quote:
"I think you misunderstood me- where are the modern humans?"
--Yes, modern humans, I guess that someone today with pegets disease or something of the like is not a modern human though.
So we have deetermined that these fossils are of humans, indicating rapid, miraculously rapid, fossilization, or has c14 dating put them at a very old age, and these dates were then manipulated.
I seriously doubt that these moderen humans you talk of are as young as you think- but maybe I’m wrong.
quote:
"A person is buried in the gournd with clothes on, for example. Would we not find traces of the clothes?"
--Out of the very few humans found that are burried, no, you wouldn't find them with cloths on, as you do not find a dinosaur with its skin.
Ok then- but let me pose another question- how many modern animals have you found fossilized?
And I think we should find some indication of rapid fossilization in modern humans. For example, if soldiers, dead, were buried in a massive pit sometime ago, we would find their fossils in one area, indicating a deliberate burial. Unless you know something about this that I don’t, then I would assume that this has never happened.
quote:
"Would we not find buried cattle?"
--We don't find burried cattle?
And this cattle has been aged, somehow, to the creationist model, shattering the belief that fossilization takes, many many, years to occur?
How did you come to the conclusion that these cattles were modern- or is it an assumption?
quote:
"Would we not find buried horses, possibly with saddles?"
--No, no saddles.
why not? They would certainly leave an imprint in the mud
quote:
"So you’re saying that archaeologists will never run across anything in their entire lives that suggests the flood. They will never even notice something out of the ordinary."
--They allready have, mind you, something deposted by the flood is not something that an old earth with billions of years cannot cope with.
well then I give up because this is completely ridiculous. An archaeologist is gonna start to notice something wrong when he’s assuming the earth is billions of times older than it really is.
Don’t you think they’d start to notice something? Maybe they would start to see fossilized koalas in Afghanistan, making their way back to the flood. Maybe an experienced geologist would start to realize that continental drift occurred over a period of a few years. Or maybe they’re just drones.
quote:
"so what about the teachers and university professors who believe in god? Are they in on it too?"
--They arent allowed to teach anything of the like, in many cases, they are not allowed to even mention it.
Not in my experiences- my teacher even discussed what creationists thought of C14 dating yesterday. I knew she was a Christian, and I asked her after class whether she was a firm believer in evolution
Absolutely
I’m sure she was just being threatened by that evil org, though.
quote:
"I mistated. We can test the theory of evolution to some extent, but we cannot test for the existence of god"
--Ofcourse we cannot test for the existance of God, that is why it is put in the catagory of faith, the degree of this faith is opinionated.
I think it takes an awful lot of faith to believe that starlight has either
a) slowed down
b) been created by god, the way it is now (despite the fact we can measure the age of starlight, but this is probably flawed too)
quote:
"ok then- I will resond to everything calmly and politely"
--Thank you, this is very much appreciative.
ok
quote:
"the average creationist knows the theory of relativity?"
--Key words, 'I know many', your taking it out of context. It isn't a median of the relative quantity of creationists out there, but I know many that are creationists that do.
You seem to be fond of using science to explain things such as th Great Flood, Joshua’s Long Day, etc. you are th first crationist of this kind, and so I would assume that you are in the minority.
quote:
"now that you mention the flood and depositions, how would it deposit heavier rocks above lighter rocks?"
--There was more than just one deposition.
So you are saying that there was another mechanism, previous to the flood, that layed this sediment. I come to doubt this- where is the evidence of this other deposition?
quote:
"Now back to the original- how would this sort from primitive to advanced?"
--'Primitive' creatures are not going to have the same abilities as 'advanced' ones are going to, according to the factors I have listed.
There are some major flaws with this assertion. The velociraptor was certainly more maneuverable than many creatures of today. The sloth can be compared to only a few dinosaurs, and would have been buried in th very first moments of the flood. The delug would have certainly swept away most marsupials, marsupials that were living, strangely enough, along side with some of the most ferocious carnivores on a single super-continent.
