Science vs. Evolution

[Cassiterides]

ROFL! Name an archeologist that is a YEC! Archeologists talk about a history of humans far longer than 6,000 years. Remember those 30,000 year old cave paintings in France?

Or the 50,000+ year pieces of jewelry? ART

Another creationist on another thread posted a link to a scientific article looking at 400,000 year old spears!

So cave paintings, jewelry have these dates written on them?

Nope, all you are giving me is dates evolutionists gave to them...

H. sapiens is about 100,000 years old max. The reasons are many:
1. Accumulation of technology necessary for a "civilization". That includes metallurgy to have tools to work stone, agriculture, engineering to make large buildings, etc.
2. Part of that technology includes agriculture so that enough people can be fed on a regular basis to have a "civilization".
3. Extra resources so that people can be exempted from the necessary tasks of hunting, gathering, farming to the roles of administrator, engineer, blacksmith, tanner, carpenter, etc.

More rubbish.

 

[Nathan Poe]

So cave paintings, jewelry have these dates written on them?

Nope, all you are giving me is dates evolutionists gave to them...

Don't be jealous just because they have an education, and can figure these things out.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Originally Posted by Frumious Bandersnatch

probably made development of agriculture impossible. The holocene climate as been much more stable at least since the end of the Younger Dryas
Younger Dryas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
about 11,500 years ago.
​

What evidence do you have 11,500 years ago existed? So you have a time machine? You are just giving me speculative dates.

The evidence that the earth was around far more than 11,500 years ago is beyond overwhelming. The evidence that the Younger Dryas ended between 10,600 and 11,500 years ago is pretty solid. This table is from Dating Late Glacial abrupt climate changes in the 14,570 yr long continuous varve record of Lake Van, Turkey
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, Volume 122, Issues 1-4, June 1996, Pages 107-118 Günter Landmann, Andreas Reimer, Gerry Lemcke, Stephan Kempe



Their date of 10,920 years BP agree reasonably well with the other dates.
Abstract

In summer 1990, during the third international expedition to Lake Van, eastern Anatolia, 10 sediment cores were retrieved from depths up to 446 m. As reported earlier, the sediments of the lake are finely laminated. The seven cores, recovered up to 30 km apart in the main lake basin, presented sediment sequences which correlate well with respect to ash layers and prominent colour changes, but also lamina for lamina. Here we report on the detailed evaluation of this record, which is varved continuously back to 14,570 yr B.P. (calendar years before 1950 AD). It is independent of 14C calibration, i.e. it is not a floating record, and it is the only detailed varve chronology known from the semi-arid Mediterranean region. Important Late Glacial events, such as the termination of the Oldest andYounger Dryas are clearly recorded in the sediments. Chronozones were defined on the basis of changes of the deposition rate and of chemical composition caused by environmental changes. Analysis of the annual deposition rates revealed abrupt changes within only a few years, declining for example by approximately 30% in the transition period between the OldestDryas and the Bølling. In most cases, alterations observed in the sedimentation rates are reflected in changes of the geochemical parameters, such as organic and inorganic carbon, opal, and the major elements Si, Ca, Mg, Al. Our results and palynological studies, performed on material recovered in an earlier expedition, are used to reconstruct palaeoenvironmental conditions. In this study, the termination of the Younger Dryas is dated to 10,920±132 yr B.P. This isyoungerthan the recently published Greenland ice core dates but in accordance with, for example, the central European dendrochronology. We suspect, that higher sediment deposition rates during the cold periods are due to rapid melting and intense wash out of soil, which was fairly loose because of sparse vegetation. This would lead to higher river discharges. Based on the observed increase of the deposition rate in the record, melting of glaciers can only be detected after the termination of theYounger Dryas.

 

[lucaspa]

Is this not the tact, ultimately, of all Creationism?

I think you meant "tack". But yes, unfortunately it is. Why? Because creationism is a falsified scientific theory. The data that showed it false in the 1800s is still there. So modern day creationists cannot really appeal to truth, because that truth shows creationism to be wrong.

 

[lucaspa]

The papers you listed were written by evolutionists. Why should i check or read your sources if you refuse all creationist sources?

First, the papers are written by paleontologists. Those people who make a career out of studying fossils and documenting fossils. You said "there are no transitionals". The papers document the existence of transitionals. Your excuse not to look is a rationalization.

Second, I have a whole bookshelf of creationist sources. I have Whitcomb and Morris' The Genesis Flood, Morris' Scientific Creationism, Behe's Darwins' Black Box, Johnson's Darwin on Trial and The Wedge of Truth, Dembski's No Free Lunch, a book by Wilder-Smith on abiogenesis, and several other volumes.

I "refuse" them because testing shows them to be wrong, not because I won't look at them. "test everything that is said. Hold on to what is good." 1 Thessalonians 5:21

You ignorantly expect me to check your sources when you refuse mine.

