Man and dinosaur coexisting

[Loudmouth]

Can you prove that is what they did?

Yes. Austin ignored xenoliths in his dacite samples that he sent for dating. He also sent it to a lab that clearly stated it didn't have equipment sensitive enough to date rocks younger than 2 million years old. You can read it all here:

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/mt_st_helens_dacite_kh.htm

 

[joshua 1 9]

Last time I read my bible it said Eve was formed from Adams rib. Doesn't your bible also say that?

Yes that is what the Bible says. The DNA is in the bone marrow inside of the rib.

It also says Eve was the mother of all and through one man sin and death spread to all mankind. This surely isn't evolutionism.

This goes back to 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Adam and Eve lived around 6,000 years ago. Their descendants live on the Arabian plate today. They are made up of Muslims and Hebrews. One is descended from Abraham and Sarah and the other is descended from Abraham and Hagar. The Gentiles are not descended from Abraham, they are adopted into the family of God. Jesus referred to them as "dogs": "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to the dogs." We find the J haloptype in the Middle East. This is the area that the New Jerusalem will cover.

Adam received his mitochondrial from his mother, so he would have passed his mothers mitochondrial onto Eve.

 

[-57]

Yes. Austin ignored xenoliths in his dacite samples that he sent for dating. He also sent it to a lab that clearly stated it didn't have equipment sensitive enough to date rocks younger than 2 million years old. You can read it all here:

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/mt_st_helens_dacite_kh.htm

Oh boy...an article written by Kevin R. Henke.

 

[-57]

Adam received his mitochondrial from his mother, so he would have passed his mothers mitochondrial onto Eve.

If Adam was formed from the dust....how can Adam have a mother?
With all due respect you seem to be trying to force evolutionism into the bible.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

@-57 , I will ask this the third and final time, and I do hope you'll answer: what have all of the world's scientists missed, if they misinterpret the data that tells them the Earth is old but in actually it should tell them it's a young Earth?

 

[fargonic]

A rock is brought in to be dated.
The guy doing the dating ask how old they think the rock is.
The dating happens.
Ages that disagree with the estamite are thrown out.

Actually the issues is "detection limits" on the mass spectrometer. So if someone brings in a piece of, say, modern dacite from Mt. St. Helens and they want a measurement of K-Ar. They explicitly stated that samples must be >2million years old when Steve Austin presented his materials to the lab. Because the samples had too low Ar content the values were below the detection limits of the machine (mass spectrometer) and as such the data comes out completely unreliable. And creationists LOVE it!

So misusing a piece of equipment does not mean that Creationism is right, it means that Creationists don't know how to use lab equipment.

 

[joshua 1 9]

If Adam was formed from the dust....how can Adam have a mother?
With all due respect you seem to be trying to force evolutionism into the bible.

Dust is a reference to the elements of the earth. When we eat food, ie plants, they take the elements from the earth and the energy from the sun. Science knows a lot about those elements that make us up and they all come from the "dust" just as the Bible says. My dietitian tells us to eat food grown in a variety of fields because there maybe a mineral or essential element from the soil that our body needs.

 

[joshua 1 9]

If Adam was formed from the dust....how can Adam have a mother?
With all due respect you seem to be trying to force evolutionism into the bible.

All we can do is offer a possible explanation with what we have to work with. As Science comes up with more data then we will have more to work with and then we can explain more. But for now we can only work with what little Science is able to provide us with. Science has population genetics and there are genealogies in the Bible. There is no conflict between science and the Bible, there are no contradictions.

 

[fargonic]

It's pretty obvious the tilted rock was once level....and tilted later. We just disagree on the speed.

Actually it says the following:

1. The strata at an angle was originally soft sediments that was laid down horizontal and buried deeply and cemented into a rock.

2. That rock was then TILTED and eroded flat at an angle

3. Then it was lowered down and more soft sediment was put down and then the whole thing was lowered and then buried and cemented and turned to stone

NOTE: ALL of that takes a lot of time.

Recumbent folds where the strata didn't snap, crackle and pop when folded clearly indicate formations such as in the picture was still soft when bent can move quickly.

Actually you are wrong. It could (and usually does) mean that the strata was quite solid but under great pressure and constrained. Go to an engineering open house some time. There's a thing called "Plastic Deformation" of very solid objects.

Why couldn't the formationin the picture not have moved quickly?

Because of all the things I listed above.

 

[Hammster]

MOD HAT ON


Moved from Physical and Life Sciences


MOD HAT OFF

 

[fargonic]

Oh boy...an article written by Kevin R. Henke.

Hey, watchit buddy. I went to school where he teaches (although before he came on the scene).

But the point is quite clear: Austin abused a basic of chemistry. Speaking as someone who has done a lot of analytical chemistry I can tell you that if you ignored detection limits on a piece of analytical equipment you will be laughed out of the publication.

 

[Loudmouth]

Oh boy...an article written by Kevin R. Henke.

So you aren't even going to address it?

 

[fargonic]

So you aren't even going to address it?

