Evidences given for a young-earth

[shunyadragon]

Some say that Ghengis Khan had the largest land empire in history.
But any archaeology on this guy doesn't support the idea at all.
Some say the Mongols have "transparent archaeology", ie they
didn't build monuments and stone cities etc.. Sounds a lot like
those states of Edom, Moab and Israel. It's been suggested that
50,000 Jews lived in the Judean hills in David's day. Population
studies for all these nations have figures going up and up.
With genetics we will one day get good estimates, just as we have
done for Neanderthals.

The genetic evidence supports Ghengis Khan's invasion all across EurAsia.

I believe the evidence indicates that the Hebrews were a Pastoral Canaanite tribe at the time in the Hills of Judea, and not evidence of a vast kingdom ruled by David. The evidence indicates a much smaller scale tribal kingdom ruled by David.

It remains a fact that Genetic evidence cannot justify the existence of one person, Moses, thousands of years ago.

 

[leroy]

I supported that claim. Besides that you are in no position to protest against dishonesty when you duck and dodge questions yourself.

No you havent supported any of your claims, all we hace is assertion after assertion from your part.


It is a fact that most fossils are not dated by multiple independent methods.

You dont whant explicitly agree with this fact because that would imply that I am correct and your atheist friends are wrong

But you dont whant to explicitly disagree because you know that you would no be capable of supporting that claim.

This is why you would rather to respond with interesting but irrelevant comments

 

[leroy]

Nope, try again. Go back and reread the posts. I am not explaining to you the same concept multiple times.

You dont have to explain anything, all you have to do is prove your assertions.

 

[Jose Fly]

It is a fact that most fossils are not dated by multiple independent methods.

That's probably true. Perhaps the bigger question is...why would they need to date every fossil via multiple methods? It's not like the methods themselves are under question or anything.

 

[shunyadragon]

No you havent supported any of your claims, all we hace is assertion after assertion from your part.

It is not the claims of anyone on this website nor I that supports the science of evolution it is the research and discoveries by tens of thousands of competent scientists that results in the knowledge and support by 98% of the scientists world wide in recent history.

It is a fact that most fossils are not dated by multiple independent methods.

Almost all fossils are dated by multiple methods first and important by stratigraphy associated with the type of depositional environment, and then various methods of radiometric dating.

 

[shunyadragon]

You dont have to explain anything, all you have to do is prove your assertions.

Your self imposed ignorance and poor terminology reveal your religious agenda. First science does not prove anything.

Again . . . It is not the claims of anyone on this website nor I that supports the science of evolution it is the research and discoveries by tens of thousands of competent scientists that results in the knowledge and support by 98% of the scientists world wide in recent history.

 

[gnostic]

Yes it sure is.
Yes they do work in this present nature. You have no way to know if they worked the same in Noah's day! You just believe real hard that nature was the same.

Yes here is evidence that science does use the current nature and how radioactivity works here.

"Determining the numerical age of rocks and fossils
Unlike relative dating methods, absolute dating methods provide chronological estimates of the age of certain geological materials associated with fossils, and even direct age measurements of the fossil material itself. To establish the age of a rock or a fossil, researchers use some type of clock to determine the date it was formed. Geologists commonly use radiometric dating methods, based on the natural radioactive decay of certain elements such as potassium and carbon, as reliable clocks to date ancient events. Geologists also use other methods - such as electron spin resonance and thermoluminescence, which assess the effects of radioactivity on the accumulation of electrons in imperfections, or "traps," in the crystal structure of a mineral - to determine the age of the rocks or fossils."
Dating Rocks and Fossils Using Geologic Methods | Learn Science at Scitable



The 'science' is about belief that nature was the same. Period.

Wrong and ridiculous. I understand the 'accepted science' also. I happen to understand it deeply enough to know it is absolutely wholly belief based.
It can't even reach my ankles while I walk all over it.

Wow, dad, you quote all that, but the funny thing is that you still don’t understand what you are reading.

Does the words just bounce off your eyeballs, never reaching the sensory receptive and never reaching your brain’s comprehension faculty?

For you to say radiometric or any other dating, doesn’t work, according to you, then you have to be the one to provide evidence that you what you are claiming to be true.

But again you are still running away from your responsibility as the claimant, by ignoring the request to show evidence, or by trying to shifting the burden of proofs.

Yes they do work in this present nature. You have no way to know if they worked the same in Noah's day! You just believe real hard that nature was the same.

You really have no idea what you are talking about, dad.

The radioactive isotopes occurred naturally in the physical object, so naturally it will decay at very specific rate.

And you really not thinking straight, dad, because you really wouldn’t be measuring time of any object that were made today.

There would be no reason to use radiometric dating method, to measure a person who died an hour ago, yesterday, last week, last month, last year or even a decade ago. Forensic science don’t need to rely on radiometric to date a person who died recently, because there are other scientific methods to determine when that person died.

