What does the fossil record say?

[wilsoncole]

What is your source for this claim of lack of reliable dating, Wilson?
Even a casual google search for "archaeological dating fossils" shows a remarkable variety of independent dating techniques.
Case in point:
1. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/histor...tml?c=y&page=2

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_dating

3. http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html

4. http://weber.ucsd.edu/~jmoore/course...INGmethods.pdf

The general feel certainly doesn't hint of a lack of reliable dating techniques.

I do not find that to be the case.
1. Highly tentative, speculative and imprecise.
2. Also imprecise and reveals their limitations.
3. More confident than the previous 2, but still tentative. Puts great store by the carbon 14 method which itself is imprecise.
4. Website could not be found.

"In practice, there are many things that can cause false readings. One thing that can easily spoil a sample is possible contamination with other materials that might contain carbon either older or younger.

The most serious question, especially about very old specimens, is whether the radiocarbon was in the same proportion in the atmosphere in ancient times as it is today. There is no way to be sure of this, because it depends upon cosmic ray showers, which are notably variable and sporadic. If, for instance, for some reason during mankind’s earliest history, the cosmic rays averaged only half the intensity they have today, any sample from that era would appear to be 5,500 years older than it really is.

Since we have no way of knowing how intense cosmic rays were in past ages, we are wise to accept carbon-14 dates only for the period for which the clock has been calibrated with historical materials, back to about 3,500 years ago. Older than that, they may be increasingly inaccurate.

SO HOW CREDIBLE ARE THE DATES?
Is the fossil Peking man really 500,000 years old? Let’s see what the Encyclopædia Britannica says about it. Speaking of matching fossils of similar animals in strata in different parts of the earth, it says:
"Such lines of evidence have led to the tentative conclusion that the species Homo erectus is essentially of early middle Pleistocene age. .　.　. the youngest accepted hard-core representatives of H. erectus in the fossil record would seem to be the group from Peking in China, Trinil in Java, Ternifine in Algeria, and the braincase of Olduvai hominid 9 from Tanzania. Repeated potassium-argon datings of the Trinil beds has yielded an estimate of their age in years as 550,000 BP (before present). .　.　. it would seem reasonable to suggest 1,500,000 to 500,000 BP as a time range for Homo erectus."

Note all the hedging to avoid a definite assertion—words such as "tentative," "would seem," "estimate," "reasonable to suggest." It is not stated that the Peking fossil has been dated. After a patchwork of inference, the conclusion ultimately stands on an analysis in which the retention in the potassium mineral of only a thousandth part of the argon that had previously accumulated could account for the whole 500,000 years. When we look behind the headlines we find no sound proof for the widely touted claims to antiquity of the Peking fossils.

If a person wants to find fault with the Bible history of man’s creation, he can use the contradictory claims of scientific dating methods to justify his position. But, to be fair, he really ought to acknowledge that such methods are too fallible and unreliable to challenge successfully the faith of one who accepts the Bible as God’s word of truth."
("How Old Are the Fossils?" AWAKE! 1981 11/22 p. 15 Published by Jehovah's Witneses)
　
　
(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[Autodidact]

I do not find that to be the case.
1. Highly tentative, speculative and imprecise.
2. Also imprecise and reveals their limitations.
3. More confident than the previous 2, but still tentative. Puts great store by the carbon 14 method which itself is imprecise.
4. Website could not be found.

"In practice, there are many things that can cause false readings. One thing that can easily spoil a sample is possible contamination with other materials that might contain carbon either older or younger.

The most serious question, especially about very old specimens, is whether the radiocarbon was in the same proportion in the atmosphere in ancient times as it is today. There is no way to be sure of this, because it depends upon cosmic ray showers, which are notably variable and sporadic. If, for instance, for some reason during mankind’s earliest history, the cosmic rays averaged only half the intensity they have today, any sample from that era would appear to be 5,500 years older than it really is.

Since we have no way of knowing how intense cosmic rays were in past ages, we are wise to accept carbon-14 dates only for the period for which the clock has been calibrated with historical materials, back to about 3,500 years ago. Older than that, they may be increasingly inaccurate.

