Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,583 Year: 2,840/9,624 Month: 685/1,588 Week: 91/229 Day: 2/61 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   101 evidences for a young age...
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2096 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


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 replied
 Message 20 by pandion, posted 06-05-2009 12:59 AM Coyote has not replied
 Message 21 by dwise1, posted 06-05-2009 2:59 AM Coyote has not replied
 Message 24 by pandion, posted 06-05-2009 11:13 AM Coyote has not replied
 Message 25 by Coyote, posted 06-05-2009 5:03 PM Coyote has not replied
 Message 32 by dwise1, posted 06-09-2009 1:18 PM Coyote has not replied
 Message 33 by Nuggin, posted 06-09-2009 2:45 PM Coyote has not replied
 Message 40 by RAZD, posted 06-11-2009 3:29 AM Coyote has not replied
 Message 108 by losetheclub, posted 08-09-2009 2:42 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12993
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 2 of 135 (510860)
06-04-2009 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Coyote
06-04-2009 7:30 AM


There's no connection between claim #51 and the rebuttal about a discovery near a river in Kirgizia. Please revise.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Coyote, posted 06-04-2009 7:30 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Coyote, posted 06-04-2009 11:27 AM Admin has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2096 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


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 replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12993
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 4 of 135 (510893)
06-04-2009 1:02 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2285 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 5 of 135 (510897)
06-04-2009 1:48 PM


#4
quote:
The data for mitochondrial Eve are consistent with a common origin of all humans several thousand years ago.
In fact, mitochandrial eve lived 170.000 years ago. A bit longer then I think they want to say the earth is old.
#9
quote:
Living fossilsjellyfish, graptolites, coelacanth, stromatolites, Wollemi pine and hundreds more. That many hundreds of species could remain so unchanged, for even up to billions of years in the case of stromatolites, speaks against the millions and billions of years being real.
How so? Just because an organism is so well adopted to its environment that it doesn't change in appearance, doesn't mean the earth is young. Furthermore, today's species are VERY different from those found in the fossil record.
That's it for now.

I hunt for the truth

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by bluegenes, posted 06-04-2009 2:25 PM Huntard has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2467 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 6 of 135 (510900)
06-04-2009 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Huntard
06-04-2009 1:48 PM


Huntard writes:
In fact, mitochandrial eve lived 170.000 years ago. A bit longer then I think they want to say the earth is old.
Oh yeah, Evo? Have you looked at the literature? This is a peer reviewed paper from Nature Genetics, no less.
Page not found | Bode Technology
This is about actual observed mutation rates, not evo speculation!
Scroll down to discussion, and what do you see? Line 13.
Now, Evo, show me your peer reviewed support.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Huntard, posted 06-04-2009 1:48 PM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by pandion, posted 06-04-2009 4:23 PM bluegenes has replied
 Message 14 by Huntard, posted 06-04-2009 5:09 PM bluegenes has replied

  
Lysimachus
Member (Idle past 5181 days)
Posts: 380
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 7 of 135 (510901)
06-04-2009 2:35 PM


OFF-TOPIC
Edited by Lysimachus, : No reason given.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic blather.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Subtitle.

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Taz, posted 06-04-2009 3:21 PM Lysimachus has not replied
 Message 15 by Rahvin, posted 06-04-2009 5:20 PM Lysimachus has not replied
 Message 19 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-05-2009 12:29 AM Lysimachus has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3281 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 8 of 135 (510905)
06-04-2009 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Lysimachus
06-04-2009 2:35 PM


OFF-TOPIC
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic blather.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Subtitle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Lysimachus, posted 06-04-2009 2:35 PM Lysimachus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Stagamancer, posted 06-04-2009 3:38 PM Taz has not replied
 Message 10 by lyx2no, posted 06-04-2009 4:01 PM Taz has not replied

  
Stagamancer
Member (Idle past 4906 days)
Posts: 174
From: Oregon
Joined: 12-28-2008


Message 9 of 135 (510906)
06-04-2009 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Taz
06-04-2009 3:21 PM


OFF-TOPIC
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic blather.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Subtitle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Taz, posted 06-04-2009 3:21 PM Taz has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4706 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 10 of 135 (510907)
06-04-2009 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Taz
06-04-2009 3:21 PM


OFF-TOPIC
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic blather.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Subtitle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Taz, posted 06-04-2009 3:21 PM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by rueh, posted 06-04-2009 4:04 PM lyx2no has not replied

  
rueh
Member (Idle past 3651 days)
Posts: 382
From: universal city tx
Joined: 03-03-2008


Message 11 of 135 (510908)
06-04-2009 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by lyx2no
06-04-2009 4:01 PM


OFF-TOPIC
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic blather.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Subtitle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by lyx2no, posted 06-04-2009 4:01 PM lyx2no has not replied

  
pandion
Member (Idle past 2990 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 12 of 135 (510910)
06-04-2009 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by bluegenes
06-04-2009 2:25 PM


bluegenes writes:
Now, Evo, show me your peer reviewed support.
Sure. No problem.
quote:
Gibbons, A. 1998. Calibrating the mitochondrial clock. Science 279: 28-29.
Ingman, M., H. Kaessmann, S. Pbo and U. Gyllensten. 2000. Mitochondrial genome variation and the origin of modern humans. Nature 408: 708-713.
Kaessmann, H., F. Heissig, A. von Haeseler and S. Pbo. 1999. DNA sequence variation in a non-coding region of low recombination on the human X chromosome. Nature Genetics 22: 78-81.
Loewe, L. and S. Scherer. 1997. Mitochondrial Eve: the plot thickens. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 12(11): 422-423
You see, Parsons studied the control region of the mitochondria which comprises less than 7% of the total. When the entire mitochondria was taken into account, the age of the most recent common ancestor was placed at about 171,500 +/- 50,000 years ago.
Studies of the non-recombining portion of the X chromosome placed the ancestor at about 535,000 +/- 119,000 years ago. However, since the number of X chromosomes is effectively 3 times that of the mitochondria, the most recent common X chromosome ancestor should be about three times that of the mitochondrial eve. Surprise! Surprise! That turns out to be the case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by bluegenes, posted 06-04-2009 2:25 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by bluegenes, posted 06-04-2009 5:07 PM pandion has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2467 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 13 of 135 (510915)
06-04-2009 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by pandion
06-04-2009 4:23 PM


pandion writes:
Sure. No problem.
Well done, Evo.
The reason I linked to the Parsons paper is that it's probably the origin of the myth that Hunter replied to. It happened to come up with that magic number "6,500". This caused a lot of creationists to have orgasms.
But even at that time there were other papers on the control region with much lower figures, as you can see here:
Paper
That paper combines its data with Parsons and others, and the result, if I remember rightly, would have given a minimum of ~20,000 years for "Eve".
But you can still see the Parsons paper referred to (alone) on creationist web sites.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by pandion, posted 06-04-2009 4:23 PM pandion has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2285 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 14 of 135 (510916)
06-04-2009 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by bluegenes
06-04-2009 2:25 PM



This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by bluegenes, posted 06-04-2009 2:25 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by bluegenes, posted 06-04-2009 5:22 PM Huntard has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4024
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 8.8


Message 15 of 135 (510920)
06-04-2009 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Lysimachus
06-04-2009 2:35 PM


OFF-TOPIC
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic blather.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Coding error.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Subtitle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Lysimachus, posted 06-04-2009 2:35 PM Lysimachus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by bluescat48, posted 06-04-2009 5:23 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024