Are science and religion incompatible?

These are the definitions I use to define the word Religion

re·li·gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.
1.
A. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
B. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Decay rates do not change. Decay rates are determined by a complex interaction of the fundamental universal forces, the strong nuclear force, electrostatic force, and to a lesser extent the weak nuclear force and the gravitational force. A decay event or spontaneous destabilization of a nucleus occurs when a sufficient activation energy is provided by random quantum-mechanical motion. The resulting transformation typically results in the ejection of a neutron.

Because of the relative immutability of the fundamental universal forces, the sameness of atomic nuclei, and the statistics associated with quantum mechanics, half lives are for all practical purposes constant.

~Ulrika~

I've been saving this award for quite some time, waiting for the right moment to award it.

Michael Seraph, because of your ability to reason logically, engage in civil debate, and provide a fresh take on a well-worn subject, I award you with Ulrika's Post of the Month. Congratulations.



~Ulrika~

Since I've obviously been too obtuse thus far I'll put it more plainly. TO YOU, which bits, books, or bible are the word of god? What content do you think sprang directly from it's thought to page and survived to be viewed by you? I hear this phrase "Word of God" often and have never been pointed out to anything and told "THAT! THAT is the 'Word(s) of God'!". So by all means, help me out here.

O RLY

By law this image must always accompany that phrase. I got you covered this time.



~Ulrika~

for some reason the image attachment thingy isn't working for me, thanks

O RLY



~Ulrika~

Just kiddin' above.

Yes. The image-upload feature is broken for me too. That image is from my website.

~Ulrika~

Not obtuse at all Siro. I would say it was more a lack on my part. I'm gonna do something Ulrika hates

While the Bible (and all multiple translations) is a great work, it is not the end of God's Word...

John 1:1-3 (AMP)
IN THE beginning [before all time] was the Word ( Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God Himself. [Isaiah 9:6.]
2 He was present originally with God.
3 All things were made and came into existence through Him; and without Him was not even one thing made that has come into being.

I certainly understand how this will sound absurd, and I don't expect anyone who is not Christian to understand. The Bible is a Living Word, it will affect the reader every time it is read. It will give lessons for all situations.

1 Peter 1:23 (AMP)
23 You have been regenerated (born again), not from a mortal origin ( seed, sperm), but from one that is immortal by the ever living and lasting Word of God.

The Word of God TO ME is Jesus the Christ, and the relationship I have with Him. It also includes the Bible, fellowship, and prayer.

Her stating that there will be a measurable amount of c-14/12 in anything a million years old is not fine math... At least, from everything I have ever read.

Interestingly, Time magazine had a piece on Westinghouse Labs changing the decay rates by simply placing active iron next to inactive iron. It was a mere change of about 3 percent, but that would change 'old' measurements dramatically.

Yet, those same isotopes can not measure 'current' age items.

Kevn listed several 'miscalculations'. These are all over the web, there is not a limited few, and it is not limited to carbon dating. The fact is, we do not know the environment variables of the past, but to use these methods, we must depend on it being constant from the beginning of time.

I have some burning questions that I must know the answer to.


Kurgan, are you playing Alliance or Horde in World of Warcraft?

Kevn, if you played, which would you be?

I would ask Ulrika the same.



Personally I've not been anywhere near World of Warcraft but I think I'd play Alliance. A crafter, if there is such a thing.

It's a simple ratio of logarithms filled in with the values provided in the discussion. I recommend finding the equations yourself on wikipedia and repeating the calculation. It takes only a minute.

Further, I think there is a misunderstanding in the basic ideas behind this derivation. I would read your post and my posts again. You stated that the presence of carbon 14 after a million years is odd.Understanding exponential decay I crafted a reply that showed mathematically that there is nothing odd about it. In this quote I discuss the ratio of carbon 14 to carbon 12 and discuss whether or not that ratio can be accurately measured. That's the difference between dismissing a concept based on word-of-mouth from pundits seeking to discredit a well-understood principle to protect dogma, and a mathematical analysis to gauge whether a signal-to-noise ratio is sufficient to yield an accurate measurement.

~Ulrika~

Yes, stating that there will be a measureable amount of C14 left after a million years is wrong, but not because the math is wrong.

EDIT: I missed the context of this question. If the sample size is large enough, you can find C14 in a million year old sample, thats not a problem at all. Take a load of coal and you will find C14.


I don't read Time magazine; what did they say? I would take any science presented in the public news medium with a huge grain of salt. Scientists always seem to have trouble expressing complex ideas to non-scientists and when it goes through a reporter it usually adds another layer of distortion. What exactly did they do? When you say "active" I assume you mean radioactive?