SO HOW CREDIBLE ARE THE DATES?
Is the fossil Peking man really 500,000 years old? Let’s see what the Encyclopædia Britannica says about it. Speaking of matching fossils of similar animals in strata in different parts of the earth, it says:
"Such lines of evidence have led to the tentative conclusion that the species Homo erectus is essentially of early middle Pleistocene age. .&#12288;.&#12288;. the youngest accepted hard-core representatives of H. erectus in the fossil record would seem to be the group from Peking in China, Trinil in Java, Ternifine in Algeria, and the braincase of Olduvai hominid 9 from Tanzania. Repeated potassium-argon datings of the Trinil beds has yielded an estimate of their age in years as 550,000 BP (before present). .&#12288;.&#12288;. it would seem reasonable to suggest 1,500,000 to 500,000 BP as a time range for Homo erectus."

Note all the hedging to avoid a definite assertion—words such as "tentative," "would seem," "estimate," "reasonable to suggest." It is not stated that the Peking fossil has been dated. After a patchwork of inference, the conclusion ultimately stands on an analysis in which the retention in the potassium mineral of only a thousandth part of the argon that had previously accumulated could account for the whole 500,000 years. When we look behind the headlines we find no sound proof for the widely touted claims to antiquity of the Peking fossils.

If a person wants to find fault with the Bible history of man’s creation, he can use the contradictory claims of scientific dating methods to justify his position. But, to be fair, he really ought to acknowledge that such methods are too fallible and unreliable to challenge successfully the faith of one who accepts the Bible as God’s word of truth."
("How Old Are the Fossils?" AWAKE! 1981 11/22 p. 15 Published by Jehovah's Witneses)
&#12288;
&#12288;
(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

That's right. There are two kinds of people: people who accept science, and people who reject it. No amount of science is going to persuade people who reject science.

 

[wilsoncole]

That's right. There are two kinds of people: people who accept science, and people who reject it. No amount of science is going to persuade people who reject science.

This is not a refutation of the facts stated above.
Why not take a shot at that?

 

[Autodidact]

This is not a refutation of the facts stated above.
Why not take a shot at that?

Still waiting for you to answer my simple, polite, reasonable question.

 

[outhouse]

dating is very accuate, even if they were off by 500,000 years would change nothing other then the timeline that happened how we know it did with a few dates changed.

FACT is dating is not off that far

when it comes to evolution which is based on fact's and scientific theory

your only alternitive is

a 3000 year old religious fable proven to be fiction stolen from sumerian pagans after being told around a campfire for 300-500 years.

The whole creation myth is based upon obvious fiction that has been proven false time and time again to the point its idiotic that some people [not you] still believe the earth is only 6000 years old. People like you wilson are helping to enable this belief with your backing of something that has been proven not to have happened.

There is no debate, there is denial of facts thats all.

 

[Autodidact]

wilson:

I don't understand why you make certain claims about carbon dating, and then bring in Peking man, which could not possibly have been dated using carbon dating. Could it be perhaps that you don't know the first thing about the subject? Or is it that you or your sources are deliberately misleading us? Otherwise I just can't understand it. Maybe you can explain it to us.

Like most creationists, you don't seem to understand how science works. Science is not about proof. It's about evidence. Please don't make me repeat this, as I have explained it to hundreds of ignorant creationists in my day and frankly I'm getting old and cranky.

Science always uses words like "may" "estimate" "would seem" " reasonable" and so forth. That's because science is empirical. If you reject studies that use these terms then, as I say, you reject science. You prefer myth.

That is your perfect right--you prefer a myth-based approach to knowledge to a scientific one. Just don't lie to us and tell us you base your beliefs on science. You don't.

If a person wants to find fault with the Bible history of man&#8217;s creation, he can use the contradictory claims of scientific dating methods to justify his position.

Or, to put it another way, if a person uses scientific dating methods, she will reject the Bible's story. Of course, claiming that they are contradictory is a straightforward lie. Scientific dating methods, such as radiometric dating, dendrochronology, varves, ice cores and so forth agree very closely. That's how we know they're right.

But, to be fair, he really ought to acknowledge that such methods are too fallible

Of course. All of science is fallible. Those who want absolute proof must stick to math. Again, you reject science.

and unreliable

False. It's very reliable. As reliable as scientific knowledge gets. The only way to reject is your way--rejecting science itself. I do find it odd when people use their compters to do that, though. Did you know that your computer relies on some of the same assumptions from physics that radiometric dating uses? If you think your computer works, you're relying on the same assumptions you just called unreliable and fallible.

to challenge successfully the faith of one who accepts the Bible as God&#8217;s word of truth."