Where did I refuse to check yours? Instead, I took the claims from your sources and gave you sources that have actual physical evidence, not quotes, that refute the claim.

You are just saying this to give yourself an excuse. You really don't want to acknowledge the contrary evidence.

 

[Hespera]

First, the papers are written by paleontologists. Those people who make a career out of studying fossils and documenting fossils. You said "there are no transitionals". The papers document the existence of transitionals. Your excuse not to look is a rationalization.

Second, I have a whole bookshelf of creationist sources. I have Whitcomb and Morris' The Genesis Flood, Morris' Scientific Creationism, Behe's Darwins' Black Box, Johnson's Darwin on Trial and The Wedge of Truth, Dembski's No Free Lunch, a book by Wilder-Smith on abiogenesis, and several other volumes.

I "refuse" them because testing shows them to be wrong, not because I won't look at them. "test everything that is said. Hold on to what is good." 1 Thessalonians 5:21



Where did I refuse to check yours? Instead, I took the claims from your sources and gave you sources that have actual physical evidence, not quotes, that refute the claim.

You are just saying this to give yourself an excuse. You really don't want to acknowledge the contrary evidence.

Of course not, coz, the existence of just one of those data points would crack the brittle rigid shell of creationist thinking; if, that is, one actually
had the capacity to overcome denial and see it.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

What evidence do you have 11,500 years ago existed? So you have a time machine? You are just giving me speculative dates.

So if you don't think the earth is far more than 11,500 years old how and when did the
Precambrian
Cambrian
Ordovician
Silurian
Devonian
Mississippian
Pennsylvanian
Permian
Triassic
Jurassic
Cretaceous
Paleocene
Eocene
Oligocene
Miocene
Pliocene
and
Pleistocene

Layers with their unique groups of fossils get laid down in your model of earth history? Were some laid down between creation and the flood? If so which? Were some laid down by the flood? If so which? Are some post-flood? If so which? It was the discovery of these layers with their fossils that first convinced geologists that the earth is far older than Ussher's Biblical Chronology allows.
History of the Collapse of Flood Geology and a Young Earth

If you want to claim this is not conclusive evidence for an old earth then you need to come up with a logical explanation based on your Young Earth Model. Let's see it.

 

[Cabal]

So cave paintings, jewelry have these dates written on them?

Nope, all you are giving me is dates evolutionists gave to them...

More rubbish.

And we come back to this old chestnut. So presumably you don't accept forensic criminology either? It is the EXACT same thing - using what we can observe now in tandem with established processes to infer what happened.

Why is history (and again, I'm referring to "history" as the particular action of writing down history, not the mere act of existing) the only valid way of establishing with certainty whether someone existed or something happened?

If you never wrote down a single word in your life, nor was there a word ever written about you, then you passed away, would it be reasonable for someone to claim you didn't exist, purely because there was no written record of it?

Would it reasonable to continue do so even in the face of someone else having dug up your skeleton and having obtained your DNA from it, etc?

The other reason for history not being a perfect standard is obvious - people lie, or make up things to explain what they do not understand. Reality can not.

Cass, you never responded to the the above - particularly interested in what you'd make of the bolded section.

 

[Cabal]

You might be a biologist, but i highly doubt you have a history degree or any education in history.

Don't be jealous just because they have an education, and can figure these things out.

What Nathan said.

Cass, you have not shown any indication that you have any education worth speaking of at all, so you might want to watch who you point fingers at. It isn't doing your argument any good.

 

[lucaspa]

No I do not mean that. Evolution is change, and change can be from minute to drastic. Subtle changes still constitute evolution.

All fossils are transitional.

Look at both your statements together. When you say "All fossils are transitional" you are indeed saying "change to a new taxa". That's what transitional means. Transitional means that the population the fossil belongs to had to have descendents.

So, what did the dino fossils at the end of the Cretaceous transition into? NOTHING! Those dinos went extinct. What did fossils of mammoths transition into? NOTHING What did the fossils of H. erectus (in Java) transition into? NOTHING. They too went extinct.

(BTW, biological evolution is not just "change" but "descent with modification".)

All your examples are directional selection. You are also forgetting purifying selection. Purifying selection holds populations the same. No change. So, you find a fossil from a population under purifying selection and it is not transitional to anything; it is the same as the previous generation and the same as the succeeding generation.

Also look at the stasis in PE. Gould and Eldredge note that the vast majority of fossil species show no change during their lifetime. Their appearance is the same when they disappear from the record as it was when they entered the record.

The claim "All fossils are transitional" is very common, but it simply is not true.

 

[Cassiterides]

The evidence that the earth was around far more than 11,500 years ago is beyond overwhelming.

