Hello

I am a Christian. Please don't beat me up too bad.

Hello and welcome to RatSkep! :smile: Why don't you introduce yourself here? ;)

Moderators: DarthHelmet86, campermon

Re: Hello

#21  Postby Goldenmane » Mar 29, 2015 4:41 am

Where did the light come from and go to?
-Geoff Rogers

@Goldenmane3

http://goldenmane.onlineinfidels.com/
User avatar
Goldenmane
 
Posts: 2383

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Hello

#22  Postby wunksta » Mar 29, 2015 5:00 am

If God did create the universe and everything in it, wouldn't the evidence and data provided by creation be more accurate than a book written by people 1000's of years ago?
The night is dark and full of terrors...
User avatar
wunksta
 
Posts: 1350
Age: 36
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Hello

#23  Postby jinxu » Mar 29, 2015 10:16 am

wunksta wrote:If God did create the universe and everything in it, wouldn't the evidence and data provided by creation be more accurate than a book written by people 1000's of years ago?


Hard to say. Perhaps we haven't found all the evidence yet. And again, I am here to look at it and ask questions to learn more about it.

Goldenmane wrote:Where did the light come from and go to?


I don't understand. Are you asking what the source was Before the sun / stars? And as far where to, I don't know. Obviously the Earth, buy don't know about any where else.
jinxu
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 180

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Hello

#24  Postby Cito di Pense » Mar 29, 2015 10:56 am

jinxu wrote:
Never really considered not being a Christian in the future.


You're making a really feeble statement, here. Am I supposed to guess just exactly what you mean by 'being a Christian'? You know there are 57 different varieties, or more. If you happen to adopt one of the more insipid versions, it really places no demands on your cognition other than to say that you believe certain things, and so you can accept most of the facts of astrophysics without really having to reconcile them with 'Christianity'. For you simply to mouth the words is unimpressive. Better to say what you're willing to go through to maintain your Christianity. Simply going on line anonymously to post in an atheist forum is really not much of a test of anything. Back in the old days, man, they held your feet in the fire. Reconciliation is one of those activities you can do a little, or a lot.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Al Forno, LLD,LDL,PPM
Posts: 29557
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Hello

#25  Postby wunksta » Mar 29, 2015 3:41 pm

jinxu wrote:
wunksta wrote:If God did create the universe and everything in it, wouldn't the evidence and data provided by creation be more accurate than a book written by people 1000's of years ago?


Hard to say. Perhaps we haven't found all the evidence yet. And again, I am here to look at it and ask questions to learn more about it.


We discovered some zircon crystal in Australia that is 4.4billion years old.

Scientists describe the radioactivity of an element in terms of half-life, the time the element takes to lose 50 percent of its activity by decay. This covers an extraordinary range of time, from billions of years to a few microseconds. At the end of the period constituting one half-life, half of the original quantity of radioactive element has decayed; after another half-life, half of what was left is halved again, leaving one-fourth of the original quantity, and so on. Every radioactive element has its own half-life; for example, that of carbon-14 is 5730 years and that of uranium-238 is 4.5 billion years.


http://dwb.unl.edu/Teacher/NSF/C03/C03Links/www.fwkc.com/encyclopedia/low/articles/d/d006000188f.html

Zircon contains the radioactive element uranium, which Dr. Mueller calls “the clock within the zircon” because it converts to the element lead at a specific rate over a long span of time. According to Mueller, this makes zircons “the most reliable natural chronometer that we have when we want to look at the earliest part of Earth history.”

“My job is to look at the chemistry of the rock, including its isotopes, and try to derive the absolute times for events that are recorded in the rock and its zircons.”

