Jump to content


Photo

An Observation


  • Please log in to reply
53 replies to this topic

#21 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,306 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 22 July 2017 - 02:45 AM

My own position, for the umpteenth time, is not dogmatic. I don't INSIST the rocks are young, I just believe the best direct evidence favours them not being old. Yes, I believe in a flood and I am biased because I choose to believe it was a flood. But it is much more complicated than that for me personally, I have hundreds of different opinions on this matter, about a hundred different issues. I in all honestly believe Wibble, that your thoughts would never run that deep on a matter.

 

So if I "didn't realise" the knock-on impacts, that would mean I jump to the conclusion the YECs are 100% correct. No I don't, for I am aware of the limits of what evidence can achieve in this scenario. I am aware of the issues involved, on a deeper level of critical understanding, so I know there isn't any all-powerful evidence that can give me youth. Even soft tissue existing, the collagen that survived they say is 65 myo, isn't a slam dunk, despite experiments showing that extrapolations allow us to infer the best survival time for collagen is about 3 million years.

 

That is about as "strong" as you can get evidentially, for a young dino, especially with all of the concordant data of the many C14 dates of dinos that range between 20 and 40 thousand years, which is too coincidental for it to be contamination.

 

See - I can even use the same type of reason for your island chains - "too coincidental to not be significant", but the difference is, I am aware of the fact that historical theories cannot give you some all powerful, slam-dunk, "proof" of what happened in the past. A person of intellectual integrity, ADMITS this - but the good news is, that means it's the same playing field for evolutionary ages, as it is youth. It's a matter of presenting a case for each, then the individual chooses, subjectively perhaps, which explanation is best. Ultimately a personal choice which has nothing to do with science.


  • piasan likes this

#22 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,499 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 22 July 2017 - 01:47 PM

Mike,
I thought I would comment.

It says in the Bible that God gave us domininon oover the environment. Moreover, we are also creators as witnessed by the miriad of complex material things which couldn't possibly have evolved--not naturally ocurring in natue but, do exist. As creators we can overule truth. While the truth was there were no cell phones in 1950, today they can be found all over the world! Thua, todays truth is different than yesterdays because of human dominance and creativity (continuing the theme of our dominion over the environment).

In your scenario at the last word what is the meaning you have assigned to "science"? Normally, I would say that science is our reasoning process. Science (reasoning) helps us answer the question what caused the effects we observe?

Google definition:


subjective
ADJECTIVE
based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions: Contrasted with objective.
"his views are highly subjective" · [more]
synonyms: personal · individual · emotional · instinctive · intuitive


I would imagine just about everything that comes out of our mouth is subjectiive. In answering the question what would I (including you) do in a particular instance, because we "are" intelligent beings we have no choice but use our intelligence to try and create the plants and animals if they didn't exist and we wanted themm to exist. Now, I realize we may not be smart enough to do that but, we couldn't use evolution because evolution by definition excludes intelligence as an input. Does it not? That makes theistic evolution an oxymoron and evolution in contradiction with us. Your comment?



#23 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,306 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 22 July 2017 - 02:23 PM

Mike. Thanks for your info, I would say what I mean by science as a definition is a bit more broader than, "knowledge". Sometimes science can't "tell us" the truth. :P (I can't be bothered putting that in terms without personification) Lol.

 

What I mean by what I say is that sometimes you get competing theories about what happened in the past. Ultimately we cannot know some things because they don't happen in the present. The strange fossil record doesn't happen in the present, the event/s that led to it, ultimately are lost forever. But there is much more to it, it is immensely complicated because have all sorts of strange things that exist which we can't test the cause for. For example, planated surfaces, mountains shaved flat. There just isn't any way to know what caused it with 100% certainty but all the evidence suggests the power of water could surely only do it, since both the hard and soft rocks on planated surfaces, are equally eroded. As you know usually this would not be the case, the softer rock would erode faster than the harder rock, so something with enough force to shave them both flat, seem to have caused that evidence.

 

But then there are all of the other things to consider. The age issue is such a can of worms. For example there are about 200 geochronometers that suggest youth. For example, only a few thousand years worth of mud deposited at the mouths of all rivers, young tissue. The problem is there is conflicting information. You may find some evidence which seems to favour great ages, like the ice layers or dating methods which would at least give larger ages of many millions of years.

 

So if science was a person and you asked; "then what is the cause?" Obviously it would say, "it is old age, and it is young age", because of conflicting data.

 

In other words if science is knowledge, we don't know, therefore we don't have the knowledge, we just have stories about what happened in the past. The evo story is millions of years of uniformity, where "the present is the key to the past", meaning the say the causes of all things they find, are the same processes that happen today, only very slowly. Like when sediment is slowly built up then compacted over great eons which they believe creates the rocks. They believe fossilisation occurs when the babamals1 die and sink to the ocean floor and somehow get fossilised, etc....then there is for us Christians, what God said happened in history. I choose that version of history, I believe that version because obviously the advantage of God being a witness is that He doesn't lie. "God is not a man that He should lie." (Numbers 23)

 

So I am agnostic about age in the sense that technically I can't know what happened for sure, in the past, but that doesn't mean I don't believe the flood happened and life was created recently. I believe life was created recently, thousands not millions.

