|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: 101 evidences for a young age... | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3129 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
Wirkkalai writes: This one is obvious, of course you'll probably just call it a hoax. Post your link for the source of this picture so we can determine its authenticity. Thanks.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
pandion Member (Idle past 3028 days) Posts: 166 From: Houston Joined: |
wirkkalaj writes:
Really? Tell us about them. But I have a special problem with creationists who reject carbon dating when it comes to "evolution" and yet sing its praises when it comes to establishing the dates of archaeological digs that support the history of the Bible. It is also a problem that creationists believe that carbon-14 is used to date fossils.
Oh please! Carbon Dating issues arise all of the time that are discarded or ignored by Evolutionists. I could list numerous examples, but here's one. With their short 5,700-year half-life, carbon 14 atoms should not exist in any carbon older than 250,000 years. Yet it has proven impossible to find any natural source of carbon below Pleistocene (Ice Age) strata that does not contain significant amounts of carbon 14, even though such strata are supposed to be millions or billions of years old.
What evidence do you have that the only source of C-14 is from cosmic ray interaction in the atmosphere? Do you think that it might be possible that other types of radiation, like the decay of radioactive elements in the earth, might actually have something to do with this? Do you understand that the earth is full of uranium, radon, radium, thorium, and other radioactive elements, and that some of these are near and even intermixed with carbon in the strata that you are so worried about? Do you believe that none of these strata have ground water running through them that carry carbon and thus contaminate the samples? Speaking of contamination, are you not aware that creationists, through stupidity and clumsiness, have been known to contaminate their own samples? Why is it that creationists discard these issues?
{We are trying to get the C14 discussion to go instead to one of the C14 topic, one of which was linked to upthread. To all - Please end the C14 subthread here - Adminnemooseus} Edited by Adminnemooseus, : The red block of text.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
losetheclub Junior Member (Idle past 5372 days) Posts: 4 From: New Hampshire Joined: |
Apologies if this has already been covered, as I've only skimmed the second half of the thread...
From the link in the OP, #11: "The ages of the world’s oldest living organisms, trees, are consistent with an age of the earth of thousands of years."
It’s a Bristlecone Pine tree, given the Biblical name of ”Old Methuselah’ due to its estimated age (from counting the number of its tree rings) of 4,723 years.
This tree’s ”ring’ age is close to the Biblical date for the globe-covering and life-destroying Flood of Noah (Genesis 6-8) of around 4,500 years ago Actually, AIG places the flood at 2304 BC, which means it occurred roughly 4,300 years ago, so in this instance alone we have roughly 423 extra "rings" to account for.
There should be no trees aliveon(sic) Earth today which are older than the Flood Well, this particular Bristlecone Pine disproves that statement, but there was another cut down in 1964 which was even older, at 4,862 years old God’s judgment on sin was in the form of a global watery catastrophe which destroyed all air-breathing land vertebrates except for those whom God lovingly preserved on the Ark.
God's judgments on sin. Last I checked, only "humans with souls" could sin, therefore there's absolutely no reason to kill all the other animals, eh? Also, it's good to know that God's judgment on sin had no effect on non-air breathing vertebrates, or for that matter, all invertebrates, including all viruses that have no-doubt "coveted thy neighbor", if you know what I mean.
A flood cataclysm of this magnitude... would have ensured that no trees alive at that time would have remained growing in place. So no tree growing today could have started growing from a seed in that spot more than about 4,500 years ago. Correct. However, both trees mentioned above were already growing before "about" 4,500 years ago, by at least some 220-odd years.(ABE: As previously stated, "about" 4,500 years ago is likely closer to 4,300 years ago, according to AIG, thus both trees were already growing roughly 420-odd years before "the flood".) It is normally assumed that for each year of growth, one growth ring will be shown. This is generally true; however, it is a demonstrable fact that in years of good growth, i.e. moist, warm conditions, more than one growth ring can readily occur. Research has actually demonstrated this with Bristlecone Pine seedlings. This from here, "The dendrochronological check on radiocarbon dating is not without its own problems, the main one being that some species of trees may, under certain climatic conditions such as late frost, produce more than one ring per year [Glock and Agerter, 1963]. Fortunately, however, this has been "extremely rare" in the carefully checked history of bristlecone pines [Ferguson, 1968, p.840]."
By supplementing the ”normal’ winter day length with a heat lamp, extra rings were able to be grown.(link to footnote) In the footnote, it discusses Bristlecone Pines and the effect of warming lamps and/or fluorescent lights in greenhouse conditions. At the end of the second paragraph, it states: "Those plants grown outdoors had a growth rate only a fraction of those grown in the greenhouse.", which I'm sure is a surprise to everyone. /sarcasm.
