Young earth creationism & 40000 year old frozen wolf

[mcarans]

That may be, but they made the claim. However, the trustworthiness of thr source also needs to be taken into account. They made the claim, the onus is on them to prove it. I don't just accept what people say, especially when it come to origins

Do you accept what people like doctors and other health professionals say regarding your health?

 

[Butch5]

Do you accept what people like doctors and other health professionals say regarding your health?

Not necessarily. I've seen them be wrong on more than one occasion. Health professionals were saying for 50 years that saturated fat caused high cholesterol and heart disease. It turns out they were wrong. Saturated fat is actually beneficial to the human body. When I was in school scientists were saying we were heading into the next ice age. Twenty years later they were warning of global warming. I guess they were wrong about that ice age. They say vaccines are safe and yet the government shields the vaccine companies from liability. One wonders why you'd need to shield these companies if they were producing a safe product. I mean they don't shield other industries...

 

[mcarans]

Not necessarily. I've seen them be wrong on more than one occasion. Health professionals were saying for 50 years that saturated fat caused high cholesterol and heart disease. It turns out they were wrong. Saturated fat is actually beneficial to the human body. When I was in school scientists were saying we were heading into the next ice age. Twenty years later they were warning of global warming. I guess they were wrong about that ice age. They say vaccines are safe and yet the government shields the vaccine companies from liability. One wonders why you'd need to shield these companies if they were producing a safe product. I mean they don't shield other industries...

So you won't be going to any doctor or hospital again - you'll just pray for healing right?

 

[Anthony2019]

That's a pretty impressive discovery. I know things can get preserved for a long time at low temperatures, but it's amazing how intact the head and fur is after being frozen for over 40,000 years. It's quite mind-blowing how old it is.

 

[nolidad]

Young earth creationism says the world is in the order of 10000 years old. How does it account for a 40000 year old wolf's head?

Simple. We don't because nothing in ther universe is over 6-10K years.

The dating method, including C-14 is hopelessy flawed as a chronometer.

they have dated dino bones pulled in situ as 35K years and yet they are supposed to have been extinct for at least 65 million years.

 

[Butch5]

So you won't be going to any doctor or hospital again - you'll just pray for healing right?

The argument you're trying to make is fallacious. There's a huge difference in going to a doctor who can look at me and perform tests and someone claiming that a wolf head is 40,000 years old. I can discuss the results with the doctor. I can inquire about the tests etc. No one can ask the wolf if he died 40,000 years ago. You have to rely on the person saying it's 40,000 years old. No one was there when it was buried to tell us it's that old. I don't think I have to mention how questionable dating methods are.

The thing to do here is to admit that you have to take their word for it. Otherwise you need proof.

 

[mcarans]

The argument you're trying to make is fallacious. There's a huge difference in going to a doctor who can look at me and perform tests and someone claiming that a wolf head is 40,000 years old. I can discuss the results with the doctor. I can inquire about the tests etc. No one can ask the wolf if he died 40,000 years ago. You have to rely on the person saying it's 40,000 years old. No one was there when it was buried to tell us it's that old. I don't think I have to mention how questionable dating methods are.

The thing to do here is to admit that you have to take their word for it. Otherwise you need proof.

Just as the scientists cannot talk to the wolf, doctors don't talk to your injured or sick cells - they perform tests on them and look at the results. These tests that have been developed from scientific experimentation much like the tests used on the wolf's head. Before such tests existed, doctors were very limited in what they could do for people.

You previously indicated that you don't trust doctors and their tests any more than you trust the scientists examining the age of the wolf's head, but in your last comment you seem to be saying that you trust them if you can discuss the results with them - I'm sure if you really wanted to you could talk or at least email the scientists in Sweden, Russia and Japan who analysed the wolf's head and ask them about their methods.

 

[mcarans]

Simple. We don't because nothing in ther universe is over 6-10K years.

The dating method, including C-14 is hopelessy flawed as a chronometer.

they have dated dino bones pulled in situ as 35K years and yet they are supposed to have been extinct for at least 65 million years.

By the same logic, if a medical test anywhere ever has come back with an incorrect result, you would conclude that all medical tests are hopelessly flawed right?

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

Simple. We don't because nothing in ther universe is over 6-10K years.

Everything is so simple , must be nice. Certainly beats murky reality.