How precise are those actual numbers? “Depending on the history of the rock, we can date things nowadays down to something on the order of a few hundredths of a percent of its age,” answers Mueller. That translates, for example, to plus or minus a million years out of three billion. Carbon-14 dating can go no further back than about 70,000 years, because the half-life of carbon-14 is only 5,730 years. (The half-life is the time it takes for half of the original radioactive isotope to change to another element.) In comparison, the half-life of the radioactive uranium 238 isotope is 4.5 billion years, which makes it useful for dating extremely old materials.


http://www.amnh.org/education/resources/rfl/web/essaybooks/earth/cs_zircon_chronolgy.html

"The oldest rocks on earth that have been dated thus far include 3.4 billion year old granites from the Barberton Mountain Land of South Africa, 3.7 billion year old granites of southwestern Greenland, ..." Levin, 1983

But later in 1983: "Geologists working in the mountains of western Australia have discovered grains of rock that are 4.1 to 4.2 billion years old, by far the oldest ever found on the Earth" This dating was done on grains of zircon, a mineral so stable that it can retain its identity through volcanic activity, weathering, and sedimentation.


http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/clkroc.html

I do think that radiometric dating is an accurate way to date the earth, although I am a geochronologist so I have my biases. The reason that I trust the accuracy of the age that we have determined for the earth (~4.56 billion years) is that we have been able to obtain a very similar result using many different isotopic systems. Most estimates of the age of the earth come from dating meteorites that have fallen to Earth (because we think that they formed in our solar nebula very close to the time that the earth formed). We have dated meteorites using Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd, Pb-Pb, Re-Os, and Lu-Hf isotope systems and have obtained very similar ages. The fact that the age we calculate is reproducible for these different systems is significant. We have also obtained a very similar age by measuring Pb isotopes in materials from earth. I should mention that the decay constants (basically a value that indicates how fast a certain radioactive isotope will decay) for some of these isotope systems were calculated by assuming that the age of the earth is 4.56 billion years, meaning that we will also calculate an age of 4.56 billion years if we use that decay constant. The decay constants for most of these systems have been confirmed in other ways, adding strength to our argument for the age of the earth.


http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=2901
The night is dark and full of terrors...
User avatar
wunksta
 
Posts: 1350
Age: 36
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Hello

#26  Postby jinxu » Mar 29, 2015 7:08 pm

wunksta wrote:
jinxu wrote:
wunksta wrote:If God did create the universe and everything in it, wouldn't the evidence and data provided by creation be more accurate than a book written by people 1000's of years ago?


Hard to say. Perhaps we haven't found all the evidence yet. And again, I am here to look at it and ask questions to learn more about it.


We discovered some zircon crystal in Australia that is 4.4billion years old.

Scientists describe the radioactivity of an element in terms of half-life, the time the element takes to lose 50 percent of its activity by decay. This covers an extraordinary range of time, from billions of years to a few microseconds. At the end of the period constituting one half-life, half of the original quantity of radioactive element has decayed; after another half-life, half of what was left is halved again, leaving one-fourth of the original quantity, and so on. Every radioactive element has its own half-life; for example, that of carbon-14 is 5730 years and that of uranium-238 is 4.5 billion years.


http://dwb.unl.edu/Teacher/NSF/C03/C03Links/www.fwkc.com/encyclopedia/low/articles/d/d006000188f.html

Zircon contains the radioactive element uranium, which Dr. Mueller calls “the clock within the zircon” because it converts to the element lead at a specific rate over a long span of time. According to Mueller, this makes zircons “the most reliable natural chronometer that we have when we want to look at the earliest part of Earth history.”

“My job is to look at the chemistry of the rock, including its isotopes, and try to derive the absolute times for events that are recorded in the rock and its zircons.”

How precise are those actual numbers? “Depending on the history of the rock, we can date things nowadays down to something on the order of a few hundredths of a percent of its age,” answers Mueller. That translates, for example, to plus or minus a million years out of three billion. Carbon-14 dating can go no further back than about 70,000 years, because the half-life of carbon-14 is only 5,730 years. (The half-life is the time it takes for half of the original radioactive isotope to change to another element.) In comparison, the half-life of the radioactive uranium 238 isotope is 4.5 billion years, which makes it useful for dating extremely old materials.


http://www.amnh.org/education/resources/rfl/web/essaybooks/earth/cs_zircon_chronolgy.html

"The oldest rocks on earth that have been dated thus far include 3.4 billion year old granites from the Barberton Mountain Land of South Africa, 3.7 billion year old granites of southwestern Greenland, ..." Levin, 1983

