Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 158 (8123 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-16-2014 11:31 PM
115 online now:
Chatting now:  Jon
Newest Member: taiji2
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat, Spiritual Anarchist
Post Volume:
Total: 736,104 Year: 21,945/28,606 Month: 1,032/1,410 Week: 234/524 Day: 59/87 Hour: 0/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   101 evidences for a young age...
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4702
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 1 of 135 (510855)
06-04-2009 7:30 AM


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

Coal from the cultural layer on the left side of the r. Naryn (Kirgizian SSR), 3 km E of the mouth of the r. Alabuga (41 25′ N Lat, 74 40′ E Long). The sample was found at a depth of 7.6 m in the form of scattered coals in a loamy rock in deposits of a 26-m terrace. According to the archaeological estimations the sample dates from the 5 to 7th centuries A.D. The sample was found by K. V. Kurdyumov (Moscow State Univ.) in 1962. Comment: the find serves as a verification of archaeological data on the peopling of the Tien Shan (Radiocarbon, Vol. 8(1), p. 319).

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.
Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 06-04-2009 7:57 AM Coyote has responded
 Message 20 by pandion, posted 06-05-2009 12:59 AM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 21 by dwise1, posted 06-05-2009 2:59 AM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 24 by pandion, posted 06-05-2009 11:13 AM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 25 by Coyote, posted 06-05-2009 5:03 PM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 32 by dwise1, posted 06-09-2009 1:18 PM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 33 by Nuggin, posted 06-09-2009 2:45 PM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 40 by RAZD, posted 06-11-2009 3:29 AM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 108 by losetheclub, posted 08-09-2009 2:42 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4702
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 3 of 135 (510887)
06-04-2009 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
06-04-2009 7:57 AM


Revisions made
Revisions made.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 06-04-2009 7:57 AM Admin has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4702
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 25 of 135 (511025)
06-05-2009 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Coyote
06-04-2009 7:30 AM


Response from the author
Correction to the OP:

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 31:117120.

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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Coyote, posted 06-04-2009 7:30 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4702
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 49 of 135 (514100)
07-03-2009 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by wirkkalaj
07-03-2009 3:44 PM


Dinosaurs cavorting with humans
I like to point out that there are hundreds of ancient artifacts, cave drawings and other relics that have depictions of dinosaurs on them. While this does not really prove anything about young earth. It does show how blindly wrong the evolutionists are in their conclusions that the dinosaurs died off millions of years ago.

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 they can be that wrong about the dinosaurs and not willing to concede that they did indeed live along side humans throughtout the ages, then why should I believe them in anything else concerning ages?

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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by wirkkalaj, posted 07-03-2009 3:44 PM wirkkalaj has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by wirkkalaj, posted 08-04-2009 7:14 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4702
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 79 of 135 (518166)
08-04-2009 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by wirkkalaj
08-04-2009 7:48 AM


Re: Saddle up yer Tricerotops Pardner
Where are the bones?

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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by wirkkalaj, posted 08-04-2009 7:48 AM wirkkalaj has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by wirkkalaj, posted 08-04-2009 12:41 PM Coyote has responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4702
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 81 of 135 (518189)
08-04-2009 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by wirkkalaj
08-04-2009 12:41 PM


Re: Saddle up yer Tricerotops Pardner
If it's bones you want? I will dig up more bones (not fossils) than my dog can fetch. I didn't know it was such an issue, but they have been finding them for decades, and I will produce examples which I'm sure will get ridiculed. Oh well.

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.)

Here's a recent article about that T-Rex bone that they found back in '05 that still had "soft tissue" preserved!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/

That is much better than a bone. How are you going to tell me that it somehow got preserved for 65 million years?! I can't think of one feasible possibility in which soft-tissue (easily decayed) can be preserved for so long.


That's a fossil, with mineralized soft tissue. Look it up, and stay away from the creationist sites--they lie to you.

Occam's razor (which Athiests like to quote alot) seems to apply here. The simplest explaination tends to be the right one: The animal simply hasn't been dead for that long! Maybe a few thousand years at best? Just give up on the dinosaurs guys? They have been with us throughout history! The evidence is overwhelming (once you start looking). Not to mention the thousands of eye-witness accounts about dinosaurs. Even if they have been with us throughout history, as far as I can tell, it doesn't do anything to undermine the General Theory of Evolution at all? I mean, the theory doesn't stand or fall based on some dinosaurs does it?

Nonsense. Not even worth a reply.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by wirkkalaj, posted 08-04-2009 12:41 PM wirkkalaj has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4702
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 88 of 135 (518276)
08-04-2009 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by wirkkalaj
08-04-2009 8:37 PM


Re: reality testing
The creationist movement is on the rise and more and more continue to gain degrees and scientific recognition. You are doing science a huge disfavor if you simply dismiss us all as being frauds, dishonest, ignorant, stupid or any other condescending term just because you disagree.