 

[nolidad]

Everything is so simple , must be nice. Certainly beats murky reality.

Well we have two choices.

The word of God who was there and made all things and told Adam. Then had His inspired writers list genealogies that give a fairly accurate timeline, or we can trust the Word of men who weren't there and use dating methods that have been proven to be fatally flawed.

See reality is clear- it is the world of science falsely so called that is extremely murky!

 

[nolidad]

By the same logic, if a medical test anywhere ever has come back with an incorrect result, you would conclude that all medical tests are hopelessly flawed right?

False analogy. Medical teats are real time, Not extrapolating back millions and billions of years with untested hypotheses supporting them. Also we have empirical research showing the methodologies used for old dates is fatally flawed.

Medical tests if they come back wrong are usually a misinterpretation by a person.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

Well we have two choices.

Indeed. We can acknowledge the reality presented by evidence or we can embrace whatever pet fantasies we have despite the evidence.

 

[mcarans]

False analogy. Medical teats are real time, Not extrapolating back millions and billions of years with untested hypotheses supporting them. Also we have empirical research showing the methodologies used for old dates is fatally flawed.

Medical tests if they come back wrong are usually a misinterpretation by a person.

The wolf's head is only 40000 years old, not millions or billions of years.

 

[nolidad]

The wolf's head is only 40000 years old, not millions or billions of years.

And even that date is false. C-14 is not an accurate chronometer. Would you like to know the reasons why? Other than the 40 or so dino bones taken from digs and sent to labs who did the prep work to remove contamination and dated them at between 28-45,000 years! Some of these dinos are supposed to have been extinct as late as 80 million years!!!!!

 

[Butch5]

Just as the scientists cannot talk to the wolf, doctors don't talk to your injured or sick cells - they perform tests on them and look at the results. These tests that have been developed from scientific experimentation much like the tests used on the wolf's head. Before such tests existed, doctors were very limited in what they could do for people.

You previously indicated that you don't trust doctors and their tests any more than you trust the scientists examining the age of the wolf's head, but in your last comment you seem to be saying that you trust them if you can discuss the results with them - I'm sure if you really wanted to you could talk or at least email the scientists in Sweden, Russia and Japan who analysed the wolf's head and ask them about their methods.

You can continue to make this argument, but it's still fallacious. I could contact them. However, I'm somewhat familiar with dating methods. Unless they've developed a new one I see no reason to. Dating methods are questionable at best.

 

[mcarans]

You can continue to make this argument, but it's still fallacious. I could contact them. However, I'm somewhat familiar with dating methods. Unless they've developed a new one I see no reason to. Dating methods are questionable at best.

The point is there is no amount of scientific evidence they can give you to change your mind because your position is a matter of faith not science.

 

[Butch5]

The point is there is no amount of scientific evidence they can give you to change your mind because your position is a matter of faith not science.

That's where you're wrong. My belief is based on evidence. You also seem think that you believe based on science. The study of origins is based on faith. No one was there 40,000 years ago when the head was supposedly frozen. Therefore scientists have to make some assumptions. Once you start making assumptions you're no longer dealing with facts. You're placing your faith in those scientists in the article. As I've said, the dating methods are questionable. They also make assumptions. However, my distrust for your scientists isn't based in their methods as much as it is based in their track record. When I was a kid scientists were telling us we were heading into the next ice age. They were wrong. 20 years later they were telling us it was global warming. They say the ice caps are melting and then NASA satellites show they're not. For about 50 years they were telling us that saturated fat is dangerous, raises cholesterol, and causes disease. Once again they were wrong. From what I remember there have been at least 4 missing links found between apes and man. Every one turned out to be wrong. Scientists claim that life forms have evolved yet they have no fossils of intermediate forms. Time and time again scientists have come out and made claims only to have to recant them later because they're wrong. Now you have to ask yourself, if it's science, how can they be wrong? You see observational science doesn't change, one can perform a given experiment and under the same circumstances get the same results each time. If the study of origins was a matter of science the scientists wouldn't be wrong. and yet they are, time after time. What it comes down to is who are you placing your faith?

