Ask the Expert: Dr. Carl Werner

Comment

Comment by Jeannette Parry on October 12, 2010 at 7:31am

Hi Carl

You said:

"so sorry to hear about the CFS..."

No, I don't have it, thankfully. I am grateful for mostly good health, in spite of the odd "creakiness" of joints. My original question was purely theoretical; though so far I've been unable to find any research on this particular aspect of the illness.

...So there is no reliable dating method for ancient historical artifacts, except for the history itself? Where does this leave us re Biblical archaeology then?

Jeannette

Comment by Carl Werner on October 11, 2010 at 10:19pm

Kaitlyn,

Yes you are correct. You can't date ocean materials because it yields the wrong dates. You also can't date materials from certain bodies of water. If you date non aquatic materials, such as the rats I cited below, guess what, it gives wrong dates too. This is junk science.

Carl

Comment by Carl Werner on October 11, 2010 at 10:17pm

Jeannette,

The other forms of dating "rocks that are older" have this same problem of unreliability and inconsistency. I would recommend the book, Bones of Contention by Lubenow. In it, as I recall, he gives the dates for Homo Erectus at a site in Africa which showed no consistency from scientist to scientist testing the same materials. Also, the last issue of Creation Ministries International had a similar story. This is junk science. Dating by the Big Bang assumes it works which it does not.

Also, so sorry to hear about the CFS. Even though you have this debilitation there is much you can contribute as I am sure you already are.

Carl

Comment by Kaitlyn on October 10, 2010 at 5:56pm

I thought radiocarbon dating was only useful for non-underwater biological material older than the industrial era. I could be wrong though. At least that's what it says on wikipedia and a number of sites describing radiocarbon dating. I'm not a physicist though, so I wouldn't know.

Comment by Jeannette Parry on October 10, 2010 at 2:59am

P.S. In the carbon dating tests, might the actual process of carbonizing the animals affect the proportion of C14?

Comment by Jeannette Parry on October 10, 2010 at 2:56am

Thank you for the replies, Carl. I was a little disappointed to learn that even modern C14 dating is that unreliable; but at least we know where we are on the subject.

Can any other forms of dating give accurate results on animals or rocks of known age?

Re: M.E./CFS Maybe i will contact the support Society to see if they know of any research being done.

Comment by Carl Werner on October 9, 2010 at 9:26pm

Jeannette,

I have been turned off by Carbon 14 dating. We just got back from a Carbon 14 lab and interviewed a worker there for our fourth episode of our DVD series which deals with dates and geology. In the interview, the researcher described catching 3 modern animals, killing them, carbonizing them and then measuring the age of the animals. Two of the animals gave wild dates, something like 2,000 years old, even though they were a living rat and a living duck. This is an insane science, questionable science. I ignore all of these dates, even if used for "religious good" such as dating religious artificats, as they are inconsistent and unreliable.

Comment by Carl Werner on October 9, 2010 at 9:16pm

Jeannette,

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome is a devastating illness. Whoever finds the cause and cure will surely be honored. It likely will be more than one illness manifesting as CFS, but your guess is as good as mine. Not sure about the vitamin angle but it is worth investigating.

Carl

Comment by Jeannette Parry on October 9, 2010 at 9:02am

I have another question - about Carbon Dating.

I know that C14 dating, like other dating methods, is based on too many assumptions to be reliable; as well as having too short a half-life to be used for supposed millions of years. But is it reasonably accurate on much shorter timescales; e.g. when used by archaeologists to find the age of artifacts from ancient civilisations? I was reading about archaeological discoveries that show the accuracy of the Biblical record, such as the existence of David's reign, and they used carbon dating on some of the ancient inscriptions and papyri they found.

Thank you

Comment by Jeannette Parry on October 9, 2010 at 8:47am

Hi Carl

I wrote "ME" instead of "M.E.", and no I haven't got it! The question was theoretical and scientific :-)

Perhaps you know M.E. by a different name where you are? The full name is Myalgic Encephalopathy; or alternatively Chronic Fatigue Syndrome or Post Viral Fatigue Syndrome.

Foe many years it was considered to be due to a psychological illness (especially as the victims of it became depressed and frustrated because of being unable to do things they used to do, and not being listened to); but it is beginning to be recognised that there seems to be a physical cause. so I wondered if it was due to changes in vitamin absorbtion and/or gut flora.

Comment by STEVE A JEFFREY on October 9, 2010 at 8:01am

Father O mally the bells of saint Mary.
There simplicity is beautiful I wouldn't change a word of it.

Comment by STEVE A JEFFREY on October 9, 2010 at 7:58am

IS there any way we can find out if Hawking and DAMPT are using my computer program to add QM and GR 2+2=4.
And the result is Hawkings book naturally Hawking reports the results prove there is no God but properly interpreted the results of the computer program will prove a God if you believe in one to begin with.
But as Hawking denied three times like Peter he denied 4 saying I will not argue that 2+2=4 or that God exists.
Is there any way we can get a creation physics pro to use to computer program that Hawking uses to prove God right.
Why not.
And then there can be a press conference called to say that computers have proved Hakwing wrong about the existance of God with 2+2=4.
It is a feit accompli a task accomplished.