It is only when you find older remains or objects, that you would use radiometric isotopes.

And 4000, 5000 and 6000 years aren’t that old.

And neither of these times, would turn remains humans, animals or plants into fossils. Fossilization will only occur beyond 10,000 years, but the longer, the better.

You should read up on fossil, especially how long it take, because you really don’t understand how long and difficult for fossilization to occur.

 

[dad]

Wow, dad, you quote all that, but the funny thing is that you still don’t understand what you are reading.

Does the words just bounce off your eyeballs, never reaching the sensory receptive and never reaching your brain’s comprehension faculty?

For you to say radiometric or any other dating, doesn’t work, according to you, then you have to be the one to provide evidence that you what you are claiming to be true.

To aid your comprehension deficit, perhaps it may help to ask yourself the following question. 'Can you prove that there was radioactivity on earth as we know it today, millions (of so called science years) ago'?
If you can do that, then we wil have to admit there was. But for you to try and hold up present day/present nature radioactive decay as showing there was is completely off base. Of course there is radioactive decay today, and we can date things for many centuries, even thousands of years. That is not even close to applying to origin issues or the far past on earth.

I have no need whatsoever to prove what nature was like, because I win as long as it the nature of the far past was UNKNOWN!!!!!

You bear the burden for any science claim you make (whether saying it was different or the same!)

The radioactive isotopes occurred naturally in the physical object, so naturally it will decay at very specific rate.

Prove that they 'occurred'??! I think you may mean 'occur'.

And you really not thinking straight, dad, because you really wouldn’t be measuring time of any object that were made today.

Who is doing that except you?

There would be no reason to use radiometric dating method, to measure a person who died an hour ago, yesterday, last week, last month, last year or even a decade ago. Forensic science don’t need to rely on radiometric to date a person who died recently, because there are other scientific methods to determine when that person died.

Totally irrelevant and inapplicable to the far past. You might as well talk about a soap opera show you saw last year. Try to focus, you need to talk about millions of years (science time) ago.

It is only when you find older remains or objects, that you would use radiometric isotopes.

And only on old objects would it matter in the origin debate issues!

And 4000, 5000 and 6000 years aren’t that old.

Here is a rough idea of actual time versus so called science time.

3000 years ago is probably about the same in both.

3500 - 4500 years ago actual time/bible time is probably somewhere between 750,000 - 60 million years ago in same nature in the past based science dates.

4500-6100 years ago actual time/bible time is anywhere between about 65 million to 4 plus billion years ago in science time!

So, Noah lived say, maybe somewhere around 65 to 120 million years ago science time! (say about 4200 to 5000 years actual time ago)

And neither of these times, would turn remains humans, animals or plants into fossils. Fossilization will only occur beyond 10,000 years, but the longer, the better.

In this nature..projected backwards in your mind...that may be true. In reality, the Cambrian period was probably say somewhere around 5500 to 5900 years ago! In your dates it was many millions of years ago! So you canot toss out dates as if you know what you are talking about. Reality diverges sharply from your belief based date scheme somewhere around 4000 years ago, and hits an error curve that goes insane exponentially after that!!!

You should read up on fossil, especially how long it take, because you really don’t understand how long and difficult for fossilization to occur.

You should stop reading nonsense based on the present nature laws about how long a fossil woulda coulda shoulda take to form in the far past!

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Yes there is, and your selectively and dishonestly choosing to ignore the evidence, The following is only one of the research projects on the origins of life before the Cambrian.

Yeah, let’s look at it....

From: Lighting the fuse for the Cambrian Explosion

Excerpt:
“In work that led to Australia and back, researchers **believe** that microfossils previously thought to be algae may actually be a specialized type of egg case, laid by an animal precursor for that explosion of life.”

As I stated, it’s always supposition (but at least they’re candid & honest about it); you make it sound like it’s writ in stone. Recall I said, “obvious” precursors?
“May actually be” does not equate to obvious!
I may actually be Santa Claus.

Another thing: these researchers have beliefs, like faith. Interesting.

Like I said, you’ll grasp at straws. “Specialized egg shell casings”, wow!
I’m dishonest?

But at least the article does say regarding the Cambrian life forms, “the **creatures** that suddenly appear in the fossil record...” I know many naturalists don’t want to use that phrase “suddenly”. And I appreciate that the author uses the term, “creatures”.

Excerpt:
“Scientists have long puzzled over the **sudden appearance** of these complex creatures because they must have evolved from precursors that appear to be missing from the pre-Cambrian fossil record.”
Interpreting evidence to fit a presupposed default conclusion? This is what hinders genuine science....it’s not
enough to throw together any fanciful ideas and claim that they represent possible pathways for evolution. These pathways must be backed by some sort of evidence that shows they are possible, not just assertion.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yeah, let’s look at it....



