6000 years?

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Well, evolutionists are well known for forgeries and fraud.

That is a lie. Plain and simple. A lie.

It demonstrates that creationism is so important to these fundamentalists that they will merrily lie and deceive to promote it. Given who the father of lies is according to Jesus, this casts some interesting possibilities over the real origins of creationism.

 

[dhiannian]

My first thought was that this was bogus and that the evidence of a human scull at the same level as supposed "caveman" was false. On searching a bit I was horrified to find that the camera cannot lie. There really was a human scull at the same level as cavemen as indicated by this picture.


http://www.cavemanlibrarian.com/images/boat.jpg


That's possibly a single scull that little caveman is sitting in- amazing stuff!

Those evolutionists must be real numbsculls, sorry numbskulls, not to recognise this as evidence that boat and human evolution are simultaneous.

especially when that's not all the evidence there is.
This link contains proof of a young earth. young universe, and a lot more.
http://www.clubs.psu.edu/up/origins/faqsci.htm#Are there transitional fossils


The fossil known as KP 271 (the distal end of a humerus found in 1965 by Bryan Patterson of Harvard University in an excellent state of preservation) has been given by evolutionists a date of 4.5 million years ago, thus it becomes virtually the oldest hominid fossil ever found -- older than Lucy and all of the australopithecines. Much to the evolutionist's surprise, this oldest respectable hominid fossil ever found, representing a part of the anatomy where it is relatively easy to discriminate between humans and the other primates -- both living and fossil, is virtually identical to that of Homo sapiens (modern humans). This suggests that true humans existed before the australopithecines appear in the fossil record. KP 271 could not be distinguished from Homo sapiens morphologically or by multivariate analysis by Patterson, his partner, or by many others who have analyzed it since then. Yet not surprisingly, this fossil has been called Australopithecus africanus. It was called Australopithecus because of its age, in spite of the scientific evidence. Evolutionists "know" it is impossible for true humans to have lived before the australopithecines, even though the fossil evidence would suggest otherwise, because humans are supposed to have evolved from the australopithecines, so they come to the unreasonable conclusion mandated by evolution theory.

Evolutionists ignore the morphology of fossils that do not fall into the proper evolutionary time period, and wave their magic wand to change the taxon of these fossils. Thus, it is impossible to falsify the concept of human evolution (proof that it is not a scientific theory). To the evolutionist, the value of data does not depend upon its intrinsic quality but upon whether or not it supports evolution and its time scale. Good data is that which supports evolution. Bad data is that which does not fit evolution, and it is to be discarded or manipulated.

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

The only real (and honest, for that matter) answer you will get is that a literal interpretation of the Bible demands it--by adding up genaeological numbers and other dates from the Bible working under the assumption that everything happened as literally stated.

The genealogy does not have to be read as father/son relationship in some, if not most, cases in Genesis...so 6,000 years is not necessary.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

My mistake it wasnt dino bones but Java man,
http://www.reynoldsforcongress.net/evolution.htm
* There are no intermediate forms of evolutionary evidence found in fossils!

Wrong. We have nice transitional series of the reptile/mammal transition, the fish/amphibian transition and the land mammal/whale transition, for starters.

Nebraska Man: In the early part of the 20th century, this was hailed as a missing link by some scientists, although other scientists opposed its inclusion as a missing link.* Nebraska Man had a brief history, as it was shortly determined that it was actually the tooth of a pig. Despite many scientists rejecting Nebraska Man, that some accepted it as evidence (one tooth) of a transitional creature, shows how gullible some evolutionists are. In fairness of evolutionists, we are all easily tricked about some things.

It indeed had a short history. Science corrects itself. Perhaps instead of concentrating on a closed case, you might consider all the fossils that have not turned out to be initially misidentified?

Java Man: Dr. Dubois concealed for over 30 years that he had found human skullsnear his Java man at the same level.
*

I'm sure you can provide a reference for this.