No amount of science in the world can successfully challenge the faith of someone who accepts the Bible as God's word of truth. That's why they call it faith!

 

[DeistPrimate]

Sir, I know what Pasteur did! After all - it was I who brought up the subject.

You bring up subjects you know nothing about all the time.

The Big Bang is the beginning of time and the universe - do you agree?

Of the present incarnation of our known universe. We can't conclude there was 'nothing' before it.

The Big Bang was not biological. Even you should know that.

Then why do you keep bringing it up in a discussion about a biological process?

 

[wilsoncole]

dating is very accuate, even if they were off by 500,000 years would change nothing other then the timeline that happened how we know it did with a few dates changed.

FACT is dating is not off that far

when it comes to evolution which is based on fact's and scientific theory

your only alternitive is

a 3000 year old religious fable proven to be fiction stolen from sumerian pagans after being told around a campfire for 300-500 years.

The whole creation myth is based upon obvious fiction that has been proven false time and time again to the point its idiotic that some people [not you] still believe the earth is only 6000 years old. People like you wilson are helping to enable this belief with your backing of something that has been proven not to have happened.

There is no debate, there is denial of facts thats all.

I have ignored your attacks on the Bible long enough!
Let's see you explain all of this:

"If there were no other proofs of authenticity available, the Bible’s righteous principles and moral standards would set it apart as a product of the divine mind. Additionally, its practicality extends to every phase of daily living and applies to all races and cultures.

1. No other book gives us a rational view of the origin of all things, including mankind, and of the Creator’s purpose toward the earth and man. (Gen., chap.&#12288;1; Isa. 45:18)
2. The Bible tells us why man dies and why wickedness exists. (Gen., chap.&#12288;3; Rom. 5:12; Job, chaps.&#12288;1,&#12288;2; Ex. 9:16)
3. It sets out the highest standard of justice. (Ex. 23:1, 2, 6,&#12288;7; Deut. 19:15-21)
4. It gives right counsel on business dealings (Lev. 19:35,&#12288;36; Prov. 20:10; 22:22,&#12288;23; Matt. 7:12);
5. clean moral conduct (Lev. 20:10-16; Gal. 5:19-23; Heb. 13:4);
6. relationships with others (Lev. 19:18; Prov. 12:15; 15:1; 27:1, 2, 5,&#12288;6; 29:11; Matt. 7:12; 1&#12288;Tim. 5:1,&#12288;2);
7. marriage (Gen. 2:22-24; Matt. 19:4, 5,&#12288;9; 1&#12288;Cor. 7:2, 9, 10,&#12288;39);
8. family relationships and duties of husband, wife, and children (Deut. 6:4-9; Prov. 13:24; Eph. 5:21-33; 6:1-4; Col. 3:18-21; 1&#12288;Pet. 3:1-6);
9. proper attitude toward rulers (Rom. 13:1-10; Titus 3:1; 1&#12288;Tim. 2:1,&#12288;2; 1&#12288;Pet. 2:13,&#12288;14);
10. honest work as well as master-slave and employer-employee relationships (Eph. 4:28; Col. 3:22-24; 4:1; 1&#12288;Pet. 2:18-21);
11. proper associations (Prov. 1:10-16; 5:3-11; 1&#12288;Cor. 15:33; 2&#12288;Tim. 2:22; Heb. 10:24,&#12288;25);
12. settling disputes (Matt. 18:15-17; Eph. 4:26);
and many other things that vitally affect our everyday lives.

13. The Bible also provides valuable pointers regarding physical and mental health. (Prov. 15:17; 17:22)

In recent years, medical research has demonstrated that a person’s physical health is indeed affected by his mental attitude. For example, studies have shown that persons who are prone to express anger often have the highest levels of blood pressure. Some reported that anger produced cardiac sensations, headaches, nosebleeds, dizziness, or inability to vocalize.

However, the Bible long ago explained: "A calm heart is the life of the fleshly organism."—Prov. 14:30; compare Matthew 5:9."
(All Scripture Is Inspired Of God p. 340 Published by Jehovah's Witnesses)

Have fun!

 

[wilsoncole]

Still waiting for you to answer my simple, polite, reasonable question.