 

1 = animals. (Lol)



#24 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,306 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 22 July 2017 - 02:32 PM

As I say a can of worms, look how many issues there are for this age business, Mike;

 

 

If we were to conservatively say that a generation passed once every 25 years (and when was the last time a generation was 25 years long?), then in 100,000 years a total of 4,000 generations would occur. If the number of people on earth never exceeded 1,000,000 at any one time in the past, then in 100,000 years a total of 4,000,000,000 people would have lived, died and been buried somewhere on earth. This is an astronomical number.

When people are buried, whether or not their bodies are preserved, there are the artifacts left in the graves which identify them as human. Even if the body decomposes completely their jewelry, tools and vessels placed in the grave with them will survive.

Based upon evolutionary assumptions we should be able to dig straight down almost anywhere on earth and hit at least one grave from a prior generation. To date, however, even with all the money thrown into the search for them, we have only found about 300 Neanderthal skeletons. They have been found in caves from Spain to Syria to Israel.

The situation is even worse if you consider all the various supposed prior human forms. In total only a couple of thousand "stone age" human finds have been made.

If 4,000 generations have passed why haven't we found many many more human burial sites? Where are all those artifacts that should have been left behind by those 4,000,000,000 people? Think about it, that is two-thirds of the entire human population alone today.

https://www.creation...s_view.asp?id=2



#25 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,499 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 22 July 2017 - 03:15 PM

Mike the wiz said:

Mike, Thanks for your info, I would say what I mean by science as a definition is a bit more broader than, "knowledge". Sometimes science can't "tell us" the truth. (I can't be bothered putting that in terms without personification) Lol.

You mean sometimes we can't use reason (science) to determine what truth is? No need to play a part in perpetuating deception. LOL (that was admonishment)

What I mean by what I say is that sometimes you get competing theories about what happened in the past.

Technically, wouldn't what you refer to be hypothethises since we can not duplicate their results (effeect) in the present?

Ultimately we cannot know some things because they don't happen in the present.

I cononclude the same. Hence the "just so" stories of evos.

The strange fossil record doesn't happen in the present, the event/s that led to it, ultimately are lost forever. But there is much more to it, it is immensely complicated because have all sorts of strange things that exist which we can't test the cause for. For example, planated surfaces, mountains shaved flat. There just isn't any way to know what caused it with 100% certainty but all the evidence suggests the power of water could surely only do it, since both the hard and soft rocks on planated surfaces, are equally eroded. As you know usually this would not be the case, the softer rock would erode faster than the harder rock, so something with enough force to shave them both flat, seem to have caused that evidence.
 
But then there are all of the other things to consider. The age issue is such a can of worms. For example there are about 200 geochronometers that suggest youth. For example, only a few thousand years worth of mud deposited at the mouths of all rivers, young tissue. The problem is there is conflicting information. You may find some evidence which seems to favour great ages, like the ice layers or dating methods which would at least give larger ages of many millions of years.
 
So if science was a person and you asked; "then what is the cause?" Obviously it would say, "it is old age, and it is young age", because of conflicting data.

It probably would be better to just plainly say "I don't know!" 

In other words if science is knowledge, we don't know, therefore we don't have the knowledge, we just have stories about what happened in the past.

but now you have changed the code "science" to mean something else entirely. Its our reasoning process. It's knowledge (a knowledge base?) It's knowledge we don't know? What is it to be? It's confusing to me (No man can serve two masters.) LOL

The evo story is millions of years of uniformity, where "the present is the key to the past", meaning the say the causes of all things they find, are the same processes that happen today, only very slowly. Like when sediment is slowly built up then compacted over great eons which they believe creates the rocks. They believe fossilisation occurs when the babamals1 die and sink to the ocean floor and somehow get fossilised, etc....then there is for us Christians, what God said happened in history. I choose that version of history, I believe that version because obviously the advantage of God being a witness is that He doesn't lie. "God is not a man that He should lie." (Numbers 23)

It would seem unlike they say fossilization to leave a flesh representave would need to be fairly rapid such as the need to coover quickly a dead specimen via silt. Else preditors and scavengers would soon consume the carrion.

So I am agnostic about age in the sense that technically I can't know what happened for sure, in the past, but that doesn't mean I don't believe the flood happened and the universe was created recently. I believe life was created recently, thousands not millions.

I agree. It is as you said a can of woorms! LOL
 
I am sure you mean biological life was created recently. Life itself is a characteristic of God and therefore has always existed.

 



#26 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 751 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 22 July 2017 - 06:20 PM

My own position, for the umpteenth time, is not dogmatic. I don't INSIST the rocks are young, I just believe the best direct evidence favours them not being old. Yes, I believe in a flood and I am biased because I choose to believe it was a flood. But it is much more complicated than that for me personally, I have hundreds of different opinions on this matter, about a hundred different issues. I in all honestly believe Wibble, that your thoughts would never run that deep on a matter.[/font]


You absolutely are dogmatic and you do insist the rocks are young because you keep on saying life is only thousands of years old and never have you opined the possibility of millions or billions, have you ? Best direct evidence ? What, discounting the multitude of comprehensively tested and empirical dating methods that give multiple millions or billions of years and clinging on to organic tissue for which you have no clue on the absolute time limits of preservation ? The C14 dino ages are a joke. Why don't you investigate it properly rather than gormlessly accepting what CMI says at face value ? Think about it, you blindly accept a dozen or so apparently young C14 dates because of your prejudice but ignore the enormous amount of independent data that completely throws out any concept that this planet could be anything less than millions of years old including the life that depends upon it. Can't you see that this is based on a dogmatic a priori belief aligned with Genesis, rather than a fair weighing up of the actual evidence (a blue whale to a gnat)  ?

