"Embedded Age" Requires Fake Fossils

[Subduction Zone]

Stephen Hawking
The Beginning of Time

“The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down.”

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

That is a shortcut for the laws of physics aw we know them. Remember how Newton's Law of Gravity broke down when it came to the precession of Mercury's orbit? Sometimes it is just easier to say "the laws of physics break down". That does not mean that the singularity did not exist, physicists have massive evidence for that occurring, they just can't predict what would happen in a singularity.

 

[bhsmte]

Which evidence?

How long do you believe man has been on earth?

 

[bhsmte]

My view is that what bones can tell us must be compared with human artifacts and recorded history. How far back the evidence of human activity go?

Bones can't tell you it was a human?

 

[RickG]

Thank you. I am impressed. Do you believe that your training and experience far surpasses that of Dr. Ariel Roth?

Regarding the paper you linked using flat unconformaties as support for a young earth, yes, because the reasoning put forth on where the eroded sediment is now and using his own average rates of erosion without accounting for the type or variation of either over long periods of time is not scholarly. He didn't even correlate his rates to durations of specific ages of flat gaps described. Why does he not present that paper to the scientific community. If he can show he is right he would become the most famous and respected geologist of all time. I have no reason to doubt his intentions are honest, but scientific research does not begin with an end point (the earth is young) and fills in the gaps that seem to support that end point, ignoring everything that doesn't support it. Scientific research begins with an hypothesis and tests that hypothesis, and then progresses to where the hypothesis leads them, which may be completely different from their expectations. I am currently experiencing that myself with a paleoclimate research project I have been engaged in for about a year now. My original ideas have expanded considerably.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

The oldest human artifacts we know of are cave paintings, that date back about 37,000 years, possibly to 40,000.

The various dating techniques available to archaeologists

“Today's archaeologist has a wide variety of natural, electro-magnetic, chemical, and radio-metric dating methodologies available to her that can be used to accurately date objects that are just a few hundred years old as well as objects that are a few million years old with high accuracy in the right circumstances. Furthermore, when you consider that many archaeological sites will contain numerous types of artifacts that permit the use of multiple dating methodologies, a modern archaeologist can often employ cross-dating methodologies which can allow for extremely accurate dating as far back as 10,000 years in some regions. … “ [emphases supplied]”

http://www.sourcinginnovation.com/archaeology/Arch08.htm

My question is: How can I rely on studies yielding older dates?

 

[Nic Samojluk]

Bones can't tell you it was a human?

No. I meant that the dates obtained from bones must be compared with the dates obtained from the examination of human artifacts.

 

[Loudmouth]

My question is: How can I rely on studies yielding older dates?

Just like the rest of science, the samples are still sitting out there in the wild where anyone can check them. That is the ultimate check on honesty.

I would assume that you have neither the time, money, or experience to check the dates for these rocks. However, creationist organizations do. What I find instructive is that they never go to the same rocks and check to see if the reported ages are accurate. Instead, they find rocks that they know are inappropriate for a specific methodology, and acting surprised when the method doesn't work.

My question is: Why do you trust creationists who use such dishonest practices?

 

[Loudmouth]

No. I meant that the dates obtained from bones must be compared with the dates obtained from the examination of human artifacts.

Why? Why would we need to check the ratios of isotopes in rocks against human artifacts?

 

[Loudmouth]

The evidence remains, but the interpretation of said evidence does not.

How are the interpretations wrong? We already know that scientists interpret data. That's the whole point of doing science. What you need to show is that the interpretations are wrong.

 

[RickG]

The various dating techniques available to archaeologists

“Today's archaeologist has a wide variety of natural, electro-magnetic, chemical, and radio-metric dating methodologies available to her that can be used to accurately date objects that are just a few hundred years old as well as objects that are a few million years old with high accuracy in the right circumstances. Furthermore, when you consider that many archaeological sites will contain numerous types of artifacts that permit the use of multiple dating methodologies, a modern archaeologist can often employ cross-dating methodologies which can allow for extremely accurate dating as far back as 10,000 years in some regions. … “ [emphases supplied]”

http://www.sourcinginnovation.com/archaeology/Arch08.htm

My question is: How can I rely on studies yielding older dates?

That's a difficult question to answer in a broad sense. I gather you have no problem with what was described in your link. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to ask a question pertaining to a specific method of dating, as I could probably list close to a hundred different methods use in dating and other applications. In fact, I currently have a thread I posted describing a recent new application with 81Kr and 85Kr, called the Atom Trap Trace Analysis (AATA).

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

We do not share a common ancestor with apes. What we share with apes is a common designer.

A common designer would not copy a broken vitamin c gene into both species, with the same break, even. Only common ancestry explains that. A common designer would not insert identical junk DNA in the form of retroviral inserts in the same places in both species. Only common ancestry explains that.

 

[Zosimus]

A common designer would not copy a broken vitamin c gene into both species, with the same break, even. Only common ancestry explains that. A common designer would not insert identical junk DNA in the form of retroviral inserts in the same places in both species. Only common ancestry explains that.

Your post presupposes that the form in which we find the thing is the same form in which it was designed.

That's like someone going to a junk yard, finding a Porsche and saying, "This couldn't have been designed. What designer would create a car with the front smashed in?"

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Your post presupposes that the form in which we find the thing is the same form in which it was designed.

That's like someone going to a junk yard, finding a Porsche and saying, "This couldn't have been designed. What designer would create a car with the front smashed in?"

We can tell the break in the vitamin c gene is the same break as the break in the other primates because breaks, unlike designs, are inherently random, and the break is the same in the various primate species.

And there are other indicators as well, including sufficient retroviral inserts in the same places on the chromosomes as to remove all doubt that the explanation is of common ancestry.