Furthermore, the assumption that this could organize the strata perfectly is ridiculous. We find th fossils of eggs, nests, and raindrops.
In addition, sleeping animals, animals in caves, animals in burrows (which happen to have been fossilized in this flood), tiny juveniles (juveniles of, perhaps the bald eagle), sick animals (ever see a document on Jane Goodall- and the apes paralyzed from the waist down with polio?), dying animals, carcasses, stranded animals, etc., etc. Certainly we would expect to see at least ONE exception in the strata.
quote:
"now hold on- you said that we should drop the original subject, regarding the observation of evolution. Drop it for whom- the scientists who believe the earth is 4 billions years old? You asserted that these things were too advanced for us."
--No, actually you were the one that asserted this, and I am not here to attempt to make a mockery of anyone because they may not be able to debate a sertain topic.
May I quote:
quote:
"Evolution requires the obsservation of macroevolution- we see that..."
--Example. Also, I would highly doubt that you and even I have the knowledge to argue this point, as it branches off into many very detailed biological concepts in the molecular and celluar field.
It seems your quote has come back to bite you in the hind-quarters. If you and I are not in the position to debate or even dicuss this, who is? Is it the scientist?
quote:
"Secondly, the most experienced archaeologists of today believe in the theory of evolution. Give me a few names that have not only believed and found evidence of creationism in the latter century, but have also expanded science’s general knowledge of geology."
--I am not going to get into this, one being because I have allready shown that it is expected that old earthers and Evolutionary believers to be more abundant in the scientific field, but also because it is absolutelly irrelevant.
It is completely relevant. Experienced geologists find things of interest that drive forward the study of science. Is there any creationist geologist out there that has acutally found something, with his brains, that has interested the scientific community? Or is he participating in creation-science?
If creationism is the truth, then we should see many geologists who have changed their mind, but have continued to conduct research in the field, working under the light of the creationist model.
And why is it that the oil companies pay the evolutionist geologists to find them their oil?
quote:
"Here are a few evolutionist sites that are actually trying to prove the observation of speciation"
--I haven't the slightest clue why, it is observed with almost every replication in a population of prokaryotes, along with viruses.
Well then perhaps there are creationists who have no reason to believe it?
quote:
"devolving?"
--To make it simple avoiding the biological reference so there is no confusion as much as spossible. Speciation is a process by which a population becomes diverse (population genetics). It is synonemous to 'specialization', which is what happens when a population goes through speciation, it is specialized. There are many different types of bears for instance, though only some kinds have adapted to a sertain diet. Same with just about every organism on the planet. Specialization is thus a 'devolving' process as a more accurate depiction.
OK then- thanks for the clarification
quote:
"Then give me evidence of creationism."
--What part of creationism do you wan't evidence for?
Perhaps the flood- independent evidence that those geologists have missed.
"ok- coral cores. Show me that coral cores stop around 10000 years ago."
--No problem, also, see this as an answer to your thread on corals.
--Some coral cores actually are thought to need 100-200,000 years of growth to become the size they are today. The great barrier reef is the largest, though not the thickest. Eniwetok Atoll in the Marshall Islands is a very nice start.
AiG -
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1224.asp[/quote]
May I use a reference of my own- this one refers directly to your article, and the papers that it asserts in its position.
What I find interesting is that the papers of Roth are not accepted by the scientific community, in what is clearly evolutionist bullying (yup)
http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/reef.htmThe problem with your cited article is simple: It does not take into account bleaching, destruction by storms, etc.
I recently returned from the Maldives (south of India- I was getting my advanced course in SCUBA and special course in cave and wreck). I had been there before the bleaching of 1998, and at that time the coral was beyond words. But I was horrified to find all coral dead at my arrival, with not the slightest sign of regrowth. Only a handful of reefs had been spared.
And all this due to a 1 degree rise in water temperature, owing to El Nino. Although the incident was particularly extreme, incidents like it have certainly taken place in the past, eradicating polyps and destroying underwater ecosystems.
But read the article, and it will go into more of the technicals.
quote:
"ancient geneology- http://www.nyu.edu/classes/wright/spring97/chron.htm
quote:
Absolute dates are derived through scientific analysis of artifacts themselves, providing the age of the object. The most common type of absolute dating in Mesopotamia and Egypt is radiocarbon or carbon 14 dating. In this type of dating, the amount of radioactive carbon in an object is measured. As an object ages, the amount of radioactive carbon decreases at a known rate. Therefore, the amount of carbon 14 remaining can be used to determine the age of an object. This age is subtracted from the present date yielding an absolute date for the object and those closely associated with it. However, radiocarbon dates are only exact within a range of years. For example, if an artifact is 2500 years old, the date for that artifact is about 500 BC +/- 100 years.
Challenging radioisotopic dating requires dismantling another dating method, geneology, which you so keenly use with the Bible.
The bible gives no absolute dates, and does not even possess a dating method to back it up, yet you rely on it for all arguments.
On the other hand, geneology is compatible with that lively thing, radioisotopic dating, and fits perfectly with the history of other cultures and the presumed degvelopment of the planet.
quote:
--Radioisotopic dating.
quote:
Historic documents can also provide dates. Documents from Mesopotamia and Egypt contain a list of kings, the lengths of their reigns, and various other datable information. The date of the reign of certain kings has been determined by dating artifacts associated with documents from their reign.
--C-14 again.
If carbon dating is not reliable, it should give wrong results.
Let’s say a king rules America for 2 years. An explorer from the future stumbles upon some date on an artifact, as well as the records of such things as terrorist attacks, floods, etc. He dates these records with C14 and determines that these artifacts, records of such incidents, occurred during the reign of this particular king, and he alse dtermines that this reign came in the year 2002. Now he goes and corroborates this with tree-ring dating- he sees the record of the flood in the geneology of this culture, and he wants to see how this stands to the trees. He cuts down a dead tree, measures its age with c14, and finds that there is a gap around the time of this flood.
Now he sees the record of another king after the former one. He goes through the same process, and finds that this king does indeed cmoe before the former, and that there were floods that occurred at the same time that the records say.
I would call that pretty accurate, and it happens all the time in geology. How do you explain this flawless corroboration? Any scientific explanation?
quote:
quote:
If documents from the reign of a king date to 2300 BC, then the other kings on the list can be dated roughly as well by adding and subtracting the lengths of their reigns.
--A perfect analogous postulate that is with dendrochronology.
quote:
In addition, kings in Mesopotamia and pharoahs in Egypt often named years after a celestial event. For example, the year could be called "the year of the solar eclipse that occurred in harvest season." Astromers can determine when solar eclipses and other celestial events took place in the past thereby allowing historians to figure out the year in which a document (and associated artifacts) was created.
--I previously showed that there is no conflict in the dates given by this relative.
quote:
Documents can also provide dates based on the study of the characteristics of the writing they contain. Writing style and the use of words change over time and are different in various places. If you have ever looked at your grandmother's handwriting, listened to how your father talks, noticed how a person from Europe writes numbers, or seen the Chinese alphabet, you can see how these differences still exist today. Scholars of ancient writing systems can study documents and tell how they relate to a collection of documents and thus tell when and where a document comes from. For example, the figure below traces the evolution over time of the symbol for the word 'beer' in Sumerian and Akkadian script. If a document contained the word for beer written as it is in box 'B' , it could be assigned to the time period in which that form of the symbol was in use.
--After a thought you see that this as well is analogous to the above method (the above quote).
quote:
Historic documents do not always reflect events accurately--the Mesopotamian king list gives some reigns as lasting hundreds of years
--This answers a question I used to ask, I'm glad to have found the answer. I think I will keep this link, it is very good and answers much of what I have been looking for, and not to mention it is appealing.
