think it's smarter to look up formulas than to fill ones head with information that will almost never be used personally, but that's just me.

I read (present tense) it, I never try to prove it to others.

The equations can be derived simply without any references. They're based on simple mathematics and straight-forward concepts. As soon as I get home tonight, I'll do the derivation and post it here. As for having the final solution memorized, it's simply because I derive it so often.

Regarding verification, I have personally verified exponential increase and decay in multiple settings. I have even observed the emission of neutrons from radiological decay using a cloud chamber put together as part of a science project. If only you had so much proof for your imaginary god.

~Ulrika~

Ooh those experiments are pretty.

I prefer the charged decay products, and the funny little aetherial loops they make before they vanish.


Edit: notes that at extremes distances my new pro-consumer forum banner looks oddly similar to Ulrika's 'Buy Nothing Christmas' banner. Red is such a pretty shade...

Theories are not absolutes. That is why they are called theories and not laws. That is one of the basic differences between religion and science.



You postulate a hypothesis. The hypothesis has to be expressed in a way that could be disproved. Then you research the evidence and try to disprove your hypothesis. The hypothesis becomes a theory when no one is able to disprove it. Science is built on disproving hypotheses, not proving them. The existence of God cannot be disproved. You can't prove the non-existence of something, only it's existence. Belief in God is not a hypothesis. The proponents of ID have offered no hypotheses concerning the interaction of this Designer with plant or animal species. They take a religious belief, the belief in God, and then offer no hypothesis on how God interacts, or designs, life. The proponents of ID make no attempts to disprove their belief in God. The proponents of a scientific hypothesis have to show that they have attempted to DISPROVE that hypothesis and failed. That is why ID is not science.




The photons interact in a way that is currently unknown to us. But we can show that they do, in fact, interact. Just because we don't know one thing doesn't mean what we do know is invalid. I know my mother's name, even if I don't know yours.



I think religion and science can be quite compatible, but that they are not the same. The problem is that many religious people can't see the difference between the two. They want religious doctrine, i.e. ID, taught as science. They ask questions like "Do you believe in evolution?" As if evolution were a religious belief. One does not believe or disbelieve in evolution, one accepts or rejects the evidence supporting evolution. Science is a method for understanding how the world works. Religion is a method for understanding why the world works. The "how" can be disproved, the "why" cannot.

No, you can't. Sorry. You can disprove their conclusions but that does not in any way prove yours. If you say the president is a German Shepherd and I say he's a Dachshund, my proving he's not a German Shepherd does not in any way prove he's a Dachshund.




Go ahead and prove that radioactive levels do not decay at a constant rate. Formulate a hypothesis, set up experiments to disprove it and go for it. Just saying they might not is not the same thing though. Just showing that the methods used to determine age are based on a theory doesn't disprove the conclusions. You have to actually disprove the theory first.