Some people ask questions for information:

1. "However, the disciples put the question to him: "Why, then, do the scribes say that E·li´jah must come first?"" (Matthew 17:10)​

2. "And as he was going out on his way, a certain man ran up and fell upon his knees before him and put the question to him: "Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit everlasting life?"" (Mark 10:17)​

3. "Now when he had entered a house away from the crowd, his disciples began to question him respecting the illustration." (Mark 7:17)​

Others ask questions to test, taunt, trap, criticize, dare (peer pressure), confuse or plant the seeds of doubt:
1. "So it (Satan hiding behind a serpent) began to say to the woman: "Is it really so that God said YOU must not eat from every tree of the garden?"" (Genesis 3:1)​

2. "After the Pharisees heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they came together in one group.&#12288;And one of them, versed in the Law, asked, testing him:
"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?"(Matthew 22:34-36)

3. "Then the Pharisees went their way and took counsel together in order to trap him in his speech. 16&#12288;So they dispatched to him their disciples, together with party followers of Herod, saying: "Teacher, we know you are truthful and teach the way of God in truth, and you do not care for anybody, for you do not look upon men’s outward appearance. 17&#12288;Tell us, therefore, What do you think? Is it lawful to pay head tax to Caesar or not?" 18&#12288;But Jesus, knowing their wickedness, said: "Why do YOU put me to the test, hypocrites?" (Matthew 22:15-18)

I have no reason to believe you are asking for information since you already presume to know what Christians believe.
You questions are not of the first kind.

Why should I accomodate you?

 

[wilsoncole]

wilson:

Like most creationists, you don't seem to understand how science works. Science is not about proof. It's about evidence. Please don't make me repeat this, as I have explained it to hundreds of ignorant creationists in my day and frankly I'm getting old and cranky.

Yet, I detect that you keep trying to use science to prove your conclusions.

EVIDENCE: Definition
1. sign or proof: something that gives a sign or proof of the existence or truth of something, or that helps somebody to come to a particular conclusion There is no evidence that the disease is related to diet.
2. proof of guilt: the objects or information used to prove or suggest the guilt of somebody accused of a crime The police have no evidence.
3. statements of witnesses: the oral or written statements of witnesses and other people involved in a trial or official inquiry. (the objects or information used to prove or suggest the guilt of somebody accused of a crime)

EVIDENCED:
demonstrate or prove: to demonstrate or prove something (usually passive)
Their unwillingness to participate is evidenced by their failure to contact us.

PROOF: Definition
proof [proof]
n (plural proofs)
1. conclusive evidence: evidence or an argument that serves to establish a fact or the truth of something
2. test of something: a test or trial of something to establish whether it is true
3. state of having been proved: the quality or condition of having been proved
4. law trial evidence: the evidence in a trial that helps to determine the court&#8217;s decision.

Your play on words is not impressive.
Now you have to do battle with the dictionary.

I do not regard "science" as a sacred word.

 

[David M]

How typical. Creationists always pick the definitions that don't apply to the field of science.

 

[wilsoncole]

wilson:
Science always uses words like "may" "estimate" "would seem" " reasonable" and so forth. That's because science is empirical. If you reject studies that use these terms then, as I say, you reject science. You prefer myth.

It is words like those that make me suspect of your conclusions.
Your embracing of science adorns you with an air of false confidence. Those bold enough to question it successfully rattles that confidence. You (plural) become defensive and sometimes arrogant and abusive.
You really do not have the right to strut your stuff in the name of science when the conclusions arrived at in some processes are seemingly based on nothing but conjecture.

 

[wilsoncole]

How typical. Creationists always pick the definitions that don't apply to the field of science.

That's as far as MY dictionary goes.

I don't make those things.

Let me see what yours say on those definitions.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I have ignored your attacks on the Bible long enough!
Let's see you explain all of this:

"If there were no other proofs of authenticity available, the Bible’s righteous principles and moral standards would set it apart as a product of the divine mind. Additionally, its practicality extends to every phase of daily living and applies to all races and cultures.

