|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 3/4 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: 101 evidences for a young age... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1395 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi dwise1
Now here's the beauty of it. Do the math and you will find that about 400 million years ago, in the Devonian (Parc national de Miguasha - Parcs nationaux - Spaq), the year would have been 400 days long (in case you didn't know, the current year is 365 days long, 366 days in a leap year). The coral shows that the year back then was indeed 400 days long. Two independent lines of evidence coming together to give the same results. Another source for the coral day lengths is provided here:
Age Correlations: Talking Coral Heads quote: The article linked is a copy of the article in Nature. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : new subtitle 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1395 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1395 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi wirkkalaj, welcome to the fray -- if you stick around eh?
I like to point out that there are hundreds of ancient artifacts, cave drawings and other relics that have depictions of dinosaurs on them. Correction: that are interpreted by some (often unscrupulous unscientific or gullible ignorant) people to represent dinosaurs. In many cases other explanations are much more likely. In some cases there is evidence of outright fraud (see Ica Stones, Paluxy river tracks, etc etc etc) One petroglyph I know of likely shows a giant sloth being attacked by humans. It is the right size relationship for a sloth and the wrong proportions for a dinosaur. Interestingly, giant sloths did exist when man first explored the NAmerican continent, and skeletons of them are known from the same ages as early man in NA. As Coyote has pointed out there are no fossils of humans and (non-bird) dinosaurs in the same strata. As roxrkool has pointed out, it is more than likely that ancient people came across bones and fossils of ancient animals, and from dissecting food sources they would have developed a pretty good sense for how the pieces fit together. Thus it is entirely possible that they could assemble the bones into a rough idea of the original animal. We also see depictions of fire-breathing dragons: does that mean they really existed? There are many mythological or fanciful animals that could be based on fossil finds. One of these depictions I have seen on creationist sites is this one:
Which demonstrates the dishonesty of the creationists posting this "evidence", because it comes blatantly from the cover of this book:
The First Fossil Hunters: Paleontology in Greek and Roman Times. by Adrienne Mayor
quote: As noted by Hyroglyphx this book makes a compelling argument that several myths are based on fossils of ancient animals, such as the one here. This is a protoceratops: Protoceratops - Wikipedia
Note the bird like beak and the four legged stance. That the myth of the Griffin started in the area where protoceratops fossils have been found is clear indication of a reasonable conclusion that the legend is based on the fossils. That the legend is of half bird and half lion beasties is a clear indication that the legend is NOT based on experience with living animals at the time of man. There are many such legends of fantastic beasties and creatures, and not to difficult to think that many are based on primitive interpretations of fossils, and not of living animals. When we look at cave art that is distinctive enough to tell species of animals (south france, spain) the depictions there are all of post ice age animals, and not one of them is remotely close to a dinosaur. There are no "depictions of dinosaurs" that represent any recognizable species of dinosaurs with the clarity and detail in those cave paintings.
It does show how blindly wrong the evolutionists are in their conclusions that the dinosaurs died off millions of years ago. No it doesn't. It does not contradict in any way the fact that no dinosaur fossils (other than birds) have been found after the 65 million year mass-extinction.
While this does not really prove anything about young earth. It doesn't prove a thing. There are many organisms alive today that survived the extinction event - otherwise we would not be alive. Finding a dinosaur alive would not change this either. Coelacanths and crocodiles survive (albeit different species) from earlier times.
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, ... Except that you have not established that they are wrong. There is no need to concede a position that is not based on facts.
... then why should I believe them in anything else concerning ages? Because it is based on facts. Curiously, that is how science works, not on belief, but on facts. Facts are compiled, and then reasonable explanations are sought that explain all the evidence, the evidence of ages and ecologies and the geological consistency of certain finds in certain strata that date to certain ages. If you want to investigate the evidence of an old earth, see Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 and note that it is not just the evidence of an old earth, but the correlations between the different methods and systems, correlations that would not occur if the measurement systems were in error. Enjoy.
