Ziltoid said:
No they haven't. They've attempted to prove a theory where man evolved, this doesn't mean that God wasn't involved.
Yes. That's their lip-service, but certainly not their feelings on the matter. Also, I said
created us. Not "got the ball rolling by jerking off in the primordial ooze and then let it morph into humanity."
What abuse of carbon dating, exactly? Different methods of carbon dating have in almost all cases pointed to the same outcome. Carbon dating has also independently been proven to be accurate within a certain percentage, with a certain variance. This is all taken into account with any form of carbon dating.
You're trying to sell me something but not doing a very good job of it.
Here's a tip: Next time, don't use vague references like "accurate within a certain percentage, with certain variance." The subjectivity of that statement is a dead giveaway of pure unadulterated bullshit.
As for the abuse, It hasn't been any kind of secret that Carbon had problems and yet evolutionists invested in it anyway.
Because the carbon in the fossils has long since deteriorated, the radiocarbon of the earth is used to narrow down the dates of the fossils within the respective fossil layers. There are a number of things wrong with this: 1) Because the sedimentary layers constantly move and shift, there’s no telling that the radiocarbon from the spot their dating would give the date that’s consistent with the layer they’re dating—The moving and shifting furthermore evidences the fact that the fossils don’t stay in one place either. 2) The sediment layers are, again, assumed] to be as old as they’re said to be. With the sediment layers constantly moving and the amount of carbon being switched back and forth all around, the samples become verily corrupted. This leads to one of two conclusions on the part of the evolutionist scientist: a) If the sample isn’t old enough to be apart of the sediment layer, the test is disregarded and he moves onto Radiometric and b) If the sample is at least in the estimated date vicinity of what the evolutionist scientist expected it to be in, he dubs the test accurate and prolly doesn’t bother with Radiometric on the fossil (wouldn’t help much anyway though). And 3) C-14 is plagued with problems of inaccuracy. It can be trusted—However, the conditions have to be perfect for the dating to be accurate. The biggest problem encountered by the use of C-14 in paleontology and geology is temperature concerns. Carbon can be sustained by cold weather and degraded by heat. Climate changes have a way of corrupting the tests. For instance, scientists find it rather convenient that the Woolly Mammoth found frozen in the arctic (along with other tropical animals) were dated back to 8000 years and all of the Mammoth carcasses found farther and farther away from the cold area of the arctic keep getting older. This is especially suspicious sense even evolutionists surmise that they migrated out of the arctic—Meaning the bodies found in the center should be the oldest. This is all piled onto by C-14’s many other problems:
http://www.specialtyinterests.net/carbon14.html
To address the "evolutionary faith" applied here: The evolutionist scientists dig up a bone that's buried in a layer, which they assume is from the Mezosaic era. When they test it using C14, they find that the results turn up an age of a mere 10 thousand years. Because this result doesn't integrate with their pre-disposed ideas of what timeframe it originated from, they feel obligated to
correct its age. If they have to do such a thing, what's the point of a keeping a dating method when their personal perception is so keen (that's a rhetorical question BTW)?
Please to note: I am not totally skeptical or unaccepting of C14 testing. However, its past fallacious employment makes me very cautious of anyone who would introduce it as evidence.
Please do some actual
reading.
Bravo. You linked me to a site that outlines the theories imposed by the GC.....What was your point exactly? If you're trying to stick up for whatever legitimacy you think it may carry, you're gonna have to do better.
