Carbon Dating Adam's Tree house

Noah’s ark has been in the news again recently. You can read about the latest development here. As always, there are going to be different reactions to a story like this. Some will instantly think that this is proof that what they believe is true. Others will question the legitimacy of the finding and say the evidence is faulty. Either way, one of the things about these kinds of stories is the emphasis placed on carbon dating. Carbon dating has been used by proponents of those who believe in the historical accuracy of the Bible and also by those who try to disprove it. Here is an example from the most recent Noah’s Ark story:

“Yeung told the South China Morning Post that a piece of wood obtained from the site was dated as 4,800 years old by a carbon-dating method in Iran. This matches with the range of years stated in the Bible, suggesting when the vessel was built.”

The idea of being able to tell how old something is based off of the organic life that surrounds the site brought about some more questions for me. It made me wonder not so much about the accuracy (though I do question that sometimes), but about the range. Wikipedia says that the range could go up to 58,000 to 62,000 years back. Here’s why I question that.

Assume that the Bible is true and is a literal, historical account. Let’s say creation happened exactly as described in Genesis. After God created everything, he created man (Adam) and put him in the “Garden.” It seems to me that God must have created a lot of creation in mid-existence, if that makes sense. In other words, I don’t think that when he made the garden that there were no grown trees or plants yet. Or when he made the animals, He must have created some of them as fully grown. When He created Adam from the ground, was he a baby? I don’t think so. And then when he created Eve out of Adam, she must have been a full grown woman as well. But how would carbon daters date things in that Garden? If they were able to take a walk through the garden, how old would science say they were? Did the trees have rings on them? Did the soil consist of broken down minerals as if they had existed and decomposed already? If we found a piece of that wood today, how old would our dating system say that it is?

It’s all hard to wrap your head around, but I think these types of questions should be considered. When you hear a scientist say that the universe or the galaxy, etc is hundreds of millions of years old- is it appropriate for them to even make that kind of statement? The truth is, regardless of what we believe to be true, we can only go back so far. Even if you don’t believe in a creation by a higher power, you can only get back to there being some type of explosion that started the chain of events that brought us to where we are today. But you can’t account for where that explosion or where the matter that started it all out came from in the first place. Something can’t come from nothing. At least I don’t believe so.

So isn’t it rational to question how accurate carbon dating could be whether you’re pro-Bible or anti-Bible? I do think that if it can ever be confirmed that this find is the remains of Noah’s ark that it would be pretty significant because it would not only validate the historical accuracy of that account in the Bible, but would also lead to important questions surrounding they “why” behind there being an ark in the first place. The fact that the Bible states that the ark ended up on Mt. Ararat is pretty significant. It’s going to be hard to explain how a boat got up that high in a mountain range where it is quite a bit higher than any other previously discovered habitation level.

Regardless, those were just some thoughts going through my head today.

NBA Payoffs, er... Playoffs

The NBA playoffs are now in full force now and I have again noticed something this year that I cannot figure out. Almost without fail, when there is a series where the team with home court advantage goes up 2-0, (no matter what the matchup is and how good the team with the lead) Game 3 is almost always a blow-out win for the lower seeded team. I would love to see the statistics of what percentage of series the team down 2 games to 0 wins Game 3 by more than 10 points.

Why does this happen? Obviously when you’re down 2-0 in a best of 7 series, Game 3 is pretty much a must win. So… do the players play harder in that game then? Or does the team that is up 2-0 play less hard? I understand that the team down 2-0 now has home court advantage for Game 3. But if you were to go back and look at the regular season, home court advantage wouldn’t normally translate into a blowout win over a superior team.



From watching the playoffs in the past, my best guess would be the conclusion that I really don’t want to come to. Money. Can you imagine how much money the networks, the NBA, the individual teams, and the respective cities themselves would miss out on if the series were shorter? A series that lasts even one game longer could mean hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue when you add in everything that goes into each game: advertising, ticket prices, concessions, souvenirs, hotel rooms, local restaurants and bars, etc.


I’m not saying that there is some conspiracy theory in motion, but what is a better explanation other than that the players of the team behind in the series all of the sudden are able to kick things into another gear and beat the better team so often? And if that’s the case- does that comfort you or frustrate you that the team you love needs to be on the brink of elimination before they have enough motivation to play better? Do shots go in more frequently when you’re almost eliminated from a playoff round? Or if we looked inside the numbers, would we find that the number of foul shots in Game 3 has been statistically more favorable to the team that is behind in the series?

Maybe ignorance is bliss on this subject…

My Other Blog

I will still be keeping this blog as up to date as possible, but come on- it's baseball season. A couple of my buddies and I started a blog to follow the Cubs and Cardinals season this year. Myself and Aaron Monts will be covering the Cubs and Steve Judd (a Cardinals fan who lives in Chicago) will be covering the Cardinals.