 

[mcarans]

That's where you're wrong. My belief is based on evidence. You also seem think that you believe based on science. The study of origins is based on faith. No one was there 40,000 years ago when the head was supposedly frozen. Therefore scientists have to make some assumptions. Once you start making assumptions you're no longer dealing with facts. You're placing your faith in those scientists in the article. As I've said, the dating methods are questionable. They also make assumptions. However, my distrust for your scientists isn't based in their methods as much as it is based in their track record. When I was a kid scientists were telling us we were heading into the next ice age. They were wrong. 20 years later they were telling us it was global warming. They say the ice caps are melting and then NASA satellites show they're not. For about 50 years they were telling us that saturated fat is dangerous, raises cholesterol, and causes disease. Once again they were wrong. From what I remember there have been at least 4 missing links found between apes and man. Every one turned out to be wrong. Scientists claim that life forms have evolved yet they have no fossils of intermediate forms. Time and time again scientists have come out and made claims only to have to recant them later because they're wrong. Now you have to ask yourself, if it's science, how can they be wrong? You see observational science doesn't change, one can perform a given experiment and under the same circumstances get the same results each time. If the study of origins was a matter of science the scientists wouldn't be wrong. and yet they are, time after time. What it comes down to is who are you placing your faith?

When you read the Bible, you are making assumptions. For example, you are assuming that the accounts of creation are meant to be read literally.

As for the ice caps melting, there is now clear evidence for that: "Observation with satellites show that Arctic sea ice area, extent, and volume have been in decline for a few decades. Sometime during the 21st century, sea ice may effectively cease to exist during the summer. Sea ice extent is defined as the area with at least 15% ice cover.[10] The amount of multi-year sea ice in the Arctic has declined considerably in recent decades. In 1988, ice that was at least 4 years old accounted for 26% of the Arctic's sea ice. By 2013, ice that age was only 7% of all Arctic sea ice.[11]"

As for the ice age, that is still coming:
Global Warming vs. the Next Ice Age
"This means that humanity will be hit by a one-two punch the likes of which we have never seen. Nature is as unforgiving to men as it was to dinosaurs; advanced civilization will not survive unless we develop energy sources that curb the carbon emissions heating the planet today and help us fend off the cold when the ice age comes." (and no the two don't cancel each other out)

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

No one was there 40,000 years ago when the head was supposedly frozen. Therefore scientists have to make some assumptions. Once you start making assumptions you're no longer dealing with facts.

If you go that far how would you know you are actually observing anything ? Maybe you just imagine you are ? Maybe you just have false memory in place ? How would you know. You are assuming lots of things.

Science is the best guess we have to how the physical universe works. Some stuff we are wrong about, some stuff we probably are wrong about and lots of stuff we do not know.

Young earth has zero evidence. Absolutely nothing we have scientifically discovered supports that claim so everything about that theory is based on faith going against the evidence.

Scientists make mistakes and have wrong theories and sooner or later they are discarded or expanded upon and hopefully we have better theory to support any new research.

one can perform a given experiment and under the same circumstances get the same results each time.

Stuff like

Radiometric dating - Wikipedia

and maybe speed of light

Things that are used for calculating age of various things. Pretty depenable stuff, but then we see on these forums pondering how God might how slowed speed of light or how the flood had such a huge pressure on earth radiometric dating might be inaccurate. Just stupid.

 

[nolidad]

When you read the Bible, you are making assumptions. For example, you are assuming that the accounts of creation are meant to be read literally.

As for the ice caps melting, there is now clear evidence for that: "Observation with satellites show that Arctic sea ice area, extent, and volume have been in decline for a few decades. Sometime during the 21st century, sea ice may effectively cease to exist during the summer. Sea ice extent is defined as the area with at least 15% ice cover.[10] The amount of multi-year sea ice in the Arctic has declined considerably in recent decades. In 1988, ice that was at least 4 years old accounted for 26% of the Arctic's sea ice. By 2013, ice that age was only 7% of all Arctic sea ice.[11]"

Sorry to insert myself here.

But the Creation Account is writtne in a style to be literal. Why would god not inform Adam that He is creator. He could have said evolution and the BB in a simplisitc way! No there is no warrant for an allegorical reading of Genesis 1&2

As for sea ice- it has been growing fo three years! And we are heading into a cooling era at teh end of this year through around 2055! Sunspot activity has been almost nil and now many are saying the grand solar minimum we are entering will compare to teh Maunder minimum of about 7 centuries ago! That was called a mini ice age.