The idea behind the GC is basically taking a slice out of the earth’s surface and viewing the vertical layers compounded by the large land mass and separating the strata into different time periods. The Geological Column, while concluded as being proof of evolution, is most certainly not in the least as such. The arrangement is purely hypothetical and since it cannot be viewed anywhere on the face of the earth, it means nothing. The most evolutionists have been able to use this column is when they guess how far down on what assumed layer an unconfirmed time-slot is labeled. The succession of fossils indicated by the Geologic Column occurs nowhere in the world. There’s no real strict evolutionary progression within the column, they are actually sorted mainly by habitat and mobility. That trilobites (a small type of extinct arthropod) lived before dinosaurs, and dinosaurs lived before mammals is an assumption based on the hypothesis of evolution; the fossil record merely indicates that trilobites, dinosaurs, and mammals were usually buried in different places (perhaps because they lived in different habitats). This leads back to “circular reasoning”, an argument based on the very assumption it attempts to prove; evolution being backed up by the Geologic Column is a perfect example. A more critical example of this is Radiometric Dating, a type of system used by evolutionists to lend credence to the fossils’ ancient dates. Radiometric Dating is based on the fact that atoms of certain elements break down into other elements (known as “daughter” elements) at relatively constant rates. The decay of these naturally occurring radioactive elements can (in principle) be used to calculate the age of a rock or fossil. In practice, however, Radiometric Dating of fossils (like the Geologic Column itself), is based on circular reasoning. This is true because the decay of an element cannot be used to calculate the age of a rock or fossil unless both the original and final amounts of radioactive element in the sample are known. Although the present composition of the sample is easily measured, there is no way to measure how much the “parent” and “daughter” elements were originally in the sample. Nor is there any way to measure how much of the “parent” or “daughter” element entered or escaped the sample during the decay process. Thus the scientist must estimate the amount based on several guesses. Because the estimates made by most scientists are usually based on evolutionary assumptions, circular reasoning enters the argument once again: The assumption of evolution is used to estimate the original ratio of “parent” and “daughter” elements, which is used to calculate a date, which “proves” the assumption of evolution. In other words, radiometric dates are largely determined by the assumptions of the person doing the dating. In fact, if evolutionary assumptions are replaced with creationist assumptions, the dates given by several dating methods often become more or less consistent with the Genesis chronology. Because of the subjective nature of Radiometric Dating, if a date is obtained that does not fit the Geologic Column, it is a simple matter to adjust one’s guesses to the evolutionary time scale. The hypothesis of evolution determines which dates are “acceptable”; dates outside this range are deemed erroneous and discarded.
A clever forgery, but theories 'proven' by this fossil were actually later rejected and/or altered because there was no more proof.
Yeah, about half a century later. Piltdown Man had a chance to corrupt modern science for close to 60s years--And some schools still teach of its existence (the more strategic ones use your same argument of 'adapting discovery' to justify its place in school curriculum. Altered? Slightly. Rejected? No.
Do you realize how many pro-evolutionary arguments were assigned merit simply because of Piltdown Man? Can you really tell me that it's right to build the foundation of a theoretical phenomenon on a hoax? Or are you going to try and sing me the 'blessing in disguise' tune?
It wasn't just Piltdown Man you know. There's about a dozen others riddling the past few centuries--And this isn't even including the hundreds of groundless conclusions that were made in regards to australopithecines. It can be accurately stated that the theory of Australopithecines is still in circulation by evolutionists today because of their dependence on Homo habilis’ legitimacy. It was said that Australopithecines are direct ascendants of Handy Man and, as the name suggests, divulges some of the first human characteristics. The problem with this summation is the completely mirroring factors between Australopithecines and Homo habilis. They are alike in almost every way from the exact shape and size of the cranium to the exact typical height. There's absolutely nothing that would suggest increased efficiency in the form of Homo Habilis from Australopithecine. It is only slight differentials in the bone structure that cause spoken diversity on the matter of comparablitiy between Australopithecines and Homo habilis. Further trouble trying to prove the transitional weight of Handy Man arose in 1972 in Kenya when, a relatively short distance away from the site of Homo habilis, skull and leg bones were found. The skull was so severely shattered, that any assumed shape made into by the fragments would be concluded as highly subjective, but based on the volume of the combined fragments, it is concluded that the size of it would outgrow an Australopithecine’s. The leg bones, however, are unmistakably human. This creates doubt for the evolutionists who still proclaim Handy Man as human-like since the transition site is tainted, if not debunked, by human skeletal fragments being mixed in with ape ones.
