Dr. GS Hurd
Member
The greatest irony of "Expelled" is that the actual scriptwriter was fired from his Bible College job for not being sufficiently "biblical."
Kevin Miller gets really Expelled!
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Observations promoting Intelligence behind life & support systems
- Thread starter Hockeycowboy
- Start date
The greatest irony of "Expelled" is that the actual scriptwriter was fired from his Bible College job for not being sufficiently "biblical."
Kevin Miller gets really Expelled!
Audie
Veteran Member
People and the world were made perfect.
Then they ate a apple.
Now everything and everyone is messed up.
I head about that.
Dr. GS Hurd
Member
There have been a few minor errors mentioned about radiocarbon dating.
The production of C14 in the upper atmosphere was assumed to be constant by Walter Libby in 1949. This was demonstrated to be false in the late 1960s. Radiocarbon dating is calibrated by the direct measurement of organic carbon from directly countable annual events. The first examples were tree rings, called "dendrochronology."
There are annual growth rings found in coral:
There are annual variations in the sediment deposits called "varves" of some lakes:
These varves are also found in deep marine basins:
Then there are annual deposits of ice in several locations around the world:
And there are annual deposit variation in speleothems:
These data are all combined to create the radiocarbon calibration:
As you can see, the accuracy of C14 dates falls off quite abruptly after 50,000 years ago.
Problems may exist, mainly from sloppy field collection and selection of samples. Creationists from ICR on their "RATE Project" seemed to have read the scientific literature mainly to get clues about how NOT to do C14 dating.
The production of C14 in the upper atmosphere was assumed to be constant by Walter Libby in 1949. This was demonstrated to be false in the late 1960s. Radiocarbon dating is calibrated by the direct measurement of organic carbon from directly countable annual events. The first examples were tree rings, called "dendrochronology."
There are annual growth rings found in coral:
There are annual variations in the sediment deposits called "varves" of some lakes:
These varves are also found in deep marine basins:
Then there are annual deposits of ice in several locations around the world:
And there are annual deposit variation in speleothems:
These data are all combined to create the radiocarbon calibration:
As you can see, the accuracy of C14 dates falls off quite abruptly after 50,000 years ago.
Problems may exist, mainly from sloppy field collection and selection of samples. Creationists from ICR on their "RATE Project" seemed to have read the scientific literature mainly to get clues about how NOT to do C14 dating.
Pretty much everything is fine, except for age of human life. C-14 dating assessments are too variable, and many times found faulty. One published case on Mammoths, was accepted to be off by 33%.
I’d say that the use of carbon-14 on anything indicating an age older than 5,000 years, can’t be trusted.
More, later.
Dr. GS Hurd
Member
Actually, C14 dates are excellent. If you hit your thumb with a hammer, it is not the hammer that screwed up. If you try to pound screws into wood, it is not the hammer that failed.
Here you will find there is a problem dealing with a church doctrine that demands that science be rejected for any reason. Even the specious and the fabricated.
Audie
Veteran Member
Nothing can be trusted if it does not match your infallible
reading of scrip.
Re dating-
EVEN IF it is so, that one dating of one mammoth
happened to be off that much, 33% younger than
the date of a 45,000 yr old mammoth still deeply predates
your "flood".
Your explanation of how mammoths came to be rotten
and scavenged while deeply buried in frozen ground
was, btw, silly even by your standards.
Dr. GS Hurd
Member
If we want to we can look to the last split between the lineage that leads to us moderns, and the lineage that lead to the modern chimpanzees.
The Graecopithecus fossils presented by Fuss et al (2017) as early human ancestors, not "the first modern humans." Nor were they presented as the last common ancestor between human and chimp lineages. But many news headlines were falsely claiming "humans evolved in Europe!" Soon after the absurd media distortions died down they are fired up again by Lutz et al (2017).
The science reported starts with the fact that the closest living relatives of modern humans are the African great apes; the chimps and gorillas. Darwin made this same observation in 1871.