Comment by STEVE A JEFFREY on October 9, 2010 at 4:01am

You don't have to worry about coming over you have to worry about overcoming.
A lighthouse keeper keeps vigil on a shoal that could flounder a ship.

Comment by STEVE A JEFFREY on October 9, 2010 at 1:36am

Is a bicycle built for two a tandem bicycle a terrible thing an abomination.
So adding equations 2+2=4 doesn't have to be an abomination when you add QM and Gr in tandem.
But if you use it to prove there is no God then your bike is an abomination.
It depends on the purpose for which you use it.

Comment by Carl Werner on October 8, 2010 at 10:17pm

Jeanette,

Thanks for the question. I am wondering if the "ME" in your question below refers to your personhood or is an abbreviation for some scientific term I do not know. If ME is YOU and YOU have "chronic fatigue and inability to lead a normal life" I would venture to say no, this is not a bacterial problem but a love issue. You probably are always helping others (i.e. loving) and hitting life hard (giving) and the fatigue is the result of your big heart. You can sleep later.

Hope this deep insight helps.
Dr. Phil (aka Carl Werner)

Comment by Jeannette Parry on October 8, 2010 at 1:51pm

Quote from http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v5/n1/genesis-pathogen...

“…the intestinal bacteria contribute to the general well-being of both microbes and people by synthesizing a number of the vitamins essential for good nutrition and breaking down various macronutrients. The human body cannot synthesize niacin to make nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD) that is necessary for energy conversion in the cell’s mitochondria. The B-vitamins, including niacin, cobalamin (B12) biotin, thiamine, and riboflavin, are necessary for normal energy levels, freedom from fatigue, and proper functioning of nerves. A prolonged deficiency in any one of these vitamins may lead to chronic fatigue and inability to lead a normal life.”

My question:

E. coli produces various vitamins

Lack of certain vitamins causes fatigue

Could some sort of disruption in the bacteria’s proper functioning in the body (maybe triggered by a virus infection) be a cause of ME? Has this possibility been investigated?

Thank you

Jeannette

Comment by STEVE A JEFFREY on October 8, 2010 at 3:40am

I'm sorry to say that I don't recognize what you're making reference to.
There's are many equations for both relativity and QM, and they can actually be used in tandem without problem in all but a few obscure cases. There are also a handful of problems involving the graviton, but that falls into the category of "math that's just to difficult".
Adding to equations together is a little dangerous, and in general you actually lose information. For example: x=1 and y=2 are two solid equations with one definite answer for both x and y. However, if you add them: x+y=3 you find that you no longer know what x and y are (without looking at the original two equations).
What's the sandwich thing about?
-Physicist..

The sandwich thing is the Green Salad sandwhich equation 1/3 GREEN BANANA+ 1/3 GREEN CUCUMBER+ 1/3 GREEN APPLE= 1 GREEN SALAD SANDWHICH.This actually adds information rather than subtracts.
But this scientists is right that adding equations 2+2=4 just produces bable and is actually a loss of information when you add equations 2+2=4 at random.

Comment by STEVE A JEFFREY on October 7, 2010 at 12:07am

Instead of calling it Ex-ni-wholeo.
How about we call it the "BIG CREATION EXPERIMENT" or the BIG EX_NIHILO. the program is niether good nor bad it depends on your presuppositions whether God exists in your framework or not.

Comment by STEVE A JEFFREY on October 5, 2010 at 6:22am

The ultimate experiment to prove creation science CREATION EXNIWHOLEO.
Turns out to be an oxymoron.
Creationists say it proves the laws of this universe are orderly.
And evolutionists like Hawking say the random laws are applicable in 10^500 other universes which by the way is a very big number.
But not large enough to explain the number of combinations of equations added 2+2=4.

Comment by STEVE A JEFFREY on October 5, 2010 at 5:10am

Hey Carl,
Maybe the question of buidling a amachine to prove creation and not the big bang.
is the whole paradime of science versus religion.
If you could come up with an experiment that woudl prove fath based intelligent deisgn.
Then you could build a machine just like mine that proves evolution to be bable.
But what it prove anyway.
Does it prove science wrong or does it prove science right that everything has it origin in chance or the roll of the dice.
If God does not play dice then hwo do we prove that.
If we can't prove it why don't we just shut up.
That what the evolutionists say.
BUt if we try to prove it they say there is no experimental evidence whatsoever for God and it is utterly boring.
It is to them so boring they just do not wish to speak about.
That is how boring an experiment to prove creation is to mostv christians.
Utterly and compeletely boring.
And to use a ephemism Why is it so.?

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 6
• Next ›
• Page