Piltdown Man: In the first half of the 20th century many books, dissertations, master theses, and high school papers were written hailing Piltdown Man as the missing link.* Scientist Henry Fairfield Osborn used the publicity surrounding the famous Scopes Monkey Trial to adorn the New York Times with his defense of evolution. The brilliant paleontologist cited Piltodown man as one of the evidences of evolution (New York Times, July 12, 1925, section 8, page 1).* In 1953 it was found to be a fraud.* It was the jaw bone of a modern orangutan, but its teeth had been filed down, and its bones had been artificially colored to deceive the public.
*

We were very relieved it turned out to be a fraud. It didn't fit in with all the other hominid fossils we had - evolutionary theory actually predicted that it shouldn't exist. And lo and behold - it didn't.

Horse Series: This is another example of the imaginative bone-arranging of evolutionists. Since 1926 this has been used by to illustrate a general increase in size reduction and the loss of toes.* Perhaps you recall seeing this in your high school biology book.* Once again, fraud is employed, as the fossils are not found in the proper order in the fossils, and there is no sequence in the fossils from small, many-toed ancestors to large, one-toed man.* The first horse on the list is actually the “Echippus,” a contemporary fox-like animal called the “Daman” that darts in the African brush.
*

Eohippus:

Daman:

So alike!

I'm sure you can go through http://www.imh.org/imh/kyhpl1a.html#xtocid224361 and tell us which dates are fraudulent.

Dinosaurs: Evolutionists argue that the extinction of dinosaurs allowed man to evolve.* However, The Bible mentions dinosaur-like creatures.* Job 41 mentions a Leviathan who breathes fire,

Couldn't have been a dinosaur then, as they didn't breathe fire. Only mythical beasts do that - perhaps that was what Leviathan was?

and Job 40 discusses the Behemoth that could not be caught because its tail was like a cedar.*

And it had a navel as well - just like dinosaurs didn't.

Roman Historian Pliny (2nd A.D.)* in his Natural History prescribed medicine that could be used from Dragons, such as crushed bones of its spine could cure gallstones.

Yes, and I'm sure he or his contemporaries also prescribed unicorn horn, harpy claws and phoenix feathers. It doesn't mean these creatures existed outside their imaginations.

 

[notto]

especially when that's not all the evidence there is.
This link contains proof of a young earth. young universe, and a lot more.
http://www.clubs.psu.edu/up/origins/faqsci.htm#Are%20there%20transitional%20fossils


The fossil known as KP 271 (the distal end of a humerus found in 1965 by Bryan Patterson of Harvard University in an excellent state of preservation) has been given by evolutionists a date of 4.5 million years ago, thus it becomes virtually the oldest hominid fossil ever found -- older than Lucy and all of the australopithecines. Much to the evolutionist's surprise, this oldest respectable hominid fossil ever found, representing a part of the anatomy where it is relatively easy to discriminate between humans and the other primates -- both living and fossil, is virtually identical to that of Homo sapiens (modern humans). This suggests that true humans existed before the australopithecines appear in the fossil record. KP 271 could not be distinguished from Homo sapiens morphologically or by multivariate analysis by Patterson, his partner, or by many others who have analyzed it since then. Yet not surprisingly, this fossil has been called Australopithecus africanus. It was called Australopithecus because of its age, in spite of the scientific evidence. Evolutionists "know" it is impossible for true humans to have lived before the australopithecines, even though the fossil evidence would suggest otherwise, because humans are supposed to have evolved from the australopithecines, so they come to the unreasonable conclusion mandated by evolution theory.

Evolutionists ignore the morphology of fossils that do not fall into the proper evolutionary time period, and wave their magic wand to change the taxon of these fossils. Thus, it is impossible to falsify the concept of human evolution (proof that it is not a scientific theory). To the evolutionist, the value of data does not depend upon its intrinsic quality but upon whether or not it supports evolution and its time scale. Good data is that which supports evolution. Bad data is that which does not fit evolution, and it is to be discarded or manipulated.