How you would find corroboration appealing is a mystery to me. I also smell some hypocrasy- you are the one claiming that the Biblical figures were capable of living for hundreds of years. Assuming this is true, these kings could have reigned for hundreds of years.
quote:
quote:
In short, the dates within a chronology should not be thought of as perfect and scholars often do not agree on chronological dates.
--Makes you think doesn't it.
It makes me think why so many dating methods corroborate one another, and do not collapse under the flawed method of C14- you have not made me challenge my beliefs at all.
The dates that ancient cultures have put forward have, strangely, been corroborated with radio carbon and tree-ring dating, not to mention the recordings of natural phenomenas (and if the egyptians got these recordings right, would it not be safe to assume that the rest of their geneology is roughly correct?) Creationists seem keen to ignore all this corroboration.
quote:
quote:
One way to do this is through obtaining radiocarbon and other absolute dates, but it is not possible to date every single object in this way.
--Something tells me that it all depends on the validity of radiocarbon.
Absolutely- but the question is why it has so flawlessly corroborated dates and ancient geneology.
quote:
"tree-ring dating- used to date many cultures."
--Requiring the validity of C-14 as well.
See above, or take a look at your very strange and frankly surprising answer a little below.
quote:
"Coral core dating- coral cores are used similarly to tree-rings- to detect climate anomalies, storms, temperature rises, etc. they date back very long-
http://cns-web.bu.edu/pub/dorman/relig.html
go to edit, find on this page, and then type coral."
--See where I respond to corals above.
I have given my response.
quote:
"and these boulders are so random and frequent that they could have only been deposited by a world flood?"
--No they couldn't have 'only been', but that is my view, and there is no confliction.
Well, a world-wide flood would leave indisputable marks on this planet. I do not see any of these indications.
quote:
"then again- could you give me solid and very credible evidence of creationism?"
--What part of creationism would you like evidence for? A young earth, a Godly creation, a Flood, or something else that creationism refers to.
Perhaps a dating method that puts the age of the earth at ten thousand years.
quote:
"if every human being bar noah’s family died from the flood, who would be around to record the flood immediately after it occurred."
--Noah would, or one of his kids.
Really? You said previously that many cultures had recorded the flood. I am unaware that a single human being qualified as a fully developed culture. These records, where were they found? To the extent of my knowledge, I know that the cultures would have existed before the flood, and made records immediately after the flood (I have the claim of aboriginal flood legends), all this assuming that they existed before the flood and survived the flood, living in a barren wasteland.
It seems that all these theories are getting too messy to handle.
quote:
"y’know what- I was wrong I was misinformed. Sorry."
--Appreciated, this is not seen much around these forums, usually the tactic is avoidance, though I realize that even myself has missed continuing discussions, so I would not come to a conclusion like that on anyone.
I may be a jerk, but I will admit defeat, no matter what.
However, I think I should make a note of something- the dating mentioned above has been corroborated to events, I will admit, before the flood. These events were recorded by the Egyptians, and these recordings were dated by C14- and I think you can fit that altogether.
You’re going to have to challenge the calidity of this dating method, as it walks hand-in-hand with your arch enemy, C14
quote:
"so creationism most effectively explains all dating methods, evidence that starlight is millions or billions of years old, etc? wow
please address the starlight issue."
--This requires much cosmological background, as is evident by the problem. Light travels at a soso speed, and stars are billions of light years away, this required deep thought, as is analogous to radioisotopes. I am positive you could not argue this if we got into such detail, in which I cannot either.
Beautiful- stunning- magnificent. Now we have to leave the debating up to whom- the men and women who understand this stuff much better than you and I and still believe in it? Once again, you are strengthening my point that the more scientifcally informed you are, the more likely you are to be an old earther.
quote:
Light travels at a soso speed
You say this with an air of certainty- but you do realize that this soso speed would violate the theory of relativity, which quite clearly states that the speed of light is constant.
