Young-Earth Creationist input only, please...

Remus · Jan 18, 2006

imind said:
and to dismiss all of science with regards to evolution because of piltdown man is absurd.

Why do you think any dismissal is based on this one thing? Surely you've been around long enough to know otherwise.

Gwenyfur · Jan 19, 2006

filly said:
Check out http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/hominids.html

I don't know...some look pretty complete to me. I don't want to believe in Theistic Evolution, as I simply don't see why God would choose to evolve us. But how do we go about giving a logical explanation?

He wouldn't

Genesis 1:27 said:
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

humans were created in the image of G-d....so why would he create us incomplete....in His image pretty much states we're done

Numenor · Jan 19, 2006

Gwenfur said:
humans were created in the image of G-d....so why would he create us incomplete....in His image pretty much states we're done

What constitutes "in his image"?

Gwenyfur · Jan 19, 2006

Numenor said:
What constitutes "in his image"?

Well...if you believe what scripture says....
....
....

look in the mirror

Numenor · Jan 19, 2006

Well...if you believe what scripture says....
....
....

look in the mirror

Well if you understand what scripture scripture.... you will know that God is a spirit. Does a spirit have a body?

LoG · Jan 19, 2006

filly said:
OK, regardless of whether these skulls are in the right order or not, they still exist and are found at a greater depth than human fossils. They are bipedal creatures. They are human-like, but not human. Is the non-evolutionist point of view that these are simply separate creations just like a kangaroo, panda, and a mosquito? If so, props to God for confusing me and causing me faith-endangering doubt for years.

God is not the author of confusion. It is man and his interpretations where confusion comes into the picture. Today, I lean more to a YEC interpretation because I think the evidence points that way, however for many years I believed in an old Earth with previous creations which had nothing to do organically with the present one. There is the possibility that there may have been thousands or even millions of years between Genesis 1:1 and the rest of the the chapter. It wouldn't take anything away from the literal translation of the Creation story if that was so.

Previous creations would explain the fossils, the "apparent" geological record and even the questionable dating methods, without having to assume that God is either lying or a myth maker. He didn't say we evolved from monkeys, so I'll take him at His word in spite of what anyone else thinks. If He chose to have previous creations before this present state of the world and chose not to tell us about it, that is His right.

Even if the Evolutionists are correct, it would not take away from the inerrancy of the Word, since it simply would mean that the Lord destroyed the former creation, for whatever reason, leaving the Earth without form and void and ready for this present creation.

Theistic evolution is a copout imo. Our God is much geater than that.

john crawford · Jan 19, 2006

filly said:
How can the hominids be explained when holding to a literal, 6-day creation? I'm not attacking...I am genuinely seeking others' input and explanations.

Hominids are easily explained as a phylogenetic classification of animals (namely primates) which share common biological traits by common design. They are classified by evolutionists as apes in the Hominidae family under the superfamily of Hominoidea apes. Whether human beings whose brains and vocal apparatus are so much more physiologically complex than non-human beings should be included in non-human ape families or the Kingdom of Animalae in the first place, is the subject of an ongoing debate between Darwinist ape theorists and intelligently designed six-day creationists like Marvin Lubenow and myself.

Seeing how human beings are the only 'animals' with brains capable of constructing and creating phylogenetic trees in which to establish, relate and identify their common design with other animal phyla, classes and primate families, genera and species, the special creationist taxon of Human family within the several orders, families and genus of primates is not an entirely unreasonable biological demand to make on other 'Darwinist' hominids.

After all, don't all human hominids have equal human rights and civil rights, even though non-human ape hominids don't?

john crawford · Jan 19, 2006

shernren said:
Well, if you're a YEC, then hominids are simply animals God created which went extinct shortly after the Flood.

If one is a Darwinist, hominids are simply a classification of apes who share the common design of apes.

Of course, Darwinists eventually get around to distinguishing and classifying human apes in their own genus.

In the meantime though, human and non-human apes are all lumped together under the Darwinist taxons of Hominoidea, Hominidae, Homoninae and Hominini.

Darwinists may be hominids, but creationists are only human.

john crawford · Jan 22, 2006

(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

Remus said:
The problem is the order isn't right. For example, Homo erectus (G) and Home ergaster (H) are out of order. Unless current theory has changed (again), erectus is supposed to have descended from ergaster. Why would these two skulls be reversed in the picture?

Notice also that both H. ergaster and erectus are supposed to have evolved from H. rudolfensis within a few thousand years and both H. rudolfensis and habilis are supposed to have evolved from australopithicine apes at the same time. Never let it be said again that leading Darwinists don't claim that humans evolved from apes.

Also, Homo sapiens sapiens are not believed to have descended from Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. That means that you should take J, K, and L out of the line.