 

[Zosimus]

We can tell the break in the vitamin c gene is the same break as the break in the other primates because breaks, unlike designs, are inherently random, and the break is the same in the various primate species.

If this were true, you would have provided a link to a study demonstrating same.

 

[bhsmte]

Your post presupposes that the form in which we find the thing is the same form in which it was designed.

That's like someone going to a junk yard, finding a Porsche and saying, "This couldn't have been designed. What designer would create a car with the front smashed in?"

Can you show it was designed and by whom?

 

[Zosimus]

Can you show it was designed and by whom?

I do not need to show that it was designed. I only need to show that it is irrational to decide a priori that it couldn't have been designed.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

If this were true, you would have provided a link to a study demonstrating same.

Here you go:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3145266/

From that link we see

The GLO gene of anthropoid primates has lost seven of the twelve exons found in functional vertebrateGLO genes, whereas the guinea pig has lost its first and fifth exon as well as part of its sixth exon (references [29,30], Fig. 44). Using comparison between functional and non-functional sequences, the inactivation dates have been calculated to be about 61 MYA in anthropoid primates and 14 MYA in guinea pigs [28]. Given current knowledge of vertebrate species divergence times, these estimates are consistent with those obtained based on the phylogenetic distribution of functional and non-functional GLO genes [29-34].

There. Now that I've posted a link, you know it is true. But this information is widely known.

 

[Loudmouth]

Your post presupposes that the form in which we find the thing is the same form in which it was designed.

That's like someone going to a junk yard, finding a Porsche and saying, "This couldn't have been designed. What designer would create a car with the front smashed in?"

How could mutations in the orangutan genome make their way into the human genome in a design scenario? How does that work?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The various dating techniques available to archaeologists

“Today's archaeologist has a wide variety of natural, electro-magnetic, chemical, and radio-metric dating methodologies available to her that can be used to accurately date objects that are just a few hundred years old as well as objects that are a few million years old with high accuracy in the right circumstances. Furthermore, when you consider that many archaeological sites will contain numerous types of artifacts that permit the use of multiple dating methodologies, a modern archaeologist can often employ cross-dating methodologies which can allow for extremely accurate dating as far back as 10,000 years in some regions. … “ [emphases supplied]”

http://www.sourcinginnovation.com/archaeology/Arch08.htm

My question is: How can I rely on studies yielding older dates?

That is not a bad question, but you should read more of that article so that you can understand it in context. When they are saying "extremely accurate dating" they are referring to the ability to not only date something to the exact year at times, but even the time of year. Radiometric dating will always have an error range, as do all scientific dating methods, in a date older than 10,000 years. Take Carbon14 dating for example. There are several factors that make it less accurate as we go further and further back in time. There is the fact that the rate of formation of C14 can vary and as we go further back it gets harder and harder to correct for the original percentage of C14. There is the fact that as we go back the amount of C14 being found is smaller and smaller. That means we need more and more accurate means of measuring the amounts of C14 present. Scientists are always trying to improve methods of dating objects, as RickG's article shows. New technology very often means a reexamination of how we date objects will lead us to a new and improved dating method. It does not mean that the old methodology was "wrong", it merely means that we have improved our means of measuring.

There are antique cars that probably would scare you to drive. That does not mean that those antique cars were "wrong" and that they could not get you from here to there. It only means that now we can do it better, and more safely. Science is the same in many ways. Older C14 dates were much less accurate than modern ones. Present day dating methods will be improved upon in the future. And the main thing to realize is that some methods are more accurate than others. It does not mean that less accurate ones are "wrong". It only means that there is a larger error bar. That is all that your parts that you put in bold refer to. There are some dates that we can be very accurate about. There are some older dates where the error bar may be thousands of years. In very old samples the error may be in the tens of millions of years or more. We still know that the date is somewhere in that range and is reliably in that range.

 

[Zosimus]

There. Now that I've posted a link, you know it is true. But this information is widely known.

I know nothing of the sort. One study does not convince me of anything.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3145266/

I do note, however, some interesting points in the article:

Compared to other genes, the GLO gene is therefore “predisposed” to being lost because it makes a single compound unnecessary for other pathways.

Explaining the frequent loss of GLO genes by saying that it only affects the production of a single compound also implies that losing the capacity to make this compound is not selected against, i.e., that such a loss does not cause any selective disadvantage. Since all species which have lost the capacity to synthesize vitamin C have a vitamin C-rich diet, this is the most common explanation brought forward to explain its frequent occurrence...

I did also note some errors in the report, such as the RDA of vitamin C.

I refer you to http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/69/6/1086.full
and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14594788?dopt=Abstract

Nevertheless the link you provided said, "...although it has been suggested that a regular diet does not contain enough vitamin C, experiments with guinea pigs did not detect any beneficial effects by increasing the amount of vitamin C in the diet of these animals"

One wonders why we are looking at guinea pigs when studies are available in humans.

I also found https://answersingenesis.org/geneti...olutionary-discontinuity-and-genetic-entropy/

And tried to follow some of the links, such as Tomkins 2013b, which apparently refers to Jeffrey Tomkins. Information about him can be found at http://www.icr.org/jeffrey_tomkins/ so I assume you will reject anything he has to say about the matter after reading, "After receiving his Ph.D., he worked at a genomics institute and became a faculty member in the Department of Genetics and Biochemistry at Clemson. He had become a Christian as an undergraduate at Washington State University in 1982, with a goal to eventually work as a scientist and author in the creation science field. In 2009, Dr. Tomkins joined the Institute for Creation Research as Research Associate," so I won't waste my time looking for his paper.