How old is man?

[Subduction Zone]

I suppose there may be one other factor at work in some of this. I wonder if the same issue of generation of C14 from decay of U and Th in the surrounding rocks can affect fossils, just as it does in the case of coal and diamond.

I don't imagine a huge amount of work will have been done on this, as only a lunatic - or a creationist - would be interested in analysing the C14 in fossils in rocks >50,000yrs old.

This is a bit more than the barely detectable amounts of C14 in those sources. I suspect groundwater contamination. Dissolved carbon dioxide would be "new" carbon and only a little will skew the ages.

 

[rational experiences]

Did the Earth Really Go Dark After Christ's Crucifixion? Christian Apologist Lee Strobel Answers

Today man is 100 years old, the same tomorrow and the next day as long as a new born baby male exists and is born.

For a man or a male is a human being who thinks about everything he thinks about...as a human and as a male...the thinker his own self.

So if you ask how old you are.....well how old are you....seeing you are just one human being, a self and thinking.

If you ask how long has a human lived on Earth....the same information exists for each self about 100 years.

If you ask how long has the Earth existed created for as stone....there is no answer whatsoever....for science said that earth once was a self consuming energy body that stopped falling in space......was cooled and evolved into stone due to being plummeted deeper into space in the fall of God.

How science explained it.

Deep enough into space allowed for stone to form.....if the plummeting burning body fell deeper into space, it got pulled apart.

Therefore I would suggest that in the past when males claimed it seemed like a sun eclipse, that Earth began to fall for a short time in space and so we moved away from the Sun radiation effect.

What I would believe.

 

[Audie]

Domesticated dogs and wolves both have canine DNA, but there is a large difference between them in terms of temperament and instinct. For example, some dog breeders have tried to incorporate the wolves to make their domesticated breeds, bigger and tougher. Wolves and domesticated dogs can breed, but the puppies of this union develop differently and are harder to train than say pure German Shepherd puppy. Canine DNA does not tell the entire story. Wolf and wolf hybrids have a different sensory development very early in life that sets the stage for later development.

Modern humans do not even know what natural human instinct is, or else the idea of 100 genders would not even exist. Like domesticated dogs, modern humans follow the commands of culture, and will often accept unnatural behavior, as natural, since they lack natural instinct. Reading and Writing speed this affect; nonfiction, fiction, opinion and sales pitch.

A good example of this affect are nerds ,who spend lots of time in books or internet. They tend to have less natural athletic skills. The Jocks are not typically bookworms. Their brains develop differently, more based on direct sensory input; hand-eye coordination. Adam was the original nerd. Tradition has it he was skilled in math and science.

If you read Genesis 4-14, at the section where Cain kills Abel. and Cain is banished by God, Cain complains;



The question becomes, who were these whomever that Cain is afraid of, if Adam and Eve only had two sons and one son was dead? Cain was speaking of the pre-humans who had human DNA, but who were not yet domesticated psychologically, as were Adam, Eve and Cain. God gives Cain a talisman or symbol for protection. As legion has it, Cain goes on to have children with prehuman wives. His children prosper since they had the benefit of their father for early education.

What garbage.

 

[exchemist]

This is a bit more than the barely detectable amounts of C14 in those sources. I suspect groundwater contamination. Dissolved carbon dioxide would be "new" carbon and only a little will skew the ages.

Ah yes. Indeed.

By the way, I was thinking, if these people had been genuine, they would have got the fossil bones and the surrounding rocks, analysed by one of the radioisotopes appropriate to the age of the specimens according to geology, at the same time. U 235? Or do palaeontologists use something else?

 

[Valjean]

There may be some new findings coming out about Chicxulub and that maybe it wasn't a meteor at all. Thus, it didn't cause an extinction as hypothesized. I can't reveal anything as there just isn't enough information on it out there. Here's some news from 2019 that may back me up in that some scientists are going back to the Deccan Traps volcanoes as that which wiped out the dinosaurs. Atheist scientists are usually wrong.

Meteor, asteroid, comet -- some large body smashed into Earth. Yes, there is some evidence of decreasing biodiversity prior to impact, but, as Subduction Zone pointed out, it was the impact that was the immediate cause of the mass extinction.
Atheist scientist? But don't the religious scientists agree with this as well?
Why bring up atheism? Why would belief in God have anything to do with scientific conclusions?

 

[Valjean]

The old Earth. One has to assume the meteors were formed long time ago when the solar system was formed. Everything in evolution is assumed to take long time. If God created it as told by the only witness, then it didn't take long -- a week!

What does all this mean? Three unconnected assertions?
Everything in evolution is not assumed to take a long time, and yes, if everything was magically poofed into existence it would take even less time. Your point?