... as you are new here, some posting tips: type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote: also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window. For other formatting tips see Posting Tips If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formatted with the "peek" button next to it. Edited by RAZD, : Hyroglyphx noted, beat me to the punch 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1395 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi roxrkool,
It is an excellent book, very readable, and talks about several myths being based on fossils common to the area of the greeks, but not of animals alive at the same time, hence the fanciful interpretations. The cyclops myth can be explained by the mastodon skeletons, where the actual eye sockets are very small, and the large opening for the trunk was seen as the location for the eye. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : not mammoth 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1395 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
woops
They weren't mammoths (as RAZD said) but pygmy elephants. Actually should have been mastodons in macedonia, curiously not pygmy. Enjoy 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1395 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Dr Adequate
In the same way, you find people saying that the Greek authors reported griffins in the Gobi (where Protoceratops fossils are found) on the say-so of the Scythians (whose territory may have extended to the Gobi depending on what you mean by "Scythians"). But this all seems to be the purest rubbish, produced by people playing the game that Americans call "Telephone" and I would call "Chinese Whispers". Curiously, one of the beliefs associated with Griffins is that they hoarded gold, and Mayor has a map on page 28 showing the juxtapositions of gold digs and protoceratops\dinosaur bones found lying on the ground, along ancient trade routes, so "purest rubbish" seems to be supported by some actual evidence. The area in question covers from the hindu kush into kazakhstan, mongolia and china.
... the Greek sources agree that the Scythians said that there were griffins in the extreme north of Europe, ... Curiously you seem to now imply that the range of the Scythians extended into northern europe where previously you doubt they extend to mongolia? As far as the "say-so of the Scythians" is concerned, there does not seem to be that much available: from the book,
quote: But they aren't --- they're examples of people using fossils to confirm myths that they already had, as I emphasized. It is hard to find cases where we can definitely say that a fossil find was the origin of a myth. As for the Chinese, we can certainly find them identifying what we now know as dinosaur bones as being "dragon bones", but which came first, the bones or the Chinese dragon myth? A definite answer is lost, like so much else, in the mists of antiquity. I don't think there would be such a recording for any such find, because such finds likely pre-date writing, and the interpretations are likely lost in time.
I had better write that article. It seems it will have at least one interested reader. You would likely have several. Certainly I would like to see your substantiations and evidence, and how many myths and legends you can find such explanations of. Enjoy. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1395 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi again wirkkalaj, welcome back.
See messages 73 and 74 and tell me if I am misrinterpreting these depictions and let me know which ones are fraud. The ica stones are a known fraud. Known since 2002. CH710.1: Dinosaurs on Ica stones
quote: An admitted fraud, which in science would be sufficient evidence to discard them as evidence of anything, just as Piltdown man was discarded when scientists demonstrated that it was a fraud. Here's a test: take a known science fraud and find an article claiming that it is evidence of reality, and that is published one year or more after the fraud has been uncovered. Do the same for creationist frauds (like the Ica Stones, now going on 7 years as a known fraud). Note that any website that posts the "Ica Stones" as fact has actually posted a fraud, a hoax, and they should not be trusted for having ANY valid information: they are a fraud.
Regardless, a few examples of fraud do nothing to discredit my argument as a whole. Evolutionists have had their own cases of fraud. The infamous Piltdown controversy. It doesn't mean that all other primate fossils are hoaxed. See Scientific vs Creationist Frauds and Hoaxes . The difference between scientists and creationists is that science discards frauds and hoaxes as soon as they are uncovered, they correct their view/s and move on. Creationists ignore the fact that it is a hoax and keep posting information about it, hoping that gullible people will continue to be flummoxed, too intellectually lethargic to investigate further, too willing to believe a fairy tale rather than look skeptically for reality - and (non-avian) dinosaurs co-existing with humans is a fairy tale. Curiously, the only ones who still refer to scientific hoaxes are creationists, as is evidenced by all the creationist websites on the Piltdown hoax, thus creating another hoax in the process - the hoax hoax that trys to fool gullible people into thinking that science relies on hoaxes, rather than on tested evidence that is validated by other evidence.
