'First human' discovered in Ethiopia
- Thread starter royalscot
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Let's see here, last time I checked Genesis includes the flood which quickly explains fossils buried (PS the Bible is not the only ancient document that has a flood account).
I'm curious if the creation account was only allegory, what else in Scripture falls into that classification and what parts are literal? Who gets to make the decision as to what is allegory or literal?
Was the Flood only allegory?
Or maybe the 10 plagues of Egypt were only allegory
Maybe God calling Abraham out and promising a land to his descendants was only allegory.
Occam's Razor applies very well. I choose to believe the simplest explanation to how everything that we see around us came into existence. No reasonable person would look at a watch and hypothesize that over billions of years it evolved into what it is now, they would conclude that it was created yet they choose to hypothesize that the human body which is trillions of times more complex (without even considering the vastly greater complexity and mathematical probabilities of a planet capable of sustaining life) had to have evolved.
Why do people reject creation? Simple...if there is no creation then there is no Creator. Without a Creator there is no supreme being that has reasonable expectation that his creation comply with His expectation for obedience.
I'm curious if the creation account was only allegory, what else in Scripture falls into that classification and what parts are literal? Who gets to make the decision as to what is allegory or literal?
Was the Flood only allegory?
Or maybe the 10 plagues of Egypt were only allegory
Maybe God calling Abraham out and promising a land to his descendants was only allegory.
Occam's Razor applies very well. I choose to believe the simplest explanation to how everything that we see around us came into existence. No reasonable person would look at a watch and hypothesize that over billions of years it evolved into what it is now, they would conclude that it was created yet they choose to hypothesize that the human body which is trillions of times more complex (without even considering the vastly greater complexity and mathematical probabilities of a planet capable of sustaining life) had to have evolved.
Why do people reject creation? Simple...if there is no creation then there is no Creator. Without a Creator there is no supreme being that has reasonable expectation that his creation comply with His expectation for obedience.
V
I always love when people resort to the "you don't understand" the science, the data, the whatever. Proves only that you can't make an argument yourself. And citing others' work without quoting it is just as disingenuous.
Easy to call names. Easier still not to post anything that disproves what was said, and this ...
... is opinion, not proof.
This, on the other hand, is proof of what was said. Take, for example, dating of a piece of wood. The tree absorbs carbon from the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide, both C-12 and C-14, as long as it lives. With the death of the tree, absorption obviously stops, and any C-14 present begins to decay. The changing ratio of C-12 to C-14 indicates the length of time since the tree stopped absorbing carbon, i.e., the time of its death.
The half-life of C-14 is 5,730 years. If half the C-14 decays in that period of time, we know that's how old the wood sample, or perhaps the petrified sample, is at the time of testing. By ten half-lives (57,300 years) there would be essentially no C-14 left. Thus, no one even considers using carbon dating for dates in this range. That isn't enough C-14 to measure. In fact, it is difficult to measure beyond one half-life, because C-14 is so rare compared to C-13. In theory, it might be useful to archaeology, but not to geology or paleontology.
Furthermore, the assumptions on which it is based and the conditions which must be satisfied are questionable. It is doubtful, for example, that C-14 occurs in uniform proportion to C-12, and in practice, no one trusts it beyond about 3,000 or 4,000 years, and then only if or when it can be checked by some historical means.
The method assumes, among other things, that the earth's age exceeds the time it would take for C-14 production to be in equilibrium with C-14 decay. Since it would only take less than 50,000 years to reach equilibrium from a world with no C-14 at the start, this always seemed like a good assumption.
Until, that is, careful measurements revealed a significant disequalibrium. The production rate still exceeds decay by 30%. All the present C-14 would accumulate, at present rates of production and build up, in less than 30,000 years! Thus the earth's atmosphere couldn't be any older than this. Efforts to salvage carbon dating are many and varied, with calibration curves attempting to bring the C-14 "dates" in line with historical dates, but these produce predictably unreliable results.
Those are just a few of the problems with carbon dating, and other methods of radiometric dating rely on much rarer isotopes with much longer half-lives. The longer the half-life, the more difficult it is to get an accurate measurement of actual amounts of the radioactive isotope relative to the stable atom of the element, and again scientists run up against the proportional distribution of the isotope, depending up nature to have evenly distributed with the stable version of the element.
In other words, to quote you, "It's [all] crap."
Easy to call names. Easier still not to post anything that disproves what was said, and this ...
... is opinion, not proof.
This, on the other hand, is proof of what was said. Take, for example, dating of a piece of wood. The tree absorbs carbon from the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide, both C-12 and C-14, as long as it lives. With the death of the tree, absorption obviously stops, and any C-14 present begins to decay. The changing ratio of C-12 to C-14 indicates the length of time since the tree stopped absorbing carbon, i.e., the time of its death.
The half-life of C-14 is 5,730 years. If half the C-14 decays in that period of time, we know that's how old the wood sample, or perhaps the petrified sample, is at the time of testing. By ten half-lives (57,300 years) there would be essentially no C-14 left. Thus, no one even considers using carbon dating for dates in this range. That isn't enough C-14 to measure. In fact, it is difficult to measure beyond one half-life, because C-14 is so rare compared to C-13. In theory, it might be useful to archaeology, but not to geology or paleontology.
Furthermore, the assumptions on which it is based and the conditions which must be satisfied are questionable. It is doubtful, for example, that C-14 occurs in uniform proportion to C-12, and in practice, no one trusts it beyond about 3,000 or 4,000 years, and then only if or when it can be checked by some historical means.
The method assumes, among other things, that the earth's age exceeds the time it would take for C-14 production to be in equilibrium with C-14 decay. Since it would only take less than 50,000 years to reach equilibrium from a world with no C-14 at the start, this always seemed like a good assumption.
Until, that is, careful measurements revealed a significant disequalibrium. The production rate still exceeds decay by 30%. All the present C-14 would accumulate, at present rates of production and build up, in less than 30,000 years! Thus the earth's atmosphere couldn't be any older than this. Efforts to salvage carbon dating are many and varied, with calibration curves attempting to bring the C-14 "dates" in line with historical dates, but these produce predictably unreliable results.
Those are just a few of the problems with carbon dating, and other methods of radiometric dating rely on much rarer isotopes with much longer half-lives. The longer the half-life, the more difficult it is to get an accurate measurement of actual amounts of the radioactive isotope relative to the stable atom of the element, and again scientists run up against the proportional distribution of the isotope, depending up nature to have evenly distributed with the stable version of the element.
In other words, to quote you, "It's [all] crap."
A
You mean you believe that Darwinian speciation is the only, and you mean the only, way that life could have diversified on this planet. Would it surprise you to learn that millions of highly qualified scientists, academician, researchers, etc... assert otherwise?
Again, instead of asking if there are any other mechanisms for the diversification of life on this planet; you simply made a false assertion that it is the only way it could have happened. You're wrong. It's not.
For example, with respect to diversification within species humans are an example of a mechanism that's been responsible for some of the diversification of life on this planet. Certainly we're not able to create new species but we can create diversification within species through modern science... and we have and do.
As for speciation, or the creation of new species, there certainly other empirical scientific models that compete with the model of Darwinian evolution. A few of them are supported by large bodies of highly qualified scientists, academicians, researchers, etc.. but you've obviously never heard of them much less attempted to seriously qualify them to see if they're true.
Yet you make the assertion anyways, in your ignorance, rather than ask the question. Asking the question is the scientific thing to do. It looks like this: Are there any other explanations for the diversification of life on earth other than general evolutionary theory? The answer is yes, there are.
Let me introduce you to one. This organization has a membership of over a half a million which includes a great many highly qualified scientists, academicians, researchers, etc... Reasons To Believe : Where Modern Science & Faith Converge
They published their scientifically testable creation model in 'More than a Theory: Revealing a Testable Model for Creation.'
You have a lot to learn.
Again, instead of asking if there are any other mechanisms for the diversification of life on this planet; you simply made a false assertion that it is the only way it could have happened. You're wrong. It's not.
For example, with respect to diversification within species humans are an example of a mechanism that's been responsible for some of the diversification of life on this planet. Certainly we're not able to create new species but we can create diversification within species through modern science... and we have and do.
As for speciation, or the creation of new species, there certainly other empirical scientific models that compete with the model of Darwinian evolution. A few of them are supported by large bodies of highly qualified scientists, academicians, researchers, etc.. but you've obviously never heard of them much less attempted to seriously qualify them to see if they're true.
Yet you make the assertion anyways, in your ignorance, rather than ask the question. Asking the question is the scientific thing to do. It looks like this: Are there any other explanations for the diversification of life on earth other than general evolutionary theory? The answer is yes, there are.
Let me introduce you to one. This organization has a membership of over a half a million which includes a great many highly qualified scientists, academicians, researchers, etc... Reasons To Believe : Where Modern Science & Faith Converge
They published their scientifically testable creation model in 'More than a Theory: Revealing a Testable Model for Creation.'
You have a lot to learn.
T
Yes, there are over 300 flood accounts from worldwide cultures. Some are similar to the biblical account, some are very different, but none concern a local flood. I've read many of them. It's surprising how some of the least accurate accounts come from areas from the Ancient Near East and some of the most accurate accounts come from Asian countries.