From genetic studies it had been estimated that our last common ancestors (LCA) with the other great apes lived some time between 8 and 14 million years ago. Priya Moorjani, Carlos Eduardo G. Amorim, Peter F. Arndt, and Molly Przeworski 2016 "Variation in the molecular clock of primates" Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A.; 113(38): 10607–10612. concluded; “Taking this approach, we estimate the human and chimpanzee divergence time is 12.1 million years, and the human and gorilla divergence time is 15.1 million years.”
The oldest African fossils of our ancestral line are Orrorin tugenensis ( ~5.8–6.0 Ma), and Sahelanthropus tchadensis (~6–7 Ma). However, both of these species have a number of characteristics like up-right posture, and relatively smaller teeth to rule them out as being the last common ancestor (LCA). They were already ‘too human.’ About 14 million years ago, there were a group of apes diverging on the edges of the expanding savannas in Southern Europe. The human-chimp LCA was somewhere in between those two known groups of fossils.
The dryopithecines were Eurasian apes commonly thought by professionals to be the closest candidates to the LCA. Fossils for 8 species in that group are known dating from over 20 million to just 7 million years ago. This covered the time period that the human-chimp LCA would have lived. The study that has poor creationists and racists so confused used CAT scans to look at the dental structure of Graecopithecus freybergi from Greece, and Graecopithecus sp. from Azmaka, Bulgaria. Their approximate age was just over 7 million years ago.
Their conclusion was that there were dental features placing Graecopithecus into the human side of the lineage, and the hunt for the human-chimp LCA continues. But the real discovery is that the search area for the LCA is not limited to Africa. These Graecopithecus fossils were not "the first humans." If we were to see one in the flesh it would be in a Zoo, not in a suit. The modern humans emerged from African migrations into Eurasia, and subsequent divergence and recombination over the last 400 thousand years.
Lutz, H., Engel, T., Lischewsky, B. & Berg, A. von Mainzer,
(2017) “A new great ape with startling resemblances to African members of the hominin tribe, excavated from the Mid-Vallesian Dinotheriensande of Eppelsheim. First report (Hominoidea, Miocene, MN 9, Proto-Rhine River, Germany)” Naturwissenschaftliches Archiv 54, Mainz.
Jochen Fuss, Nikolai Spassov, David R. Begun, Madelaine Böhme 2017 “Potential hominin affinities of Graecopithecus from the Late Miocene of Europe" PLoS ONE12(5): e0177127.
Audie
Veteran Member
Last edited:
Heyo
Veteran Member
That is much nearer to the scientific consensus than I expected. You are indeed not a YEC.
Even if we dismiss C14 dating, there are other methods that put humans clearly into the range I have given. The molecular clock, as mentioned by Dr. GS Hurd, is only one. We also have luminescence dating of cave paintings, we have migration patterns (settling of the Americas) and sunken settlements that are consistent with humans living in the ice age.
To avoid more confusion I'd like to ask you what you think of another branch of biology, taxonomy. Do you agree with Carl von Linné and the scientific community that humans and great apes are in the same family?
We Never Know
No Slack
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
I’m a firm Darwinist! Black and women are inferior to Caucasian males, as Mr. Darwin insisted!
Dr. GS Hurd
Member
I’m a firm Darwinist! Black and women are inferior to Caucasian males, as Mr. Darwin insisted!
Another common lie told by creationists.
Darwin made virtually no mention of humans at all in "The Origin of Species" Further, popular political writing 150 years ago and even later commonly used "race" to mean nationality; we read from those times about the "Irish race" and the "English race." In fact, Darwin considered all human biological variation he observed in his worldwide travels merely due to differences in climate and diet. For example Charles Darwin, wrote in The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex (John Murray, London, 1871), "It may be doubted whether any character can be named which is distinctive of a race and is constant."
Note that this is at a time when many Christians argued that non-Europeans were not even human! The American slave owners were assured by the "preAdamites" that God had created the Negro with the "beasts of the field" and that the sons of Adam (of course all Whites) was only exercising his God ordained right to dominate these sub-humans.
Daly, John Patrick
2002 "When Slavery was Called Freedom: Evangelicalism, Proslavery, and the Causes of the Civil War" University of Kentucky Press.
Audie
Veteran Member
Now, be fair.
IF you deprive the creo of lies, distortions,
prevarications, misrepresentation of material fact,
bearing false witness etc, WHAT do you leave them?
