|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: 101 evidences for a young age... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Much of the bibble in the geology section seems to confuse the proposition that something was formed millions of years ago with the proposition that it took millions of years to form.
This is why creationists come out with gibberish like this:
Observed examples of rapid island formation and maturation, such as Surtsey, which confound the notion that such islands take long periods of time to form. A monment's thought, of course, would tell them that no geologist in the world has the notion that islands such as Surtsey take a long time to form --- but thought is not common among creationists. There's also the usual gibberish about polystrate fossils. This is based on an almost unbelievable blunder --- creationists think that geologists think that the bedding planes in sedimentary rocks represent intervals of millions of years. Have these people never opened a geology textbook. Then, of course, there are the flat lies, such as this one:
Water gaps. These are gorges cut through mountain ranges where rivers run. They occur worldwide and are part of what evolutionary geologists call discordant drainage systems. They are discordant because they don’t fit the deep time belief system. No, that is not what "discordant" means. And then there's just the outright bizarre:
Lack of plant fossils in many formations containing abundant animal / herbivore fossils. E.g., the Morrison Formation (Jurassic) in Montana. See Origins 21(1):51—56, 1994. Also the Coconino sandstone in the Grand Canyon has many track-ways (animals), but is almost devoid of plants. Implication: these rocks are not ecosystems of an era buried in situ over eons of time as evolutionists claim. Yeah, either that or under normal conditions plants don't preserve so well as the hard parts of animals. But a grasp of the bleedin' obvious is not a prerequisite for being a creationist. Damn, but these guys are dumb. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5951 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
quote: Ah yes! The Bunny Blunder! In 1984, a few years after I had started my "creation science" studies, I heard a presentation given by Fred Edwords in which he presented Morris' human population growth claim -- which Henry Morris had presented in his 1961 book, The Genesis Flood, and repeated several more times over the years. When Edwords then gave the model's predicted world population at various times in the ancient past, those figures were found to be ridiculously low. Since Edwords had taken his figures from David Milne's article (Creationists, Population Growth, Bunnies, and the Great Pyramid, Creation/Evolution Issue XIV, Fall 1984, pp. 1-5 -- Creationists, Population Growth, Bunnies, and the Great Pyramid | National Center for Science Education), I will quote from there:
quote: Needless to say, when Edwords presented those figures, it brought down the house, the audience was laughing so hard. The reason why Milne calls this claim "The Bunny Blunder" and why it is wrong is also given in that article:
quote: Now, to be truthful, Milne had arrived at his figures using Morris' rate of population growth and a "Garden of Eden" starting point and initial population, rather than Batten's stated rate and a "Noah's Flood" starting point and population. So we should take those parameters and plug them into the formula and see what the model reveals in that case. The formula for "pure-birth" population growth (as observed in fruit fly jars before the food starts to run out) is: P(n) = P(1 + r)**n where:
Since Batten wrote: "Less than 0.5% p.a. growth from six people 4,500 years ago ... ", our values for those parameters would be:
Now, at this point I wanted to compare the results from Batten's parameters with Milne's results from Morris' parameters, but I immediately ran into a snag. Milne was looking at the results on and before 2500 BCE, whereas Batten is only looking at that date and thereafter. Since 2500 BCE was when the Great Pyramid was built, then instead of it having been built by hand with a world population of 750 (including women and children), Batten offers us a world population of only six. For the dates before 2500 BCE, Batten really offers nothing. Except for an enigma. He has given us a date for The Flood of about 2500 BCE. Since this Flood was supposed to have been so cataclysmic as to completely reshape the surface of the earth and cause near-instantaneous plate movement, how is it that the Great Pyramid and the six pyramids that preceded it and the Sphynx and all those other cities and irrigation works spread out from Crete to the Indus River Valley are still there and did not get destroyed by The Flood? However, here are Batten's predicted populations for various dates, with actual populations for 1 CE on (using Morris' doubling dates) -- you might want to sanity-check them against what was happening in history:
Even without the absolutely ludicrous historical conclusions that this claim would require us to arrive at, we can plainly see that it does not match reality. Ie, it doesn't work. But what I find truly amazing is that Batten had never bothered to check his model, to plug in his parameters and see what results it would give him for this year. Futher Reading:Wikipedia "World Population" at World population - Wikipedia Wikipedia "World Population Estimates" at Estimates of historical world population - Wikipedia Wikipedia "Population growth" at Population growth - Wikipedia Wikipedia "Carrying Capacity" at Carrying capacity - Wikipedia Michael Olnick, An Introduction to Mathematical Models in the Social and Life Sciences, 1978, Addison-Wesley Publishing Co -- over several chapters, develops a model of population growth as it discussed several of the problems inherent in such models; creationists' "Bunny Blunder" is a "pure birth" model, the most navely simplistic and least accurate type of population growth model. Edited by dwise1, : table formatting
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2520 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
The profoundly stupid thing about their argument is this:
They use C-14 dating 4 times on their list saying that it gives an age in "thousands of years". While we ALL KNOW the mistake they deliberately made was done so to mislead the ignorant, the bigger point is this: The INCORRECT date they came up with is STILL TOO OLD for their claim!!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pandion Member (Idle past 3028 days) Posts: 166 From: Houston Joined: |
dwise1 writes:
I usually don't approve of responses that are nothing more than vacuous cheer-leading. Here I'm going to make an exception. That was an excellent post. I hope you see this before the moderators hide it as "off topic". snip of impressive analysis of creationist nonsense Edited by pandion, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pandion Member (Idle past 3028 days) Posts: 166 From: Houston Joined: |
Nuggin writes:
It's even worse than that. Over the years I have seen creationists cite C-14 dating of archaeological sites in the Levant as evidence of the "truth" of the Bible. Funny that creationists can reject C-14 dating out of one side of their mouth and praise it in support of scripture out of the other. It seems that C-14 dates are reliable back to about 4,500 years ago when a global FLUD event somehow adjusted rates of radio active decay. All dates older than 4,500 ya actually date to the single year of the FLUD.
