Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationist's Problem: Fossil Layers and Humans
Mission for Truth
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 69 (105995)
05-06-2004 4:20 PM


Hey All,
I was reading an article "15 Answers to Creationist Nonesense" in Scientific American (July 2002 the other day and one of the things they said as just one of the proofs that evolution is real was this:
"...Evolution implies that between the earliest-known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 100,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominid creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not --and does not-- find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (65 million years ago)."
I never even thought about it before but that is a very good point. With all the fossils we found no one has found one of modern day humans in that time frame... interesting.
I don't have much of a point in this post but I thought it would be good for the creationists to look at.
-Sean
{Made link part of sentence one, which also shortened display of URL, to restore page width to normal. Also corrected article title. - Adminnemooseus}
This message has been edited by Mission for Truth, 05-06-2004 10:10 PM
This message has been edited by Mission for Truth, 05-06-2004 10:14 PM
This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 05-07-2004 12:28 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by gene90, posted 05-07-2004 11:48 AM Mission for Truth has not replied
 Message 12 by Proboscis, posted 05-07-2004 4:13 PM Mission for Truth has not replied
 Message 54 by TheClashFan, posted 11-18-2004 11:07 PM Mission for Truth has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 3 of 69 (106174)
05-07-2004 2:10 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 4 of 69 (106274)
05-07-2004 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Mission for Truth
05-06-2004 4:20 PM


quote:
strata from the Jurassic period (65 million years ago)."
65 MYA is the K/T boundary, between the Cretaceous and the beginning of the Tertiary.
Jurassic was 210-280 MYA

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Mission for Truth, posted 05-06-2004 4:20 PM Mission for Truth has not replied

  
Mission for Truth
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 69 (106295)
05-07-2004 12:50 PM


If that's right you should write scientific american and let them know. Because I copied that quote perfectly, you can even go to the link I gave and see for yourself.

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by PaulK, posted 05-07-2004 12:57 PM Mission for Truth has not replied

  
Mission for Truth
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 69 (106300)
05-07-2004 12:53 PM


I just went to the link myself and now it says 144 million years? wtf?

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Chiroptera, posted 05-07-2004 1:07 PM Mission for Truth has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 7 of 69 (106303)
05-07-2004 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Mission for Truth
05-07-2004 12:50 PM


Well I went to the linked article and on page 2 it says
quote:
But one should not--and does not--find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (144 million years ago).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Mission for Truth, posted 05-07-2004 12:50 PM Mission for Truth has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 69 (106306)
05-07-2004 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Mission for Truth
05-07-2004 12:53 PM


Happens to me, too, sometimes. There's a conspiracy to make us look like fools.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Mission for Truth, posted 05-07-2004 12:53 PM Mission for Truth has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by gene90, posted 05-07-2004 1:09 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 9 of 69 (106307)
05-07-2004 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Chiroptera
05-07-2004 1:07 PM


They probably just made the mistake themselves and changed it after posting. Not your fault.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Chiroptera, posted 05-07-2004 1:07 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Chiroptera, posted 05-07-2004 1:53 PM gene90 has not replied

  
Mission for Truth
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 69 (106313)
05-07-2004 1:40 PM


lol. *shakes fist at them*

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 69 (106319)
05-07-2004 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by gene90
05-07-2004 1:09 PM


at the risk of being off-topic
Actually, I admit to having a not-too-good memory. I can easily believe that when this happens to me I am just not remembering the quote correctly. My post was meant to be a playful joke.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by gene90, posted 05-07-2004 1:09 PM gene90 has not replied

  
Proboscis
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 69 (106355)
05-07-2004 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Mission for Truth
05-06-2004 4:20 PM


In reply to the first post, I'd like to ask if you are 100 percent sure that the Earth is that old, and if so, how if you were not there? I don't really care if the Earth is billions or just thousands of years old, but I can't see how anyone could say that there is perfect proof that the Earth is indeed that old. Carbon dating is not conclusive enough to prove that without the shadow of a doubt.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Mission for Truth, posted 05-06-2004 4:20 PM Mission for Truth has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by JonF, posted 05-07-2004 4:24 PM Proboscis has replied
 Message 14 by Loudmouth, posted 05-07-2004 4:26 PM Proboscis has replied
 Message 38 by RAZD, posted 05-08-2004 1:35 AM Proboscis has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 13 of 69 (106358)
05-07-2004 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Proboscis
05-07-2004 4:13 PM


Er, Prob ol' buddy, your statement that "Carbon dating is not conclusive enough to prove that without the shadow of a doubt" reveals that you don't know enough to have an informed opinion. Carbon dating is used on organic specimens up to about 50,000 years old. The multiple different methods used to establish that age of the Earth are related to carbon dating, all of them being radioisotope methods, but are greatly different.
I sugest you start by reading Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective
how if you were not there?
Reflect on the fact that in the U.S. we kill some convicted criminals for things that they were not observed doing. That's really important. Killing people is serious. Would you like to release all convicted criminals, and all criminals awaiting trail, for which there are no eyewitnesses to the crime?
Events leave traces which can be examined, and it is not necessary to observe something directly (whatever that means ... think about it ...) to study, learn about it, and form valid conclusions about it.
{fixed URL}
This message has been edited by JonF, 05-07-2004 03:25 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Proboscis, posted 05-07-2004 4:13 PM Proboscis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Proboscis, posted 05-07-2004 4:44 PM JonF has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 69 (106359)
05-07-2004 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Proboscis
05-07-2004 4:13 PM


quote:
I don't really care if the Earth is billions or just thousands of years old, but I can't see how anyone could say that there is perfect proof that the Earth is indeed that old. Carbon dating is not conclusive enough to prove that without the shadow of a doubt.
The bible isn't perfect proof either, since it was written by fallible men. The best evidence (not 100% proof) is what we see in the earth itself. The earth is telling us how old it is, not scientists with an anti-religious agenda. BTW, carbon dating is only used to date organic matter of terrestrial origin that is younger than about 50,000 years old. Other isotopes with longer half-lives are used to date rocks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Proboscis, posted 05-07-2004 4:13 PM Proboscis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Proboscis, posted 05-07-2004 4:36 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Proboscis
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 69 (106361)
05-07-2004 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Loudmouth
05-07-2004 4:26 PM


Sorry this is a little off topic
The Bible may be actually written down by men, but it is inspired by God. Men did not make this stuff up. All scripture is God breathed. I don't know if you are a Christian or not, but if you are, you better believe that. The only account of Earth's origin from someone who was there when the earth was formed is the Bible. I don't know about you, but I think I trust God more than men. There is nothing you can say that will change my mind on that issue. As for how old the Earth is, the Bible doesn't say how old it is. That is why it is not wrong for a Christian to believe in an old Earth or a Young Earth. I personally think that the Earth is young. But I can't prove that beacuse I wasn't there. Just as you can't prove that the Earth is billions of years old.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Loudmouth, posted 05-07-2004 4:26 PM Loudmouth has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by AdminNosy, posted 05-07-2004 4:40 PM Proboscis has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 16 of 69 (106364)
05-07-2004 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Proboscis
05-07-2004 4:36 PM


Re: Sorry this is a little off topic
It is somewhat off topic. Please avoid doing that. You can make your views about the Bible known in the more faith oriented fora.
I have moved your proposed topic on Genesis for you and this might be a better post there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Proboscis, posted 05-07-2004 4:36 PM Proboscis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Proboscis, posted 05-07-2004 4:47 PM AdminNosy 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