As for the Gobekli Tepe, it's part of the Antediluvian world according to creation scientists. So again, we disagree on the time period.

So the world isn't 6,000 years old? It's ancient?
How are we disagreeing on the time period?

https://www.creationwiki.org/Antediluvian_world

 

[Aupmanyav]

By the end of the week, he was dead tired. Never did so much work.

 

[Valjean]

Modern humans do not even know what natural human instinct is, or else the idea of 100 genders would not even exist. Like domesticated dogs, modern humans follow the commands of culture, and will often accept unnatural behavior, as natural, since they lack natural instinct. Reading and Writing speed this affect; nonfiction, fiction, opinion and sales pitch.

Perhaps unfortunately, we have all to much relict instinct. Our tribalism, in-group solidarity and out-group aggression were forged during our millions of years of living as small bands of hunter-gatherers.

A good example of this affect are nerds ,who spend lots of time in books or internet. They tend to have less natural athletic skills. The Jocks are not typically bookworms. Their brains develop differently, more based on direct sensory input; hand-eye coordination.

Source?

Adam was the original nerd. Tradition has it he was skilled in math and science.

What tradition? For that matter, what Adam?
Maths and science? They didn't exist at that time. Science, especially, is a very new development.

If you read Genesis 4-14, at the section where Cain kills Abel. and Cain is banished by God, Cain complains;

The question becomes, who were these whomever that Cain is afraid of, if Adam and Eve only had two sons and one son was dead? Cain was speaking of the pre-humans who had human DNA, but who were not yet domesticated psychologically, as were Adam, Eve and Cain. God gives Cain a talisman or symbol for protection. As legion has it, Cain goes on to have children with prehuman wives. His children prosper since they had the benefit of their father for early education.

What does Genesis have to do with actual anthropology? You're trying to insert fiction into science. The two don't mix well.

 

[james bond]

@james bond , the Deccan Traps probably had a hand in the dinosaur extinction, but there is little doubt that the asteroid impact finished them off. The end of dinosaurs was immediate, where extinctions caused by massive volcanic eruptions do take some time. There is not that much in the way of fossils at that time since fossils of land animals is very hit and miss. But there would is one recent find of mostly lake sediments that also has a single weathered dinosaur bone that appears to be a result of the Chixuclub strike:


Fossil Site May Capture the Dinosaur-Killing Impact, but It’s Only the Beginning of the Story | Science | Smithsonian Magazine

Look at how they determined Chicxulub site was a large meteor. There should be new evidence coming out that it wasn't a meteor. It was probably a volcano. Nothing to do with dinosaurs. Thus, another of your wrong beliefs crumbles if this is to legit to quit. The only thing I will present now is that scientists are promoting the Deccan Traps as what killed the dinos in 2019. Shape of things to come in 2020?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Look at how they determined Chicxulub site was a large meteor. There should be new evidence coming out that it wasn't a meteor. It was probably a volcano. Nothing to do with dinosaurs. Thus, another of your wrong beliefs crumbles if this is to legit to quit. The only thing I will present now is that scientists are promoting the Deccan Traps as what killed the dinos in 2019. Shape of things to come in 2020?

i know how it was determined to be an asteroid. I have doubts that you understand. What information could show them to be wrong?

And the Deccan Traps are not a new discovery. It appears that you just found out about them and are grasping at straws. Whether they killed the dinosaurs or not they do not help the myths that you believe in.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ah yes. Indeed.

By the way, I was thinking, if these people had been genuine, they would have got the fossil bones and the surrounding rocks, analysed by one of the radioisotopes appropriate to the age of the specimens according to geology, at the same time. U 235? Or do palaeontologists use something else?

U 235 is usually limited to igneous and metamorphic samples. K/Ar is usually just igneous.. But there may be some more exotic methods they could have used. The thing is they don't want to know. They want an excuse to believe. Creation "scientists" are not scientists because they never put their beliefs into the form of a testable hypothesis. They don't want to be shown to be wrong, even if they are. That is the opposite of science.

 

[Audie]

Meteor, asteroid, comet -- some large body smashed into Earth. Yes, there is some evidence of decreasing biodiversity prior to impact, but, as Subduction Zone pointed out, it was the impact that was the immediate cause of the mass extinction.
Atheist scientist? But don't the religious scientists agree with this as well?
Why bring up atheism? Why would belief in God have anything to do with scientific conclusions?

Some religious scientists of course do give up all pretense
o intellectual honesty.
All at ICR for example, and, "climate' sorts with oil
companies, Industry sponsored tobacco research etc.

