Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8733 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-23-2017 12:23 AM
426 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Upcoming Birthdays: OnlyCurious
Post Volume:
Total: 801,829 Year: 6,435/21,208 Month: 2,196/2,634 Week: 384/572 Day: 1/99 Hour: 1/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
15NextFF
Author Topic:   Age of mankind, dating, and the flood
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5540
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 1 of 224 (705124)
08-23-2013 11:33 AM


On the "Can the standard "Young Earth Creationist" model be falsified by genetics alone?" thread, mindspawn posts the following:

Coyote writes:

The global flood is generally placed around 4,350 years ago by biblical scholars.
We have examples of Native American mtDNA types that are the same both before and after that date.

At On Your Knees Cave in southern Alaska a skeleton was dated to 10,300 years ago, and a rare mtDNA type was found. This is D4h3.

In a publication a couple of years back, it was noted that 47 living individuals had been found with that same haplotype. They were found along the west coasts of North and South America.

If a flood had occurred that haplotype would have been wiped out and replaced by Near Eastern mtDNA types.

That this didn't happen is another example of genetics disproving the YEC flood belief.

Coyote if you think about the logic of this argument of yours, the whole point is based on dating methods. Which is a separate argument to Bluegenes genetic argument.

I would say that man is post-flood, and due to incorrect dating methods was erroneously dated to 10300ya and instead was less than 4500ya. If you let me know how the fossil was dated we can delve into that aspect of it to see if I could be right. But you would have to open another thread for that because its irrelevant to this thread. Let me know if you do so.

The basis of your argument seems to be that religious belief is more accurate than scientific dating methods. I don't know if presenting you with scientific evidence will change your mind or not; too often, as Heinlein notes, "Belief gets in the way of learning."

I propose this thread to deal specifically with:

--Scientific evidence supporting dating methods and the age of modern humans, and
--Evidence from creationists supporting the Young Earth position and refuting that scientific evidence.

To begin with, the 10,300 year old date for On Your Knees Cave was established by radiocarbon or C14 dating. They did not date a fossil, but human bone. But this is not the only old radiocarbon date from the same area. The Manis Mastodon Site in northwestern Washington dates to about 13,800 years and Paisley Caves in southeastern Oregon date slightly older than that. It gets worse: Alaska has even older dates, and the Old World has dates on modern humans going back past 100,000 years (although these are not established using the radiocarbon method).

If anyone disagrees with scientific dating methods, here is the chance to present evidence showing how and where it is wrong.

Please limit discussion to the era of modern humans, ca. 200,000 years. Leave out the Cambrian explosion, K-T boundary and similar arguments.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers


Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by kofh2u, posted 08-25-2013 5:48 AM Coyote has acknowledged this reply
 Message 39 by mindspawn, posted 08-29-2013 6:46 AM Coyote has responded
 Message 148 by Ed67, posted 04-15-2014 8:52 PM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 165 by djufo, posted 10-02-2014 8:22 PM Coyote has responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4751
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 224 (705126)
08-23-2013 11:55 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Age of mankind, dating, and the flood thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15485
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 3 of 224 (705185)
08-24-2013 9:30 AM


While we wait to see if any creationists join the discussion I thought I'd mention that I just finished the novel The Bone Prophet about an alternative universe where the scientific community has banned books by Darwin, Huxley, Simpson, etc., and teaches that the world is only 6000 years old. Churches control politics and politicians control science which is highly compartmentalized to prevent anyone from putting too much together. Dating methods other than radiocarbon are banned, and Libby is given credit for proving the world is only 6000 years old. Genetic analysis rules in determining whether ancient bones are human or "other", but access to genetic analysis is restricted. The book's hero discovers that some ancient bones are "other" but have a point of divergence with humanity older than the Earth itself, prompting efforts to bring him in dead or alive.

This thread is about evidence. Efforts to nullify evidence usually invoke a "worldview" or distort it or just consider some of it or even just ignore it, but this novel describes a world where a scientific community using genuinely scientific methods has managed to suppress the truth about reality and what the evidence really indicates. Interesting to contemplate.