The only people who challenge the speed of light are creationists, like you, who admit that they do not have the experience to argue it.
Leave it to those who completely agree with a constant speed of light, shall we?
Or perhaps you have evidence of a decaying speed of light that all cosmologists and scientists have missed in their centuries of researach and experimentation?
quote:
"ok- so we have found no records or evidence of this asteroid, and no culture that recorded the fly-by do you have any evidence to back up your theory?"
--Actually there have been many astroids that have hit the earth in recent times:
quote:
Over 1000 fragments from 150 meteorites that fell during the last 20,000 years have been recovered. One large iron meteorite, called the Mundrabilla meteorite, weighed more than 11 tons.
--Keep in mind the dating, it is based on sediment deposition on a uniformitarian scale, and a 10-20,000 year old ice age.
And Ancient civilizations did have knowledge on meteor impacts:
Epic of Gilgamesh - http://www.san.beck.org/EC3-Sumer.html
quote:
Meanwhile a dream came to Gilgamesh of a star falling from heaven leaving a meteor so heavy he could not lift it, and his mother Ninsun explains that this was a strong friend he would meet. In another dream Gilgamesh found in Uruk an ax he loved like a woman, and Ninsun interprets that this brave man would rescue him.
I am wondering what 'Myth of the Meteor' is about in a book called 'Ancient Travelers to the Americas'.
http://www.ancientamerican.com/backissuetxt.htm
Columbus even wrote of Meteors: http://www.greatdreams.com/bermuda.htm
quote:
As for the lights, Columbus wrote of seeing "a great flame of fire" that crashed into the ocean -- probably a meteor. He saw lights in the sky again on October 11, which, of course, was the day before his famous landing. The lights, brief flashes near the horizon, were spotted in the area where dry land turned out to be.
I found this interesting: http://wbenjamin.org/nc/sep21.html
quote:
Mircea Eliade, The Forge and the Crucible:
19: "It was inevitable that meteorites should inspire awe. They came from some remote region high up in the heavens and possessed a sacred quality enjoyed only by things celestial. In certain cultures there was a time when men thought the sky was made of stone, and even today the Australian aborigines believe the vault of heaven to be made of rock crystal and the throne of the heavenly deity of quartz."
19: Stones of light quote
20 - 21: Meteorites and thunderstones: "But the heavenly...union between heaven and earth."
21: Primitive people worked with meteoric iron...This was how the Greenland Eskimos made their knives out of meteoric iron."
22: "The peoples of the ancient Orient...a Caucasian origin."
And lastly: http://www.users.qwest.net/~mcochrane/Thundergods/thundergods.html
quote:
It is doubtless in keeping with these widespread traditions identifying thunderbolts with meteorites that thundergods everywhere are described by epithets signifying "stone thrower." The Yoruba thundergod Shango, to take but one of countless examples, was also known as Jakuta, "the stone thrower." So, too, is Indra's thunderbolt compared to a rock hurled from heaven. Here Gonda observes: "Although Indra's weapon is usually explicitly designated by the term vajra, and vajra is generally described as metallic (ayasa), it is incidentally spoken of as a rock (parvata) or 'stone of, or: from, the heavens' (divo asmanam)." No ordinary rock, Indra's thunderbolt is described as "whirling down from the misty realm of the sun (Surya)."
"And if god inspired an guided the writing of the bible, is it unreasonable to suppose that he would have told the writers that joshua’s long day was due to a natural event?"
--It was both, it was a supernatural origin, that was controled by a natural event, for instance, if it were an impact, God obviously somehow created the universe so that that impactor was on such a collision coarse for instance.
So what are you saying precisely? Is it that a meteor, predestined to slam into the earth, made it appear on earth that there was an extra-day?