1. No other book gives us a rational view of the origin of all things, including mankind, and of the Creator’s purpose toward the earth and man. (Gen., chap.&#12288;1; Isa. 45:18)
2. The Bible tells us why man dies and why wickedness exists. (Gen., chap.&#12288;3; Rom. 5:12; Job, chaps.&#12288;1,&#12288;2; Ex. 9:16)
3. It sets out the highest standard of justice. (Ex. 23:1, 2, 6,&#12288;7; Deut. 19:15-21)
4. It gives right counsel on business dealings (Lev. 19:35,&#12288;36; Prov. 20:10; 22:22,&#12288;23; Matt. 7:12);
5. clean moral conduct (Lev. 20:10-16; Gal. 5:19-23; Heb. 13:4);
6. relationships with others (Lev. 19:18; Prov. 12:15; 15:1; 27:1, 2, 5,&#12288;6; 29:11; Matt. 7:12; 1&#12288;Tim. 5:1,&#12288;2);
7. marriage (Gen. 2:22-24; Matt. 19:4, 5,&#12288;9; 1&#12288;Cor. 7:2, 9, 10,&#12288;39);
8. family relationships and duties of husband, wife, and children (Deut. 6:4-9; Prov. 13:24; Eph. 5:21-33; 6:1-4; Col. 3:18-21; 1&#12288;Pet. 3:1-6);
9. proper attitude toward rulers (Rom. 13:1-10; Titus 3:1; 1&#12288;Tim. 2:1,&#12288;2; 1&#12288;Pet. 2:13,&#12288;14);
10. honest work as well as master-slave and employer-employee relationships (Eph. 4:28; Col. 3:22-24; 4:1; 1&#12288;Pet. 2:18-21);
11. proper associations (Prov. 1:10-16; 5:3-11; 1&#12288;Cor. 15:33; 2&#12288;Tim. 2:22; Heb. 10:24,&#12288;25);
12. settling disputes (Matt. 18:15-17; Eph. 4:26);
and many other things that vitally affect our everyday lives.

13. The Bible also provides valuable pointers regarding physical and mental health. (Prov. 15:17; 17:22)

In recent years, medical research has demonstrated that a person’s physical health is indeed affected by his mental attitude. For example, studies have shown that persons who are prone to express anger often have the highest levels of blood pressure. Some reported that anger produced cardiac sensations, headaches, nosebleeds, dizziness, or inability to vocalize.

However, the Bible long ago explained: "A calm heart is the life of the fleshly organism."—Prov. 14:30; compare Matthew 5:9."
(All Scripture Is Inspired Of God p. 340 Published by Jehovah's Witnesses)

Have fun!

Unverified subjective statements that have nothing to do with the subject at hand.

 

[wilsoncole]

Originally Posted by Autodidact
That is your perfect right--you prefer a myth-based approach to knowledge to a scientific one. Just don't lie to us and tell us you base your beliefs on science. You don't.

Please show me where I, even once, claimed to base my beliefs on science. It is much too fallible and prone to error.

My beliefs are Bible-based.

 

[wilsoncole]

Unverified subjective statements that have nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Now maybe you can tell the man in the outhouse to stop attacking the Bible ON THIS THREAD!

I will respond to anyone who does.

That's a cop-out anyway.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Please show me where I, even once, claimed to base my beliefs on science. It is much too fallible and prone to error.

My beliefs are Bible-based.

Since the OP is concerning fossils, and one must use scientific methods for determining facts about fossils, and you dismiss all findings of science in favor of Biblical determination, your bias against the scientific method negates any honest debate from you on what the fossil record says.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Now maybe you can tell the man in the outhouse to stop attacking the Bible ON THIS THREAD!

I will respond to anyone who does.

That's a cop-out anyway.

Does the Bible tell us about the fossil record, if so, use it.
However, any statement should be verifiable without resorting to "Goddidit" excuses.

 

[painted wolf]

wa:do

 

[outhouse]

I have ignored your attacks on the Bible long enough!
Let's see you explain all of this:

"If there were no other proofs of authenticity available, the Bible&#8217;s righteous principles and moral standards would set it apart as a product of the divine mind. Additionally, its practicality extends to every phase of daily living and applies to all races and cultures.

The hebrews created the fiction as a guide to what they thought was a good life at that time, nothing more. Just because they made a complete guide for people that had no morals and lived like animals. jesus expanded it to others and died as a martyr.

not one word refuted my post at all in any sense. Its below if you want to take a shot at what you think you know, the same way you take cheap shots at science.

if people let the 3000 year old creation myth go and accept the truth of science, there would be no debate.

a 3000 year old religious fable proven to be fiction stolen from sumerian pagans after being told around a campfire for 300-500 years.

The whole creation myth is based upon obvious fiction that has been proven false time and time again to the point its idiotic that some people [not you] still believe the earth is only 6000 years old. People like you wilson are helping to enable this belief with your backing of something that has been proven not to have happened.

There is no debate, there is denial of facts thats all.