Excerpt:
“In work that led to Australia and back, researchers **believe** that microfossils previously thought to be algae may actually be a specialized type of egg case, laid by an animal precursor for that explosion of life.”

As I stated, it’s always supposition (but at least they’re candid & honest about it); you make it sound like it’s writ in stone. Recall I said, “obvious” precursors?
“May actually be” does not equate to obvious!
I may actually be Santa Claus.

Another thing: these researchers have beliefs, like faith. Interesting.

Like I said, you’ll grasp at straws. “Specialized egg shell casings”, wow!
I’m dishonest?

But at least the article does say regarding the Cambrian life forms, “the **creatures** that suddenly appear in the fossil record...” I know many naturalists don’t want to use that phrase “suddenly”. And I appreciate that the author uses the term, “creatures”.

Excerpt:
“Scientists have long puzzled over the **sudden appearance** of these complex creatures because they must have evolved from precursors that appear to be missing from the pre-Cambrian fossil record.”
Interpreting evidence to fit a presupposed default conclusion? This is what hinders genuine science....it’s not
enough to throw together any fanciful ideas and claim that they represent possible pathways for evolution. These pathways must be backed by some sort of evidence that shows they are possible, not just assertion.

Selective 'arguing from ignorance' of one source does not address the many references and research. Of course, there is a degree of unknown and uncertainty, because scientists do not 'know' nor prove anything, as you claim to absolutely know based on a religious agenda. The uncertainity concerns the details and possible alternatives, and NOT the certainty of the science of evolution.

 

[Jose Fly]

Yeah, let’s look at it....

Excerpt:
“In work that led to Australia and back, researchers **believe** that microfossils previously thought to be algae may actually be a specialized type of egg case, laid by an animal precursor for that explosion of life.”

As I stated, it’s always supposition (but at least they’re candid & honest about it); you make it sound like it’s writ in stone. Recall I said, “obvious” precursors?
“May actually be” does not equate to obvious!
I may actually be Santa Claus.

Another thing: these researchers have beliefs, like faith. Interesting.

It's fascinating how one of the preferred tactics of two of the Jehovah's Witnesses who post here centers on nothing more than word usage and semantic pedantry.

"Oh look, they used words like 'likely', 'may', and 'possibly', therefore their conclusions are no different than me saying 'I may be Santa Claus".

You guys really could use a new playbook.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's fascinating how one of the preferred tactics of two of the Jehovah's Witnesses who post here centers on nothing more than word usage and semantic pedantry.

"Oh look, they used words like 'likely', 'may', and 'possibly', therefore their conclusions are no different than me saying 'I may be Santa Claus".

You guys really could use a new playbook.

It illustrates one of the reason that honest scientists will not debate with the likes of Kent Hovind. They try to use the honesty of scientists as a weapon against it. They claim to "know" when all they have are beliefs. Scientists that even know that a ball falls due to gravity will hedge their statements in a scientific journal allowing for the minuscule chance that they are wrong.

 

[leroy]

[

Almost all fossils are dated by multiple methods first and important by stratigraphy associated with the type of depositional environment, and then various methods of radiometric dating.

Ok, support your claim

 

[PruePhillip]

Exaggeration is the name of the game. Jerusalem NEVER had a population of a million people.. All of Palestine never had a population that size.

Josephus wrote for the Romans.

So you know better. Josephus gives all kinds of numbers. The time of the Roman
siege was the Passover - people poured in from all over Israel, and the canny
Romans let them in, but didn't let them out.
I suggest a figure for about three or four million Jews died during the three wars.
Must look that up - but certainly, not something like Wikipedia.
It's probably like this - ancient authors sometimes exaggerated, but we don't know
which is the exaggeration.

 

[shunyadragon]

[


Ok, support your claim

You also made the first claim and you cannot back it up;

Still waiting . .

Simply read the evidence in the journals I do not spoon feed. Every journal article concerning fossil in contemporary journals ALL use multiple methods to date the fossils. This is standard procedure for scientists concerning fossil research and publication. They date their find by stratigraphy and than use radiometric dating to give a more accurate dating. They also correlate their finds based on other previous fossil finds in the same stratigraphy.

I have been around the world as a geologist and seen first hand the evidence. What are your academic and experience to make your claims.

Still waiting . . .

 

[shunyadragon]

So you know better. Josephus gives all kinds of numbers. The time of the Roman
siege was the Passover - people poured in from all over Israel, and the canny
Romans let them in, but didn't let them out.
I suggest a figure for about three or four million Jews died during the three wars.
Must look that up - but certainly, not something like Wikipedia.
It's probably like this - ancient authors sometimes exaggerated, but we don't know
which is the exaggeration.