 

 

You believe in the Flood ? Why ? Purely because of blind acceptance of the Book of Genesis, not due to any scientific evidence that is for sure



#27 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,888 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 23 July 2017 - 12:22 AM

As I say a can of worms, look how many issues there are for this age business, Mike;

 

 

If we were to conservatively say that a generation passed once every 25 years (and when was the last time a generation was 25 years long?), then in 100,000 years a total of 4,000 generations would occur. If the number of people on earth never exceeded 1,000,000 at any one time in the past, then in 100,000 years a total of 4,000,000,000 people would have lived, died and been buried somewhere on earth. This is an astronomical number.

When people are buried, whether or not their bodies are preserved, there are the artifacts left in the graves which identify them as human. Even if the body decomposes completely their jewelry, tools and vessels placed in the grave with them will survive.

Based upon evolutionary assumptions we should be able to dig straight down almost anywhere on earth and hit at least one grave from a prior generation. To date, however, even with all the money thrown into the search for them, we have only found about 300 Neanderthal skeletons. They have been found in caves from Spain to Syria to Israel.

The situation is even worse if you consider all the various supposed prior human forms. In total only a couple of thousand "stone age" human finds have been made.

If 4,000 generations have passed why haven't we found many many more human burial sites? Where are all those artifacts that should have been left behind by those 4,000,000,000 people? Think about it, that is two-thirds of the entire human population alone today.

https://www.creation...s_view.asp?id=2

Let us check the implications of the numbers, shall we?

 

The total world area is 148,940,000km², let is round it down to 100,000,000km² (cutting Antarctica, and some possibly other inhospitable area's.)

Now divide 4,000,000,000 graves by this 100,000,000km², and we have 40graves/km²

Let us assume the average grave is 1m².

That means we have 40m² worth of graves/km², or 40m² worth of graves/1,000,000m². 40/1,000,000 = 0.00004.

 

So digging straight down almost anywhere on earth and hit at least one grave from a prior generation has a probability of about 0.00004.



#28 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,306 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 23 July 2017 - 02:43 AM

Fjuri I also have said in the past, "we should be able to trip over the transitionals on our way to our laptops in the morning", but it was tongue-in-cheek. Your maths isn't so consequential because the fact is what we do find in the ground is much, is much closer to what we would expect from several thousand years of history. You can't escape the history of finds should be proportionally much greater. What we do find, if you read all the link is it is much more fitting with this scenario;

 

 

 

On the other hand, if the "stone age" were to be categorized by the number of such finds, then the supposed 100,000 years, so glibly tossed around, would shrink to only 500 years.

 

That seems more realistic to me than what the great numbers of evolution would provide. To read more about it, you can read this;

 

 

 

Evolutionists also claim there was a ‘Stone Age’ of about 100,000 years11 when between one million and 10 million people lived on Earth. Fossil evidence shows that people buried their dead, often with artefacts—cremation was not practised until relatively recent times (in evolutionary thinking). If there were just one million people alive during that time, with an average generation time of 25 years, they should have buried 4 billion bodies, and many artefacts. If there were 10 million people, it would mean 40 billion bodies buried in the earth. If the evolutionary timescale were correct, then we would expect the skeletons of the buried bodies to be largely still present after 100,000 years, because many ordinary bones claimed to be much older have been found.12 However, even if the bodies had disintegrated, lots of artefacts should still be found.

http://creation.com/...-all-the-people

 

So where are the 4 billion bodies and artefacts given this is a conservative estimate? (it's best if you read all the article).

 

(one complaint I can think of myself playing the advocate, is that kills from predation might lead to many scattered bones, but is this sufficient to reduce the number greatly?)

 

But also it's obtuse if you are refuting Grady McMurtry here because of a mistaken assumption that I am claiming that his claims are all totally accurate in everything he states. In fact I have heard now for many years, the majority of Mr McMurtry's arguments (unlike you), and I would say I only agree with portions of what he says. Sometimes he says sloppy things, but the gist of what he is saying is obviously true even if we assign conservative estimates, we simply should find a massive number of human remnants.

 

The point in quoting what he said was actually to raise the many other issues that pertain to age. Another issue for example is the Haldane dilemma, which shows genetically that there doesn't seem to be enough evolutionary time to substitute all of the mutations required into the population, from a common ancestor of humans and chimps because of the limited generations you get in a certain amount of time. Another issue with age is genetic entropy, (error catastrophe), where mutations build up like rust but there is no mechanism to remove them since most mutations are neutral.

These are all issues to do with age. I find it very realistic to assume Wibble doesn't know about many of these issues.

 

See how many things there are to discuss? Since my point was that it is basically almost SILLY, to focus on one area of evidence in the age-debate, and then conclude, "this evidence means it can only be long ages" as Wibble constantly does by creating topics about individual lines of inquiry, then I think my point is a valid one - that there are so many issues in the age debate that the broad spectrum of discussions that could pertain to age, be it young or old, means it isn't a simple matter of looking at one line of evidence then jumping to a conclusion from some type of speculative, thought-test.



