Accuracy of radioisotopic dating

[one.opinion]

16 hours ago, Abdicate said:

It's a mathematical wonder, with Pi in Genesis 1:1 and Euler's Number in John 1:1

I've read this statement before, but have no clue how either of these claims are justified. Could you explain?

[Michael37]

3 hours ago, Vince said:

Ok then, this line of thinking has caused non Christians that say they are Christians to persecute people.  Is this better?

Yes. There is an ongoing dialogue about true and false Christianity, and the term "simulacrum" has been used to describe the latter.

(From Wkpd) Postmodernist French social theorist Jean Baudrillard argues that a simulacrum is not a copy of the real, but becomes truth in its own right: the hyperreal. Where Plato saw two types of representation—faithful and intentionally distorted (simulacrum)—Baudrillard sees four: (1) basic reflection of reality; (2) perversion of reality; (3) pretence of reality (where there is no model); and (4) simulacrum, which "bears no relation to any reality whatsoever".^[7] 

[Cogito...what?]

 I love to listen to books at work. I finish drywall. I listen to a lot of science books and the great courses series. The more I listen the more I understand my ignorance. It seems that there is a lot of leeway in creating the models we want to subscribe to. It is a daunting task to properly wrap ones head around all the implications that the empirical data suggests. It seems to me that this battle will continue until the end of the world. As a Christian who wants to be found faithful to Gods word. I am literal to a fault. My hope is that unless sound reason fails, which it might, I refer to some of the multiverse ideas, and acceptance of eastern religion in science, that the anomalies will build up forcing more rational ideas. I am always keeping my eyes open for the "failures of scientific inquiry" book. Not just religion bashing, but a sound book that realizes that everyone gets it wrong and that sectarianism is a human fault, bar none. A real critique of scientific thought. Let all of the inconsistencies on both sides be answered. But the world will never believe, though one were to raise from the dead. 

I know that I am butting in to your conversation, please indulge me. This is my very first time online. I found this thread, found it interesting and hopped in.  I cannot dialogue concerning all of the evidence and supposed necessary implications. But I want to try. Here is a question. How do we know without doubt that the Earth is over 4 billion years old? also, what is the data that suggests otherwise? The question might be to big. But hopefully those who know can be succinct.

Edited January 30, 2019 by Cogito...what?

[one.opinion]

14 hours ago, Abdicate said:

Some history about Hebrew. After 250 BC, the Jews decided to use their alfebet (their spelling) as their numbering system. That is, A=1, B=2, C=3, etc. after the Greeks. Genesis 1:1 speaks about creation and the Son making it. John 1:1 speaks to that event. Genesis 1:1 contains π and John 1:1 contains e. Using their own rules, here it is in Hebrew and in Greek.

Interesting, thank you!

[Cogito...what?]

Radioactive Decay Rates May Not Be Constant After All

 

 

Alex KnappForbes Staff

I write about the future of science, technology, and culture.

I don't know, I am not ready to jump yet. 

[ByFaithAlone]

3 hours ago, Cogito...what? said:

Radioactive Decay Rates May Not Be Constant After All

 

 

Alex KnappForbes Staff

I write about the future of science, technology, and culture.

I don't know, I am not ready to jump yet. 

This is a fairly old article based on a study in 2011. The study was conducted by Purdue (my alma mater) and Stanford. The professors made some rather wild claims that have yet to be replicated in a scientific setting. They claimed that solar flares and other solar activity may cause a difference of plus or minus 0.1% in the decay of a certain element. Even if this were true, it would not effect the assessment of the earth being billions of years old but rather only change the result by perhaps a few million or tens of millions of years. It should be noted that one of the authors (Fischbach) of the paper said the following: “The fluctuations we’re seeing are fractions of a percent and are not likely to radically alter any major anthropological findings...”

Additionally, as I mentioned above these results have not been replicated and more recent evidence suggests some flaws in the methods used. Many critics have noted that some parts of the study were done under various conditions that could have effected instrumentation and caused the error. A follow-up paper published by Hardy, Goodwin and and Jacob (2011) accounted for these errors and after correcting them determined that there was no oscillation in values. 

Edited January 31, 2019 by ByFaithAlone
more info

[Cogito...what?]

Thanks, I understand. I am trying to put together the real issues. As I mentioned, I listen to a lot of books. Thousands of hours, I think it has been at least 5 to 7 years 8 hours a day. Of course it has not all been science and history but that is a passion with me. Please do not misunderstand, I am not saying that I know anything, just that as I listen to some of the thinking and modeling that has shaped our current and historical understanding of the universe, it is not as clear as many would have us believe. Data is interpretive,  I am convinced that a kuhnian  approach is what would benefit current inquiry. What do you think?

[ByFaithAlone]

12 hours ago, Cogito...what? said:

Thanks, I understand. I am trying to put together the real issues. As I mentioned, I listen to a lot of books. Thousands of hours, I think it has been at least 5 to 7 years 8 hours a day. Of course it has not all been science and history but that is a passion with me. Please do not misunderstand, I am not saying that I know anything, just that as I listen to some of the thinking and modeling that has shaped our current and historical understanding of the universe, it is not as clear as many would have us believe. Data is interpretive,  I am convinced that a kuhnian  approach is what would benefit current inquiry. What do you think?

Learning new things is always good in my opinion. History is also a passion of mine and science is my passion/profession so we are of one mind there. You mention that our current/historical understanding of the universe is rather unclear. I would sort of agree, especially with the historical part of that statement and we had significantly less data back then. 

Regarding your question about scientific philosophy, Kuhn emphasized the idea of paradigm shifts, incommensurability, and the impact of researcher's own subjective viewpoints on research. Some of these ideas are very useful and certainly historically important in the philosophy of science. While his idea of paradigm shifts is important, it should be noted that just because there is a paradigm shift doesn't mean that all previous research should be ignored. For example, quantum mechanics and relativity only modified Newtonian mechanics rather than doing away with the previous model.