Not only that, but Neanderthals aren't even considered to be a subspecies of Homo sapiens anymore but an extinct SPECIES of humans. Anyone who uses this phony skull chart to show human evolution from apes only shows that they don't know much about the human fossil record any more than the folks at talkorigins do.

john crawford · Jan 29, 2006

filly said:
OK, regardless of whether these skulls are in the right order or not, they still exist and are found at a greater depth than human fossils. They are bipedal creatures. They are human-like, but not human.

You have no idea what you are talking about. They are all human fossils except for A, B and C which are even listed as species of African apes for your benefit.

(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My

D and E are also a species of australopithicine apes but are included under the genus Homo just to sucker in more Darwinist ape lovers like you.
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My

Here's a reconstruction of Lucy's skull, who was also once tried to be passed off as human but has now quietly been reclassified as just another australopithicine ape fossil.
http://www.skullsunlimited.com/lucy-skull.htm

Notice the resemblance to australopithicine "Twiggy," OH24? Homo habilis is a false taxon created by Darwinists specifically for the purpose of filling the great fossil transitional gap between fully human Homo erectus (6 foot tall Turkana Boy) and diminuitive African ape specimens like 3 foot KNM-ER 1813 and "Twiggy."

Is the non-evolutionist point of view that these are simply separate creations just like a kangaroo, panda, and a mosquito?

No, the first 5 skulls represent racial variations of sub-human apes and the remainder represent racial variations of our human ancestors whose skeletal remains just happened to get fossilized.

If so, props to God for confusing me and causing me faith-endangering doubt for years.

Don't blame God for your confusion. Blame Darwinist race theorists who have been trying for years to convince the public that the original African people evolved from African apes like Lucy, Twiggy and KNM-ER 1813.

ThaiDuykhang · Jan 30, 2006

filly said:
OK, regardless of whether these skulls are in the right order or not, they still exist and are found at a greater depth than human fossils. They are bipedal creatures. They are human-like, but not human. Is the non-evolutionist point of view that these are simply separate creations just like a kangaroo, panda, and a mosquito? If so, props to God for confusing me and causing me faith-endangering doubt for years.

1. greater depth doesn't mean greater age. there're trees buried upright, horizontally or upside down crossing several layers. especially for those upside down buried trees, I'd like to ask you, did that tree grow from sky to ground or the tree grows from ground and upwards but the bury starts from the tree top to the ground?

2. the claim "depth reflects the age of rocks" is based on circular reasoning. that is age of rocks is determined by the fossils in it and age of fossils is determined by the rock layer containing those fossils.

3. limestone is found repeatedly at different depths with other rocks between. how can you tell the age of limestones?

4. Radiometric dating doesn't work. it can date the age of skin and flesh(?) of a mammoth thousands of years apart. I'd like to know how that mammoth is born.

shernren · Jan 30, 2006

1. greater depth doesn't mean greater age. there're trees buried upright, horizontally or upside down crossing several layers. especially for those upside down buried trees, I'd like to ask you, did that tree grow from sky to ground or the tree grows from ground and upwards but the bury starts from the tree top to the ground?

Show me this allegedly upside-down buried tree. The most obvious explanation is that this tree was somehow floated upside-down in water and slowly buried from the tip up. The greater the depth, the greater the age of burial. Even creationist flood models accept this.

2. the claim "depth reflects the age of rocks" is based on circular reasoning. that is age of rocks is determined by the fossils in it and age of fossils is determined by the rock layer containing those fossils.

If a column of sequentially buried strata is found without evidence of catastrophe, it is safe to say that the lowest buried strata was buried earlier than the the highest buried strata, even if there isn't a single fossil in the column. Again, even creationist flood models predict that deeper strata are earlier-buried strata (relative timescale), although they disagree about the amount of time it took to bury those strata (absolute timescale). Fossils are not needed for a depth-based relative dating.

3. limestone is found repeatedly at different depths with other rocks between. how can you tell the age of limestones?

By relative dating according to depth. Limestone deposition wasn't a single event.

4. Radiometric dating doesn't work. it can date the age of skin and flesh(?) of a mammoth thousands of years apart. I'd like to know how that mammoth is born.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_2.html

ThaiDuykhang · Jan 31, 2006

shernren said:
Show me this allegedly upside-down buried tree. The most obvious explanation is that this tree was somehow floated upside-down in water and slowly buried from the tip up. The greater the depth, the greater the age of burial. Even creationist flood models accept this.

but it cross several layers. so the tree top is million of years older than the tree's root. and do you think a tree grows that way just because you see the layer it's buried?

shernren said:
If a column of sequentially buried strata is found without evidence of catastrophe, it is safe to say that the lowest buried strata was buried earlier than the the highest buried strata, even if there isn't a single fossil in the column. Again, even creationist flood models predict that deeper strata are earlier-buried strata (relative timescale), although they disagree about the amount of time it took to bury those strata (absolute timescale). Fossils are not needed for a depth-based relative dating.