Your theory is in direct contradiction of the Bible. As I have reiterated so many times, the Bible tells us that god stopped the sun orbiting the earth, or, if you interpret it differently, the earth orbiting the sun.
Why would the Bible not say that a brilliant fireball, summoned by Him, allowed the Israelites an extra day to in their battle?
quote:
"And finally, the bible tells us that god himself made the sun stand still, as the quoted biblical passage indicates."
--He made the sun 'appear' to stand still, as is evident by what it does say. It stood still in its place in the sky, its by appearence. See above.
Or one could argue that the writers of the Bible, who believed that all heavenly bodies orbitted the earth, created the origins of the setting sun, be stating that the sun stood still.
quote:
"ok- the egyptians noted floods in their records (often on the Nile). Scientists look through trees to find evidence of this flood. When they find this, they know when and even how the flood occurred."
--Ok.
What exactly does OK mean? If you are following me, which I know you are, you’d see that C14 has corroborated an event recorded by the Egyptians.
quote:
"C14 dating, as you know, dates artifacts and tomb walls, yes, the same tomb walls that have ancient dates and recordings of floods."
--I sure hope were not dating tomb walls, let alone artifacts, as with C-14 it would appear as an older date, by human condamination along with disruption in the sample dated. Any split or mingle with the artifact is going to increase decay rate.
Uh- What dates the artifacts then? I believe it is C14, but maybe my illiteracy in the scientific field is shining here.
If I am mistaken, and there is another method of dating, why would it corroborate?
quote:
"Furthermore, do you have any evidence that not only to challenges dating methods, but suggests that the Egyptians came into being after the flood?"
--I have challenged the relative dating methods, as for the latter, evidence is that no written record is found till these post-flood times.
Really? Not one record until post-flood? Pretty bold claim. Do you have a reference to that, as I have never seen that asserted, ever.
quote:
"And on the subject of c14 dating, why is it that it always dates primitve fossils older than fossils of more advanced species?"
--Who knows, (atleast I have not come to a conclusion) It could be because they are old, it could be because they were subject to a reaction, it could be because of a change in ration of C14 vs. C12.
on the subject of old- All fossils were created during the flood, remember?
The other answers which you present, predictably, I cannot address. Yet your answers cannot explain the flawless dating of fossils and/or artifacts.
quote:
"Finally, are there any dating methods out there that work? (meaning they show the creationist model to be correct?"
--Not unless you can find something that is a constant besides radioisotopes. I for one would love one such thing, though I have yet to find one.
SO everything works in favor of the Old Earth, and they’re all wrong. Not very reasonable.
quote:
"I remember you mentioning that no tree rings pass the supposed date of the flood, yet you have a post out there claiming that tree-ring dating is very inaccurate."
--Not neccessarelly, it isn't 'very inaccurate', that is, if your using a single tree that is alive, it may as well be accurate. Though the problem is as I explained in that post is the method that they use to get such old dates:
Not very accurate, when they’re based on a dating method so faulty that it expands the date of fossils and rocks by billions of times? If you ask me, tree-ring daing should be thrown out altogether.
quote:
"ok- now tell me about it what are the archaeologists missing?"
--See above.
If only they could have the privilege of meeting you.
quote:
"on what- and possibly I can give an answer. "
--The link you gave explained just about everything, and I loved it, thanx much for it.
Well I’m glad that you now understand that carbon dating corroborates to other methods.
quote:
"(despite the fact that it has been corroborated with geneologic and geologic evidence of the floods and fires it records)"
--Theres been alot of floods and fires since 'The' Flood.
oh god
quote:
"I am here to disprove creationism, and not to prove evolution. If I have made it appear differently, please elaborate."
--What is it that must be shown to you that would change your views on Creationism.
At first glance, yes. But once I went back and did the reasearch, I found that there’s a truth for every flaw
I have enjoyed is so far.
™ Version 4.2