The fact that this could happen is easily explained by it being 1912 and people generally not having the ability to check whether or not the bones actually belonged together.
The Bones were studied and looked at by hundreds of scientists for for decades. Even if you feel it appropriate to call the consortium of scientists from the oughts to be incompetent and gullible, that still won't explain why it took all the newer scientists so long to figure out that the teeth were being held in by speriment gum. Yes. You heard correctly: Gum. The scientists were so emboldened by their
faith in Piltdown Man, that they didn't bother inspecting it very closely.
Whoever made PM should be congratulated. He did the theory of evolution an invaluable service--Which was his goal; the theory was struggling at the turn of the century, so he pulled something out of his ass that would turn everything around through massive public exhibition and would give the idea more popularity and social credibility.
Which is actually a perfect example of science working well, instead of an abuse of evidence.
"Abuse of evidence?" What does that even mean? Are you trying to say that Piltdown Man was a form of evidence and they abused it?
Er...you mean 'OMG there was once a flood!' is an actual scientific statement pertaining to geological strata, rather than there once being a flood and that information being passed down from generation to generation? 'Cause, you know, there are global flood stories in almost every ancient culture.
Even if this knee-jerk was accurate in accordance with Biblical history, as opposed to Mayan and Aztec history, I fail to see how "information being passed down" is a different animal from alligning word of mouth with geological evidence. The Genesis scripture from the Bible is older than any of the talked about cultures you'd C/P from TalkOrigins. Said cultures never actually had any frame of reference in regards to exactly how big the world was as oppose to how big they imagined it being. Noah's family, on the other hand, moved outside of the Fertile Crescent.
There’s no denying it happened. Through both a consistent pause in civilization for just about every continent on the world as well as that pause’s conjunction with the location of the Deluge sediment layer, it’s shown to have occurred.
There’s even an extraordinarily likely scenario of how the water got their in the first place based on conclusive geological findings. The great authorities of geology published their evidence, at the beginning of the century, which shows that a multiple-mile thick block of ice, from the Ice Age, sank beneath the ocean 9000 years ago. Numerous fossil discovery backs coordinates to this claim: a) Drowning of whole herds of Woolly Mammoth along the shores of the Arctic Ocean, b) Tropical vegetation and bones of animals from the warm regions found with the mammoths, c) The sandy deserts such as the Sahara and Kalahari deserts of Africa. d) The salt deposits on the high plateau of Iran, 5000 ft above the plain of Mesopotamia; and the inland salt lakes, such as the Caspian Sea, Dead Sea, Lake Baikal, etc., which have no outlet to the sea. e) Additionally, regarding the Plateau of Iran, there was found great salt boulders indiginous to the Plateau of Iran; elementary logic suggests they were carried there when the scouring effect of a flood hit the Plateau, f) Deep deposits of mud left in places like caves and the sides of hills where it’s prevented from being carried into the ocean. And this isn't even mentioning the excavations.
Take one part giant melting ice cube, add one part massive environmental condensation, and boom! You got yourself 3 rainy fort-nights. After this, the added pressure would seep the water back into the depths.
I’ll cover the exploits at Jericho first:
Trying to find a secular site that goes over the archeological digs in Jericho is like finding a needle in a hay stack. I find the fact that there aren’t at least a dozen secular counter-sites for the other numerous ones centered around religion, who go over Jericho, kinda funny though. If any of the facts that the Christian sites out are flawed, I’d figure secularist essay-whores would be all over exposing their fallacy. In any case, the only one I could find that was made by a non-Christian was
this site. Obviously they don’t arrive to the same conclusion as to
what exactly knocked down the walls of Jericho, but they do agree on
when the wall fell: 1400 BC, the time Josue’s conquest was noted in the Bible.
Excerpt:
But then came Dr Kathleen Kenyon, who claimed that Garstang had wrongly identified these walls. She excavated from 1952 to 1956 and wrote, "We have nowhere been able to prove the survival of walls of the Late Bronze Age, that is to say, of the period of Joshua. This is at variance with Professor's Garstang's conclusions. He ascribed two of the lines of walls which encircle the summit to the Late Bronze Age, but everywhere that we examined them it was clear that they must belong to the Early Bronze Age and have been buried beneath a massive scarp belonging to the Middle Bronze Age." Digging Up jericho, p.46
The latest excavations at Jericho support this conclusion. "A 19m long north-south strip of Early Bronze Age city wall H was exposed in the excavations of the tel strata. The city wall . . . was built of brown bricks laid on two stone courses. The bottom part of the east face of the city wall was built of narrower bricks. The destruction of the upper part of the wall can be distinguished in the south section of the excavation area." ESI 15 p. 69
With these latest identifications we are in agreement. It was undoubtedly the Early Bronze walls that collapsed, but with their dating we would disagree. The Early Bronze period is usually considered to have ended about 2000 BC, but we would agree with Dr Courville that the Early Bronze period ended about 1400 BC, which was when the Israelites conquered Jericho. That would be when the wall "fell down flat".
Shit, I’ve drifted off tangent. Sorry. The point of bringing up Jericho wasn’t about the wall, but the fact that it’s a proven pre-flood establishment rebuilt by the new adversary inhabitants of Jericho in post-flood 1400 BC. The excavations at Telles, in Jericho, revealed a walled city, which was dated by Carbon-14, with samples from both post-flood and pre-flood strata, to have been struck by the Deluge at the time of 7000 BC. This much was discovered by Garstang, Kenyon, and Wood. Garstang, heading the first excavation was the first one to discover that the bottom constructed layers of Telles were made from much more sophisticated material than the higher layers, which were C-14 dated to be thousands of years apart from each other. What’s more, the lower, and more ancient, half was previously destroyed by water. This same multiple millennia pause in historical continuity was found in other sites in Europe and Africa.
Moving on to the Plateau of Iran:
The water that reached the Plateau of Iran had to have risen above, as well as maintained, a height of 5000 ft. The fact that there are no mountain ranges or high hills between the Arctic Ocean or the plains of Europe and Iran proves that bodies of water connected to the Arctic Ocean covered the Plateau of Iran and Europe. Also, past analysis by credible sources coming from both paleontology and geology have shown evidence that the Plateau of Iran was not only enveloped by the Arctic, but also
surrounded by it around 9000 years ago. The areas such as the Caspian Sea, Dead Sea, and Lake Baikal were covered by huge bodies of water that, with time, evaporated due to little or lack of water supply. In the case of excavations, there’s also evidence that gives credence to a world-wide flood. They showed that the plateau did not escape the disaster that caused a break in civilization, which happened in Mesopotamia, Europe, and Africa; they also shed light on the manner of man before the Deluge that was evidenced through near-flawless pottery and hammered copper objects. These objects and pottery have been identified not only on the Plateau, but also in the previously submerged towns on the plains of Europe—The same designs and style. What’s more, a certain shell consistently found in the excavations, which were apparently worn by the Iranian women for decoration, belong to a species of animal found 600 miles away from the Plateau. Paramount proof of this being a post-flood interaction is the discovery of these things within pre-flood strata on the plains of Europe.
There was a final very notable case at Tepe Gawra where a pre-flood constructed building had been inhabited and abandoned repeatedly over a period of thousands of years. Each new inhabitant built a new level on the erection. As the building got higher, the technology got more primitive—However, at the lower levels of the building, the technology was shown to be the most advanced by
centuries. This segment on the column was covered with a salt deposit.
Lemme try to sum things up with everything that both creationists and secularists alike agree upon.
1) The great flood occurred at the end of the Ice Age at about 7000 BC and that it covered a great part of the Northern Hemisphere including Europe, Africa, a great part of Asia and of North America.