--Percy


    
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1167 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 4 of 224 (705235)
08-25-2013 5:48 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Coyote
08-23-2013 11:33 AM


...changing minds...

The basis of your argument seems to be that religious belief is more accurate than scientific dating methods. I don't know if presenting you with scientific evidence will change your mind or not;

Before you can convince someone with your "proofs" on anything you must have their agreement to consider what you will present within some discipline.

If you restrict yourself to Euclidean Geometry, a proof of congruence between two different triangles becomes possible.

But, is you are talking to someone in the discipline of Theology, where certain theories exist such as: a god can do anything, and, what might be called magic is the basis for miracles, then your science discipline is useless.

It must be frustrating to be thoroughly convinced within the bounds of empirical science that you are right in your views, but then discover others do not believe in Cause/Effect which is an assumption they must agree upon before entering science.

Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Coyote, posted 08-23-2013 11:33 AM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Percy, posted 08-25-2013 7:55 AM kofh2u has responded
 Message 6 by NoNukes, posted 08-25-2013 2:40 PM kofh2u has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15485
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


(3)
Message 5 of 224 (705239)
08-25-2013 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by kofh2u
08-25-2013 5:48 AM


Re: ...changing minds...
Hi Kofh2u,

We all understand that there is an inherent religious nature in man, but the degree to which it is expressed individually varies widely. Most who possess little religiosity will concede that yours is a perfectly valid faith-based position for those who possess a great deal, thinking it fine to argue that science is wrong because your faith tells you so. No one's arguing that your faith is wrong in this thread.

But this is a science thread, and I think Coyote is more interested in hearing from those who believe the dating is wrong because they have the scientific evidence proving it is wrong.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by kofh2u, posted 08-25-2013 5:48 AM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by kofh2u, posted 08-25-2013 2:58 PM Percy has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9313
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 6 of 224 (705249)
08-25-2013 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by kofh2u
08-25-2013 5:48 AM


Re: ...changing minds...
If you restrict yourself to Euclidean Geometry, a proof of congruence between two different triangles becomes possible.

You may have a point, but you did not use a great example. You can prove that triangles are congruent in non-Euclidean geometries as well.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by kofh2u, posted 08-25-2013 5:48 AM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by kofh2u, posted 08-25-2013 3:16 PM NoNukes has not yet responded
 Message 10 by kofh2u, posted 08-25-2013 3:16 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

    
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1167 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 7 of 224 (705253)
08-25-2013 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Percy
08-25-2013 7:55 AM


Re: ...changing minds...

thinking it fine to argue that science is wrong because your faith tells you so.

I am shocked that you have pretended to be reading my posts close enough that you have suspended me a few times, and yet you say here my faith denies Science when I am CONSTANTLY stating that I agree with Science.

Really,...

You MUST not be reading me very closely.
I am a Physicists who sees Genesis confirmed by the Big Bang, the seven layers of the Geological Clock, the appearance of Pangea, and the Paleontology of 22 now extinct human species, etc.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Percy, posted 08-25-2013 7:55 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by nwr, posted 08-25-2013 3:11 PM kofh2u has not yet responded
 Message 15 by Percy, posted 08-25-2013 5:49 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

    
nwr
Member
Posts: 5504
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 8 of 224 (705255)
08-25-2013 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by kofh2u
08-25-2013 2:58 PM


Re: ...changing minds...
I am shocked that you have pretended to be reading my posts close enough that you have suspended me a few times, and yet you say here my faith denies Science when I am CONSTANTLY stating that I agree with Science.

You have confused "reading posts closely" with "remembering unimportant details".

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by kofh2u, posted 08-25-2013 2:58 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1167 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 9 of 224 (705256)
08-25-2013 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by NoNukes
08-25-2013 2:40 PM


Re: ...changing minds...

You may have point, but you did not use a great example. You can prove that triangles are congruent in non-Euclidean geometries as well.