The flood will bury things quickly. birds are usually buried on top of humans. don't you agree? evolution can't explain this. however if there was a flood, humans who weren't on the ark are buried immediately, however birds can fly in the sky until they were out of energy. clams are buried first because they have neither good intelligence nor mobility and are at the bottoms of the sea.

shernren said:
By relative dating according to depth. Limestone deposition wasn't a single event.

so you find something in the limerock you can't date it.

shernren said:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_2.html

it's out right lies from talkorigins. if talkorigin were not lying it should have had no problem refuting this
http://www.case-creation.org.uk/dating3.html
and large mammoths are supposed to have been extincted by evolutionists 10 000 years ago. then how it's dated 5600 years old?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammoth

shernren · Feb 1, 2006

The flood will bury things quickly. birds are usually buried on top of humans. don't you agree? evolution can't explain this. however if there was a flood, humans who weren't on the ark are buried immediately, however birds can fly in the sky until they were out of energy. clams are buried first because they have neither good intelligence nor mobility and are at the bottoms of the sea.

Show me where there are birds buried above humans. My archeological knowledge is frankly not that good, I'm more into the physical side of things.

so you find something in the limerock you can't date it.

Not just by the fact that it was found in limerock, no. The best you can say is that "this was fossilized as the rock was being deposited" and if you know something independently about when the rock was being deposited e.g. isotopic studies, the ages of the rocks above & below you can then say something about the fossil as well.

it's out right lies from talkorigins. if talkorigin were not lying it should have had no problem refuting this
http://www.case-creation.org.uk/dating3.html
and large mammoths are supposed to have been extincted by evolutionists 10 000 years ago. then how it's dated 5600 years old?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammoth

Find me the primary text that supports your assertion. The best I can find, http://www.radiocarbon.org/Subscribers/Fulltext/v39n1_Vasilchuk_1.html, says nothing about the sediment in which the fossil is found.

ThaiDuykhang · Feb 1, 2006

Birds above humans, fossilized cap, human footprints with dinosaur footprint...I can tell you it's in Kent Hovind's video so that you can find a refutation easier.

Find me the primary text that supports your assertion. The best I can find, http://www.radiocarbon.org/Subscribe...silchuk_1.html, says nothing about the sediment in which the fossil is found.

Do you think record of miserable failures can be found on a site that's trying to push radiometric dating? They simply censored it.

shernren · Feb 1, 2006

I don't have the video. If Kent Hovind is really such an inspiring speaker I'm sure you can tell me what he said. Which birds have been found above which humans? Which cap has been fossilized, where, in what stratum? Where have human footprints been found with dinosaur footprints?

And ... so what? (I'll tell you what that "so what" means when you give me your specific points of information.)

I'm giving you a link from the site that was directly quoted and attributed as the source of the "old mammoth-young soil" anecdote you gave, on other creationist sites. By quoting this journal (Radiocarbon) they tacitly agree that "records of miserable failures can be found on a site that's trying to push radiometric dating". It's important to get the source text with a few paragraphs on each side, to make sure that the source isn't being quoted out of context.

Here's an example, from the link which also had the mammoth story:

"If a C14 date supports our theories we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put if in a footnote. And if it is completely 'out of date', we just drop it"
Professor Brew (1970 - speaking at a symposium on the prehistory of the Nile) - The Revised Quote Book - p.23

Now, this was a bit hard to track down, but I eventually found this gem pertaining to this quote. From http://groups.google.com.my/group/t...520a80bf975df31?sa=X&oi=groupsr&start=0&num=3

...

You are, of course, hinting at the obvious. Acoxon does not have
the article. He is quoting a secondary source without
acknowledgement, and has the implication diametrically reversed.

Two years ago I contacted professor Olsson directly myself on
this matter; with reference to a quote by another creationist
which was given rather less completely. Professor Olsson had
this to say:

| In our paper, p.35, in the Proceedings of the Twelfth Nobel Symposium
| Ingrid U. Olsson (ed.)
| Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology
| Almqvist & Wiksell Stockholm
| John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, London, Sydney
| 1970
| Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 73-11 57 69
|
| we (T. Save-Soderbergh) wrote:
|
| C14 dating was being discussed at a symposium on the prehistory of the
| Nile Valley. A famous American colleague, Professor Brew, briefly
| summarized a common attitude among archaeologists towards it, as follows:
| "If a C14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If
| it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a foot-note. And
| if it is completely 'out of date', we just drop it."
|
| As you can see the quote, as you wrote it, was almost correct. Nothing
| except for some formal writing was changed. I myself have experienced
| similar attitudes to results given by me. Sometimes the "customer",
| later on, has admitted that he earler was wrong and that the result
| forced him to reconsider his opinion.
| I can not give any better reference to Brew.

