Remarkably complete’ 3.8-million-year-old cranium of human ancestor discovered in Ethiopia

[Subduction Zone]

See my last post...ha

There was changing ratios in the for,er nature also, that just did not probably represent decay then.

You need to show how mathematically changing ratios could still give the same date when using different methods. If you can't it only appears as if you are making up false stories to protect your myth.

 

[dad]

You need to show how mathematically changing ratios could still give the same date when using different methods. If you can't it only appears as if you are making up false stories to protect your myth.

There are no dates when we go back tens of thousands of years. There are ratios of isotopes. If this nature started with most daughter materials with long half lives already existing, then we had in place at the time this nature started, different ratios all through the layers of earth.

All of them would look old to science, because they assume all that daughter material got here BY decay as it is NOW produced.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are no dates when we go back tens of thousands of years. There are ratios of isotopes. If this nature started with most daughter materials with long half lives already existing, then we had in place at the time this nature started, different ratios all through the layers of earth.

All of them would look old to science, because they assume all that daughter material got here BY decay as it is NOW produced.

Sure there are. Once again, just because you do not know how do do something does not mean that others do not know. If you were not so afraid you could learn too.

Sadly due to your ignorance all you can do is to claim that God lied. You can't justify any other explanation.

 

[ratiocinator]

See my last post...ha

Which is just more of the same ignorant nonsense. You seem completely unable to grasp the problem of dates obtained by different methods matching so you just bluster on and on and explain over and over why they would be wrong without ever touching on why they would match - unless they are correct or your god is a liar.

 

[dad]

Which is just more of the same ignorant nonsense. You seem completely unable to grasp the problem of dates obtained by different methods matching so you just bluster on and on and explain over and over why they would be wrong without ever touching on why they would match - unless they are correct or your god is a liar.

We will disagree then. Any different nature with processes working would or could leave different ratios in all years and layers. The only issue is your religious obsession with trying to claim the ratios represent something formed in the present nature, so you can pin old ages on them, to fit with a godless evolution belief set. ( a deliberate act of intellectual terrorism to attack faith in God)

 

[ratiocinator]

We will disagree then.

Yes - you are obviously wrong - as anybody who actually thinks about it can see.

Any different nature with processes working would or could leave different ratios in all years and layers.

Which still doesn't explain why (for example) varve layers correspond to radiometric dating when the assumption is not the age but that the two different aspects of nature had both remained the same. If they were just arbitrarily different, there is no reason for them to match.

The only issue is your religious obsession with trying to claim the ratios represent something formed in the present nature, so you can pin old ages on them...

More false witness. Nobody (except creationists like you) decided on the ages and then tried to get things to fit - that is simply untrue. The ages are directly from the evidence and the assumptions about nature are confirmed by the evidence of the different age methods matching.

...to fit with a godless evolution belief set. ( a deliberate act of intellectual terrorism to attack faith in God)

Many people, including many more in the past when all this was being discovered, who investigate the evidence are not "godless". It is more false witness that it is an attack on any god - it is just science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I would not mind so much that creationists complain about "godless evolution" if they were consistent. God does not appear anywhere in either the Law of Universal Attraction or in Einstein's General Relativity. Yet I never see creationists complain about "godless gravity". I guess when they fall down and go boom they don't want to blame their God. Nor do we see God any where in any other physics, or chemistry, or geology, or biology. Yikes! All science is "godless" what are we going to do?

 

[Polymath257]

I would not mind so much that creationists complain about "godless evolution" if they were consistent. God does not appear anywhere in either the Law of Universal Attraction or in Einstein's General Relativity. Yet I never see creationists complain about "godless gravity". I guess when they fall down and go boom they don't want to blame their God. Nor do we see God any where in any other physics, or chemistry, or geology, or biology. Yikes! All science is "godless" what are we going to do?

The thing is, they *do* sometimes object to General Relativity. In particular, they object to its application to cosmology, which leads directly to the Big bang scenario. They also dislike things like the universe being billions of years old, which means that evidence from gravitational lenses is dismissed.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The thing is, they *do* sometimes object to General Relativity. In particular, they object to its application to cosmology, which leads directly to the Big bang scenario. They also dislike things like the universe being billions of years old, which means that evidence from gravitational lenses is dismissed.

I wonder how they explain that LIGO detected gravitational waves.

If I understood correctly, the very existance of gravitational waves was predicted by several models of physics put together, relativity being just one of them, right?

It's been a while since I've watched the lecture that explained it - and truth be told it was a little over my head

 

[Subduction Zone]

The thing is, they *do* sometimes object to General Relativity. In particular, they object to its application to cosmology, which leads directly to the Big bang scenario. They also dislike things like the universe being billions of years old, which means that evidence from gravitational lenses is dismissed.

Since all of the sciences are interrelated to be a creationist one has to deny all of science sooner or later. Radiometric dating involves a combination of chemistry and physics, one has to deny both to claim that one cannot date rocks. And just the size of our galaxy is a problem for YEC's.

EDIT: And I recently finished reading part of the Conservapedia article about Relativity. I always have to laugh at supposed scientific articles complaining about how a scientific concept has not been "proven".

Theory of relativity - Conservapedia

 

[Audie]

Since all of the sciences are interrelated to be a creationist one has to deny all of science sooner or later. Radiometric dating involves a combination of chemistry and physics, one has to deny both to claim that one cannot date rocks. And just the size of our galaxy is a problem for YEC's.

EDIT: And I recently finished reading part of the Conservapedia article about Relativity. I always have to laugh at supposed scientific articles complaining about how a scientific concept has not been "proven".

Theory of relativity - Conservapedia

I'd think that if ToE were disproved, it would
end up involving disproving massive portions
of all the hard sciences.

But then your basic creo would say
"told you so all along".

 

[tas8831]

We will disagree then. Any different nature with processes working would or could leave different ratios in all years and layers. The only issue is your religious obsession with trying to claim the ratios represent something formed in the present nature, so you can pin old ages on them, to fit with a godless evolution belief set. ( a deliberate act of intellectual terrorism to attack faith in God)

Pity that you cannot see how out of your depth you are.
Pity that you cannot present any actual evidence for your zany notions.
Then, that seems to be par for the course amonst the religionists.

 

[Audie]

Pity that you cannot see how out of your depth you are.
Pity that you cannot present any actual evidence for your zany notions.
Then, that seems to be par for the course amonst the religionists.

Ya got a extreme case there, but yeah, it
stands for all of them.

 

[dad]

Pity that you cannot see how out of your depth you are.
Pity that you cannot present any actual evidence for your zany notions.
Then, that seems to be par for the course amonst the religionists.

You cannot present any evidence for your same state past. Yet you found zany fables on it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You cannot present any evidence for your same state past. Yet you found zany fables on it.

Where is your evidence for your claim that humans used to live for hundreds of years?
What evidence do you have that indicates a different state past?

 

[Audie]

Where is your evidence for your claim that humans used to live for hundreds of years?
What evidence do you have that indicates a different state past?

I wonder what their teeth were made of in those
halcyon days?

Modern day teeth would wear out too fast.

 

[dad]

Where is your evidence for your claim that humans used to live for hundreds of years?
What evidence do you have that indicates a different state past?

On one hand you cite records of antiquity that show a great difference in life on earth, and on the other hand you ask what evidence we have! Seems to me the recorded different world of yesterday is evidence. Science cannot cover it either way, so no scientific evidence can be used for or against.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You cannot present any evidence for your same state past. Yet you found zany fables on it.

Sure, if you ignore all the evidence, then there is no evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

On one hand you cite records of antiquity that show a great difference in life on earth, and on the other hand you ask what evidence we have! Seems to me the recorded different world of yesterday is evidence. Science cannot cover it either way, so no scientific evidence can be used for or against.

Records of antiquity also say that Jupiter throws lightning bolts.

Records of old also say that Thor slayed the Ice Giants.
And I'm not seeing any Ice Giants around, so it must be true.

 

[tas8831]

You cannot present any evidence for your same state past. Yet you found zany fables on it.

Great, same states past is evidence-free. Yup, sure, OK.

So let's see your different-states past evidence.

No bible verses allowed please.