#29 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,306 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 23 July 2017 - 02:56 AM

 

Wibble: You absolutely are dogmatic and you do insist the rocks are young because you keep on saying life is only thousands of years old and never have you opined the possibility of millions or billions, have you ? Best direct evidence ? What, discounting the multitude of comprehensively tested and empirical dating methods that give multiple millions or billions of years and clinging on to organic tissue for which you have no clue on the absolute time limits of preservation ? The C14 dino ages are a joke. Why don't you investigate it properly rather than gormlessly accepting what CMI says at face value ? Think about it, you blindly accept a dozen or so apparently young C14 dates because of your prejudice but ignore the enormous amount of independent data that completely throws out any concept that this planet could be anything less than millions of years old including the life that depends upon it. Can't you see that this is based on a dogmatic a priori belief aligned with Genesis, rather than a fair weighing up of the actual evidence (a blue whale to a gnat)  ?

 

 

You believe in the Flood ? Why ? Purely because of blind acceptance of the Book of Genesis, not due to any scientific evidence that is for sure

 

This is just a rant about what you believe about me. No offense Wibble, but you aren't a deep thinker, you tend to think in simplistic terms. You don't actually know all of the evidence pertaining to age because in all likelihood you wouldn't know why it would pertain to age, you just go for the overt examples.

 

There are more obscure problems for age such as genetic entropy and Haldane's dilemma. You aren't even aware of those problems because your area of interest is rocks.

 

 

 

Wibble: You believe in the Flood ? Why ? Purely because of blind acceptance of the Book of Genesis, not due to any scientific evidence that is for sure

 

But considering all the explanations I have given in the past, this is basically to lie about me.

 

The reason I accept the flood is because I believe we would expect those dead things of every type, in the ground had it happened. The pretence that such a record is some sort of prediction of evolution is a joke. Think about it, had the flood occurred would we expect everything on the earth then to have been killed? Of course, it's a direct prediction. Now if the fossil record only contained fish and reptiles then that would be strange since the flood would have killed every kind of animal alive on earth at the time. We find a representative of pretty much every kind of animal of all types, generally speaking. Sure, to expect certain species is unrealistic, it is only a graveyard of those preserved and most life was wiped out without a trace but we certainly find mammals, reptiles, fishies, angiosperms, insects..etc...which is exactly the type of evidence, so it of course is evidence for the flood, to say it is evidence of long ages as though we would expect this from evolution, is a posteriori claim. (after the fact), but had Darwin not known of the fossil record but somehow formulated evolution theory anyway, there is no way he would have predicted such a record, nor would he predict that record is a collection of kinds, which don't change, like the bible says. For if a flood happened we would expect a jellyfish fossilised in that flood, to look identical to todays jellyfish if the bible is right. But with evolution Darwin would predict we would see a history of evolution, not the results of a catastrophe, and either the same creatures found fossilised that always existed, and/or extinct unknown creatures. It is a FARCE to pretend that logically the scientific evidence of the record is evolution. All you have for that is an ever-receding "pattern" which is about as tenuous as you can get. Lol!

 

I think the peculiar and diverse nature of geomorphological features is too bizarre, and I don't think it's a coincidence that many of the types of those strange features can be explained by a world scale catastrophe. Also I don't apologise for the fact I am a Christian and I do believe what God says. I am not the same as other creationists in that I am not always totally sure about the context by which the bible is to regarded as inerrant but I don't believe I can stretch that to saying things like a flood didn't happen.

 

There are many evidences which fit with youth better than age and the "vast majority" of evidence itself is an issue which requires a lot of explaining. There are fallacies to avoid such as slothful induction and the fallacy of exclusion. In a case as broad as this, which can cover dating rocks, ice, trees but also involves genetics, and the decay rates of various organic materials such as collagen, etc...this can-of-worms we might call the "age debate" is a very complicated matter. Certainly it's not as simple as the "vast majority" when we also have to consider that science does not investigate youth. So then for example, when Armitage says that the majority of dinosaurs may have soft tissue, it is impossible to ever know if that would have been true of all of the finds. The focus on a find isn't to preserve specific bones for soft tissue within them, but the focus is to reconstruct a skeleton for the evolution-god. The simple fact is because of observer-bias, they are not even looking for evidence of youth, so the vast majority of bones sitting in museums, have never even been tested for such things because "after all, evolution is a fact and these bones are 65 myo", right?

 

So what does the "vast majority" of evidence represent in our history of science? It represents the sole focus being on evolution, and a flippant discarding of all discordant data. For remember, youth of creation, "is not science" which means they do not investigate it.

 

That is an error evolutionists make - they want to refute creation with science but forget that it contradicts their main argument - that creation, "is not science", and if it is, "not science" then why would science say anything about it, if science hasn't studied it?

 

Now imagine if human history was different and they studied youth and age, by including them both in science. What might the "evidence" be then?

 

CONCLUSION; No offense to you Wibble, I am not saying you are a dumb guy, but you aren't seemingly able to calculate these things, nor can you compute their significance. You are a bit of a black and white thinker. You can change this but you have to want to. For example when you say a "handful of C14 dates", it is exceedingly obtuse to say that when you know the labs wouldn't produce any more tests once they found out the tests were being used to date dino-bones as young. Are you seriously telling me that if we C14 tested all specimens we possibly could test that we would still only have a "dozen or so" of data? Really man - use your brain. :acigar:



#30 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,306 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 23 July 2017 - 03:00 AM

 

 

Mike: but now you have changed the code "science" to mean something else entirely. Its our reasoning process. It's knowledge (a knowledge base?) It's knowledge we don't know? What is it to be? It's confusing to me (No man can serve two masters.) LOL

 

Lol, no it's all of those things it's just a very large area. There are so many different types of science even within science Mike. Operational science in the present is a lot different to historical or forensic science/hypotheses in the past. To understand my position better, you may like to read message 1 in this thread and message 3.