I'm very excited about it! We love all things baseball and even get together every spring to do our annual fantasy baseball auction. Here's the blog site- if you're a fan of either team, you should click on that "follow" button and visit often. It is updated almost every day. Come discuss baseball with us!

http://101yearsandcounting.blogspot.com/

Mark Levin and saving lives (and boobs)

I read a pretty good article on Relevant magazine’s website called “Christianity and Health Care Reform.” To me, one of the most interesting parts of the article was the comments that followed. There were a few comments from readers that live outside of the United States. I was fascinated to read their feedback because their mindset and how they approach the idea of healthcare is completely different than those of us who live in the middle of this debate. Those who commented genuinely did not understand why there was outrage. They appreciated that health care in their country was provided for them. They couldn’t figure out why a government would not provide this service for their people. One especially couldn’t figure out why Christians would be against reform and would not want their government to get involved within this arena.

Look, I understand that there are a lot of people that are against more government involvement in our lives. And that’s fine. I’ve never seen people protest the government for providing Medicare and Medicaid for people in need. And yes, I know that Medicare and Social Security are in trouble- but that doesn’t mean that at the core that these were bad programs in the first place. I’ve never heard an outcry from the people saying we should not have these programs to take care of the elderly. Odd. But regardless- of all the arenas we would support the government (that WE elect) being involved in, why do we want to keep them out of health care?? I am tired of health care being treated as a business rather than a public service. It’s your freaking health! Should I have the right to live a more healthy life than those that can’t afford to?

Often when I am driving home from Corinne’s at night I listen to Mark Levin. He’s one of those guys that spends most of his radio show yelling in a high pitch voice about how the country is going to the crapper because Obama is a communist, etc. I try to listen to people like that so I can hear the other side of the argument so I can at least see where both sides are coming from. A couple of weeks ago, he was making the case of how awful it was going to be if we had government run health care. He relayed a story about a woman who lived somewhere in Europe and her struggles with socialized coverage. Apparently, she found out that she had breast cancer. The doctors caught it early enough and performed a mastectomy and she is now cancer free. The issue came post-surgery. In her letter, she described the self-image and self-confidence issues she was having after the procedure. She was all set to have cosmetic surgery to help her with her struggles when she received a letter in the mail from the insurance company telling her that her claim was rejected because it was considered cosmetic surgery. Levin then drove the point home- “Do you see where our country is headed? This is our future!”

As I was listening to his spiel, I couldn’t help but think that in that particular case- the health care system worked just as it should have. I sympathize with women that have had to have surgery that has left them with what they consider a less than desirable body. I personally know women that have had mastectomies. But the real issue is- what should health care cover? The immediate threat was the cancer. And the health care system treated it and covered it. She was in danger of losing her life, and as a public service she was treated. I believe the self-image problems that were left behind are real. But I agree with the insurance company- it would be cosmetic surgery. And no one is telling her that she can’t have that procedure. They’re simply saying that she will need to be the one that pays for it. And I agree. Who would be able to say where it would end? Can you say the teenage girl that struggles with depression and self-image issues because she feels she is uglier than all the other girls in school has any less valid point? Are her feelings any less real? I’ve worked with high school students and I can say from my experience in talking with them that it is a very real issue. But I don’t think that insurance paying for ways to alter your body is the answer. The better answer is a correct teaching on where beauty comes from in the first place.

I was talking to someone yesterday that is getting married next month. Her fiancé works for the state and is currently paying over $100 a month on health insurance. When he adds her to his plan after the wedding, his cost for healthcare will rise to over $400 a month. If he adds her five year old child, the cost will be over $900 A MONTH. And somehow, there is an outcry on healthcare reform. It angers me that there are so many people struggling to pay bills already and now many are spending 1/3rd of their take home pay on the ability to keep their health. Shame on us.

LOST discussion!

Some work friends and I e-mail back and forth after the weekly Lost episode to discuss what happened and how it all fits into the entire them of the show. Of course, we never really come up with answers, just more questions. But honestly, that is what makes this show so amazing. The writers are going to prove their geniusness if they can wrap together everything that is happening right now. And I'm sure they will.

I've never talked about LOST on my blog, I don't think. But I'm interested in hearing some feedback on what you think is going on. As we continue to find out more about what is happening on the island (and off the island), there seems to be two major "genres" running through the show. Faith vs. Science. I guess I just can’t figure out how the reality of what is really happening on the show is going to mesh.

The scene on the beach a few weeks ago between non-Locke and Widmore could have personified faith vs. science, the constant struggle between Jacob and MIB/non-Locke/Smokey- (whatever) is a fate vs. freewill. They have all these themes going on that need to be resolved—at least in the scope of revealing what the reality of the island is.

It is obvious that a theme in both realities is the need for balance between good and evil. The scale balanced by with a white and black rock idea on the island was echoed this week by the painting in Widmore’s office of a scale also balanced by something white and black that they made sure to keep in the screen while Desmond and Widmore were having their discussion. That part I get, I guess. That for this island and reality to exist (and really, the world), there needs to be a balance. But how time travel, electro-magnetic fields, alternate timelines, etc fit in with that and how they can either keep the good vs. evil balance or fail to do so is what I don’t understand.

What are your thoughts/predictions?