First, we know Josephus exaggerated concerning the conflicts he was in based on Roman records. Josephus had no first hand knowledge of the life of Jesus, and some references to Jesus were added or altered later..

 

[leroy]

You also made the first claim and you cannot back it up;

Care to tell me what claim am I suppose support?

Still waiting . .

Simply read the evidence in the journals I....

I have been around the world as a geologist and seen first hand the evidence. What are your academic and experience to make your claims.

Still waiting . . .

Well then quote from your favorite journal and provide an example of a dinosaur (or something) that was dated by multiple independent methids

 

[shunyadragon]

[


Ok, support your claim

Basic senior high school level reference. Read the reference and get a little education.


From: Dating Rocks and Fossils Using Geologic Methods | Learn Science at Scitable

Using relative and radiometric dating methods, geologists are able to answer the question: how old is this fossil?

Despite seeming like a relatively stable place, the Earth's surface has changed dramatically over the past 4.6 billion years. Mountains have been built and eroded, continents and oceans have moved great distances, and the Earth has fluctuated from being extremely cold and almost completely covered with ice to being very warm and ice-free. These changes typically occur so slowly that they are barely detectable over the span of a human life, yet even at this instant, the Earth's surface is moving and changing. As these changes have occurred, organisms have evolved, and remnants of some have been preserved as fossils.

A fossil can be studied to determine what kind of organism it represents, how the organism lived, and how it was preserved. However, by itself a fossil has little meaning unless it is placed within some context. The age of the fossil must be determined so it can be compared to other fossil species from the same time period. Understanding the ages of related fossil species helps scientists piece together the evolutionary history of a group of organisms.

For example, based on the primate fossil record, scientists know that living primates evolved from fossil primates and that this evolutionary history took tens of millions of years. By comparing fossils of different primate species, scientists can examine how features changed and how primates evolved through time. However, the age of each fossil primate needs to be determined so that fossils of the same age found in different parts of the world and fossils of different ages can be compared.

There are three general approaches that allow scientists to date geological materials and answer the question: "How old is this fossil?" First, the relative age of a fossil can be determined. Relative dating puts geologic events in chronological order without requiring that a specific numerical age be assigned to each event. Second, it is possible to determine the numerical age for fossils or earth materials. Numerical ages estimate the date of a geological event and can sometimes reveal quite precisely when a fossil species existed in time. Third, magnetism in rocks can be used to estimate the age of a fossil site. This method uses the orientation of the Earth's magnetic field, which has changed through time, to determine ages for fossils and rocks.

Relative dating to determine the age of rocks and fossils

Geologists have established a set of principles that can be applied to sedimentary and volcanic rocks that are exposed at the Earth's surface to determine the relative ages of geological events preserved in the rock record. For example, in the rocks exposed in the walls of the Grand Canyon (Figure 1) there are many horizontal layers, which are called strata. The study of strata is called stratigraphy, and using a few basic principles, it is possible to work out the relative ages of rocks.

In the Grand Canyon, the layers of strata are nearly horizontal. Most sediment is either laid down horizontally in bodies of water like the oceans, or on land on the margins of streams and rivers. Each time a new layer of sediment is deposited it is laid down horizontally on top of an older layer. This is the principle of original horizontality: layers of strata are deposited horizontally or nearly horizontally (Figure 2). Thus, any deformations of strata (Figures 2 and 3) must have occurred after the rock was deposited.

The principle of superposition builds on the principle of original horizontality. The principle of superposition states that in an undeformed sequence of sedimentary rocks, each layer of rock is older than the one above it and younger than the one below it (Figures 1 and 2). Accordingly, the oldest rocks in a sequence are at the bottom and the youngest rocks are at the top.

Sometimes sedimentary rocks are disturbed by events, such as fault movements, that cut across layers after the rocks were deposited. This is the principle of cross-cutting relationships. The principle states that any geologic features that cut across strata must have formed after the rocks they cut through (Figures 2 and 3).

 

[shunyadragon]

Care to tell me what claim am I suppose support?

Post # 282 "It is a fact that most fossils are not dated by multiple independent methods."

Well then quote from your favorite journal and provide an example of a dinosaur (or something) that was dated by multiple independent methids

Posted an article on the high school level that describes the regular process. Finding literature on fossils is no problem, Will do.

 

[PruePhillip]

First, we know Josephus exaggerated concerning the conflicts he was in based on Roman records. Josephus had no first hand knowledge of the life of Jesus, and some references to Jesus were added or altered later..

Yes, I consider the reference to Jesus to be fake. Patently so.
Josephus was a Pharisee and the policy of the religious leaders
(those in the so-called "gate" in David's vision of Jesus) was not
to give Christians the oxygen of historic authority.

I think there were 80 million people in the Roman empire. The
Jews being six or seven million, I suppose, wasn't that big a
number. They were quite prosperous and widely spread.