But later in 1983: "Geologists working in the mountains of western Australia have discovered grains of rock that are 4.1 to 4.2 billion years old, by far the oldest ever found on the Earth" This dating was done on grains of zircon, a mineral so stable that it can retain its identity through volcanic activity, weathering, and sedimentation.


http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/clkroc.html

I do think that radiometric dating is an accurate way to date the earth, although I am a geochronologist so I have my biases. The reason that I trust the accuracy of the age that we have determined for the earth (~4.56 billion years) is that we have been able to obtain a very similar result using many different isotopic systems. Most estimates of the age of the earth come from dating meteorites that have fallen to Earth (because we think that they formed in our solar nebula very close to the time that the earth formed). We have dated meteorites using Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd, Pb-Pb, Re-Os, and Lu-Hf isotope systems and have obtained very similar ages. The fact that the age we calculate is reproducible for these different systems is significant. We have also obtained a very similar age by measuring Pb isotopes in materials from earth. I should mention that the decay constants (basically a value that indicates how fast a certain radioactive isotope will decay) for some of these isotope systems were calculated by assuming that the age of the earth is 4.56 billion years, meaning that we will also calculate an age of 4.56 billion years if we use that decay constant. The decay constants for most of these systems have been confirmed in other ways, adding strength to our argument for the age of the earth.


http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=2901


That's awesome. I just heard about how quartz is used in timepieces on something related to the big bang. Overall, the age of the earth / universe (whether it be billions or just thousands) wouldn't affect my faith. Again, I put greater emphasis on my personal experience over anything else. It just so happens that the Bible has explained it (my experience) better than anything else so far.

Is the age of zircon and other minerals the same around the world? Or different ages for the same mineral in different locations? If so what are some of the factors that would affect them? Maybe a topic for a new thread.
jinxu
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 180

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Hello

#27  Postby wunksta » Mar 29, 2015 7:24 pm

jinxu wrote:
That's awesome. I just heard about how quartz is used in timepieces on something related to the big bang. Overall, the age of the earth / universe (whether it be billions or just thousands) wouldn't affect my faith. Again, I put greater emphasis on my personal experience over anything else. It just so happens that the Bible has explained it (my experience) better than anything else so far.


I wouldn't expect it to affect your faith in God, but only to consider the fact that the Bible was written by people who make mistakes and aren't perfect. Could it not be possible that their own views were put into the Bible? Does the Bible have to be 100% literally correct in order to have faith in God?


Is the age of zircon and other minerals the same around the world? Or different ages for the same mineral in different locations? If so what are some of the factors that would affect them? Maybe a topic for a new thread.


It depends on when the material was formed and so on. Zircon can include uranium and thorium atoms into its structure and that's how we can date the age of the Zircon due to the trapped lead atoms.

So when a mineral grain forms (specifically, when it first cools below its trapping temperature), it effectively sets the uranium-lead "clock" to zero.

Lead atoms created by uranium decay are trapped in the crystal and build up in concentration with time.

In a 704-million-year-old rock, 235U is at its half-life and there will be an equal number of 235U and 207Pb atoms (the Pb/U ratio is 1). In a rock twice as old there will be one 235U atom left for every three 207Pb atoms (Pb/U = 3), and so forth.


http://geology.about.com/od/geotime_dating/a/uraniumlead.htm
The night is dark and full of terrors...
User avatar
wunksta
 
Posts: 1350
Age: 36
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Hello

#28  Postby jinxu » Mar 29, 2015 8:32 pm

wunksta wrote:
jinxu wrote:
That's awesome. I just heard about how quartz is used in timepieces on something related to the big bang. Overall, the age of the earth / universe (whether it be billions or just thousands) wouldn't affect my faith. Again, I put greater emphasis on my personal experience over anything else. It just so happens that the Bible has explained it (my experience) better than anything else so far.


I wouldn't expect it to affect your faith in God, but only to consider the fact that the Bible was written by people who make mistakes and aren't perfect. Could it not be possible that their own views were put into the Bible? Does the Bible have to be 100% literally correct in order to have faith in God?