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Intelligent design with evolutionism, and spiritual creationism don't mix. Get a clue.
gnostic
The Lost One
I’m a firm Darwinist! Black and women are inferior to Caucasian males, as Mr. Darwin insisted!
Charles Darwin created a theory on biological diversity through Natural Selection, which had nothing to do with races; he didn’t create Social Darwinism.
Natural Selection is only about biology and natural science, not about politics or society or race.
The term “social Darwinism” were used by various people in the late 19th century and early 20th century, and it first appeared in 1877, by Joseph Fisher, however he was talking about the legality of land tenures in Ireland, not as political sociology.
Other people were associated with this term, while Darwin was still alive, but none of them really associated with social/political that we commonly use this term today.
For instance, Herbert Spencer, a biologist, sociologist and philosopher, and Darwin’s contemporary, attempted to link biological theory with that of social change, and it was he, not Darwin, coined the phrase “Survival of the Fittest”. Spencer used this phrase in both biology and sociology, but Spencer wasn’t talking about the strong dominating the weak, or he wasn’t about about building a superior race or about racism.
“Survival of the Fittest” is also often misunderstood when it is used in biological contexts. For instance, fittest doesn’t mean being the “strongest” eliminating or dominating the weakest, that a common misconception. It also isn’t about being the smartest. Anything, organism that can adapt in the environment, and produce offspring and descendants, showed that species have found niche which to survive. To give, you a living and extant example, there are many insects, and among all these insects, are the various species of butterflies. They are still living today, have not gone extinct, and that mean they are the fittest. Does that mean the butterflies are the strongest or the smartest of all insects?
People sometimes misunderstand what the terms or phrases mean.
Just as people often misunderstood Evolution and Darwin’s Natural Selection.
You, BilliardsBall, are deliberately misrepresenting what Darwin say or write with what someone else’s works, and Darwin has never associated Social Darwinism with Natural Selection.
The term we currently used today, is actually link with American historian, Richard Hofstadter in 1944, which he used to talk about Nazi fascism, and Social Darwinism became associated with Nazi trying to promote the Germans as being superior, hence the superior race.
This type of Social Darwinism is what survive today, have nothing to do with Darwin’s Natural Selection.
Social Darwinism is a common tactic used by creationists to falsely blame Darwin and other biologists for the social racism.
Thinking logically isn’t any creationist’s forte or strength, that’s why they continually reused a rehashed propaganda.
gnostic
The Lost One
Intelligent Design is creationism, not science.
Intelligent Design has never been falsifiable, never been scientifically tested, and never been peer reviewed. It isn’t falsifiable hypothesis and it isn’t scientific theory.
People who advocated for ID, are doing nothing more than promoting it as science, but to date, it is nothing more than another pseudoscience creationism, masquerading as science.
The propaganda being used involved putting legal, social and political pressures to have kids in schools being taught ID as science, when it really should be taught in theology or Sunday schools. Propaganda is the main tool that the Discovery Institute have been used since it’s foundation by a couple of former journalists and politicians.
Audie
Veteran Member
Creobeliefs cannot be advanced against science
without resort to lies and nonsense.
IF there is even one datum point they can muster,
I'd be shocked and delighted to see it.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
The argument that non-Europeans aren't human is not a biblical argument.
Where does the word "race" come from?
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
Darwin was, after all, a man of his time, class and society. True, he was committed to a monogenic, rather than the prevailing polygenic, view of human origins, but he still divided humanity into distinct races according to differences in skin, eye or hair colour. He was also convinced that evolution was progressive, and that the white races—especially the Europeans—were evolutionarily more advanced than the black races, thus establishing race differences and a racial hierarchy. Darwin's views on gender, too, were utterly conventional. He stated that the result of sexual selection is for men to be, “more courageous, pugnacious and energetic than woman [with] a more inventive genius. His brain is absolutely larger [...] the formation of her skull is said to be intermediate between the child and the man” (Darwin 1871). Although female choice explains sexual selection, it is the males who evolve in order to meet the chosen criteria of strength and power; such nineteenth century differentiation between the sexes was crucial in providing an alleged biological basis for the superiority of the male.
Source: Darwin, race and gender