And some are freelance like my personal fav, Dr. K Wise
who openly says that no evidence would ever change
his mind about yec. (on account of what the bible get this,
seems to say.)

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Instead, they take only that which fits their preconceived notions of evolutionary time chronology.

That's the method of faith-based enterprises. They begin with an unsupported belief, and then proceed to hunt for evidence to support it, massaging the evidence to conform to their preconceived notion believed by faith. A faith-based confirmation bias allows in only that which is thought to be useful in supporting the faith-based notion while ignoring or denying the rest as you are doing here with radioisotope dating.

The proper method is to impartially examine the evidence first, all of it, and from that, derive a general rule that accounts for it all, then confirm that the rule has predictive power. That rule becomes a bona fide conclusion, since it was derived from the evidence after observing it. The faith-based method doesn't actually ever derive conclusions from evidence, but does try to feign that it has by arranging an argument where the unproven, faith-based premise is stuck at the end of the massaged evidence and presented as a conclusion derived from it - a pseudo-conclusion if you will.

Let's just say with your extraneous wrong commentary and idiotic criticism of real science that you are not credible at all.

I consider it wisest to get my science from scientists. I'll let them tell me what real science is. They do it professionally.

Atheist scientists are usually wrong.

"You stare into your high definition plasma screen monitor in the comfort of your air conditioned home and in the glow of electric lighting, type into your cordless keyboard, then hit enter, which causes your computer to convert all that visual data into a binary signal that's processed by millions of precise circuits.

"This is then converted to a frequency modulated signal to reach your wireless router where it is then converted to light waves and sent along a large fiber optics cable to be processed by a super computer on a mass server, one of untold numbers of computers interconnected into a powerful network of intercommunicating computers bringing the world and all of its information to your laptop.

"This sends that bit you typed to a satellite orbiting the earth that was put there through the greatest feats of engineering and science, all so it could go back through a similar pathway to make it all the way here to my computer monitor 15,000 miles away from you just so you could express your disappointment in science and say, "Science is all a bunch of man made hogwash."- anon.

As for the diamond and coal, they have simply failed, probably deliberately, to take into account that U and Th have decay processes that lead to C14, as I mentioned in my previous post. I note they make no reference to uranaium or thorium in the write up. Too inconvenient to mention, I expect.

I've been criticized in the past for refusing to even open a creationist link, that being called the genetic fallacy (paraphrased, of course - not that term). I' admonished to consider the argument and not the source - evaluate the argument on its own merit.

The problem there is the dishonesty of these sources, and their proclivity for not presenting all of the relevant evidence. Sure, one can fact check what they do provide, but what about critical information such as that which you just added that negates the creationist argument, an argument that without that fact might be compelling. To fact check for that kind of omission pretty much means becoming familiar with everything there is to know on the subject including the information you provided. I can't see why I would bother myself to do that.

The problem, of course, is the ethics of creationist apologists. If they can't trusted, why even read their specious arguments?

I have another example of that from DNA tests prove Darwin Was Wrong - Ape DNA very different from human DNA - Laws of Genetics Contradicts Ape to Human Evolution , with a Christian creationist arguing that "Man cannot have descended from a common ancestral great ape because all of the other apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes, and man but 23, implying the loss of a whole chromosome, which would be fatal.” Go ahead and evaluate that argument on its merits.

In that case, I happened to be aware of human chromosome 2 and could see the dishonesty immediately, but that was not true regarding C14. I don't know how long it would have taken me to find the key omitted facts.

So that is the justification for not even looking at or considering arguments from untrustworthy sources, and why it is not a genetic fallacy. I'm not arguing that the creationist's argument must be a lie if it comes from one of these sources, which would be the genetic fallacy, just that it very well might be, and I might not be able to determine just where the lie is.

 

[exchemist]

That's the method of faith-based enterprises. They begin with an unsupported belief, and then proceed to hunt for evidence to support it, massaging the evidence to conform to their preconceived notion believed by faith. A faith-based confirmation bias allows in only that which is thought to be useful in supporting the faith-based notion while ignoring or denying the rest as you are doing here with radioisotope dating.

The proper method is to impartially examine the evidence first, all of it, and from that, derive a general rule that accounts for it all, then confirm that the rule has predictive power. That rule becomes a bona fide conclusion, since it was derived from the evidence after observing it. The faith-based method doesn't actually ever derive conclusions from evidence, but does try to feign that it has by arranging an argument where the unproven, faith-based premise is stuck at the end of the massaged evidence and presented as a conclusion derived from it - a pseudo-conclusion if you will.



I consider it wisest to get my science from scientists. I'll let them tell me what real science is. They do it professionally.



"You stare into your high definition plasma screen monitor in the comfort of your air conditioned home and in the glow of electric lighting, type into your cordless keyboard, then hit enter, which causes your computer to convert all that visual data into a binary signal that's processed by millions of precise circuits.

"This is then converted to a frequency modulated signal to reach your wireless router where it is then converted to light waves and sent along a large fiber optics cable to be processed by a super computer on a mass server, one of untold numbers of computers interconnected into a powerful network of intercommunicating computers bringing the world and all of its information to your laptop.

"This sends that bit you typed to a satellite orbiting the earth that was put there through the greatest feats of engineering and science, all so it could go back through a similar pathway to make it all the way here to my computer monitor 15,000 miles away from you just so you could express your disappointment in science and say, "Science is all a bunch of man made hogwash."- anon.



I've been criticized in the past for refusing to even open a creationist link, that being called the genetic fallacy (paraphrased, of course - not that term). I' admonished to consider the argument and not the source - evaluate the argument on its own merit.

The problem there is the dishonesty of these sources, and their proclivity for not presenting all of the relevant evidence. Sure, one can fact check what they do provide, but what about critical information such as that which you just added that negates the creationist argument, an argument that without that fact might be compelling. To fact check for that kind of omission pretty much means becoming familiar with everything there is to know on the subject including the information you provided. I can't see why I would bother myself to do that.

The problem, of course, is the ethics of creationist apologists. If they can't trusted, why even read their specious arguments?

I have another example of that from DNA tests prove Darwin Was Wrong - Ape DNA very different from human DNA - Laws of Genetics Contradicts Ape to Human Evolution , with a Christian creationist arguing that "Man cannot have descended from a common ancestral great ape because all of the other apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes, and man but 23, implying the loss of a whole chromosome, which would be fatal.” Go ahead and evaluate that argument on its merits.

In that case, I happened to be aware of human chromosome 2 and could see the dishonesty immediately, but that was not true regarding C14. I don't know how long it would have taken me to find the key omitted facts.

So that is the justification for not even looking at or considering arguments from untrustworthy sources, and why it is not a genetic fallacy. I'm not arguing that the creationist's argument must be a lie if it comes from one of these sources, which would be the genetic fallacy, just that it very well might be, and I might not be able to determine just where the lie is.

Oh I agree entirely. "Prove me wrong" has been the cry of the crank down the ages. We all have to decide what sources and what opinions we are prepared to take seriously and engage with - and which to ignore as a waste of our time. We are not morally obliged to listen patiently to the ravings of every nutter on the street corner.

I don't think James Bond understands half of what he posts. He just gets it from Answers in Genesis, as so many of them do. So he's got no chance of understanding my criticisms either! I am interested, however, because it is an opportunity to learn more about radiometric dating and its potential pitfalls.

One of the difficulties in directly rebutting this lousy C14 creationist data is that nobody else will have done much work on how C14 can be present in old rocks and fossils, simply because it is such a bloody stupid technique to try to use for dating things that old. From what I read, radiometric dating of fossils is usually done by dating suitable rock strata , generally igneous or metamorphic, above and below the fossil beds, because these are the rocks for which one can reliably use U 235 or the K40/Ar40 ratio. So, when you're up against creationists, you get immediately sidetracked into a whole other discussion about the validity of the concept of the geological column.

That's the thing about science though: it's all interconnected. So if you deal with someone who chooses to reject one piece, you find yourself having to explain a load of other stuff too.

 

[BilliardsBall]

C14 dating has been corroborated by other, consilient dating techniques confirming carbon dates on particular samples. It's limits are well known, and unexpected findings are usually discovered to be sampling or methodological errors.
If an unexpected result were found; no methodological errors could be discovered, and repeated testing continued to yield the same result, the result would usually be accepted as provisionally true.
There's no scientific agenda to push any particular doctrine. In fact, if you want to make a name for yourself in science, the way to do it is to upend current thinking.

ETA: My bad. This is Religions Q&A. The Bible states we have a young Earth if we use it for calculations. They are explained here -- The Bible Says the Earth is Young.

Fine -- but it's objectively wrong, isn't it?


10,000+ year old stele:

[/QUOTE]

Alleged, and like dating carbon-based life, alleged on assumptions about nearby structures/geology/uniformitarian assumptions...

 

[Salvador]

This is your own interpretive chronology, though. Does the bible definitively state an age of man, creation or of the earth, anywhere?

The Bible places a constraint on the creation date of Adam at no earlier than ca. 7,600 B.C; this according to there being 1,948 years between biblical Adam's creation and the birth of Abraham ( Genesis 5, Genesis 11 ) and there being a limit of no more than 100 years between the 57 generations from Abraham to the birth of Christ ( Genesis 6, Luke 3 and Mathew 1 )

 

[Cooky]

In my opinion, Adam represents the first fully conscious human being.

 

[rational experiences]

Man is 100 years old, is born a baby to live for a 100 years and can die around 100 years old.

How old man is.

If you ask a man, how long have you been living on Planet Earth...and first he places imagination to the planet....and infers/references its status, to which he does, yet does not belong.

That circumstance, to pretend is how you get destroyed scientist.

When everything is natural and a male pretends that he owns all the powers of the Universe inside of his own body, just because he knows, in mind that already he is passing unnatural amounts of not natural radiation mass/metal through our bodies.

He claims in his pretend egotistical status, I survived, I was saved from attack, yet everything is dying unnaturally.

Then he says and tries to claim I own all the Universe inside of my bio body.

So I can imagine also. I imagine his science group moving off the face of Earth and floating into space and then a big large stone asteroid slamming through their bodies, ending their life...that is what I can imagine when I pretend unlike you that I knowingly do not own any body accept my own bio state inside of my own bio state.

For it is the likes of science brothers and cult mentality that destroyed all life on Earth before, and it is happening again.

 

[Salvador]

Man is 100 years old, is born a baby to live for a 100 years and can die around 100 years old.

How old man is.

If you ask a man, how long have you been living on Planet Earth...and first he places imagination to the planet....and infers/references its status, to which he does, yet does not belong.

That circumstance, to pretend is how you get destroyed scientist.

When everything is natural and a male pretends that he owns all the powers of the Universe inside of his own body, just because he knows, in mind that already he is passing unnatural amounts of not natural radiation mass/metal through our bodies.

He claims in his pretend egotistical status, I survived, I was saved from attack, yet everything is dying unnaturally.

Then he says and tries to claim I own all the Universe inside of my bio body.

So I can imagine also. I imagine his science group moving off the face of Earth and floating into space and then a big large stone asteroid slamming through their bodies, ending their life...that is what I can imagine when I pretend unlike you that I knowingly do not own any body accept my own bio state inside of my own bio state.

For it is the likes of science brothers and cult mentality that destroyed all life on Earth before, and it is happening again.

Are you perhaps maybe metaphorically referring to the approximate time span the telomeric region at the end of chromosomes on average has become too short in order for division of cells to occur?

 

[rational experiences]

Are you perhaps maybe metaphorically referring to the approximate time span the telomeric region at the end of chromosomes on average has become too short in order for division of cells to occur?

Ask a scientist who named his own self the Satanic destroyer of life on Earth why he intricately studies life with radiation/radio waves that belong to God mass, that by ground state is being disintegrated with UFO metal mass radiation...that is killing off all life before it is meant to?

And studied it by machines, computer AI programs and satellite, all machine God mass that they already converted by very hot melt conditions.....and do not seemingly be aware that if you attack the stone cold radiation mass level that is affects their machine communications also?

And I know that the mind coercion/mind contact and body contact programming was studying us as you experimented on the atmosphere....seeing your study relates to radio wave radiation communications for a machine, in OUR BIO atmosphere and could care less.

Seems like you are trying to intricately encode our personal cellular destruction by the most intricate of inter reactive, recorded AI messages.

Would be what a rational human would say who was nearly combusted in that experiment.

Now science does not know how many variations that the 2 parents own in human life and all of a sudden we could all just die from some AI interactive radio wave radiation communication that you formed...by passing unnatural amounts of radiation through our cells.

We live origin and natural first in the radiation levels that support a healthy bio life form, yet it ages and due to age we then die at 100 years old.

We might have once lived for 200 years in the radiation effect but then die...for all bio Nature gets destroyed at some point in its life span.

As we do not belong to radiation....only radiation equals radiation and only radiation as a radiation mass equals that radiation mass.

Which we just happen not to be.

And when a male who cannot use information correctly and then coerces male conformity in thinking by a cult mentality being science, or in the old days Satanism, and then tell self when you irradiate life, then you get possessed by all the single strands of information that no longer is thought upon by a natural whole self.

As that warning.

We owned a natural radiation amount that already was killing us...you then say natural plus extra for science, which began to destroy us before our life could even age.

Do you all think you are sane when you study the UFO nuclear power plant radiation and then try to claim that a human being bio life began after a nuclear reaction as the Satanist?

For surely you are.

Especially when the brother who argued medical science, as the not Satan self, the Christ realization told you that life for a human began after a monkey, not after a nuclear reaction.