Perhaps just willfully or unknowingly misinterpreted. Amazingly, the scientific attitude is not complacent acceptance of only concepts one wants to believe, but an active skeptical deconstruction of concepts by testing them against the evidence: science tries to prove concepts wrong, and only when that cannot be done is a concept tentatively accepted as possible.
Given the fact that most culture's around the world have dragon legends or dinosaur depictions. And yet none of the dragons or other depictions really look like an actual dinosaur. Please look again - closely - at the depictions you have posted and see if they accurately portray known dinosaurs. Here's a hint of what to look for:
This one can be found in Angkor-wat is in northwest Cambodia.The construction of the temple took place in the first half of the 12th century
(image modified to thumbnail) vs
Not even close - the head is completely wrong, and the "horns" are shown on the wrong end - details that would be well known by any human with actual knowledge of a living stegosaurus. It would be impossible to misinterpret these details from a living specimen, but easy to misinterpret and mix up the details from a bed of fossils, where the small size of the actual stegosaurus skull could be overlooked in favor of one from another dinosaur that was nearby. There are details like this in all the other depictions.
It is not very common to find dinosaur bones just lying about on the ground. You usually have to dig for them. Except in some places, like the Gobi dessert, where they are, in fact, just lying around. It is also common that unusual things are collected in temples, whether in Greece or Ankor-wat or the Vatican.
I would consider it too unlikely that each independent culture interpreted them from fossils. Interestingly, whatever you consider "unlikely" has absolutely no effect on reality, opinion that is not supported by fact is only reflective of the mind with the opinion.
See 73 and 74. I can produce more examples if these aren't satisfactory. I've seen all of these and more -- they are not physical evidence of dinosaurs living with humans, they are evidence that ancient people knew SOME aspects about SOME even more ancient animals, but that is the most that they are evidence of, and even this is of questionable validity.
Yeah, assuming the dates they give are accurate. I tend to agree with The Dating Game and I simply don't put much emphasis on most dating methods. The age of the Earth, the age of the Mass-Extinction and so many other things, which were taught as fact and as indiputable, have changed so many times from when I was a kid, I just don't consider them fact anymore. Fascinatingly, your opinion is still invalid as a measure of reality. What we have are much more than just opinions, but massive correlations between various dating methods of a degree that it is hard to conceive them resulting from chance combinations of errors all producing the same results.
Well, then you have to note all of these correlating methods as well. http://www.answersingenesis.org/.../topic/young-age-evidence You have linked to a page that is a list of different articles, some by known frauds, btw, rather than to an article about evidence for a young earth, and certainly nothing that provides any correlation from one piece of "evidence" to another.
We are talking about correlation2, just to be sure you are on the same page: different processes resulting in the same value. Please pick your best piece of evidence from your source/s, one you personally think you can defend, and present it. This would, after all, be in line with the topic of this thread eh? Not frauds, not hoaxes, and not fantasy depictions, but physical evidence of a young earth. Note that I have already done this for the evidence that the earth is indeed very old and I referred you to just this kind of evidence in Message 55, so I am not asking you to do anything I have not already done.
If you want to investigate the evidence of an old earth, see Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1, and note that it is not just the evidence of an old earth, but the correlations between the different methods and systems, correlations that would not occur if the measurement systems were in error. Note, btw, that I expect you to fail, so let's see if you can prove my hypothesis wrong. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : smaller image 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1395 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi again, wirkkalaj, I thought you'd pick that one, as superficially it appears to match a modern reconstruction:
This one is obvious, of course you'll probably just call it a hoax.
http://s8int.com/dinolit1.htmlhttp://s8int.com/meso-cylinder.html quote: The head and the tail are wrong. The tail does not taper and look at the blow up of the head again: Note (a) that the head is out of scale to the body in the seal compared to the dinosaur, and (b) what is apparently shown is a bare bone skull -- no flesh, no eyes, etc. -- complete with holes in the bones through the head, and (c) that the shape is still wrong. What this would have proven - at best - is that the ancient people found fossil bones and assembled them but did not have a clue to what a living head looked like, but that is only part of the story ... from 404 Well, I looked at all the search results for "seal" (129) "dinosaur" (none) and "mesopotamia" (146) and found it:
photoquote: Curiously, the heads are more distinct here, showing eyes and ears and lion like snouts.