Here Olsson as a C-14 dater agrees completely with the quote. He says that sometimes when he gives results to the historians, they express this attitude towards him ... only to later realize that the C-14 was right and the historian himself wrong.

The google groups quote continues:

The extreme irony of this remark is that, if I understand the
matter correctly, Professor Olsson reported Brew's comments
in the context of a complaint about archaeologists who were
unwilling to revise their opinions in the light of radiocarbon
dating. This is given in the context of CRITICISM of such
an attitude.

Professor Olsson is a well published expert in radiocarbon
dating, well aware of its reliability and accuracy (when due
care is taken); and is here being criticial of the attitude
described.

(emphasis added)

See? Appearance isn't everything.

ThaiDuykhang · Feb 2, 2006

shernren said:
I don't have the video. If Kent Hovind is really such an inspiring speaker I'm sure you can tell me what he said. Which birds have been found above which humans? Which cap has been fossilized, where, in what stratum? Where have human footprints been found with dinosaur footprints?...

http://www.drdino.com/downloads.php?type=Seminar+Video

Download the videos watch them. they're free

ThaiDuykhang · Feb 2, 2006

http://www.case-creation.org.uk/dating3.html

So if radiometric dating were right, earth's moon would be 28.1B years old.
newly erupted rocks are 2.2m years old, I guess most of us have lived millions of years here. much long than Adam.
Mammoth pit is more ironic. a mammoth took 20000 years to fall into a pit, gravity isn't very great back then. parable: mammoth taught her kids, don't jump or you're going to land on the moon where there're no fir trees to eat.

shernren · Feb 2, 2006

So if radiometric dating were right, earth's moon would be 28.1B years old.

Primary source? My source, a Christian creationist, says that reliable dating of rocks according to uranium-238/lead-207; uranium-235/lead-208; thorium-232/ lead-208; rubidium-87/strontium-87; argon-39/argon-40; and lead-207/lead-206, yielded dates of 4.70; 4.67; 4.60; 3.4-4.5; 3.7; and 4.75 billion years, respectively. He vouches for the reliability of geological dating at the bottom of the page, too.

http://www.ibri.org/Books/Pun_Evolution/Chapter2/2.1b.htm

newly erupted rocks are 2.2m years old, I guess most of us have lived millions of years here. much long than Adam.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/hawaii.html

Mammoth pit is more ironic. a mammoth took 20000 years to fall into a pit, gravity isn't very great back then. parable: mammoth taught her kids, don't jump or you're going to land on the moon where there're no fir trees to eat.

What's your source material? Or the site's source material?

And before you ask about the petrified wood:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_5.html
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/realsnelling.htm
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/snelling_flood_geology.htm
http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/crefaqs.htm#who

ThaiDuykhang · Feb 2, 2006

shernren said:
Primary source? My source, a Christian creationist, says that reliable dating of rocks according to uranium-238/lead-207; uranium-235/lead-208; thorium-232/ lead-208; rubidium-87/strontium-87; argon-39/argon-40; and lead-207/lead-206, yielded dates of 4.70; 4.67; 4.60; 3.4-4.5; 3.7; and 4.75 billion years, respectively. He vouches for the reliability of geological dating at the bottom of the page, too.

http://www.ibri.org/Books/Pun_Evolution/Chapter2/2.1b.htm

Does he said there's no other result? remember you're accusing YEC of liars, which breaks law(libel) if you can't prove it.

shernren said:
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/hawaii.html

Fallacious claim. where does it say scientist didn't date the lava? they dated both, can't they? Before you accusing YEC are liars make sure you have prove to back up your claim.

Do you like go to court? Stop making "liar" charges unless you can prove it from legal perspective!

shernren said:
What's your source material? Or the site's source material?

And before you ask about the petrified wood:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_5.html
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/realsnelling.htm
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/snelling_flood_geology.htm
http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/crefaqs.htm#who

I will reply to talkorigins.org only since you putting links here is obviously easier than I reply
1. Remember it's dated by a professional dating agency, they know a lot more about what method to use than talkorigin.org. to assume they don't know the most basic precedures of radiometric dating is absurd.
2. typical conspiracy theory that can't be falsified. blaming inaccurate result of radiometric dating on polution is like saying the inside of pineapple is green before you cut it open. and it's an old trick scientifically rejected long ago.
3. when a method is unreliable, do you believe anything it produces?

Yes, I'm accusing talkorigin are distorting facts. you can take me to court if you like. I'm confident I'll win.

Young-Earth Creationist input only, please...

Senior Member

Legend

Veteran

Legend

Veteran

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

you are not reading this.

Active Member

you are not reading this.

Active Member

you are not reading this.

Active Member

Active Member

you are not reading this.

Active Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency