Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[Parsimony]

Your should explain it to me. Evolution is your bailiwick. How is uniformitarianism backed up by radiometric dating? The former was 1800s and the latter was 1956.

Radiometric dating reveals that many layers of strata have indeed been laid down over millions of years, that’s how. Don’t you remember this? It shows just that.

You just admitted Darwin did not know in front of everyone here.

So? No one knew how old the Earth was at the time.

It means he took it upon faith.

No, he took the fossil evidence as showing that evolution happened. The fossil record let him know that it did happen, it just didn’t tell him exactly how long it took to happen because he had no way to directly date the fossils . He assumed that it would take a long time, probably since he wasn’t seeing large scale changes in species on a human time scale. Turns out he was right, as verified by the various dating methods.

Lyell and his atheistic theories was to rebel against Christian theories on the origins of the earth. Darwin was deeply influenced by Lyell and it lead to him disavowing his Christian faith.

Irrelevant to the validity of evolution or uniformitarianism.

So easily confused. No one said atheism had to do with age of the earth ha ha. What I said was uniformitariasm is founded on atheism. "The apostle Peter informed us in 2 Peter 3:3 that scoffers would continue to be around in the last days, jeering at God and His children. Peter also told us exactly what the scoffers would be saying: “All things continue as they are from the beginning of creation.

The Merriam-Webster on-line dictionary defines uniformitarianism as a geological idea which says “that existing processes acting in the same manner as at present are sufficient to account for all geological changes.” In other words, those who believe in uniformitarianism say exactly what the Peter said the scoffers would say: “All things continue as they are from the beginning of creation.”

http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=869

Now, you're not an atheist, so how do you explain your faith in an atheistic concept? Are you going to end up like Darwin?

It’s not an atheistic concept. Uniformitarianism does not (and cannot) address the question of whether or not a god exists.

Some of the great scientists, carefully ciphering the evidences furnished by geology, have arrived at the conviction that our world is prodigiously old, and they may be right but Lord Kelvin is not of their opinion. He takes the cautious, conservative view, in order to be on the safe side, and feels sure it is not so old as they think. As Lord Kelvin is the highest authority in science now living, I think we must yield to him and accept his views.

-Mark Twain, Letters from the Earth (Burchfield, ix)

This quote is from, what, the 19th century? How is that at all relevant to modern knowledge?

Lord Kelvin and his heat model theory was wrong, but Clair Patterson made even a more colossal error with radiometric dating.

Colossal errors such as…?

So, it's strictly faith that you base your evolution on.

Nope, there is plenty of physical evidence. Remember those ERVs?

Can you explain Rubidium-strontium dating? What are its assumptions?

It’s basically the same as uranium-lead dating, except that the radionuclide in question is rubidium 87, the daughter product is strontium 87, and the non-radiogenic isotopic is strontium 86.

"Given the fact that, according to the Bible, Adam was created on the sixth day of our planet’s existence, we can determine a biblically based, approximate age of the earth by looking at the chronological details of the human race. This assumes that the Genesis account is accurate, that the six days of creation were literal 24-hour periods, and that there were no ambiguous gaps in the chronology of Genesis.

The genealogies listed in Genesis chapters 5 and 11 provide the age at which Adam and his descendants each fathered the next generation in a successive ancestral line from Adam to Abraham. By determining where Abraham fits into history chronologically and adding up the ages provided in Genesis 5 and 11, it becomes apparent that the Bible teaches the earth to be about 6000 years old, give or take a few hundred years.

What about the billions of years accepted by most scientists today and taught in the vast majority of our academic institutions? This age of the earth is primarily derived from two dating techniques: radiometric dating and the geologic timescale. Scientists who advocate the younger age of about 6000 years insist that radiometric dating is flawed in that it is founded upon a series of faulty assumptions, while the geologic timescale is flawed in that it employs circular reasoning. Moreover, they point to the debunking of old-earth myths, like the popular misconception that it takes long periods of time for stratification, fossilization and the formation of diamonds, coal, oil, stalactites, stalagmites, etc., to occur. Finally, young-earth advocates present positive evidence for a young age of the earth in place of the old-earth evidences which they debunk. Young-earth scientists acknowledge that they are in the minority today but insist that their ranks will swell over time as more and more scientists reexamine the evidence and take a closer look at the currently accepted old-earth paradigm.

Ultimately, the age of the earth cannot be proven. Whether 6000 years or billions of years, both viewpoints (and everything in between) rest on faith and assumptions. Those who hold to billions of years trust that methods such as radiometric dating are reliable and that nothing has occurred in history that may have disrupted the normal decay of radio-isotopes. Those who hold to 6000 years trust that the Bible is true and that other factors explain the “apparent” age of the earth, such as the global flood, or God’s creating the universe in a state that “appears” to give it a very long age. As an example, God created Adam and Eve as fully-grown adult human beings. If a doctor had examined Adam and Eve on the day of their creation, the doctor would have estimated their age at 20 years (or whatever age they appeared to be) when, in fact, Adam and Eve were less than one day old. Whatever the case, there is always good reason to trust the Word of God over the words of atheistic scientists with an evolutionary agenda."

I see no arguments against dating techniques in there, just claims. If someone wishes to posit a changing rate of decay, then they’ll need to present the evidence for it actually having happened. To date, there is no known way to significantly change the rate of decay of a nucleus with anything less than extreme energy (resulting in something like photofission or photodisintegration, where energetic photons break nuclei apart). That, of course, wouldn’t work because such intense radiation would kill all life on Earth and probably vaporize the planet as well.

I think it is in Isaiah 46:10 -- http://biblehub.com/isaiah/46-10.htm . Now, God can tell us the future and then it will be so, but how many of us has God told our future to? Not many. What I think God predestined is our past or what we are born with. However, He did not predestine our future unless He reveals it to us. This is because of free will. I think Isaiah 46:10 states that He can predestine our future, but He keeps it to Himself. We do not know our exact beginning either unless God reveals it to us.

There is nothing in that verse that says humans are unable to know the age of the Earth...

I said I have a friend whom I discuss the bs of evolution with and he, too, has a background in computer languages. He's an expert in Pascal. How does it relate to atheists and evolutionists? Have you heard of Pascal's Wager? Basically, non-believers are wagering against misery (I call it pain and suffering) while believers are wagering to gain all -- http://plato.stanford.edu/entries .

Pascal’s wager has nothing to do with the validity of evolutionary theory or radiometric dating.

How does "the burial mystery has nothing to do with whether the fossils represent a hoax or not?"

Exactly what I said.

Are you purporting to know more about homo naledi? How old are they? Are they really homo when their brain size was so small? What about the skeptics questions? Go ahead and explain and back it up with news or scientific articles.

It’s not that I “know more” about them. It’s that the claim of a hoax is a big one. It would be especially big for this particular case, since about 1,550 specimens were recovered from at least 15 individuals. That’s a lot of fossils to fake. The cranium would have to have been created from scratch somehow in order to make it look different from existing fossils and living species. It’s not like Piltdown Man, where the cranium was taken directly from a medieval human. The skull capacity is much too small to be that of modern man and the jaw doesn’t stick out enough for it to have been something like a chimpanzee or other modern ape.

Since there are so many photos, then show us some and explain what we are looking at and what they mean? What kind of new information can we glean from it?

A great analysis of the fossil finds (as well as photographs) is presented here.

 

[Parsimony]

The assumption is that when zircons crystallize they lose all of their lead and as long as the crystal remains closed its lead/uranium ratios should follow curve in the chart above. It is known (experimentally) that synthetic zircon under certain conditions reject Pb almost completely, and under certain other conditions can incorporate up to 3% Pb during crystallization.

Isochron plots can tell if daughter isotope content was zero at the time of formation or not. If it wasn’t, then the line will not meet up at the origin (the part of the graph where the two zeroes are).

It is further theorized that since all isotopes of the same element are chemically identical, they should be removed in proportional amounts, forming a straight line on the concordia diagram, that crosses the concordia curve at both the crystallization and the contamination date. Loss of uranium moves the point up and to the right, while a loss of lead moves the point down and to the left.

The straight line can be explained by natural mixing. Theoretically, if X1 and X2 are isotopes of an element X, and Y1 and Y2 are isotopes of element Y, the plot of X1/Y1 vs. X2/Y2 from different samples of the solid will be a straight line passing through the origin. Measurements from La Virgen volcano by A.K. Schmitt et al. (Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, Vol 158, pg 288, 289) correlate well to a straight line through the origin.

Consider the experiment of mixing oil in water. Not all the oil droplets would be the same size. However if the carbon in oil contained 75% 12C and 25% 13C, then this carbon ratio would be preserved in every single oil droplet. Assume that the oxygen in oil and water has 60% 16O and 40% 17O.

Now assume we do an experiment where we solidify this oil-water mixture by freezing and collect 10 samples of the solid. Where there were big oil droplets, there would be a high ratio of 12C/16O and 13C/17O. Where there were small oil droplets, there would be a small ratio of 12C/16O and 13C/17O (less oil implies less 12C and 13C). If we plotted the 12C/16O ratio on the y axis, and the 13C/17O ratio on the x axis, we would obtain a straight line with the slope of (12C/13C)/(16O/170). A sample not containing any oil will fall on the origin since it does not contain carbon.

Yes, mixing of two or more sources can reveal a good-looking isochron. However, mixing plots reveal if mixing of two or more sources has occurred or not.

In reality you don't always get a nice neat line, showing that reality is more complicated than indicated by the theory. Furthermore, contamination can total reset the "clock", providing a way to explain data that does not fit the theory.

For Concordia dating the samples must have both the crystallization and the contamination dates, so this provides yet another way to explain data that does not fit the theory.

Nothing’s perfect. This particular graph shows that there was lead contamination at the formation of the rocks. Also, in order for contamination to reset the clock, then the amount of contamination in each sample would have to be of a very specific amount in order to preserve the linearity of the plot. Though technically possible, it is very unlikely and therefore would always be the exception and never the rule.

Radiogenic lead is from the in-situ decay of Uranium. Some zircon crystals have a 231Pa/235U activity ratio of 2. (Refer American Mineralogist, Volume 92, pages 691-694, 2007) This implies that for every 207Pb atom that is being produced from 235U, there is another 207Pb atom being produced that is not originating from in-situ decay of 235U. (Other than 231Pa, there are many other isotopes in the decay chain of 238U and 235U. If you know of some study that has actually checked whether the other isotopes of the decay chain of Uranium in zircon are in equilibrium, please link that study to this article.)

If there was any significant amount of protactinium or other lead-producing radioisotope contaminating the rock (which itself did not originate from the decay of uranium), then the rate of lead increase in the rock would be higher than the rate of uranium loss over time. This would cause the graph to form a curve instead of a straight line, thus revealing the contamination.

All lead is removed from zircons when they crystallize, such that there are no daughter isotopes present in the original sample. If zircons cooled and crystallized faster than they are thought to have done, then they could have had original lead, and that would throw off the entire process.

Again, this kind of thing would be revealed by either the isochron line not passing through the origin or by the graph failing to form a straight line.

All isotopes of the same element are removed in proportional amounts. However, since lighter isotopes move faster than heavier ones at a given temperature, there would be a tendency for lighter isotopes to be removed a little faster.

If this happened at any significant rate, it would ruin the linearity of the isochron plot and be revealed.

That the decay rates are constant. However, there is evidence of accelerated decay in the past.

All existing evidence points to mostly constant decay rates, including the fact that the decay of elements from supernova over 100,000 light-years away (and therefore over 100,000 years old) is the same as is observed on Earth. That supposed “accelerated decay” thing has many problems, such as the fact that causing billions of years worth of decay in a few thousand years would cause the Earth to melt and make the air so radioactive that it would kill things. That supposed explanation that the expansion of space solving the heat problem makes no sense at all. Spacial expansion could do nothing to remove excess heat from a planet. It does not increase conduction, convection or radiation. All it could do at the most would be to redshift the outgoing radiation which is already being produced. I don’t know how that ridiculous idea even came up as remotely plausible in their mind.

 

[james bond]

Sorry, that was an unfortunate typos.



Again, I would apologise for my error in not proof reading what I've typed up.

Apology accepted.

 

[james bond]

Radiometric dating reveals that many layers of strata have indeed been laid down over millions of years, that’s how. Don’t you remember this? It shows just that.

So? No one knew how old the Earth was at the time.

No, he took the fossil evidence as showing that evolution happened. The fossil record let him know that it did happen, it just didn’t tell him exactly how long it took to happen because he had no way to directly date the fossils . He assumed that it would take a long time, probably since he wasn’t seeing large scale changes in species on a human time scale. Turns out he was right, as verified by the various dating methods.

Irrelevant to the validity of evolution or uniformitarianism.

It’s not an atheistic concept. Uniformitarianism does not (and cannot) address the question of whether or not a god exists.

This quote is from, what, the 19th century? How is that at all relevant to modern knowledge?

Colossal errors such as…?

Nope, there is plenty of physical evidence. Remember those ERVs?

It’s basically the same as uranium-lead dating, except that the radionuclide in question is rubidium 87, the daughter product is strontium 87, and the non-radiogenic isotopic is strontium 86.

I see no arguments against dating techniques in there, just claims. If someone wishes to posit a changing rate of decay, then they’ll need to present the evidence for it actually having happened. To date, there is no known way to significantly change the rate of decay of a nucleus with anything less than extreme energy (resulting in something like photofission or photodisintegration, where energetic photons break nuclei apart). That, of course, wouldn’t work because such intense radiation would kill all life on Earth and probably vaporize the planet as well.

There is nothing in that verse that says humans are unable to know the age of the Earth...

Pascal’s wager has nothing to do with the validity of evolutionary theory or radiometric dating.

Exactly what I said.

It’s not that I “know more” about them. It’s that the claim of a hoax is a big one. It would be especially big for this particular case, since about 1,550 specimens were recovered from at least 15 individuals. That’s a lot of fossils to fake. The cranium would have to have been created from scratch somehow in order to make it look different from existing fossils and living species. It’s not like Piltdown Man, where the cranium was taken directly from a medieval human. The skull capacity is much too small to be that of modern man and the jaw doesn’t stick out enough for it to have been something like a chimpanzee or other modern ape.

A great analysis of the fossil finds (as well as photographs) is presented here.

It's stratigraphy and its bottom-up assumption is wrong. But before we get into that again, what did it mean before the radiometric dating came along? It meant older layers on the bottom, newer layers on top? Were these layers named at that time? What else did these layers mean? Why did Lyell and Darden think these layers took time to form?

Nyet, you're wrong. I said that people believed in Lord Kelvin's heat loss model which was the best theory at the time. Lord Kelvin was a smart man as he did not agree with Darwin and uniformitarianism, so they kept fighting and he fought them off for five decades. I think it was later that creation scientists could estimate the age of the earth from the Bible (estimate, but not exact).

It was not conclusive, but a theory so he took it upon faith. Darwin had great doubts about his own Darwinism and it was shown that he was wrong in a lot of his theories.

It WAS relevant, but who cares about uniformitarianism and Lyell when it's wrong? It's really tedious and boring. Lyell just did want to believe in God and its teaching science. Creationists knew back then there is no gradual development of fossils in the rock layers and it's a myth that the layers are separate. People have found a bear fossil with a prehistoric fossil, but it doesn’t falsify the evolutionary interpretation. Lyell and his kind would simply explain it away with one of these three explanations:

1. Bears evolved earlier than previously believed
2. The older fossil went extinct later than believed
3. One of the fossils is out of place because of an unrecognized tectonic disturbance or later burial

Lyell was a snake oil salesman -- https://notmanynoble.wordpress.com/...ism-unbiased-scientist-or-snake-oil-salesman/ . Why do you believe him? Why did Darwin believe him? From the get go, Darwin was thinking billions of years because of faulty assumptions and circular reasoning. Lyell influenced him well.

Colossal errors of billions of years old due to faulty assumptions.

The rest is just more your faith and not really scientific evidence. You can have faith in ERVs, radiometric dating, Lyell, uniformitarianism, bottom-up layers and explaining away that which does not agree with your ToE. For example, if you can't see that uniformitarianism is based on atheism, then I can't help you. You'll follow your faith despite your Christian faith.

Morevover, I think you're just being contradictory based on what I said in regards to answers to your questions. It gets tiring and old. What's important is you're missing the important parts of what I said. I can't change your mind for you, so it's okay to not believe what I said or what Pascal said. You have your faith and have made your bed with evolution, so you should lie in it.

No, it's not exactly as you said because you provide no evidence. I did so with the news article and it raises doubt and asks interesting questions to make one skeptical. You just ignored it like you do with the other things that disagree with your beliefs. I can't accept continuing like this as I get nothing out of it. For example, you do not answer why a pinhead human would bury its dead like where they buried it? Did they spelunk their way in order to bury the bones? Or is there another explanation. You just ignore it. I checked afterward and the movie The Descent came out in 2005. Both the finder and his daughter were spelunkers, so they could have made up a story in order to make big bucks. And you never did answer my question whether you've gone spelunking or not. Even if the caverns and passageways are wide enough for normal walking, you'll still feel a sense of disorientation as you walk along in the pitch black.

I'm not following your last paragraph. Was there more homo naledis discovered by Lee Berger?

.

 

[james bond]

Parsimony, before we go on, I feel like you're the intellectual type. I do not get the practical experience in your posts. I made some warnings to atheists and evos, but they usually continue to ignore the warning signs. That's fine, but at the same time I do not know why? I do not know what you've experienced. It's not all intellect. All intellect gets tedious and boring. For example, I talked about the power of water and people ignoring it. I've experienced it and I can take what I've learned from the Bible and apply it. Here is one example of people ignoring the warning signs and it cost them their lives. The water is not very deep, so people think wading into is okay. It's not okay. This kind of thing happens at Yosemite National Park and areas nearby as people try to cross a stream.

Warning this is very dramatic and disturbing

 

[Parsimony]

It's stratigraphy and its bottom-up assumption is wrong. But before we get into that again, what did it mean before the radiometric dating came along? It meant older layers on the bottom, newer layers on top? Were these layers named at that time? What else did these layers mean? Why did Lyell and Darden think these layers took time to form?

I don't know the details, but how exactly is the bottom-up assumption wrong? You think you can form a layer on top before there is a bottom?

Nyet, you're wrong. I said that people believed in Lord Kelvin's heat loss model which was the best theory at the time. Lord Kelvin was a smart man as he did not agree with Darwin and uniformitarianism, so they kept fighting and he fought them off for five decades. I think it was later that creation scientists could estimate the age of the earth from the Bible (estimate, but not exact).

Lord Kelvin estimated the Earth at millions of years old, not the 6,000 accepted today by young Earth creationists.

It was not conclusive, but a theory so he took it upon faith. Darwin had great doubts about his own Darwinism and it was shown that he was wrong in a lot of his theories.

He was wrong about some things and did have some doubts, but we've since validated many of his predictions (descent with modification in particular).

It WAS relevant, but who cares about uniformitarianism and Lyell when it's wrong? It's really tedious and boring. Lyell just did want to believe in God and its teaching science. Creationists knew back then there is no gradual development of fossils in the rock layers and it's a myth that the layers are separate.

It's not relevant because personal beliefs have nothing to do with physical evidence. No amount of bias can change isotope ratios in rock, especially when multiple techniques give the same result.

People have found a bear fossil with a prehistoric fossil, but it doesn’t falsify the evolutionary interpretation. Lyell and his kind would simply explain it away with one of these three explanations:

1. Bears evolved earlier than previously believed
2. The older fossil went extinct later than believed
3. One of the fossils is out of place because of an unrecognized tectonic disturbance or later burial

That would depend a lot on the specifics, such as exactly how old it is. Prehistoric bear species are known which go back over a million years (such as the short-faced bear). If that same bear fossil was found to be 500 million years old, then we would have a major problem. So yes, falsification is very much possible for evolution.

Lyell was a snake oil salesman -- https://notmanynoble.wordpress.com/...ism-unbiased-scientist-or-snake-oil-salesman/ . Why do you believe him? Why did Darwin believe him? From the get go, Darwin was thinking billions of years because of faulty assumptions and circular reasoning. Lyell influenced him well.

Billions of years is validated by radiometric dating, so Lyell's reputation is irrelevant to modern findings.

Colossal errors of billions of years old due to faulty assumptions.

You're far from demonstrating that. If the assumptions are faulty, then why is it that several different dating techniques reveal the same approximate age for many different meteors? It can't just be a coincidence that all of those different isotopes lined up in just the right way for this to happen by chance. If material was prone to contamination and we couldn't detect it, then you'd expect these dates to be all over the place and inconsistent.

The rest is just more your faith and not really scientific evidence. You can have faith in ERVs, radiometric dating, Lyell, uniformitarianism, bottom-up layers and explaining away that which does not agree with your ToE.

Call it faith all you want to, but you haven't even addressed the ERVs nor even gotten very far with radiometric dating yet.

For example, if you can't see that uniformitarianism is based on atheism, then I can't help you. You'll follow your faith despite your Christian faith.

How can something which doesn't address the existence of God be atheistic? Uniformitarianism deals purely with the physical world, not the spiritual. It doesn't even come close to being an atheistic argument.

Morevover, I think you're just being contradictory based on what I said in regards to answers to your questions. It gets tiring and old. What's important is you're missing the important parts of what I said. I can't change your mind for you, so it's okay to not believe what I said or what Pascal said. You have your faith and have made your bed with evolution, so you should lie in it.

Again, what does Pascal's Wager have to do with evolution? Nothing. It can't have anything to do with it because evolution has nothing to do with belief or disbelief in God. Evolution, like uniformitarianism, is purely physical.

No, it's not exactly as you said because you provide no evidence. I did so with the news article and it raises doubt and asks interesting questions to make one skeptical. You just ignored it like you do with the other things that disagree with your beliefs. I can't accept continuing like this as I get nothing out of it. For example, you do not answer why a pinhead human would bury its dead like where they buried it? Did they spelunk their way in order to bury the bones? Or is there another explanation. You just ignore it. I checked afterward and the movie The Descent came out in 2005. Both the finder and his daughter were spelunkers, so they could have made up a story in order to make big bucks. And you never did answer my question whether you've gone spelunking or not. Even if the caverns and passageways are wide enough for normal walking, you'll still feel a sense of disorientation as you walk along in the pitch black.

The only mystery here is why the fossils were found in that cave. Burial is one possible interpretation but that doesn't mean it has to be the only one. This is only a guess on my part, but maybe a group was washed into the caved and drowned, leaving their bodies in one place. Without knowing the history of the place and the layout of the cave, I can only speculate on that, however. I don't see any one of those 47 team members who examined the fossils in that report I linked you questioning whether they were real or not. Also, I have been in caves but only on guided tours.

I'm not following your last paragraph. Was there more homo naledis discovered by Lee Berger?

Not as far as I know, but claims of over 1,550 fossils being hoaxed is an awfully big one. How would that have been done, especially when the morphology of the skulls are unique?

Parsimony, before we go on, I feel like you're the intellectual type. I do not get the practical experience in your posts. I made some warnings to atheists and evos, but they usually continue to ignore the warning signs. That's fine, but at the same time I do not know why? I do not know what you've experienced. It's not all intellect. All intellect gets tedious and boring. For example, I talked about the power of water and people ignoring it. I've experienced it and I can take what I've learned from the Bible and apply it. Here is one example of people ignoring the warning signs and it cost them their lives. The water is not very deep, so people think wading into is okay. It's not okay. This kind of thing happens at Yosemite National Park and areas nearby as people try to cross a stream.

Warning this is very dramatic and disturbing

Yes, water can be very powerful (I have an interest in tsunamis, actually). Where are you going with this?

 

[james bond]

This demonstrated your level of ignorance.

Charles Darwin himself clearly stated that he was never an atheist. He had never given up being a Christian, though he did admit he was agnostic. Some people can be theist and agnostic at the same time.

So that make your claim, a lie.

The pope - Pope Francis is as big a Christian you can get, as leader of the Roman Catholic Church. He accepted evolution as being a well-substantiated theory on biological changes, including that of natural selection, all without giving up being a Christian. So again, you are being narrow-minded, and you're lying.

Parsimony, here, whom you have been replying to recently, on this very topic, is both Christian and he accepted evolutionary biology as fact. And parsimony isn't the only Christian here, who accept evolution. I don't see him giving up one or the other. So again, you are making dishonest claim and dishonest generalisations about who accept evolution.

For a Christian, you cannot seem to make claims without lying.

Let me understand the key points that you want to discuss. Maybe we can focus on a couple of areas. What I have difficulty is when you explain both sides of the story and the breadth of topics.

1. Criticism of the Bible, i.e. you stated it was myths based on your expertise in Sumerian and Babylonian myths
2. Differences among Christians today such as old earth vs young earth, what the Bible says and means, the Trinity, the different Christian or Abrahamic religions and so on. Do you really want to discuss this or is it just to state your opinion that we're liars and hypocrites?
3. ToE (biological evolution) vs creation science
4. Big Bang Theory vs creation science
5. Just keep it general
6. Other?

 

[james bond]

I don't know the details, but how exactly is the bottom-up assumption wrong? You think you can form a layer on top before there is a bottom?

Lord Kelvin estimated the Earth at millions of years old, not the 6,000 accepted today by young Earth creationists.

He was wrong about some things and did have some doubts, but we've since validated many of his predictions (descent with modification in particular).

It's not relevant because personal beliefs have nothing to do with physical evidence. No amount of bias can change isotope ratios in rock, especially when multiple techniques give the same result.

That would depend a lot on the specifics, such as exactly how old it is. Prehistoric bear species are known which go back over a million years (such as the short-faced bear). If that same bear fossil was found to be 500 million years old, then we would have a major problem. So yes, falsification is very much possible for evolution.

Billions of years is validated by radiometric dating, so Lyell's reputation is irrelevant to modern findings.

You're far from demonstrating that. If the assumptions are faulty, then why is it that several different dating techniques reveal the same approximate age for many different meteors? It can't just be a coincidence that all of those different isotopes lined up in just the right way for this to happen by chance. If material was prone to contamination and we couldn't detect it, then you'd expect these dates to be all over the place and inconsistent.

Call it faith all you want to, but you haven't even addressed the ERVs nor even gotten very far with radiometric dating yet.

How can something which doesn't address the existence of God be atheistic? Uniformitarianism deals purely with the physical world, not the spiritual. It doesn't even come close to being an atheistic argument.

Again, what does Pascal's Wager have to do with evolution? Nothing. It can't have anything to do with it because evolution has nothing to do with belief or disbelief in God. Evolution, like uniformitarianism, is purely physical.

The only mystery here is why the fossils were found in that cave. Burial is one possible interpretation but that doesn't mean it has to be the only one. This is only a guess on my part, but maybe a group was washed into the caved and drowned, leaving their bodies in one place. Without knowing the history of the place and the layout of the cave, I can only speculate on that, however. I don't see any one of those 47 team members who examined the fossils in that report I linked you questioning whether they were real or not. Also, I have been in caves but only on guided tours.

Not as far as I know, but claims of over 1,550 fossils being hoaxed is an awfully big one. How would that have been done, especially when the morphology of the skulls are unique?

Yes, water can be very powerful (I have an interest in tsunamis, actually). Where are you going with this?

I want to discuss a couple of points in detail -- the homo naledi find and stratigraphy (before raidometric dating). We can come back to the rest after.

I did some minor digging into the homo naledi find. If we were to go spelunking (assuming we're both beginners), we would start with maps. Assuming we each had a map of how to get to our meeting place in South Africa, here is a map of the burial area.

While we're both beginning spelunkers, we know that it's common to find skeletons of animals and sometimes humans in the caves, caverns and places we visit. We also know that finding any fossil anywhere is rare even though it's not unheard of. We look at the above map of the burial chamber, roll our eyes and go that's not for us. So, we hire some professional spelunkers to go in, take video and pictures and explain their expedition and what they found. One, they have a steep descent just to go into the areas where one can walk. They would need equipment to do this such as:

It could be extreme, such as in the movie The Descent. The following is dramatized, but it does explain what can happen during extreme spelunking.

That's all the time I have for now. Will return probably in the evening.

 

[gnostic]

Let me understand the key points that you want to discuss. Maybe we can focus on a couple of areas. What I have difficulty is when you explain both sides of the story and the breadth of topics.

1. Criticism of the Bible, i.e. you stated it was myths based on your expertise in Sumerian and Babylonian myths
2. Differences among Christians today such as old earth vs young earth, what the Bible says and means, the Trinity, the different Christian or Abrahamic religions and so on. Do you really want to discuss this or is it just to state your opinion that we're liars and hypocrites?
3. ToE (biological evolution) vs creation science
4. Big Bang Theory vs creation science
5. Just keep it general
6. Other?

JB.

(A) If you want to talk about theory of evolution, and evolution vs creationism, then fine, just don't bring up the Big Bang, because the Big Bang isn't biology, hence has nothing to do with evolution.

(B) If you want to bring up how life first form in science vs creationism, then don't bring up evolution. It should be abiogenesis vs creation debate. The theory of evolution don't require to teach or research how life start from non-biological chemistry to biochemistry. Abiogenesis and evolution are not same fields of researches or studies.

Do you want to debate about abiogenesis or evolution?

(C) Also, if you want to talk about evolution, then don't bring up atheism, because is atheism is a philosophy that God don't exist, it isn't biology or evolution. You keep associating evolution and atheism as one and the same.

Try telling Pope Francis, that he can't be Christian and accept evolution at the same time. There are not number of Christians and Jews, who accept evolution as explanation and fact that life evolve, via natural selection or mutation or genetic drift or gene flow, etc, and still be theists.

But this goes with any science. You can be scientists and theists, atheists or agnostics. Theism, atheism and agnosticism, all have nothing to do with science.

And lastly, there is no such thing as creation science, because creationism is a religious belief, not science. Creationism is pseudoscience.

(D) Like my first point, if you want to discuss the Big Bang with me, that's fine with me. Just don't confuse the Big Bang with evolution. The Big Bang only relate to the astronomy and astrophysics of the physical cosmology of the expanding universe. BB has nothing to do with biology.

Btw. I wasn't the one who recently brought up Babylonian myth in this topic. You and Metis were arguing over it, and I just happened to join in the middle of this debate between you two.

 

[Skwim]

JB.

(A) If you want to talk about theory of evolution, and evolution vs creationism, then fine, just don't bring up the Big Bang, because the Big Bang isn't biology, hence has nothing to do with evolution.

(B) If you want to bring up how life first form in science vs creationism, then don't bring up evolution. It should be abiogenesis vs creation debate. The theory of evolution don't require to teach or research how life start from non-biological chemistry to biochemistry. Abiogenesis and evolution are not same fields of researches or studies.

Yeah, this is one of the biggest problems in talking with creationists, they don't understand the "evolution" part of the topic. To them it includes anything that smacks of science and goes against their creationist beliefs. But I think we all know why they do it: they're truly ignorant and/or they recognize that creationism can't stand on its own, which prods them to use whatever is handy to smear evolution, or so they think.

"Want to know why evolution is false? God went out of his way to design the banana to fit the human hand

"Want to know why evolution is false? The Piltdown Man was a hoax."

"Want to know why evolution is false? You can't get blood from a rock.

"Want to know why evolution is false? Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so.


.

 

[james bond]

Some recent news on the Piltdown Man fraud. They name the suspect and how he did it -- http://www.forbes.com/sites/kristin...hoax-at-piltdown-finally-solved/#395dec3c6065 . Atheists and evos keep getting it wrong.

 

[james bond]

JB.

(A) If you want to talk about theory of evolution, and evolution vs creationism, then fine, just don't bring up the Big Bang, because the Big Bang isn't biology, hence has nothing to do with evolution.

(B) If you want to bring up how life first form in science vs creationism, then don't bring up evolution. It should be abiogenesis vs creation debate. The theory of evolution don't require to teach or research how life start from non-biological chemistry to biochemistry. Abiogenesis and evolution are not same fields of researches or studies.

Do you want to debate about abiogenesis or evolution?

(C) Also, if you want to talk about evolution, then don't bring up atheism, because is atheism is a philosophy that God don't exist, it isn't biology or evolution. You keep associating evolution and atheism as one and the same.

Try telling Pope Francis, that he can't be Christian and accept evolution at the same time. There are not number of Christians and Jews, who accept evolution as explanation and fact that life evolve, via natural selection or mutation or genetic drift or gene flow, etc, and still be theists.

But this goes with any science. You can be scientists and theists, atheists or agnostics. Theism, atheism and agnosticism, all have nothing to do with science.

And lastly, there is no such thing as creation science, because creationism is a religious belief, not science. Creationism is pseudoscience.

(D) Like my first point, if you want to discuss the Big Bang with me, that's fine with me. Just don't confuse the Big Bang with evolution. The Big Bang only relate to the astronomy and astrophysics of the physical cosmology of the expanding universe. BB has nothing to do with biology.

Btw. I wasn't the one who recently brought up Babylonian myth in this topic. You and Metis were arguing over it, and I just happened to join in the middle of this debate between you two.

A. Not really. I'm already discussing with Parsimony which has gotten tedious and have done so with others here.

B. Not interested in abiogenesis either. It's philosophy and there is no evidence for it..

C. Sorry evolution and atheism go hand-in-hand. They're both religions. I will admit atheism does not mean evolution, but evolution was founded on atheism just like creation science was founded on God and the Bible. We can discuss this.

D. I'm interested in BBT, but no one here can explain it. I've asked three times now, but no answers.

 

[james bond]

Yeah, this is one of the biggest problems in talking with creationists, they don't understand the "evolution" part of the topic. To them it includes anything that smacks of science and goes against their creationist beliefs. But I think we all know why they do it: they're truly ignorant and/or they recognize that creationism can't stand on its own, which prods them to use whatever is handy to smear evolution, or so they think.

"Want to know why evolution is false? God went out of his way to design the banana to fit the human hand

"Want to know why evolution is false? The Piltdown Man was a hoax."

"Want to know why evolution is false? You can't get blood from a rock.

"Want to know why evolution is false? Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so.


.

Today, black South Africans are crying racism to the evos. They state they are humans and not descendants of apes. You can be a monkey's uncle, but count be out ha ha. BTW, you've already been proven wrong by science on the Piltdown Man. Atheists are usually wrong.

 

[james bond]

Help me out here Parsimony. I assume you've taken a great deal of interest in homo naledi, so you probably know much more about it than I. I apologize if I was harsh in presenting my skepticism earlier. I should have added that the skeptics have questions since it is a puzzle.

Here are the statements from the Berger team, i.e. the pros we hired to make findings and report (I still want to use spelunking in my rebuttal, so hope I was able to set it up to everyone's understanding):

"This anatomical mosaic is reflected in different regions of the skeleton. The morphology of the cranium, mandible, and dentition is mostly consistent with the genus Homo, but the brain size of H. naledi is within the range of Australopithecus. The lower limb is largely Homo-like, and the foot and ankle are particularly human in their configuration, but the pelvis appears to be flared markedly like that of Au. afarensis. The wrists, fingertips, and proportions of the fingers are shared mainly with Homo, but the proximal and intermediate manual phalanges are markedly curved, even to a greater degree than in any Australopithecus. The shoulders are configured largely like those of australopiths. The vertebrae are most similar to Pleistocene members of the genus Homo, whereas the ribcage is wide distally like Au. afarensis.”4
Another mystery about the find is the ‘age’ of the bones.

In addition to the Berger et al. paper describing the morphology of the Homo naledi fossils, a companion paper by Dirks et al. was also published in the eLife online journal, which described the physical context of the Dinaledi Chamber within the Rising Star cave, where the fossils were found.5 One of the many big mysteries surrounding Homo naledi is how the fossil material got into the Dinaledi Chamber, with occupation, predator accumulation and water transport hypotheses considered unlikely, but mass mortality or death trap and deliberate body disposal scenarios considered plausible—the latter explanation preferred by the authors.6 Apparently the bones recovered so far represent only “a small portion of the total fossil content”, and “no other large animal remains were found in the chamber, and … the bodies had not been damaged by scavengers or predators”.7"

4 Berger, ref. 3, pp. 17–18.
5 Dirks, P.H.G.M. et al., Geological and taphonomic context for the new hominin species Homo naledi from the Dinaledi Chamber, South Africa, eLife 4:e09561, 2015 | doi:10.7554/eLife.09561.
6. Dirks, ref. 5, pp. 28–30.
7. Dirks, ref. 5, pp. 1–2.

 

[gnostic]

A. Not really. I'm already discussing with Parsimony which has gotten tedious and have done so with others here.

B. Not interested in abiogenesis either. It's philosophy and there is no evidence for it..

C. Sorry evolution and atheism go hand-in-hand. They're both religions. I will admit atheism does not mean evolution, but evolution was founded on atheism just like creation science was founded on God and the Bible. We can discuss this.

D. I'm interested in BBT, but no one here can explain it. I've asked three times now, but no answers.

My points in four of these is that you, and I mean YOU (though I have seen guy threepwood and thief and Ben do exactly the same things you have done, here and other threads), have the tendencies to mix different fields of science, as if they are the one and the same.

You have sometimes write about or argue against evolution, but when in fact you should be arguing against abiogenesis.

There are numbers of distinctions between evolution and abiogenesis. That you won't address abiogenesis at all, just show us how ignorant you are...or are you just lazy, or worse dishonest?

You have also brought up evolutionists following the Big Bang, when the theory of evolution don't deal with space, stars, galaxies.

If you can't distinguish between the Big Bang and ToE, then why should should anyone of us take whatever you say seriously.

C. Sorry evolution and atheism go hand-in-hand. They're both religions.

That's typical creationist BS.

Atheism deal with only the question of theism, which is the belief in the existence of a deity or deities. Atheists simply don't believe in theism.

Atheism is a philosophical position, not a religion. They simply don't believe in any god and since they don't worship anything, atheism is not a religion.

Evolution is biology, relating to genes that have been modified through any evolutionary mechanism (eg mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, etc) being passed to offspring and descendants (hence hereditary).

For instance, evolution explained how the polar bears are different from brown bears. Because of how they each lived in different terrains (respectively in the Arctic or tundra regions and in rain forests), different climates and having different diets, evolutionary biology can explain this through Natural Selection, instead of the other mechanisms.

Evolution don't involve worshipping anyone (eg god(s), spirits, demons, jinns or fairies, and even humans (like pharaohs, Kings, emperors, etc) or anything (scriptures, temples, holy mountains, sun, stars, moon, rivers, sea, Sky), so how can it be religion. Evolution is not about spirituality or about religious morality, like sins, repentance, and evolution don't talk of reincarnation, nirvana or the afterlife (resurrection).

The theory of evolution only attempt to explain how life can change over period of number of generations. It explained the observable natural world and the effects on life.

Tell me, JB.

Do fields in physics, like gravity, optics, electricity, superconductors, require understanding of God, creation or the bible?

If not, then why aren't these fields associated with atheism?

Does the bible teach or explain astronomy, meteorology, agriculture, medicine?

If I want to study astronomy, I would not the bible, in the hope that I would find answers in some verses.

If I want to design public buildings, roads, bridges, I would take a course in civil engineering. If I want to build them, I would learn the trade in construction. I could never learn any of them from any scripture, including the bible.

If I want to make wooden furniture, I would get apprenticeship in some fields in woodworking. Can the bible teach me woodwork or carpentry?

If I am into farming, can the bible teach me how and when to tilt the soil, plant the seeds, when to water, how to irrigate, and when to harvests? Can any verse teach me what tools to use or how to use them?

If I need to employ someone to make vaccine to be use against viral disease, do I get a creationist or a priest who might not know anything except to pray to God in the hope that he might heal people, or do I employed with knowledge in viral diseases and medicine, with background knowledge in evolution?

If I want to learn about God or follow a religion, then I would read the bible myself, and I would ask someone if I need help to understand certain things, like a priest, pastor or even a local bishop. I wouldn't ask help from a farmer, a carpenter, a doctor, an engineer or an astronomer.

 

[Skwim]

Today, black South Africans are crying racism to the evos.

Good grief man, if you''re going to sling BS at least make it credible BS.


.

 

[gnostic]

Today, black South Africans are crying racism to the evos. They state they are humans and not descendants of apes. You can be a monkey's uncle, but count be out ha ha. BTW, you've already been proven wrong by science on the Piltdown Man. Atheists are usually wrong.

Good grief man, if you''re going to sling BS at least make it credible BS.

This is an example of stupidity and dishonesty of today's YE creationism.

 

[ashkat1`]

You are laboring under some serious misconceptions, Mr. Bond. Piltdown Man played little, if any role in evolutionary thinking. It was always held somewhat suspect by scientists. That is why it was carefully examined and found to be a fake. It was the evolutionary scientists themselves that documented this, not YEC people, by the way. The reason it took so long to carefully examine it, is that museums are always very reluctant to have any of their objects fiddled with by scientists.
I realize that some complain our origin is far too humble if we came from apes. However, consider the Bible. The Bible says God created us from dust. Isn't that a humble origin, being crated out of mere dust? So why should we complain if God created us out of monkeys?

 

[james bond]

My points in four of these is that you, and I mean YOU (though I have seen guy threepwood and thief and Ben do exactly the same things you have done, here and other threads), have the tendencies to mix different fields of science, as if they are the one and the same.

You have sometimes write about or argue against evolution, but when in fact you should be arguing against abiogenesis.

There are numbers of distinctions between evolution and abiogenesis. That you won't address abiogenesis at all, just show us how ignorant you are...or are you just lazy, or worse dishonest?

You have also brought up evolutionists following the Big Bang, when the theory of evolution don't deal with space, stars, galaxies.

If you can't distinguish between the Big Bang and ToE, then why should should anyone of us take whatever you say seriously.



That's typical creationist BS.

Atheism deal with only the question of theism, which is the belief in the existence of a deity or deities. Atheists simply don't believe in theism.

Atheism is a philosophical position, not a religion. They simply don't believe in any god and since they don't worship anything, atheism is not a religion.

Evolution is biology, relating to genes that have been modified through any evolutionary mechanism (eg mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, etc) being passed to offspring and descendants (hence hereditary).

For instance, evolution explained how the polar bears are different from brown bears. Because of how they each lived in different terrains (respectively in the Arctic or tundra regions and in rain forests), different climates and having different diets, evolutionary biology can explain this through Natural Selection, instead of the other mechanisms.

Evolution don't involve worshipping anyone (eg god(s), spirits, demons, jinns or fairies, and even humans (like pharaohs, Kings, emperors, etc) or anything (scriptures, temples, holy mountains, sun, stars, moon, rivers, sea, Sky), so how can it be religion. Evolution is not about spirituality or about religious morality, like sins, repentance, and evolution don't talk of reincarnation, nirvana or the afterlife (resurrection).

The theory of evolution only attempt to explain how life can change over period of number of generations. It explained the observable natural world and the effects on life.

Tell me, JB.

Do fields in physics, like gravity, optics, electricity, superconductors, require understanding of God, creation or the bible?

If not, then why aren't these fields associated with atheism?

Does the bible teach or explain astronomy, meteorology, agriculture, medicine?

If I want to study astronomy, I would not the bible, in the hope that I would find answers in some verses.

If I want to design public buildings, roads, bridges, I would take a course in civil engineering. If I want to build them, I would learn the trade in construction. I could never learn any of them from any scripture, including the bible.

If I want to make wooden furniture, I would get apprenticeship in some fields in woodworking. Can the bible teach me woodwork or carpentry?

If I am into farming, can the bible teach me how and when to tilt the soil, plant the seeds, when to water, how to irrigate, and when to harvests? Can any verse teach me what tools to use or how to use them?

If I need to employ someone to make vaccine to be use against viral disease, do I get a creationist or a priest who might not know anything except to pray to God in the hope that he might heal people, or do I employed with knowledge in viral diseases and medicine, with background knowledge in evolution?

If I want to learn about God or follow a religion, then I would read the bible myself, and I would ask someone if I need help to understand certain things, like a priest, pastor or even a local bishop. I wouldn't ask help from a farmer, a carpenter, a doctor, an engineer or an astronomer.

I'm not the one who is confused or in denail. The origin of life is a key distinction between Darwinists and creationists. These naturalists typically believe that lfie descended from a single self-replicating protocell which in turn came into existence through spontaeous chemical reactions. Now, if you do not want to deal with any of this under ToE, then ToE doesn't have much of a foundation to stand on if it can't explain the origins of life. How many times do I have to repeat myself?

Yet, they expect people to believe that species can rise above the species level without any proof. As an example of abiogenesis, look at the Miler-Urey experiment. Are you saying this has nothing to do with ToE. Here it is -- http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/origsoflife_07 . Look, why don't we just avoid discussing ToE? There are others here who are better equipped to explain so that I can learn from them instead of arguing trivial matters and countering ad hominem fallacies. You're an ad hominem fallacy. You're a boring ignorant borignorant. Is that a new word ha ha?

 

[james bond]

Good grief man, if you''re going to sling BS at least make it credible BS..

It's in the news, mon.