2) All of the members of the human race that existed at the time of the flood were located in the area that was covered by the flood (and all of the domestic animals as well) unless those that might have taken refuge in a large ship with provisions for several months. Up to the time of the flood, the great bulk of the human race was confined within the relatively small area called the “Fertile Crescent”, which includes Egypt, Mesopotamia, Palestine, Iran, and the territory around the Caspian Sea. Furthermore, the inhabitants of this area built numerous towns and cities in which they carried on various simple industries, tilled the grounds and kept domestic animals whilst the remainder of the human race, which was in Europe, Africa, and the part of Asia west of the Himalaya Mountains did none of these things and simply sheltered in caves and lived off the flesh of wild animals.
3) No certain trace of any human inhabitant has been found anywhere in India or China or in any country east of the Himalaya Mountains before 7000 BC, which is the approximate date of the Deluge.
4) Excavations show that Mesopotamia was the first country to be occupied after the flood, that it was in Mesopotamia that the firs system of writing was invented, which was brought to Egypt, to China, and to America where it is still used by the Indians.
Also, to suggest that the Bible can be more empirically proven than evolutionary theory is ridiculous at best. In a document as big as the Bible which is also at least partly based on real, historical events there are going to be events that actually occurred. That does not mean that you can call it proveable or even likely that anything other than those very specific elements are true.
Please review. Archeological findings as well as past historians that have contributed to Biblical credibility would disagree with your sweeping statements.
Admittedly, the Genesis recount cannot prove the Garden of Eden scenario. However, Noah and his co-existence with the Dinosaurs can be evidenced. The Bible is a legitimate historical document. Simply because you don't agree with what it may say does not mean its credibility hasn't outlived such claims--And for good reason: The texts have actually fallowed the past 10,000 years (I would say 17,000, but as I said: Genesis can only be attributed to so much history in particular.
I'm sorry, what? I can find a total of three pages relating something called Tanniyan and Noah. I'm suspecting you're making things up.
In any case, if the Tanniyan is something of a dino or somesuch: the same argument given above still goes. It is only likely that certain parts of the bible are based in fact, but this says absolutely nothing about the validity of any of its other claims.
So...wait. First you say that you don't what I'm talking about. Secondly, you go on to say that I'm making shit up. Then you go on to conjunct Noah with dinosaurs (which was the point of my bringing them up). I get the feeling that someone here is indeed making things up, but it's certainly not me.
Whether you want to believe it or not, the Bible is accepted both secularly and religiously as a historically credible document. Because this is the case, the description of Tanniyan within the Bible, which was set during the time of Noah, is a legitimate historical contradiction to the evolution timeline.
Can Noah's existence be proven? No. But the flood and dino descriptions offered by Genesis are much too accurate to be considered an interesting coincidence. That ancient document knew thousands of years ahead of modern civilization about the Deluge and Dinosaurs. That makes it evidence.
Gravity is an example of a falsifiable theory; an assumption that's backed up by empirical evidence. It has much more stable grounds as a falsifiable theory than evolution due to its tangibility--Something the theory of evolution lacks.
Bullshit. Here's how you falsify evolution: find fossils from an era that are not supposed to be in that era. Eg. a dog in the Pre-Cambrian era.
First of all: You need to educate yourself on the definition of what a "falsifiable theory" means. You're mis-using the term.
Second of all: The animal-phyla for all modern animals was found in Pre-Cambria. That includes dogs.
Also please do note that evolution has been empirically shown to happen on smaller scales as well.
The most silliest aspect of the theory of evolution is how it automatically absorbs other more credible scientific discoveries into it simply due to its popularity. Natural Selection being the primary example: The theory documents the observable phenomenon that allows our bodies to adapt to the environment. Because it has sturdy base-lines of micro-mutation, it qualifies as a falsifiable theory. Because evolution has to do with the change, it is immediately associated with NS. Nevermind that NS has absolutely nothing to do with Morphological Physiology (or
Macros). And in the end, even though the two do not draw to the same conlcusion, the theory of evolution ends up drafting NS. The same thing goes for
Inheritence: Because Inheritence allows for traits to be passed down in a bloodline, people automatically assume that this is evidence of evolution (see also: The Hopeful Monster scenario) when, in fact, the two are mutually exclusive.