In the presumed warm, moist and changing seasonal conditions in the first few centuries after Noah’s Flood, it is likely that there would have been quite a few such extra rings. It's interesting that something "presumed", as if reasonably accepted by most, wouldn't include a footnote for supporting evidence. Maybe I'm missing something, and hopefully someone here can help me out. Is there any reason, that after the waters of a global flood have dried out/vanished, that the climate would be warm and moist, and the seasonal conditions would be "changing"? Edited by losetheclub, : Too much blood in caffeine system, I missed something. Edited by losetheclub, : fixed a link
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4744 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
Maybe I'm missing something, and hopefully someone here can help me out. Is there any reason, that after the waters of a global flood have dried out/vanished, that the climate would be warm and moist, and the seasonal conditions would be "changing"? Well yeah. If you drop several hundred million cubic miles of water ten miles or so all that potential energy had to go somewhere. It would be very warm indeed. Molten even. Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them. - Thomas Jefferson
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
wirkkalaj Member (Idle past 5362 days) Posts: 22 From: Fernley Joined: |
The waters did not just vanish instantly after the Flood. The sea levels would have remained quite high for a long time. It was the abundance of warm water (warm because of underwater springs, volcano's and tectonic shifting during the flood) that was left over from the flood, which consequently increased evaporation and cloud cover over the Earth and made conditions ideal for a moist/warm planet for many years(150-200 years).
As the global temperature began to gradually cool towards equilibrium, the tremendous amounts of water vapor in the atmosphere began to fall as snow over the north and south pole, and continued to fall in massive amounts for the next 300 years bringing about an "ice age" that lasted hundreds of years. The ice sheets likely reached their peak around 500 yrs after the flood and probably didn't fully recede until 750 yrs after the flood. It was the warm climate and rainfall immediately after the flood that gave way to the abundance of vegetation in the tundras of Russia and the explosion of the mammoth population. The resulting ice age was their undoing.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi again, wirkkalaj, I thought you'd pick that one, as superficially it appears to match a modern reconstruction:
This one is obvious, of course you'll probably just call it a hoax.
http://s8int.com/dinolit1.htmlhttp://s8int.com/meso-cylinder.html quote: The head and the tail are wrong. The tail does not taper and look at the blow up of the head again: Note (a) that the head is out of scale to the body in the seal compared to the dinosaur, and (b) what is apparently shown is a bare bone skull -- no flesh, no eyes, etc. -- complete with holes in the bones through the head, and (c) that the shape is still wrong. What this would have proven - at best - is that the ancient people found fossil bones and assembled them but did not have a clue to what a living head looked like, but that is only part of the story ... from 404 Well, I looked at all the search results for "seal" (129) "dinosaur" (none) and "mesopotamia" (146) and found it:
photoquote: Curiously, the heads are more distinct here, showing eyes and ears and lion like snouts.
... of course you'll probably just call it a hoax. No, what I've done is proven that it is a hoax, because your website does not show the actual seal, but a picture that has been modified: a hoax by anyone's definition. Try again? Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : Louvre Musee results added -- the proof of the hoax. Edited by RAZD, : clarity Edited by RAZD, : No reason given. Edited by RAZD, : splng of name (sorry tpyo) by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Bluejay
Actually, I disagree with you on this.
And a Tlingit eagle:
Here's an ancient Mesoamerican sculpture that's supposed to be a jaguar: And a Tlingit eagle: I agree that stylized depictions of animals can be intentional transformation of the spirit of the animal (especially the Tlinglet painting of the spirits inside the outlines). However, the argument is that these depictions are anatomically correct, thus demonstrating knowledge of the living animal. They aren't. What we see from the example I gave shows a stegosaurus-like body minus spiky tail and with a head from some other dinosaur (or a fantasy version of one). Your jaguar and coyote's eagle don't try to portray anatomically correct depictions, but rather ones that capture the spirit of the animals.
In order for ONE of these depictions to be evidence of cohabitation of dinosaurs and humans, there should be details known to those humans that would not be known from the bones. Color patterns, feathers, behavior. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
losetheclub Junior Member (Idle past 5372 days) Posts: 4 From: New Hampshire Joined: |
So if the Genesis global flood occurred, we would see temperatures nothing like "warm and moist" but rather thousands of degrees. Noah and the Ark would be toast, and none of us would be here.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
OK, since you didn't like my Tlingit eagle, because it "didn't try to portray anatomically correct depictions" -- here is one that should take care of your objection:
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4744 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
No, you see, I wasn't kidding about the "molten even". The Earth wouldn't be temperate anytime soon. Soon being a few thousand years. Our good friend, mfaber, did some calculations here so I'll just give the synapsis.