 

http://evolutionfair...ce-is-the-same/

 

I agree with the rest of your post pretty much.



#31 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 751 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 23 July 2017 - 04:40 AM

This is just a rant about what you believe about me. No offense Wibble, but you aren't a deep thinker, you tend to think in simplistic terms. You don't actually know all of the evidence pertaining to age because in all likelihood you wouldn't know why it would pertain to age, you just go for the overt examples.[/font]
 
There are more obscure problems for age such as genetic entropy and Haldane's dilemma. You aren't even aware of those problems because your area of interest is rocks.[/font]


It was a bit of a rant. Written after a Saturday night out on the ales - probably not the best time to release my thoughts.

Just because I haven't mentioned everything pertaining to age doesn't mean I am not aware of them. I often read/watch creationist articles/youtube videos so of course I've heard of many things that is put forward as evidence of youth. And most of it is paper thin.

The trouble is you inflate the weight of the superficial youth evidence as if it is a serious challenge to the rock solid evidence of great age. You invariably mention planation when you want to bring up evidence of youth. Can you give me an example please for me to scrutinize.



#32 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,306 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 23 July 2017 - 05:19 AM

 

 

Wibble: The trouble is you inflate the weight of the superficial youth evidence as if it is a serious challenge to the rock solid evidence of great age. 

 

This is the use of question-begging epithets, though. It isn't "superficial" that collagen reasonably could only last 3 million years, it's based on actual extrapolations taken from experiments of known decay rates in the present. It's strong evidence that any collagen you find in dinosaur tissue, is 3 million years old or under. As for the "rock solid" evidence of age, what is that really though? I can't think of one solid example of age, that won't depend on some dodgy dating method, and we have had that discussion. It just isn't that convncing so how "solid" can it be.

 

The rocks themselves don't scream age, age is read into them.

 

 

 

Wibble: You invariably mention planation when you want to bring up evidence of youth. Can you give me an example please for me to scrutinize

 

That's evidence of watery catastrophe. Neo-catastrophists (evolutionists) would argue for periods of catastrophe forming certain geomorphology, while punctuated by uniform processes.

 

That is to say, if they would agree it is powerful evidence of water-catastrophe, which it is, then it's a double standard to say, "just not good evidence for Noah's watery catastrophe".

 

Syllogism;

 

A watery catastrophe could answer for planated surfaces which scientists acknowledge.

Noah's flood was a a watery catastrophe

Therefore Noah's flood could have created a planated surface.

meaning; it is evidence of Noah's flood, but note the term, "could".

 

Equivalent syllogism;

 

A cut can cause a scar on the chest.

an operation can cause a cut.

Therefore an operation could have created a scar on the chest.

 

 

 

 Wibble: Written after a Saturday night out on the ales - probably not the best time to release my thoughts

 

Probably not a very productive pastime then eh? Puffed up with liqour and the wickedness of the drunkard. ;)  :gotcha:

 

 

Oard: In the case of mountaintop planation surfaces, they are best explained as a function of the Recessive Stage of the Flood. During Flood water runoff, the continents and mountains rose with much erosion.1,2,11 It is expected that during uplift rapid currents would plane the top of the rocks by erosion. Continued uplift and channel erosion would divide large planation surfaces into isolated remnants near the tops of the mountains At lower elevations this erosion would divide the planation surfaces into large areas, such as plains or plateaus, depending upon the amount of uplift. The major planing episodes would have happened during the Abative or Sheet Flow Phase of the Flood.12 As mountains and plateaus rose above the Flood water, the water was forced to channelize down valleys. Within mountain valleys, fast flow toward the sinking ocean basins created planation surfaces along the edge of the mountains, called pediments.1,2,13 The planation surfaces and pediments still exist because there was insufficient time for erosion to destroy these features, especially in arid to semi-arid areas. The lack of erosion provides another piece of evidence that deep time is an invalid construct, and that planation surfaces are very young.

 

A planation surface is a large, level, or nearly level, land surface that has been ‘planed’ flat by running water (figure 1).2 Scientists believe that running water cut these surfaces because they are covered by rounded rocks (figure 2).3 Water is the only agent we know that can produce rounded rocks, by tumbling them against each other as it transports them along.

It is important to understand that a planation surface was cut into hard rock by an erosive watery mechanism. It is not a surface where sediments are deposited, like a river terrace, a gravel bar or a flood plain.

Planation surfaces can be amazingly flat. Once a planation surface has formed, creeks and heavy rain will often cut grooves and gullies into the surface, dissecting it into smaller areas (figure 3). Some planation surfaces are large, extending over 1,000 square kilometres. Yet, from the way they have been dissected, we can tell that they were even larger in the past.

Planation surfaces sometimes cut across tilted sedimentary rocks. They are especially easy to recognize (figure 4). The layered sedimentary rocks are often a combination of hard and soft rocks. Surprisingly, the watery mech­an­ism that formed the planation surface eroded the layers evenly (figure 5). Today, normal erosion by rainfall and weather erodes the soft rocks into valleys, leaving the hard rocks as ridges (figure 6). Only a gigantic, fast-running water flow could have cut both the hard and soft rocks evenly.

Planation surfaces worldwide
There are many landscapes on the earth that defy conventional (long-age) explanation.

Geomorphologist Lester King4 has documented that planation surfaces are abundant on allcontinents and found at different elevations. He noted about 60% of Africa is a series of planation surfaces. Some planation surfaces are located on the top of mountains (figure 7), including some that rise out of the Antarctic Ice Sheet. Australian geomorphologist Rowl Twidale5 accepts King’s general scheme that remnants of planation surfaces punctuate the scenery of all the continents, usually at three elevations.....

 

Geologists who believe that erosion happened slowly have concluded that some planation surfaces formed many tens of millions of years ago. Yet they have remained flat to this day. The flat to undulating plateau of western Arnhem Land, Queensland, is conventionally ‘dated’ at over 100 million years old.7

Yet, at today’s rate of erosion, the continents would be reduced to near sea level in 10 to 50 million years.8 Obviously, these flat landscapes cannot be that old. They are clear evidence that something is wrong with the dating methods.

http://creation.com/its-plain-to-see

Seems like a clear cut case to me. ;)

 

 

 

All agree that planation surfaces were formed in the past by water. The water would need to have been moving at high speed to erode soft and hard rocks evenly and leave boulders on the surface. 

 

Since "all agree" it was water, with massive force, can you explain just HOW it would only be, "superifical" evidence? It seems to me, it is close to PROOF that a giant body of water cut the planated surfaces all over the world, and to say it doesn't count as Noah's flood, but it is okay that it counts as evidence of evolutionary past flooding of some sort, is a double standard fallacy and a contradiction. It is powerfully strong evidence of a flood, and it is direct evidence. Whether you like it or not, it is enough as evidence, to conclude a very majorly vast flood happened in the past and created these flat surfaces. Note it isn't a building process, it's not about the rock there, it's about the rock removed. The force necessary to remove it was great. Why would you believe that this doesn't favour a flood strongly? Deep down I believe you must know that it does.



#33 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 23 July 2017 - 05:53 AM

Think about it, you blindly accept a dozen or so apparently young C14 dates because of your prejudice but ignore the enormous amount of independent data that completely throws out any concept that this planet could be anything less than millions of years old including the life that depends upon it.

i think it's you that needs to do some serious reconsideration.
there is NO DOUBT that we have been lied to in regards to evolution.
there is very little doubt that we are NOT getting the full story in regards to evolution.
for example, i bet very few people are actually aware of the fact that gould EMPHASIZED the fallacy of gradualism.

of all the purported transitional fossils that is claimed to exist, koonin rips that all to shreds.
there are ZERO transitionals between animal phyla, none.

what about the quote by gould that says "transitionals are abundant between higher classifications . . ."
gould, as a paleontologist, would NEVER say anything like that.
you can be sure that gould knew as much about the record as koonin does.
as a matter of fact, gould and koonin seems to be on the same page in regards to the modern synthesis.

#34 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,306 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 23 July 2017 - 07:51 AM

Today we shall have a discussion about the level of acid in fruit;

 

Mike Summers; "It's not the acid giving you indigestion, 'IT' can't do that, you are emoting about the acids in fruit, it is you doing 'it'....."

What If; "Koonin doesn't address fruit, but we do know that he says there are no transitionals, which includes transitionals for fruit."

 

:rotfl3:

 

(just some friendly mischief for our two friends) :D


  • Fjuri likes this

#35 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,888 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 23 July 2017 - 09:46 AM

Fjuri I also have said in the past, "we should be able to trip over the transitionals on our way to our laptops in the morning", but it was tongue-in-cheek. Your maths isn't so consequential because the fact is what we do find in the ground is much, is much closer to what we would expect from several thousand years of history. You can't escape the history of finds should be proportionally much greater. What we do find, if you read all the link is it is much more fitting with this scenario;

LOL, You cannot claim the finds should be proportionally much greater if you choose to ignore the numbers at the same time. 

That's like insisting that a guy should be able to fly just because he is able to flap his arms, ignoring the engineer who has done the math to explain you exactly how and why it doesn't work.  :get_a_clue:



#36 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,306 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 23 July 2017 - 10:13 AM

No Fjuri, you only addressed with your maths, the part of the claim he made that you should be able to dig up some of the remains if you dig down. That isn't the mathematics that matters pertaining to this issue. The maths that counts is the maths the scientists figured out in that link I gave you, that even if we are incredibly generous, and we say there was 4 billions bodies/artefacts, it is reasonable we would find a great portion of them. What we actually find is a far smaller number that agrees with thousands of years not millions.

 

Specifically the point you are attempting to refute is McMurtry's claim that we should find one grave from a generation if we dig straight down beneath us. 

 

That thing he said wasn't my claim, and is his own off-the-cuff comment, he said after explaining some figures. My claim is in agreement with CMI's figures - that we should find if 1 million people were alive at the time of the stone age with generation spans of about 25 years, about 4 billion bodies/artefacts.

 

 

 

Fjuri: LOL, You cannot claim the finds should be proportionally much greater if you choose to ignore the numbers at the same time. 

 

So what are you saying then? That if humans reproduced for one hundred thousand years we wouldn't expect more remains than if they have been reproducing for about 6 to 10,000 years? Because I have to tell you it doesn't take Einstein to figure that one out. 

 

:P

 

So it's not a case of rejecting the maths, I don't reject your maths, or the maths from the CMI guys, it's just that your maths is dealing with another claim.



#37 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 758 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 23 July 2017 - 12:41 PM

Evolutionists also claim there was a ‘Stone Age’ of about 100,000 years[/size]11 when between one million and 10 million people lived on Earth. Fossil evidence shows that people buried their dead, often with artefacts—cremation was not practised until relatively recent times (in evolutionary thinking). If there were just one million people alive during that time, with an average generation time of 25 years, they should have buried 4 billion bodies, and many artefacts. If there were 10 million people, it would mean 40 billion bodies buried in the earth. If the evolutionary timescale were correct, then we would expect the skeletons of the buried bodies to be largely still present after 100,000 years, because many ordinary bones claimed to be much older have been found.[/size]12 However, even if the bodies had disintegrated, lots of artefacts should still be found.[/size]
http://creation.com/...-all-the-people

The 4 billion bodies number assumes that everyone who ever lived was buried. It should be obvious that isn’t the case, so the questions become how likely it is that those people were:
1. Buried
2. Preserved to the modern day
3. Found in the modern day
4. Recognizable as human remains or artifacts

None of those questions are addressed by the argument. We get some napkin math about how many people would have lived, then we’re assured that their remains would “largely still [be] present” because we’ve found older bones (a faulty argument) and that “lots of artifacts” should be found, but not provided any reasoning why either of those things would be the case.

It’s pretty much exactly the same problem that your transitional fossil argument thad.

#38 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,306 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 23 July 2017 - 02:05 PM

 

 

Popoi: It’s pretty much exactly the same problem that your transitional fossil argument thad. 

 

There is no problem with that argument Popoi, the problem is your limited ability to understand deductive reason. Some things logic teaches, just aren't up for debate. You can throw all of the excuses you want at the problem, the fact is we would expect no transitionals if we hadn't evolved and an abundance if we had. The parsimonious explanation isn't the explanation which involves four hundred ad hoc excuses, mate.

 

Lol!

 

So if you think that the same argument of predicting a lack of evidence for your theory is going to impress me a second time it sure isn't. It's an ad-hoc rescue excuse, that's all.

 

I can also predict a lack of evidence for the spaghetti monster in the fossils, and give many reasons why we don't find it. Is that then a logically strong argument? 

 

No indeed. For the confirmation evidence which should follow is transitionals, and many more evidences of human remains, not the contrary. The contrary much better supports the contrary position.

 

See, basic logic isn't so hard if you try.

 

 

 

Popoi: The 4 billion bodies number assumes that everyone who ever lived was buried. It should be obvious that isn’t the case, so the questions become how likely it is that those people were:
1. Buried
2. Preserved to the modern day
3. Found in the modern day
4. Recognizable as human remains or artifacts

 

Yes, you clearly struggle to understand english, and missed the part where I myself offered objections to the claim, like when I said this; "one complaint I can think of myself playing the advocate, is that kills from predation might lead to many scattered bones, but is this sufficient to reduce the number greatly?"

 

Sure, those factors you mention are at play, but they're not that consequential if we go through each. We know humans have a history of burying from other finds from the same "era". We know "older" bones are preserved to the modern day. A portion may not be found or recognised but the artefacts would be.

 

So your objections are pretty easily dealt with. You just needed to think them through.

 

You can also argue that if one billion dolphins washed ashore we would expect to find five dolphins if you want but the fact remains that such evidence is more favourable to a much smaller claim of say 15 dolphins, rather than a billion. In the same way, the amount of remains we find is more consistent with thousands of years, not millions, when we compare them and therefore a better evidence for the former, even if you are able to perform mental gymnasts of the most immense proportions, it simply follows we would expect to find more remains from hundreds of more generations and much less, from much less.

 

The logic and maths is pretty elementary. For the maths, fewer generations, and millions of species of transitionals will produce higher numbers, than no transitionals and only a few thousand years of human history. In both cases the evidence fits thousands of years of history and no macro evolution. If you just constantly argue that the contrary evidence to the position should be found, then that's an exercise in conjecture and nothing more. Think about it, that could work for any theory, I could argue Martains destroyed Mars and we don't find anything because of what happened in the wars they had, and because of what happened to the planet aftwerwards, and that spaghetti monsters exist but aren't found in the fossils. But intellectually what genuine reason are you giving me to believe it happened? None really, and that's the problem.

 

I mean, don't you notice that I don't have to explain anything away by accepting thousands of years of history? That's because we get the expected evidence for that. Don't you realise I don't have to explain away a lack of transitionals, because that's expected from creation? That means the evidence fits nicely with creation because I don't have to argue why contrary evidence exists like you do.



#39 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 758 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 23 July 2017 - 03:25 PM

There is no problem with that argument Popoi, the problem is your limited ability to understand deductive reason. Some things logic teaches, just aren't up for debate. You can throw all of the excuses you want at the problem, the fact is we would expect no transitionals if we hadn't evolved and an abundance if we had. The parsimonious explanation isn't the explanation which involves four hundred ad hoc excuses, mate.

That “fact” is entirely based on your presupposition about how many transitionals there would have to be. After all these threads you still haven’t done any better than insisting that there would have to be a bunch of them.
 