... of course you'll probably just call it a hoax. No, what I've done is proven that it is a hoax, because your website does not show the actual seal, but a picture that has been modified: a hoax by anyone's definition. Try again? Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : Louvre Musee results added -- the proof of the hoax. Edited by RAZD, : clarity Edited by RAZD, : No reason given. Edited by RAZD, : splng of name (sorry tpyo) 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1395 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Bluejay
Actually, I disagree with you on this.
And a Tlingit eagle:
Here's an ancient Mesoamerican sculpture that's supposed to be a jaguar: And a Tlingit eagle: I agree that stylized depictions of animals can be intentional transformation of the spirit of the animal (especially the Tlinglet painting of the spirits inside the outlines). However, the argument is that these depictions are anatomically correct, thus demonstrating knowledge of the living animal. They aren't. What we see from the example I gave shows a stegosaurus-like body minus spiky tail and with a head from some other dinosaur (or a fantasy version of one). Your jaguar and coyote's eagle don't try to portray anatomically correct depictions, but rather ones that capture the spirit of the animals.
In order for ONE of these depictions to be evidence of cohabitation of dinosaurs and humans, there should be details known to those humans that would not be known from the bones. Color patterns, feathers, behavior. Enjoy. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1395 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Coyote, let's try look at the basic claim again:
Depiction (A) shows a dinosaurthis depiction compares to (B) a known dinosaur Therefore humans and dinosaur (B) co-existed ... because it "didn't try to portray anatomically correct depictions" -- here is one that should take care of your objection: But it doesn't show an organism that we know existed. You need to have an (A) and a (B) to make the inference. For instance there is no question that this represents an actual animal alive at the same time as humans:
quote: There is a link between the fossil bones and the depictions of the animals in the caves, even though they are not strictly "anatomically correct" they do show the animals in sufficient detail for identification, and the details show things that would not be known from the bones - the colors and the hair patterns, the short stubby manes: Dun gene - Wikipedia
quote: The Lascaux, and other, cave drawings are legitimate examples of animals cohabiting with humans because:
To use a different standard for the creationist claims than for Lascaux cave paintings would be to use a double standard. Of course most of the creationist claims don't have the (B) evidence to correlate with the (A) evidence -- as shown for the stegosaurus -- relying instead on the gullibility of people to make the connection. Enjoy. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1395 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Bluejay, I think you are reading more into his argument than exists.
I disagree with this. Wirkkalaj's argument is that dinosaurs influenced ancient cultures and art, not that the ancients were particularly good at anatomical illustration. I went back over all his posts on this thread and did not see that argument.
Message 75Message 80 Message 93 Message 95 Message 99 Message 101 Message 102 Message 110 What I did see was:
Message 72quote: Message 87quote: Your entire line of argument is easily defeated by Wirkkalaj suggesting that the artisan was carving based on an anecdote, or from memory long after the sighting. A position that also destroys the argument that they are drawn\carved etc from first hand knowledge, as he is quoted as arguing. No, for the only way the argument can be valid is if the argument follows this form: Depiction (A) shows a dinosaurthis depiction compares to (B) a known dinosaur Therefore humans and dinosaur (B) co-existed And there can be no anatomical errors (spikes on the head instead of the tail, head too large, etc) Enjoy. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1395 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Bluejay, yeah, old posts
Does this mean the artist never saw a human? No, what it means is that the statue is not proof that the artist did see humans.
Why can there be no anatomical errors? I hear first-hand bug stories all the time about cockroaches six inches long and spiders with twenty or more legs (neither of which has ever been documented)... I’m very familiar with the inability of people to properly diagnose the weird stuff right in front of their eyes. Because only with anatomically correct representations can you conclude that they co-existed. Any other depiction that can be derived from seeing fossil bones can only prove that they saw fossil bones. Enjoy 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) • • •
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024