|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
QuickSearch
|
|
| |||||||
| Chatting now: | Chat room empty | ||||||
| letchimWOD | |||||||
|
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: 101 evidences for a young age... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Coyote Member  Posts: 3937 Joined: Member Rating: 9.7 |
On another thread, Minority Report posts a link to 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe by Creation Ministries International. Discussion of that is off-topic on that thread, so I propose a new thread. The "101 evidences" includes the usual nonsense, refuted over and over but which keeps coming back. For example: #51. Carbon-14 in coal suggests ages of thousands of years and clearly contradict ages of millions of years. This is a standard creationist claim supposedly supporting a young earth. It is found in many of the creationist essays purporting to refute radiocarbon dating. The full claim is generally seen as follows: Coal from Russia from the “Pennsylvanian,” supposedly 300 million years old, was dated at 1,680 years. (Radiocarbon, vol. 8, 1966) Source This claim has been completely demolished here. It seems that Ken Ham, Andrew Snelling and Carl Weiland, in The Answers Book, got fooled by a radiocarbon date and a poor translation from the Russian where "coal" was used in place of "charcoal." The entire context of the date clearly describes a recent archaeological sample: Mo-334. River Naryn, Kirgizia — 1680 ± 170. A.D. 270 What this shows is just shorthand or sloppy translation from the Russian! The "coal" is actually charcoal from an archaeological deposit. In the journal Radiocarbon, this sample is included in the section of the report dealing with archaeological samples, and the paragraph discusses archaeological data. This odd use "coal" is also found in another archaeological date in the same article, Mo-353. It reads “Charcoal from cultural deposits of a fisher site. The coal was coll. from subturfic humified loam…” (p. 315). But the term “coal” in place of “charcoal” was enough to fool Ham, Snelling and Wieland and other creationists who apparently are so eager to find 300 million year old coal radiocarbon dated to recent times and demolish radiocarbon dating that they just continually repeat this incorrect claim without bothering to check its accuracy. And the "300 million years" and "Pennsylvanian?" Those terms seem to have been made up from nothing, as they are used nowhere in the Radiocarbon article. So much for one of the "101 evidences." Anyone want to have fun with some of the others? Edited by Coyote, : Revised Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Coyote Member Posts: 3937 Joined: Member Rating: 9.7 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Coyote Member Posts: 3937 Joined: Member Rating: 9.7 |
In response to my email, the author of the "101 evidences for a young age..." article replied that claim #51 did not center on the Russian coal/charcoal problem, but rather centered on the following article: Lowe, D.C., 1989. Problems associated with the use of coal as a source of 14C free background material. Radiocarbon 31:117–120. The Lowe article simply notes that if you don't handle coal properly it will become contaminated because of microbial and fungal activity. Such measures as a nitrogen atmosphere are recommended. With proper handling it is a good material for a radiocarbon standard, as it is virtually devoid of C14. This is the exact opposite of evidence for a young earth. This is in fact clear evidence for an old earth. So, even if my response was to the incorrect coal "problem" -- which has been the standard creationist line for over 15 years -- the alternative not only doesn't constitute evidence for a young earth, but shows the exact opposite. Creation "science" as usual. (I have not quoted the author's response directly because I didn't ask for permission to do so.) Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Coyote Member Posts: 3937 Joined: Member Rating: 9.7 |
Where are the bones? If there are dinosaurs strolling and cavorting about with early humans, we should be able to find dinosaur bones. We don't. We find dinosaur fossils all over the place, in strata dating 65 million years and older, but no bones. And if you are pushing a young earth, then everything is compressed into 6,000 years and bones preserve readily at such young ages. So I ask again, where are the bones? Wouldn't archaeologists be knee deep in the things? I've been doing archaeology for decades, and we regularly find bones down to the size of sardines and anchovies, but no dinosaur bones.
If creationists can be wrong about dinosaurs and humans cohabiting, what else are they wrong about? Why should we believe anything they claim? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Coyote Member Posts: 3937 Joined: Member Rating: 9.7 |
Not fossils, bones! We have bones from humans worldwide, and we have bones from extinct fauna worldwide--mammoth and mastodon should be quite similar. Where are the dinosaur bones? Why have archaeologists never found them? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Coyote Member Posts: 3937 Joined: Member Rating: 9.7 |
Lets have them. I've been doing archaeology for 40 years and have yet to see dinosaur bones. I find sardines, which are pretty tiny. Don't tell me I'd miss something the size of a dinosaur. You want to document dinosaurs, lets see the bones. (And these need to be in the last few tens of thousands of years to make your case, not millions of years old.)
