The only radioactivity I have worked with is capturing [sup]14[/sup]CO[sub]2[/sub] in oxidation reactions. I would have to read up on it to offer an opinion.
Well I used to feel the same way about epidemiology, after studying the methods, I've changed the way I think about it. So I would like to at least first look at what the absolute position is before I venture an opinion. I know it is based on half-life and radioactive decay, but only in a general sort of way.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Eric's are borderline - he has widespread Christian church backing, but not proportionately. McVeigh's are not Christian at all, either in claim or in evidence, AFAIK. The Aum group's claims and supporting institutions I don't know. The Muslims who oppose the teaching of evolutionary theory in Turkey - and who are also to be found in other Islamic countries - are numerous, specifically cite Islamic religious grounds, and have lots of serious support among the orthodox Muslims and Islamic clergy. They have mosques, clergy, and overtly claimed religious basis for their positions. How are their positions not "Islamic" positions? Is this approach also the one you would take with regard to other fields - such as physics and chemistry? Or does your level of ignorance have more influence in some fields than in others?
I think you'll find few instances where decay rates vary much. I think I'll repeat James' question. Do you consider the world as being of recent origin (say, 5000 years or so) or in fact several billions of years old?
It has always been the case that most scientists do irrelevant or silly research. I'm afraid that all 'progress' [sic] is dependent on a few who think. (not me)
Here is an interesting article on the interplay of instrumentalism vs credibility http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/35/3/572 in response to this one: http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/35/3/562
You could answer them if your opinions are already crystallised.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
my opinions are like science, they constantly change and are not set in stone. but at this present time my opinions are that we evolved from lesser life-forms, there is no telling if god had a part to play or not due to lack of observation and evidence. the earths age is very old indeed, far older than islam, christians or jews believe. the human race is also far more ancient than most religious people would like to believe. regardless if carbon dating is flawed or not, we can conclude that human civilisation alone is older than the bible or quran say it is. if you are muslim then wouldent your opinions reside in the region of wich it states in the quran?, or do you pick and choose which parts hold truth?. peace.
the fact that you are a muslim and i am not religious holds a key difference in opinion. if you truley believe the same as what i believe, then you are not a follower of islam. peace.
because a follower of islam would never say "as far as i am concerned god had no part to play due to lack of observation or evidence". islam requires a faith my opinions do not. peace.
Thats not what you said: I would phrase that as "we do not know what part God plays in that due to lack of knowledge" http://understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=question&qid=255
thats not what the books of islam say, they state god had a direct role in the creation of earth and mankind. wich if you follow islam must be your opinion also. unless you are going against the holy teachings of islam. peace.
And where did I say he did not?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! However, what part he played is not known from the verses in the Quran and unless you have some knowledge of the nature of God, I fail to see how you make such assumptions.