As i said, we don't have a time-machine, therefore if you believe the earth is millions or billions or years, that is a statement of faith. Where you there to observe it?

 

[Cabal]

As i said, we don't have a time-machine, therefore if you believe the earth is millions or billions or years, that is a statement of faith. Where you there to observe it?

So you believe we should release all criminals convicted by forensic evidence until time machines become standard issue police equipment?

 

[Cassiterides]

First, the papers are written by paleontologists. Those people who make a career out of studying fossils and documenting fossils. You said "there are no transitionals". The papers document the existence of transitionals. Your excuse not to look is a rationalization.

There are thousands of paleontologists who believe in Young Earth Creation. Furthermore the modern founder of paleontology (Georges Cuvier) was a creationist.

There is no evidence for evolution, just because you believe it doesn't make it a fact.

 

[Cabal]

There are thousands of paleontologists who believe in Young Earth Creation.

Can you list them, or is this going to be another pathetic 10? And did you miss the part where it was pointed out that name-dropping a big list means nothing at all without actual empirical data and a cogent explanation for it?

Furthermore the modern founder of paleontology (Georges Cuvier) was a creationist.

Irrelevant, as you have already been told, as there was no alternative theory.

There is no evidence for evolution, just because you believe it doesn't make it a fact.

Wrong, but this applies to creationism nicely.

 

[Cassiterides]

So you believe we should release all criminals convicted by forensic evidence until time machines become standard issue police equipment?

I've heard this claim repeated so many times. You guys are parrots...

Do you not have anything else?

Again you change the topic. What does this have to do with age of the earth?

 

[lucaspa]

Piltdown man was a hoax of course but that hoax was uncovered by scientists not creationists and some scientists were sceptical of it from the beginning

Piltdown was a hoax perpetrated on scientists, not by scientists. As you noted, Piltdown was basically ignored after the findings of A. africanus in the 1920s.

Nebraska man was never fully accepted by science and the fantastic picture they talk about in the video was done by a London Journalist.

It was never a fraud. Pig's teeth and human teeth are very similar and the paleontologist made a mistake. The paleontologist was very tentative in his claims; the newspapers were not. The paleontologist funded and conducted the expedition to find more fossils to check to see whether the tooth really was human and found it was not. No fraud.

The video flatly states that Java man is a fraud. This is false

Lots of additional fossils in Java and Sumatra.

The video flatly states that Peking man is a fraud. This is false.

The video flatly states that Neanderthal fossils are all those of modern humans with arthritis This is False

At this point I need to ask Casserities: how are you so ignorant that you did not do any research to check the claims and find out how false they are?

The claim that abiogenesis is the same as "spontaneous generation" is misleading at best and I would like to see the laboratory experiments that conclusively prove abiogenesis is impossible.

The claim that abiogenesis is spontaneous generation is false. Spontaneous generation is the formation of complex, multicellular organisms from decaying organic matter: mice from rotting grain, maggots from rotting meat, etc. Abiogenesis is the formation of unicellular life from non-living chemicals.

And here is a start looking at experiments showing the formation of living cells from non-living chemicals:
http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html
http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/
We can discuss it in much more depth anytime you want.

Thanks for providing yet another video illustrating the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of young earth creationism.

See, Casserities? It's not that we don't look at them, but that we know from other information that they are wrong. I never said I didn't look at it. I only stated that it was not reliable. And now you know some of the reasons I said that.

 

[Hespera]

As i said, we don't have a time-machine, therefore if you believe the earth is millions or billions or years, that is a statement of faith. Where you there to observe it?

Faith.

Faith is for things for which there is no evidence. Like 'god".

Science is based on evidence.

Your 'therefore" is nonsense.

 

[sandwiches]

I've heard this claim repeated so many times. You guys are parrots...

Do you not have anything else?

Again you change the topic. What does this have to do with age of the earth?

You didn't answer the question:

So you believe we should release all criminals convicted by forensic evidence until time machines become standard issue police equipment?

 

[Cassiterides]

Wrong, but this applies to creationism nicely.

This thread has run or for how many pages now?

And no evidence has been provided for evolution. All you guys have resorted to is attacking the Bible, the flood or pasting in nonsense about uniformatarian geology.

I don't think you realise how embarrassing you guys look to all the 'guests' who find this thread while websearching.

 

[lucaspa]

Again you change the topic. What does this have to do with age of the earth?

This: you do not have to be present in the past to know what happened in the past.

The present is the way it is because the past was the way it was. Events in the present leave evidence that persists into the future. That evidence shows what happened.

So, events in the past left evidence that persists to the present. That includes evidence as to the age of the earth. Relative age can be determined by stratigraphy. Absolute age can be determined by a number of methods, depending on how far back in time each method goes.
1. Dendrochronology
2. Ice cores.
3. Varves
4. Radiometric dating.