Is the age of zircon and other minerals the same around the world? Or different ages for the same mineral in different locations? If so what are some of the factors that would affect them? Maybe a topic for a new thread.


It depends on when the material was formed and so on. Zircon can include uranium and thorium atoms into its structure and that's how we can date the age of the Zircon due to the trapped lead atoms.

So when a mineral grain forms (specifically, when it first cools below its trapping temperature), it effectively sets the uranium-lead "clock" to zero.

Lead atoms created by uranium decay are trapped in the crystal and build up in concentration with time.

In a 704-million-year-old rock, 235U is at its half-life and there will be an equal number of 235U and 207Pb atoms (the Pb/U ratio is 1). In a rock twice as old there will be one 235U atom left for every three 207Pb atoms (Pb/U = 3), and so forth.


http://geology.about.com/od/geotime_dating/a/uraniumlead.htm


It is funny that you should bring up the point about different authors because that is one of the main reasons I accept the Bible. Having read through the Bible about 3 times now within a year (different translations as well), I am amazed by the level of consistency of the different authors. Something I find hard to believe is possible without God being the ultimate author. I am reading through the Historical Jesus thread though to see how historians view the Bible.

So if the forming of the mineral is what determines its capacity to be tested. Can there be anything in that process, of forming, that could change dates? Does the rate it forms even differ? I am guessing it wouldn't because ultimately whatever amount you had would be crystallized and you would still just look at the ratio?
jinxu
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 180

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Hello

#29  Postby wunksta » Mar 29, 2015 11:49 pm

jinxu wrote:
It is funny that you should bring up the point about different authors because that is one of the main reasons I accept the Bible. Having read through the Bible about 3 times now within a year (different translations as well), I am amazed by the level of consistency of the different authors. Something I find hard to believe is possible without God being the ultimate author. I am reading through the Historical Jesus thread though to see how historians view the Bible.


My main point is that in the past, someone wrote that the world was created in a few days. We have found physical evidence that this is not the case. My argument would be that if you feel that God created the universe, the world around you would be the evidence that you should rely on not a book that was written a long time ago.

As for the consistency of the Bible, I'll leave that for another thread but suffice to say that I wouldn't agree based on stuff I have read. Things like the Q document, issues with conflicting stories like how Judas died and similarities in stories to older religions like the ones from Mesopotamia (eg Gilgamesh) which were written a thousand years or so before the Jews existed as a culture.


So if the forming of the mineral is what determines its capacity to be tested. Can there be anything in that process, of forming, that could change dates? Does the rate it forms even differ? I am guessing it wouldn't because ultimately whatever amount you had would be crystallized and you would still just look at the ratio?


I'm not an expert but it's fairly accurate and consistent from everything I have read. There is a degree of accuracy of around .1 to 1% for the dating, so within a few hundred thousand years or so. It's something you could test in a lab yourself if you wanted to. Take some zircon and melt it repeatedly to see how long it would take to reform. You could also calculate the rate of decay for uranium.

That's what I love about scientific discoveries and research; no one is asking you to take it for granted. The entire process relies upon peer review and repeated testing. You could take the same material, test it yourself and reach the same conclusion. If someone received different results, or couldn't reproduce the findings then this throws out the study.
The night is dark and full of terrors...
User avatar
wunksta
 
Posts: 1350
Age: 36
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Hello

#30  Postby Varangian » Mar 30, 2015 1:13 am

jinxu wrote:Having read through the Bible about 3 times now within a year (different translations as well), I am amazed by the level of consistency of the different authors. Something I find hard to believe is possible without God being the ultimate author.


You call this consistency?
26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

A few verses later...
15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.
16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden;
17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”

19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.
20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.