Considering that your source uses the moon dust argument, receeding moon, and shrinking sun as evidence of a young earth, any statements it makes about good data or bad data being rejected is not to be taken seriously.

If we go through and show the flaws of each argument your source uses, will you question the source and reject it? If your source is shown to be misleading and basically designed to mislead the reader (you) will you question it? If not, its not worth the effort to discuss.

If your source is shown to be in error, how will that change your thinking? Will you use this source again?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

http://www.reynoldsforcongress.net/evolution.htm - hang on, this deceitful, dishonest lying toad of a man (evidenced by the referenced page) is running for Congress?

Americans, I suggest you emigrate here quickly before the govt tightens up immigration regulations!

 

[Battie]

And that is a very narrow minded thing to say, my only fellow christians are the true hristians,

Are you saying that what I said is narrow minded? Do you really believe that only people who interpret the Bible in precisely the same way as you are true believers?

which by the way could never believe we came from a monkey, or a germ. God created the earth in 6 DAYS
If you believe otherwise you believe contrary to the scriptures which would mean you dont believe God's word which then would mean your father is the god of this world and not God.

I believe God created the earth. I believe that God's word is true. I also believe that the creation story is not to be interpreted literally, even though the meaning of it is absolutely true. Genesis was written for a people in a world very different from our modern one, and it was written so that they would be able to relate to the truth of God's creation. I wrote about why I came to this conclusion here.

I have not made up my mind as to exactly what that means, but I am looking for answers.

So... wow. You seriously think that I'm not saved because of that? Incredible.

You are right in one thing evolution in the athiest sense is a faith.

I have no idea how you could have gotten that out of what I said. I do not believe that.

 

[USincognito]

Of course it does, in effect.

No it doesn't. I asked you specifically where "today's education" tells students they shall be gods and all you did was cite your personal interpretation of other verses of Genesis and tried to extapolate them back to some convoluted, tangental correlation that never once actually referenced actual teachings in biology classes.

Now if it taught that there was a God, and a creator, and that's where we came from, why then it wouldn't claim we are the little gods.

Can you point to a single biology textbook that makes any commentary about God's involvement or the lack thereof in the existance or diversity of life on Earth? Can you point to a single biology textbook that tells students they are little gods? Can you point to even one school district where this is part of the curricula?

But it doesn't. All glory, and credit for our bodies, animals, the stars, heavens, etc. all given to some fluke process with no mention of any God whatsoever.

Yeah... I caught this vibe earlier, but much like so many YECists, your problem is with science and the scientific method, not with evolution per se. I really don't know exactly what to tell you about your problem with the necessity of methodological naturalism in science, since otherwise it cannot work. I can tell you though, that TEs fully give credit to God for everything so there are evolution proponents who render your straw man irrelvent.

'No, we don't need miracles, heaven, angels, healing, a God, we all just sort of came from nothing. We, are the only gods we can prove, because we can touch each other!

I smoke. Please don't drag strawmen in here as they might ignite should I be careless with a lit cig.

Thus far I have seen no evidence for you claim that "today's education" tells students "you shall be as gods" beyond your empty, unsupported tangental comments.

 

[USincognito]

Second. The bible is the most reliable source on earth, it's God's word, GOD'S

So you'd accept your interpretation of God's word over the facts derived from God's creation?

I've said it before, so I'll say it again... the irony of YECists and literalists who would otherwise vociferously reject post-modernism, embracing it so whole heartedly on the issues of cosmology, astrophysics, geology, paleontology and biology is hilarious.

 

[USincognito]

Why do animals have an extra sense, like how they mostly ran to safety from the tsnuami? etc?

This is actually an Urban Legend. The actions of those large mammals and birds who reacted to the tsunami prior to the arrival of the waves are easily and more accurately explained by natrualistic means.