When a mass descends into a gravity well some of its energy of position is converted into energy of motion. We find, in fact, that mgh = .5mv2; where, m is the mass, g is the acceleration due to gravity (Our good friend, mfaber, mistakenly said it was the gravitational constant so don't let that confuse you.), h is hight, and v is velocity. Well, m and g we're pretty much stuck with. (g will increase some as h gets lower, but that's a complication that only makes the situation worse for ya'll and the math harder for me, so let's ignore it.) That mean that v2/h= k, a constant. In this case the constant is a constant amount of energy. So, over the course of 40 days and 40 nights we have 4.525”10v21 kg descending through a gravity well 100 km (Our good friend, mfaber, only used 10 km. Now really, who would leave a firmament lying around at only 10 km?) deep and bringing all that energy with it. Right about 40”105J/m2/sec. And I'm going to take a bit more of a detour here: 40”105J/m2/sec can be rewritten 40”105J/sec/m2. But why would I want to do that? Well, 1 J/sec = 1 Watt and "Watts" people practically understand. And from where do we understand them? Light bulbs. Ok, now, the filament of a light bulb is about 1 cm by 1 mm or 10-5 m2. So, multiply 40”105W/m2 by 10-5 m2 and you get 40 Watts. The entire surface of the Earth would have been subjected to the temperature of the filament of a 40 Watt bulb for 40 days and 40 nights. (Actually, the filament would have a higher specific heat then the materials in question and a consequently lower temperature, but that's a complication that only makes the situation worse for ya'll and the math harder for me, so let's ignore it.) If you don't like my numbers you can refer to our good friend, mfaber's. His aren't too eco-friendly either, but he does allow for the survival of fused quartz. Edited by lyx2no, : Misspoke. Edited by lyx2no, : Missed another word. Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them. - Thomas Jefferson
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4668 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Well if tomorrow morning I would go in my backyard, and dig in the ground and find a authentic fossil of an centaur, get it dated at 20 millions years old, and then someone dwon the street does the same thing and at about the same depth findsa another centaur fossil which dates at 20 millions years old, then your image would be proof that centaurs and humans coexisted.
Of course, this is to show that your argument is fallacious: the two examples, centaurs and dinosaurs, are not analog because fossils of the latter have been found.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2323 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
slevesque writes:
Humans didn't exist yet 20 million years ago. So no, it wouldn't be evidence humans and centaurs co-existed.
Well if tomorrow morning I would go in my backyard, and dig in the ground and find a authentic fossil of an centaur, get it dated at 20 millions years old, and then someone dwon the street does the same thing and at about the same depth findsa another centaur fossil which dates at 20 millions years old, then your image would be proof that centaurs and humans coexisted. Of course, this is to show that your argument is fallacious: the two examples, centaurs and dinosaurs, are not analog because fossils of the latter have been found.
Neither have there been fossils found of the depictions of "dinosaurs/dragons" you claim co-existed with humans. I hunt for the truth
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 864 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
slevesque writes: Of course, this is to show that your argument is fallacious: the two examples, centaurs and dinosaurs, are not analog because fossils of the latter have been found. I think the main point escaped your perception, namely that fanciful depictions of dragons, sphinxes, cyclops, giants, etc. are not even remotely evidence for humans and (non-avian) dinosaurs coexisting. Now if you dug up a triceratops with a saddle, that would make me .... question the provenance. The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes. Salman Rushdie This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
I think the main point escaped your perception, namely that fanciful depictions of dragons, sphinxes, cyclops, giants, etc. are not even remotely evidence for humans and (non-avian) dinosaurs coexisting.
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Coyote, let's try look at the basic claim again:
Depiction (A) shows a dinosaurthis depiction compares to (B) a known dinosaur Therefore humans and dinosaur (B) co-existed ... because it "didn't try to portray anatomically correct depictions" -- here is one that should take care of your objection: But it doesn't show an organism that we know existed. You need to have an (A) and a (B) to make the inference. For instance there is no question that this represents an actual animal alive at the same time as humans:
quote: There is a link between the fossil bones and the depictions of the animals in the caves, even though they are not strictly "anatomically correct" they do show the animals in sufficient detail for identification, and the details show things that would not be known from the bones - the colors and the hair patterns, the short stubby manes: Dun gene - Wikipedia
quote: The Lascaux, and other, cave drawings are legitimate examples of animals cohabiting with humans because:
To use a different standard for the creationist claims than for Lascaux cave paintings would be to use a double standard. Of course most of the creationist claims don't have the (B) evidence to correlate with the (A) evidence -- as shown for the stegosaurus -- relying instead on the gullibility of people to make the connection. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024