That's a fossil, with mineralized soft tissue. Look it up, and stay away from the creationist sites--they lie to you.
Nonsense. Not even worth a reply. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Coyote Member Posts: 3937 Joined: Member Rating: 9.7 |
The problem is that creationists are creationists first and scientists second. They abandon the scientific method and instead practice religious apologetics using their scientific backgrounds. But when they abandon the scientific method, they are no longer doing science, no matter what their scientific training may be. It is adherence to the scientific method that makes a person a scientist, not training and education. Likewise, it is adherence to religious belief that makes a person a creationist, and that belief can supplant any scientific training.
Keep in mind then the "code of belief" that is found in most creationist organizations. Examples: http://www.creationresearch.org/belief_wndw.htm http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith These are inherently anti-science. When one adheres to these beliefs, one ceases to do science. Although what creationists who believe this way write may be couched in scientific terms, they have adopted a different set of beliefs, and those are the direct opposite of the scientific method. It is not accurate to consider them scientists. The bottom line is that creation "science" is the antithesis of science, and all should recognize that fact. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Coyote Member Posts: 3937 Joined: Member Rating: 9.7 |
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Coyote Member Posts: 3937 Joined: Member Rating: 9.7 |
So? Darwin lived and did science a long time ago. We don't worship him, or his science. If the evidence shows otherwise, we accept that and move on. And nothing you say changes the facts in any way. This seems to be hard for creationists to understand, but scientists follow the evidence--not the person or authority figure. And, so far, the data supports the theory of evolution and an old earth. You might not agree, but you have to rely on religious belief in your denial as the evidence does not support your position.
Because scientists make and use assumptions does not automatically mean those assumptions are wrong, as creationists like to imply. If the evidence didn't support those assumptions scientists would discard them in an instant! You just don't like them for religious reasons, and for the uncomfortable directions to which they lead. And scientists have no set of overbearing "beliefs" as you like to portray. Scientists follow the evidence and evidence has a way of shredding beliefs. This is why Creationists (note the capital "C") are so anti-science. If science is right, their beliefs are wrong. But scientists don't care much if some hypothesis or even theory is modified by new data. That's what science is all about. So don't bother telling us what science or assumptions Newton or Darwin followed. We're centuries past that now, with centuries of testing and, if necessary, modification. That's the difference between science and religious belief. Science is able to change when new data arises. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Coyote Member Posts: 3937 Joined: Member Rating: 9.7 |
This is off topic here. Please post this to one of the carbon 14 threads and I'll be happy to show you how you are wrong. Here's the difference--I use carbon 14 dating a lot, and have both written and lectured on the subject. You just scan the creationist websites and accept the lies they tell you as fact. Now, are you willing to accept my challenge on another thread? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Coyote Member Posts: 3937 Joined: Member Rating: 9.7 |
If there are dinosaurs cavorting about with early man we should have a lot of bones around. Where are they? (See also message 81, above.) Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Coyote Member Posts: 3937 Joined: Member Rating: 9.7 |
There are several ongoing threads on carbon 14 dating. We probably should go with one of those. Just post your previous comment there and I will respond. That will probably be easiest way to do this. And thanks for being willing to debate the issue. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Coyote Member Posts: 3937 Joined: Member Rating: 9.7 |
This is, of course, clear proof of the co-existence of centaurs and humans. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Coyote Member Posts: 3937 Joined: Member Rating: 9.7 |
Exactly! And this was an anatomically correct depiction, as was requested. That has to be proof according to the various other rock art images on this thread, right? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Coyote Member Posts: 3937 Joined: Member Rating: 9.7 |
They use various rock paintings and carvings of dubious detail to show dinosaurs are/were still around just a few thousand years ago. Those paintings and carvings, as you point out, are subject to multiple interpretations and prove nothing. But the carving I linked to, being correct in anatomical detail, definitively proves that centaurs existed! And if you want to discard this evidence, you'll break a lot of creationists' hearts as they are relying on much flimsier evidence for their claims. So are you going to be a big meanie and dash all of their hopes and aspirations that dinosaurs and humans were cavorting about together just a few thousand years ago, thereby "proving" a young earth? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Copyright 2001-2013 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2013