What is a 'current' age item? I'm not sure what you mean by this statement.

I must have missed Kevn's miscalculations, let me look for them. Most mistakes I've seen are by people (usually with an agenda) applying the techniques incorrectly.

So.... Christianity is still not a religion?

If we exclude all who don't follow Christ's teachings directly, then Christianity would be a religion, but as we were discussing yesterday, very few so-caller Christ based religions actually follow His teachings. That's why we can't include every group who claims to be Christian under these definitions. If everyone who claims to be a follower of Christ did as Jesus taught exclusively, then we could say it's a religion.

Catholics follow the teachings of the pope, even if the pope's teachings are contrary to Christ's teachings. That would make the Catholics a different faith based on the teachings of the pope. The Catholic church teaches there is a place called "purgatory" where people go before getting to heaven, where they suffer some to pay for some of their sins. There is no purgatory in the Bible, and Christians are to accept salvaton as a gift, something that can't be earned. Yet purgatory would suggest Catholics have to pay for their own salvation. That would wipe out the entire gospel, which is the good news all can be saved regardless of past sins by accepting the gift of Grace through Christ.

Many "Christian" groups follow a different man than Christ, so they are not really Christian under defintion #3. To be a true Christian under definition #3 one would only follow Christ's teachings and not teachings different than Christ's teachings.

So, if you want to divide the groups who claim to be Christian based on whether they follow Christ or some other man, then we could narrow Christianity down to an actual religion of people who follow Christ's teachings and example.

I'm not sure where this was quoted from, but it contains errors


You do not need to know the initial amount of material for most radiometric dating techniques. Clearly the author doesn't understand the process.

The presence of daughter atoms in the initial sample may or may not be an issue depending on the technique. One advantage of an isotope with a long decay chain is that there are many daughter products and so the entire chain can be checked.



Bunch of examples plunked down without explantion. I'm assuming that the author of this article made these measurements. And since the author already showed that they don't understand how to do dating its not suprising they get incorrect results.




Beware the ellipse. It looks like the author cut out important bits of the explanation.
Also, thi is attributed to the Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences. Was this written by the editor? Was it a response to a previous article? Was it part of a review of techniques? What is the context?



I've never heard of him, can he be trusted?

A quick google turns up this and this

So, lets see. You:
Have belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe, based on the Christian bible, and hold a set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of Jesus Christ.

But you are not a Christian and have no religion?

I am indeed a follower of Christ. If you want to say I'm a Christian I'm cool with that. If you want to say I'm in a religion called Christianity I can deal with that too. The point I made it you can't include me and my "Christian religion" with the others who say they are Christian but follow a different leader, even if that leader says he/she is following Christ.

I'm a follower of Christ but I don't have any church group outside my friends and family. I don't attend any religious services in a building some call a church. If what I describe fits your understanding of what a Christian is, then I am one. But I'm not a follower of the pope or any other spiritual leader.

I hope that clears it up some for you.

Well if you want to take the bible in the literature sense, Peter and John were just writers. If they happened to be historians, and were writing about Jesus (which it does seem somewhat unclear from these quotes), then they were also just writing about another person (whose importance we could equate to any great leader but not really more than that in a historical sense).

Maybe I'm confused about the word you're using Word. A Word to me is just a word like any other in a sentence implying that it has been written. So that's why I ask, which part did god write? If it means something else, by all means clear that up so we can stop being confused about deities having any say in how they're viewed, constructed, or recorded.

Actually, yes we can. We can include you and your "Christian Religion" with others who say they are Christian, but, according to you, follow a different leader. It's done all the time. Look up Roman Catholicism or Greek Orthodox in any encyclopedia and they'll be defined as Christian. It's a general term that applies to a broad religious group. Not all denominations, sects, churches, of a religion agree on all points, that's why they separated in the first place. It is the Christian tendency to focus on minute matters of doctrine and then to deny the "Christianity" of any who diverge from their interpretations that has done great damage to the religion and it's followers. It comes from believing that you KNOW the TRUTH and anyone who disagrees with you must be EVIL, uninformed or stupid. It's a common problem of all of the three major monotheistic religions. To me, it's simply hubris, overweening pride. No human on earth today has the TRUTH. Each might see a part, but not one has the whole TRUTH. People who believe they do are deluded and dangerous.

Tell that to people who insist there is no God, as if they have the truth.

The search for the truth requires no god. But try telling that to someone who insists there is a god, as if they have the truth.

God is dead.

If in fact there is a God, then finding truth would require finding God. Logical?