The currently believed theory is actually on par with the audacity of Punctuated Equilibrium and assumes a lot more than it can prove. The current formation of Neo-Darwinism uses the fact that random and isolated mutations happen within animals. For example: Dual-Cepholapthy (two heads) and Polydactyly (extra fingers) and other things of that nature are considered possible preludes to environmental selection of those mutations, which would carry stronger influence within the genes farther down that certain strain. i.e. If a human is born or develops a mutation like a third leg (no, not that), and then survives with that leg, that human’s family will inherit that third leg and eventually create a newly individual species of man. This theory, in my opinion, is the most ludicrous to date. At least with the idea that your surroundings governed your mutations, you’d have more of an unfalsifiable baseline seeing as how a certain strain of species can go through permanent exterior changes over a long enough period of time, but to say that random defects are responsible for this many successful [extinct species/species] that number somewhere around 350 million is way out there. Logically, we would need much more time than around 2.5 billion years to become what we are and what we have been now. Essentially, what evolutionists are trying to do is play the odds and then declare that such a theory is not only possible, but also plausible. Allow me to show why that isn’t the case:
(Rate of mutation) = r X (Plausibility of random morphology[=0]) = p X (Window of opportunity for variety of mutations) = w X (Suspected amount of time for mutation to be successful within a particular strain of species) = s X (Individual circumstances following the evolution of every species on the planet) = i X (Number of transistions that every species on earth has gone through)= n X (Theory) = t
RxPxWxSxIxNxT=Y
"y" Equals the pending odds of this theory of evolution being "plausible". This theory is, in fact, implausible. And what’s more insane is the supposed “evidence” evolutionists try to say otherwise with. Tracing back to the thesis here, evolutionists believe that the mere presence of genetic mutations and defects in animals is evidence enough of such a theory being true. It is most certainly not true. Not only is it the fact that no amount of observed mutations in animals have led to consistent mutations down the line of the strain that make this bogus, but it’s also the fact that parents who have lived with alleged polydactyl genes have not passed their effects on to their children—Even the cases where the extra limbs weren’t removed, it didn’t create such turnout! So quite simply: Saying that because there are mutations, they can generate a new species, without actually seeing it happen, is slippery slope. And two final ridiculous notions that evolutionists try to use in acts of desperation are size differential and bacterial mutation. The reference used by evolutionists regarding the mutation of bacteria is essentially a claim that because bacteria can mutate, so can the body. Well, first of all, we all know the body can “mutate”. That, however, is not a strict form of evolution and has yet to be confirmed as such by their own current theory. Second of all: Our building blocks are not totally comparable to that of bacteria. We carry the same biological components such as Guanine, Adenine, Thiamine, and Cytosine that link into a type of Deoxyribonucleic Acid—However, the overall biological protocol of every different bacterial strain are too statically different and foreign to use them as mediators. Third of all: Simply because it’s in the nature of bacteria, that does not mean it is within our nature. Simply because we’re alike in that we’re bio-organisms doesn’t change that fact. And finally: Even if it was for some reason decided to make bacteria a confirmable baseline of evolution from which to base structural morphology on, bacteria is a far cry from the human body itself. Merely because the chemical and biological reactions within the body can vary greatly, that does not mean that the shape of your body is going to change. All evolutionists can prove is that bacteria effects your immune system. Moving onto size differential: The idea behind this is that because Natural Selection/Adaptation can cause a creature’s body to grow and shrink (See also: Great Dane, See also: Chihuahua), that would count as a type of evolution. This is not so because the size of the creature remains a type of exterior change. The creature remains the same biologically and structurally. Thus, it doesn’t work for their case.
I'm sorry for being so long-winded. I had a lot of free time today.
golden one. But I spotted a false statement; "Evidence: It is written in the Edda" The "Edda" isn't like a bible, it's just a write-down of the old myths that were originally passed on orally.