True, but the point is that without a knowledge of geometry of any sort, or in the face of someone who is not willing to accept the first eight basic Axioms which can not and have never been proven themselves, your arguments are useless to you against their convictions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by NoNukes, posted 08-25-2013 2:40 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Coyote, posted 08-25-2013 3:18 PM kofh2u has responded
 Message 14 by Stile, posted 08-25-2013 5:31 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

    
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1167 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 10 of 224 (705257)
08-25-2013 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by NoNukes
08-25-2013 2:40 PM


Re: ...changing minds...

You have confused "reading posts closely" with "remembering unimportant details".


How so...?

Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by NoNukes, posted 08-25-2013 2:40 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by nwr, posted 08-25-2013 4:28 PM kofh2u has responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5540
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 11 of 224 (705258)
08-25-2013 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by kofh2u
08-25-2013 3:16 PM


Re: ...changing minds...
Have you any evidence that the dating methods used by science are wrong?

Now would be a perfect time to present it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by kofh2u, posted 08-25-2013 3:16 PM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by kofh2u, posted 08-25-2013 4:27 PM Coyote has responded

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1167 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 12 of 224 (705263)
08-25-2013 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Coyote
08-25-2013 3:18 PM


Re: ...changing minds...
No.
I believe the dating procedure is grounded in good science.

I do believe in regard to the Shroud of Turin, that the dating procedure was flawed.

But my major point here is that when you can convince people theologically that they are wrong about their own dating, then they may be open to the guessimates of Science.

I have consistently appealed to fundies to revisit the flawed estimates of medieval priests who came up with number 6000 years.
By examining not what these people mouth to us about the age of the Earth, but the method used by those who taught them this error of 6000 years, I believe we can make progress with the church in general.

When they read that the 24 hour day did not exist until the solar clock was created by making the sun the time keeper of Earth time, it becomes clear they can not just add up the ages of the men listed in the Genesis genealogy.
They assumed that since the ages of the people mentioned in scripture is specified, it seemed possible that just adding up those numbers would give a date for the In the beginning.

But, realization that the first seven "days" were NOT 24 hour durations screws this attempt up for them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Coyote, posted 08-25-2013 3:18 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Percy, posted 08-25-2013 5:58 PM kofh2u has not yet responded
 Message 17 by Coyote, posted 08-25-2013 7:33 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

    
nwr
Member
Posts: 5504
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 13 of 224 (705264)
08-25-2013 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by kofh2u
08-25-2013 3:16 PM


Re: ...changing minds...
nwr writes:
You have confused "reading posts closely" with "remembering unimportant details".
kofh2u writes:
How so...?

I think you just replied to the wrong post. How's that for not reading posts closely?

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by kofh2u, posted 08-25-2013 3:16 PM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by kofh2u, posted 08-26-2013 9:53 AM nwr has acknowledged this reply

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 2848
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 14 of 224 (705265)
08-25-2013 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by kofh2u
08-25-2013 3:16 PM


Re: ...changing minds...
kofh2u writes:

True, but the point is that without a knowledge of geometry of any sort, or in the face of someone who is not willing to accept the first eight basic Axioms which can not and have never been proven themselves, your arguments are useless to you against their convictions.

I'm not sure if you know what you're talking about. Can you describe it in another way?
Can you explain these "first eight basic Axioms"? That doesn't seem to be general terminology for... anything.

Why do you think they need to be proven themselves? Most axioms in mathematics are more definitions than anything that requires proof of any kind.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by kofh2u, posted 08-25-2013 3:16 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15485
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 15 of 224 (705266)
08-25-2013 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by kofh2u
08-25-2013 2:58 PM


Re: ...changing minds...
kofh2u writes:

I am shocked that you have pretended to be reading my posts close enough that you have suspended me a few times, and yet you say here my faith denies Science when I am CONSTANTLY stating that I agree with Science.

I don't recall anything about your views, sorry. In my moderator role opinions and positions are of no consequence. Only behavior matters as measured against the Forum Guidelines. And if we've had discussions then I don't recall those either. Again, sorry.

I was only explaining that Coyote is interested in discussion with people who think they have scientific evidence against dating methods and the age of modern humans, because you were raising unrelated issues.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by kofh2u, posted 08-25-2013 2:58 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

    
1
23456
...
15NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017