The profoundly stupid thing about their argument is this:They use C-14 dating 4 times on their list saying that it gives an age in "thousands of years". While we ALL KNOW the mistake they deliberately made was done so to mislead the ignorant, the bigger point is this: The INCORRECT date they came up with is STILL TOO OLD for their claim!!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
I usually don't approve of responses that are nothing more than vacuous cheer-leading. Here I'm going to make an exception. That was an excellent post. You know, there is a topic just for that purpose. And there, it will bring dwise1's message to the attention of a lot more people, both now and maybe in the future. See the POTM guidelines in that message 1. NO REPLIES TO THIS MESSAGE. Adminnemooseus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pandion Member (Idle past 3028 days) Posts: 166 From: Houston Joined: |
Without any intent to respond to any particular post, I have become aware of a forum on this board for the purpose of recognizing exceptional posts. I have recognized a post in this thread in that forum.
http://EvC Forum: June, 2009, Posts of the Month -->EvC Forum: June, 2009, Posts of the Month
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3319 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Dwise1, while you posted an incredible message on the Bunny Blunder, I'd like to point to a much simpler way at viewing this particular population growth model.
About 500 BC there were about 128,906 people, according to the model. Right about this time, the Persian Empire reached its height, Greece warring against Persia for a few centuries, China divided into 7 massive kingdoms during the spring and autumn and warring states periods, etc. All of this happening all around the world with all the fortress cities being built with a world wide population of a little over 100 thousand people? There was a lecture I read about (I do regret very much that I missed it) with the presenter actually divided up the supposed population at the time according to the creationist model and showed that according to the model 10 people built the Mesopotamian civilizations, 20 people built the great city states of Greece, 30 people founded the Chinese dynasties, etc. By the end, any sane person would have seen just how funny and ricidulous this particular population growth model was. And yet we keep seeing it popping up like bunnies...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
Quite apart from contradicting known reality, it also contradicts the Bible (!). According to Numbers, there were 603,550 Jews who left Egypt, and various dates are given for the Exodus from 1290 BC - 1550 BC, by these numbers, the Bible itself is out by a factor of 300 looking only at the Jews themselves and ignoring the Egyptians altogether.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Coyote,
The "101 evidences" includes the usual nonsense, refuted over and over but which keeps coming back. Aren't these all the same issue of radioactive formation of C14 and background levels?
quote: Curiously the link for the oil one goes to diamonds - great proof-reading and cross-checking, eh? They go on to "counter" the "Objections (technical)" with more typical answers:
quote: Yeah, it misses the point that this is the limit of C-14 dating and it is not above the level of background radiation in normal objects. This background level of radiation is why the normal limit to C14 is generally considered to be 45,000 to 50,000 years http://id-archserve.ucsb.edu/...y/08_Radiocarbon_Dating.html
quote: Radiocarbon Date calculation
quote: And the presence of background levels doesn't really affect ages less than 40,000 years by a significant margin, especially considering that these ages derived are too young for the actual ages. Thus these ages are still valid, and still a problem for YECs to deal with. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : jpg added 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5951 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
To offer an analogy:
Let's say that I have a very accurate postal scale that can measure up to 10 ounces. So when I try to weigh myself on that postal scale, it tells me that I only weigh 10 ounces. So I publish those results and report on all forms that ask for my weight that I weigh 10 ounces and I repeatedly insist that I weigh 10 ounces. Since I am not an idiot, doing that would make me a liar. Those creationists who made and use those C-14 claims are also not idiots.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3319 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
This bears the question in mind. Have these people no shame? I could understand that they wouldn't have a shame if their lies can't be caught, but these lies are so obviously lies. Of all the time they spend telling the rest of us we're going to hell, aren't they afraid of the hell fire?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
wirkkalaj Member (Idle past 5362 days) Posts: 22 From: Fernley Joined: |
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.
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? Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Reset to eliminate signature spam.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4987 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
I like to point out that there are hundreds of ancient artifacts, cave drawings and other relics that have depictions of dinosaurs on them. It's not that I don't trust you wirkkalj, but could you perhaps support this claim with references/examples?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3319 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Ancient Dinosaur Depictions | Genesis Park
Beat that, evil one.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024