Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion The Water Cooler Global Warming - We've Been Here Before

Here's some info about how carbon dating is based on assumptions, that may not be true.

Quote: "Although this technique looks good at first, carbon-14 dating rests on at least two simple assumptions. These are, obviously, the assumption that the amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere has always been constant and that its rate of decay has always been constant. Neither of these assumptions is provable or reasonable."

For the trifecta.

Does Obama deserve to be re-elected?

As a preamble, I never watch the 'entertainment' drivel on mainstream TV such as 'Dancing with the Stars', 'Survivor', 'American Idol', modern sitcoms, etc, etc. Almost nightly I try immerse myself in fare from The Knowledge Network, PBS, National Geographic, Discovery, History Channel & various news outlets, etc. For example I watched with fascination 'Death of the Mars Rovers' last night on NG - a wonderful documentary chronicling the achievements of the outstanding Mars Rover program. Kudos to NASA for that one plus the present 'Curiosity' rover program.

So, while I'm not formally educated in science, I avidly follow scientific, historical & political matters. I believe that I'm fairly well informed - although others here may not agree, ha!!. Most people, I think, consider me to be rather boring because I am often on the outside of mainstream conversations with our friends because I'm totally ignorant on sports & what Britney Spears is wearing (or not wearing) these days. To me they & the vast majority of our North American culture are woefully intellectually shallow. The other day I heard on talk radio from south of the border that a survey found that only 3% of Americans were aware that Europe was in deep financial trouble. I think that says a lot & we're not much better up here.

Anyway, for me, evidence for evolution is quite compelling (much more so than for the causes for climate change). It has been an ongoing process for billions of years. The notion that a couple of thousand years ago some super entity somewhere created all that is around us plus the entire universe that is so massive that it is incomprehensible - in 1 week yet - just doesn't cut it with me...

TAM

CatBrat, your article comes from the web site of Creation Today. Here is their "About Us":

Creation Today (CT) is a leading Christian-apologetics ministry, defending the literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account from the theory of evolution (see our Statement of Faith).

So, they have an agenda to defend Biblical literalism from evolution. They have drawn their conclusion before they begin their work. They are trying to fit the facts to their theory (faith), rather than looking at the available data/current evidence and then coming up with a theory/conclusion to explain what has been observed, which is how modern science, when done properly, does things.

I am not saying that it is bad to have faith in a higher power. But I am saying that if you are going to go with a literal interpretation of the Bible as an unassailable beginning point of reference, then you are going to be useless as a scientist.

I suggest you read this link. It explains how other isotopes are more relevant for determining the age of fossils and the Earth.

I don't think anyone will convince another, one way or another. Discussions on faith/evolution will always end in a stalemate

Nobody wins, everyone's angry.

I'm calmer than you are.

I hear ya, Doctor Blue Horse. I used to have the goal of winning people over to my way of thinking, but I realized that that's a blueprint for frustration.

Now my goal is to engage in civil discussions that, by thoughtful exchange of ideas, are stimulating and enjoyable. The Axiom message boards (and PMs) are my go-to online resource for that. I have a few favorite blogs that I follow, and I check Facebook once in a while, but I only really engage in discussion here.

I'm familiar with Broca's organ and Wernicke's area, however, those morphological structures are not an explanation based on the theory of evolution for the emergence of language. Contrary to your post, primates do not possess Broca's organ, or any neural structure which if damaged degrades their linguistic ability.

Further, the mere fact that there are neural structures associated with language is not an explanation for how language ability emerged or operates in the human species.

I hope someone can please explain how the theory of evolution accounts for the emergence of language in the human species.

Respectfully, I don't think you can. Arm waiving, and this is something like that (analogical reasoning) is not sufficient.

I do not suggest by this question that the Eternal One endowed the human species with particular faculties, but rather that the theory of evolution, though powerful, is not a sufficient theory to explain the emergence of every human characteristic.

You're right, I readily admit that I am not a language theorist. I do not have the answers you seek. I was merely pointing you to a starting point for your search. In the wikipedia article that I referenced, there are several theories espoused, with the admission that the study of the evolution of language is made difficult by the fact that, in short, there are no language fossils.

I do not agree that the development of language suggests some other force besides evolution. Evolution has at its core the concept of survival of the fittest. Fitness is not just a physical quality of being stronger or faster. It has also a mental aspect of being smarter/sneakier/more creative. There is also a behavioral component, e.g. pack behavior, cooperation. The development of language would be a fantastic skill that would give advantage to the species that possessed it. So it seems to me that the development of language fits in just fine with evolutionary theory.

For me, anytime a scientist says millions or billions of years, it's because they can't show it happening in a reasonable time frame. Personally, I'm not a fan of taking sides at this point. I can see value in the concept of reason, and I can see value in the concept of God. Either way, we're still in the here and the now, and debating the origin of life, while occasionally an enjoyable exercise, isn't something that's going to to be figured out by any of us. Using science is like trying to prop yourself up with a crutch that never quite reaches the ground. There are always going to be more questions that follow whatever questions you answer. Faith is a crutch that will actually reach the ground, but only from your specific perspective. The others around you might still see a guy flailing around on the ground.