Very few non-scientists can. They don't know that it is important to understand the relationship between xenoliths and the groundmass or even how to treat samples in preparation to run them on an instrument. Let alone things like detection limits. They have a Mr. Peabody view of science in which you just chuck the rock into the front of the "date-o-lyzer" and read the number out on a print out.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Do you agree with Dr. Collins that humans are the product of evolution, and that we share a common ancestor with other apes?

I am agnostic in that regard. Dr Collins does not see any conflict or contradiction between that and the Bible and I don't either.

 

[TheBear]

A rock is brought in to be dated.
The guy doing the dating ask how old they think the rock is.The dating happens.
Ages that disagree with the estamite are thrown out.

Amazing.

 

[Loudmouth]

Very few non-scientists can. They don't know that it is important to understand the relationship between xenoliths and the groundmass or even how to treat samples in preparation to run them on an instrument. Let alone things like detection limits. They have a Mr. Peabody view of science in which you just chuck the rock into the front of the "date-o-lyzer" and read the number out on a print out.

Detection limits should be the easiest thing to understand since even non-scientists deal with this process. For example, people have experience with bathroom scales. Would anyone try to accurately weigh the mass of a feather on a bathroom scale? Of course not. A bathroom scale is not sensitive enough to weigh a feather, but it is still quite useful for measuring the mass of a human being.

Just from this knowledge alone, creationists should know better when they make the argument that if the K/Ar method can not measure young samples that it can't measure old samples.

 

[Loudmouth]

I am agnostic in that regard. Dr Collins does not see any conflict or contradiction between that and the Bible and I don't either.

Dr. Collins also states that there is piles of evidence demonstrating common ancestry. Do you trust his opinion on this matter?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And it looks like @-57 cannot give any reason why scientists would misinterpret evidence that says the world is old when it should say it's young.
Shame really. It seemed promising.

 

[TheBear]

And it looks like @-57 cannot give any reason why scientists would misinterpret evidence that says the world is old when it should say it's young.
Shame really. It seemed promising.

They're all working for the devil.

 

[Hoghead1]

I have some major issues with your comments, Jascksbratt. No matter how you may personally feel about evolution, the fact remains that if you are going to launch outlandish attacks against science, then you need to have some big,big credentials and some big, big evidence to back you up. In your case, I find these big guns you need to be sadly lacking. For example, if you want to take Genesis literally as true, that is your prerogative. However, it does not provide others with a very convincing argument or attack on evolution. I have studied the Genesis account in detail and I find it offers but two contradictory chronologies written by two different authors and two different time periods. I can go into further detail here if you want. I am also well aware that some online self-styled apologists have tried to fuse these accounts into one. And I am also aware their attempts do not work. I can go into more detail here, if you want. I am also aware that there are many other cases where the Bible proves to be an inadequate geophysical witness, such as the flat earth, the sun revolving around the earth, etc. These inaccuracies have been noted for centuries and recognized by believers, who still give the Bible a place of honor, recognizing that it is not intended to be an accurate geophysical witness. I hold the same counts for Genesis. Next, you seem to want to run some kind of contest to see what takes the most faith and then go with the one that does. That is no way to judge the validity of anything. Also, your results can be easily challenged. I find many who reject evolution do so on the basis that it just seems too fantastic that God could create a man out of a monkey. It makes more sense to them to stick with Scripture. Yes, evolution does have miraculous quality to it. If God could make a man out of a monkey, just think what he could do with a jackass like you. You go on to argue that it seems to you unlikely that God would create a universe and then just sit back and watch the evolutionary process. I disagree, I find this a false assumption on your part. I and many other contemporary Christian thinkers hold that God works through evolution and that this requires a continual interaction between God an creation. In short, evolution occurs because God is continually providing new creative possibilities. No God, no evolution. The reason why the process seems to take long is simply that God has a huge creative agenda in mind. God's aim is to maximize beauty, and all aspect's of creation manifest some real degree of beauty. God just doesn't let it roll on; God enjoys the beauty exhibited in the world. Since some options for beauty are incompatible with others, not all can be actualized at once. Also, god does not create out of nothing. Not even Genesis actually claims that. God did not create man out of nothing, but out of dust. That is an interesting implication of evolution, as we are all made out of star dust. Since God always cerates out of something preexistent, certain forms must be in place before God can move on to others. Next, you argue that humans are the very epitome of God's creation. That sure seems arrogant to me. I view all creatures as deeply important to God, but that doesn't any particular ones should claim to be the highest God is going to go. Who can say what higher forms of being God may evolve us into? Who says humans are the best God can do? Who says humans are the center of God's attention and enjoyment, that he organizes his whole day just around us? It's a big, big universe, which makes it plain God's creativity is on a far larger scale that just old planet earth. Then you say that theistic evolution claims God creates by speaking. Where did you get that notion? My position is that God works at a deeper level than that represented by thought, sense, or the more specialized forms of conscious knowing. God works at a deeper, preverbal level of experience. There is a direct and immediate flow of feeling between God and creatures. God moves us along because we empathically experience God's aim for the occasion. I hope all this will lead you to more carefully study evolution, God, and the Bible.