Yes, you clearly struggle to understand english, and missed the part where I myself offered objections to the claim, like when I said this; "one complaint I can think of myself playing the advocate, is that kills from predation might lead to many scattered bones, but is this sufficient to reduce the number greatly?"

You offered a token objection and did nothing to resolve it, but here you are still defending the argument.
 

We know humans have a history of burying from other finds from the same "era”.

We know that some humans were buried. We don’t know how common such burials were in terms of the larger population (or at least that information isn’t presented in the argument). If burial was reserved for particularly important people, we can expect to find fewer of those burials.
 

We know "older" bones are preserved to the modern day.

We know that some older bones survived. We don’t know how many relative to the total bone population. If typical burial conditions aren’t conducive to preserving bones, the typical bone can’t be expected to be found preserved.
 

A portion may not be found or recognised but the artefacts would be.[/font]

Depends on the artifacts and who’s looking. If you’re a construction worker digging a foundation, would you necessarily recognize crude beads or a flake of flint before it was destroyed and covered in concrete?
 

You can also argue that if one billion dolphins washed ashore we would expect to find five dolphins if you want but the fact remains that such evidence is more favourable to a much smaller claim of say 15 dolphins, rather than a billion. In the same way, the amount of remains we find is more consistent with thousands of years, not millions, when we compare them and therefore a better evidence for the former, even if you are able to perform mental gymnasts of the most immense proportions, it simply follows we would expect to find more remains from hundreds of more generations and much less, from much less.

More than what? You have no baseline for comparison. If you have 5 dead dolphins, but you have no idea how likely it is that an individual dolphin will die and be found, you can’t say much of anything about how many dolphins there are/were.

 

I mean, don't you notice that I don't have to explain anything away by accepting thousands of years of history? That's because we get the expected evidence for that. Don't you realise I don't have to explain away a lack of transitionals, because that's expected from creation? That means the evidence fits nicely with creation because I don't have to argue why contrary evidence exists like you do.

It hasn’t been established that the evidence presented here is contrary yet. The best you can say is that if the napkin math is accurate, a short version of history is plausible.

That aside, this entire subform is about arguing why contrary evidence exists. You may not think you have contrary evidence to explain away here, but there are certainly other instances where short history or young earth run contrary to the apparent evidence.

#40 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 23 July 2017 - 04:54 PM

 

Popoi: It’s pretty much exactly the same problem that your transitional fossil argument thad. 

There is no problem with that argument Popoi, the problem is your limited ability to understand deductive reason. Some things logic teaches, just aren't up for debate. You can throw all of the excuses you want at the problem, the fact is we would expect no transitionals if we hadn't evolved and an abundance if we had. The parsimonious explanation isn't the explanation which involves four hundred ad hoc excuses, mate.

 

Lol!

 

So if you think that the same argument of predicting a lack of evidence for your theory is going to impress me a second time it sure isn't. It's an ad-hoc rescue excuse, that's all.

 

I can also predict a lack of evidence for the spaghetti monster in the fossils, and give many reasons why we don't find it. Is that then a logically strong argument? 

 

No indeed. For the confirmation evidence which should follow is transitionals, and many more evidences of human remains, not the contrary. The contrary much better supports the contrary position.

 

See, basic logic isn't so hard if you try.

The logic can be flawless and still result in an incorrect answer.

 

We know virtually all of the animals that die in the wild end up becoming food for other animals and/or are destroyed by the elements.  Conditions that lead to fossilization are, in fact, rare.  For that reason, we can reasonably expect few fossils.

 

The best you get from a lack of fossils is a draw.

 

 

Popoi: The 4 billion bodies number assumes that everyone who ever lived was buried. It should be obvious that isn’t the case, so the questions become how likely it is that those people were:
1. Buried
2. Preserved to the modern day
3. Found in the modern day
4. Recognizable as human remains or artifacts

Yes, you clearly struggle to understand english, and missed the part where I myself offered objections to the claim, like when I said this; "one complaint I can think of myself playing the advocate, is that kills from predation might lead to many scattered bones, but is this sufficient to reduce the number greatly?"

 

Sure, those factors you mention are at play, but they're not that consequential if we go through each. We know humans have a history of burying from other finds from the same "era". We know "older" bones are preserved to the modern day. A portion may not be found or recognised but the artefacts would be.

 

So your objections are pretty easily dealt with. You just needed to think them through.

Yours are equally easy to deal with .... if you think them through.

 

Take your 4 billion people and assume that each and every one of them has been buried.  Forget that many cultures destroyed the bodies of their dead (Vikings, Romans, and Hindus come to mind.)  Let's just ass-u-me that each and every one of those 4 billion bodies was buried.  Confine the burials only to the (roughly) 24 million habitable square miles of the planet.  That leaves us about 166 bodies per square mile (64 per square km).  That means in my 10 acres, I can expect two bodies..... probably less.  If we figure each body to be about 5 feet by one foot, the two bodies would be about 10 square feet.  My property is 435,600 square feet. 

 

That means there's about a 0.002% chance of finding a body.... if I dig deep enough.  Most of the holes I dig are post holes and are rarely more than 16 inches (40 cm) deep.  There would be zero chance of finding anything that's just 18 inches down.... and most burials are far deeper than that.    IOW, it's not like we should expect to encounter a body each and every time we dig a hole.

 

The reason we don't find bodies all over the place is we shouldn't expect to.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users