 

[Runilo]

So, the majority of you christians that don't believe in YEC, you do not believe the bible to be accurate??

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

So, the majority of you christians that don't believe in YEC, you do not believe the bible to be accurate??

Not scientifically accurate, no. Why should it be?

 

[wagsbags]

Wow. Amazing. So basically recapping dinosaurs are either tricks of an atheist scientific community or they existed alongside of humans. As far as radioactive dating the only things I've heard about it so far are simply incorrect (I'm studying to be a nuclear engineering and we just talked about it in class). NO assumptions about initial numbers of particles need to be made the only thing that is needed are relative concentrations of isotopes. It's also interesting to note that several different nuclides are used independently and yield exactly the same results.

I'm also still waiting for someone to respond to lao tzu's post explaining how we see light farther than 6000 light years away?

 

[wagsbags]

dhiannian vbmenu_register("postmenu_13706161", true); carbon 14 dating has been compared to other methods such as historical records and counting tree rings to name a few and has been shown to be accurate. Now if you were claiming that it had an error of even a factor of two we might have something to talk about but claiming that someting 50,000 years old is really only 6,000 at most? Absurd.

 

[llDayo]

Here's a nice link that shows why dating methods are viable: http://gondwanaresearch.com/radiomet.htm
In there they show the different dates derived using different dating methods of the same samples. Notice how all the ages are very close together? They can verify the dates by using other dating methods so any argument that dating methods don't work is null and void. You may go about your business. Move along! Move along!

 

[Bushido216]

Is anyone else having a "invasion of the body snatchers" moment?

 

[Juvenal]

Please, hold peace, fellow humans,

These tangential references to true belief seem likely to cause needless injury.

Recognizing the ease of impeding communication through imposing definitions on another's faith, I try, but more often fail, to allow individuals to self-define themselves without disputing their chosen identification. There are many whom I'm quite comfortable calling christian despite the fact their doctrines are widely variant from what the majority of christians would accept. I believe this approach has advantages for me which outweigh the disadvantages.

Adherents of a particular belief system are unlikely to feel as free in this policy. For example, I do not wish to be represented by someone calling himself a Taoist who nonetheless reveres a deity. This would cause me to wish to object to his identification, an objection which would be in contradiction to a policy I have found through experience to be far more useful than demanding my own interpretation of the Tao.

Yet the majority of Chinese Taoists do indeed believe in deities. My minority opinion is that of the majority of western Taoists who have been inspired by the Tao Te Ching, but that does not change the fact that most Taoists on earth disagree.

I hope the analogy between my position and that of the YECers is clear. It seems certain that questioning another's right to call themselves by the title of christian will cause terrific disharmony. Refrain, please, though it may seem difficult, or even counter to your closely held beliefs. Consider ... if your position is indeed correct, will you have helped or hindered the path of your fellow CFer by placing them into a defensive position of opposition?

I know this is much easier for me to say as I have no horse in this race, but please try to listen with your hearts. If this reason is insufficient, consider as well the respect due the OPer and let us try to keep this thread on its original rails.

Thank you for your consideration of these thoughts.

 

[Krysia]

Here's a nice link that shows why dating methods are viable: http://gondwanaresearch.com/radiomet.htm
In there they show the different dates derived using different dating methods of the same samples. Notice how all the ages are very close together? They can verify the dates by using other dating methods so any argument that dating methods don't work is null and void. You may go about your business. Move along! Move along!

Good post. And you're right, the room for error is proven to be only 2%. Something dated to be millions of years old CAN IN NO WAY be mistakenly dated so much that it is only 6,000 years old. The notion is absurd.

 

[wagsbags]

Ok so 6000 years people how do you explain the excellent agreement between dozens of methods?

 

[Hermit]

Ok so 6000 years people how do you explain the excellent agreement between dozens of methods?

Conspiracy?