But for Adam no suitable helper was found.
21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh.
22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

Also, in Genesis 1, plants are created before man and woman, in Genesis 2, Adam is created before the plants, and then Eve. So we have two creation stories just in the first pages. No modern fantasy author would get away with such sloppy world-building.
Image

"Bunch together a group of people deliberately chosen for strong religious feelings,
and you have a practical guarantee of dark morbidities." - H.P. Lovecraft
User avatar
Varangian
RS Donator
 
Name: Björn
Posts: 7298
Age: 56
Male

Country: Sweden
Sweden (se)
Print view this post

Re: Hello

#31  Postby jinxu » Mar 30, 2015 9:30 am

wunksta wrote:
jinxu wrote:
It is funny that you should bring up the point about different authors because that is one of the main reasons I accept the Bible. Having read through the Bible about 3 times now within a year (different translations as well), I am amazed by the level of consistency of the different authors. Something I find hard to believe is possible without God being the ultimate author. I am reading through the Historical Jesus thread though to see how historians view the Bible.


My main point is that in the past, someone wrote that the world was created in a few days. We have found physical evidence that this is not the case. My argument would be that if you feel that God created the universe, the world around you would be the evidence that you should rely on not a book that was written a long time ago.

As for the consistency of the Bible, I'll leave that for another thread but suffice to say that I wouldn't agree based on stuff I have read. Things like the Q document, issues with conflicting stories like how Judas died and similarities in stories to older religions like the ones from Mesopotamia (eg Gilgamesh) which were written a thousand years or so before the Jews existed as a culture.


So if the forming of the mineral is what determines its capacity to be tested. Can there be anything in that process, of forming, that could change dates? Does the rate it forms even differ? I am guessing it wouldn't because ultimately whatever amount you had would be crystallized and you would still just look at the ratio?


I'm not an expert but it's fairly accurate and consistent from everything I have read. There is a degree of accuracy of around .1 to 1% for the dating, so within a few hundred thousand years or so. It's something you could test in a lab yourself if you wanted to. Take some zircon and melt it repeatedly to see how long it would take to reform. You could also calculate the rate of decay for uranium.

That's what I love about scientific discoveries and research; no one is asking you to take it for granted. The entire process relies upon peer review and repeated testing. You could take the same material, test it yourself and reach the same conclusion. If someone received different results, or couldn't reproduce the findings then this throws out the study.


Thank you, I don't have a lab to try those experiments but I will continue "digging" around the geology sections to learn more about dating. And I understand your point regarding the created world vs. a written text. Hence, again why I am here and studying.
jinxu
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 180

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Hello

#32  Postby flail » Apr 04, 2015 2:45 am

Welcome, jinxu. I too am a Christian, a conservative Presbyterian, Reformed, Calvinist, and a YEC. I spend most all my time here though playing mafia.
User avatar
flail
 
Name: God only knows
Posts: 1221

Country: CSA, South Appalachia
Print view this post

Re: Hello

#33  Postby jinxu » Apr 04, 2015 2:53 am

flail wrote:Welcome, jinxu. I too am a Christian, a conservative Presbyterian, Reformed, Calvinist, and a YEC. I spend most all my time here though playing mafia.


Lol, hello fellow Christian. Is mafia where you ended up or where you intended to be? And I couldn't help but notice your country. CSA eh? ;)
jinxu
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 180

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Hello

#34  Postby NamelessFaceless » Apr 07, 2015 3:20 pm

Welcome! :cheers:
User avatar
NamelessFaceless
 
Posts: 6202
Female

Country: USA (Pensacola, FL)
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Hello

#35  Postby Clive Durdle » Apr 07, 2015 3:34 pm

Flail, I hope I understand what csa is! How do you recommend I manage my slaves?
"We cannot slaughter each other out of the human impasse"
Clive Durdle
 
Name: Clive Durdle
Posts: 4854

Country: UK
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Hello

#36  Postby scott1328 » Apr 07, 2015 6:33 pm

Clive Durdle wrote:Flail, I hope I understand what csa is! How do you recommend I manage my slaves?

When you beat them, don't do it so hard that they die right away. Make sure that if you beat them, then if they die, it is only after several days of cogitating on their infractions.

Also don't forget, the children of the slaves you rape are your property too, so spend them wisely!

God is truly merciful.
User avatar
scott1328
 
Name: Some call me... Tim
Posts: 8703
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Previous

Return to Welcome New Members

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest

cron