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.

I am not a stupid man. I have a college education (I'm attending again this semester), but I admit that my beliefs about the world are always in need of refinement and I try my best to keep them open to other enlightenments. I have not come to my current opinions on a whim. I would even state that "I am not as well educated as some of you here", (your memory and knowledge about the details of the argument is very impressive: no sarcasm) but you cannot dismiss my arguments (as well as the millions of others) on that basis alone. Our deductive reasoning and logic are likely the same and therefore warrant a close and honest examination of the points from either side.

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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by wirkkalaj, posted 08-04-2009 8:37 PM wirkkalaj has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by wirkkalaj, posted 08-08-2009 6:58 PM Coyote has responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4702
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 90 of 135 (518284)
08-04-2009 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Blue Jay
08-04-2009 11:25 PM


Re: reality testing
And a Tlingit eagle:


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Blue Jay, posted 08-04-2009 11:25 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by pandion, posted 08-04-2009 11:52 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4702
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 96 of 135 (518851)
08-08-2009 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by wirkkalaj
08-08-2009 6:58 PM


Re: reality testing
Charles Darwin believed in Evolution long before he had a method or technique to test or verify the age of the Earth, and thus began his search for Dating Methods which coincided with his beliefs. It is the same with a lot of Evolutionists (and I'll concede, with a lot of Creationists) It is your "belief" in an old/young Earth that drives people to find an agreeable dating system or discard contradictory ones. The Earth has to be Billions of years old in order for the Evolutionary hypothesis to work, and certainly affects your starting assumptions and axioms, just as it does Creationists.
"They are Evolutionists/Old Earth first and Scientists second".

Just as with yourself! I'm positive that you did not know every fact and particular of Evolution before you made your decision to believe in it? Who can? We are all guilty of making up our minds (perhaps pre-maturely) based on the limited information we have at hand (along with personal experience). Then, we use our belief and knowledge to interpret the evidence around us. If we waited for all of the information to come into light, noone would never make a decision because it can never be fully known (Exception: until we can travel through time)!


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.

See Charles Darwin comment above. I don't discount everything he did just because he had a set of beliefs, wholly unfounded at the time, that he tried to set out and prove.
Sir Isaac Newton was a devout Christian and held to a similar belief. Shall we discount all of his work because of it?
Besides evolutionists already have a similar belief "that all life can be explained by natural processes and that no God is involved".
With a starting presumption like that, no wonder you think all Christians are morons! Evolutionists, first above all else, need to examine their own starting beliefs and then admit and be aware of any bias.

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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by wirkkalaj, posted 08-08-2009 6:58 PM wirkkalaj has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4702
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 98 of 135 (518854)
08-08-2009 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by wirkkalaj
08-08-2009 11:33 PM


Re: reality testing
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.

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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by wirkkalaj, posted 08-08-2009 11:33 PM wirkkalaj has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by wirkkalaj, posted 08-08-2009 11:52 PM Coyote has responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4702
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 100 of 135 (518856)
08-08-2009 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by wirkkalaj
08-08-2009 11:42 PM


Dinosaur bones
Where are the bones?

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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by wirkkalaj, posted 08-08-2009 11:42 PM wirkkalaj has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4702
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 105 of 135 (518864)
08-09-2009 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by wirkkalaj
08-08-2009 11:52 PM


Re: reality testing
Yes, I will accept. Perhaps we should start a new thread or something? I am probably not going to be on too much longer tonight, but I will respond tomorrow of course. Who shall start off with the first comment?

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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by wirkkalaj, posted 08-08-2009 11:52 PM wirkkalaj has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4702
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 114 of 135 (518935)
08-09-2009 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by RAZD
08-09-2009 7:04 PM


Re: reality testing
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:


Click to enlarge

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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by RAZD, posted 08-09-2009 7:04 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by slevesque, posted 08-10-2009 2:55 AM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 120 by RAZD, posted 08-10-2009 9:02 AM Coyote has responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4702
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 119 of 135 (518979)
08-10-2009 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by anglagard
08-10-2009 5:26 AM


Re: reality testing
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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by anglagard, posted 08-10-2009 5:26 AM anglagard has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4702
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 122 of 135 (519002)
08-10-2009 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by RAZD
08-10-2009 9:02 AM


Re: reality testing - the evidence/s neccessary
RAZD, I have presented evidence far better than what the creationists have presented showing that centaurs and humans coexisted.

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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by RAZD, posted 08-10-2009 9:02 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by bluescat48, posted 08-10-2009 3:58 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014