T
The Great Flood from Noah's time accounts for most (not all) of the diversified fossils in the strata layers. Great violence was done to the earth during this time. Huge earthquakes and tsunamis, continental shifts, great mountain ranges were formed. The earth still groans and remembers such a time. It's wearing down.
A great worldwide flood occurred about 4,500 years ago and it can explain why the fossil layers are how they are, why geological evidence etc. doesn't point to a uniformitarian understanding, and why it seems we only have concrete evidence of human civilization going back about 4,500 years from the northern African region. If you ask me, the evidence for a biblical creation is present. It's logical and consistent and offers a complete understanding of human history (Genesis to Revelation - from the beginning to the end).
Flood geology schism - creation.com
A great worldwide flood occurred about 4,500 years ago and it can explain why the fossil layers are how they are, why geological evidence etc. doesn't point to a uniformitarian understanding, and why it seems we only have concrete evidence of human civilization going back about 4,500 years from the northern African region. If you ask me, the evidence for a biblical creation is present. It's logical and consistent and offers a complete understanding of human history (Genesis to Revelation - from the beginning to the end).
Flood geology schism - creation.com
Last edited by a moderator:
T
This image is too big to post here, but I've provided a link. It compares and contrasts the long-age evolutionary ages with the Great Flood and the early post-Flood period. Very interesting. Yes, it's a scientific model and therefore is subject to change, but it's also informed by God's Word, rather than the other way around, so it will date less quickly than evolutionary understandings based entirely on human philosophy.
Evolution and Long Ages versus a Biblical Creation Understanding of Fossils:
http://dl0.creation.com/articles/p100/c10014/reconstructed-lge.jpg
Evolution and Long Ages versus a Biblical Creation Understanding of Fossils:
http://dl0.creation.com/articles/p100/c10014/reconstructed-lge.jpg
Last edited by a moderator:
I managed to track a significant portion of this post, word-for-word (plagiarism is bad, by the way), to the Institute of Creation Research (ICR), which has an online print article concerning carbon dating. In the article's defense, it does get one thing right concerning carbon dating -- that it's useless as far as attempting to date the age of most rocks, or the age of the planet. Beyond that, the two-page article -- which offers no evidence, no sources, no equations, and no credible refutations in general of any kind -- asserts that some kind of "careful measurement" managed to reveal a "disequilibrium" between C-14 decay and production that supposedly refutes the age of Earth's atmosphere as being more than ~30,000 years of age.
This seems to hearken back to Kent Hovind's original argument a few years back that mentioned something along the lines of a C-14 buildup in the atmosphere accumulating to an equilibrium of roughly 30,000 years. Because the article fails to cite or source anything, I'll assume that the article is alluding to Kent Hovind's contention concerning an "equilibrium," which fails to take into account the fact that discrepancies in Carbon-14 in the atmosphere exist on the basis of a number of variables, like Earth's changing magnetic field.
These discrepancies refute the supposed "30,000 year buildup" that the ICR article implies, since a lack of constancy offers an explanation for the ~20,000 year gap toward the limit of radiocarbon dating (around ~40 - 50,000 years, depending on what's being measured), at which point uncertainties from a lack of measurable carbon-14 become too unreliable to measure in most specimens. At that point, the claim has no validity at all, since C-14 is well-established to be unreliable beyond roughly 50,000 years. Therefore, Kent's argument of an "equilibrium" isn't even in the ballpark.
The only thing here that's "all crap" is the tiny minority of vocal critics of carbon and radiometric dating that tend to share both a lack of expertise and an agenda (which, thankfully and predictably, has failed miserably in the academic world) to discredit the work of the overwhelming majority of the scientific consensus.
This seems to hearken back to Kent Hovind's original argument a few years back that mentioned something along the lines of a C-14 buildup in the atmosphere accumulating to an equilibrium of roughly 30,000 years. Because the article fails to cite or source anything, I'll assume that the article is alluding to Kent Hovind's contention concerning an "equilibrium," which fails to take into account the fact that discrepancies in Carbon-14 in the atmosphere exist on the basis of a number of variables, like Earth's changing magnetic field.
These discrepancies refute the supposed "30,000 year buildup" that the ICR article implies, since a lack of constancy offers an explanation for the ~20,000 year gap toward the limit of radiocarbon dating (around ~40 - 50,000 years, depending on what's being measured), at which point uncertainties from a lack of measurable carbon-14 become too unreliable to measure in most specimens. At that point, the claim has no validity at all, since C-14 is well-established to be unreliable beyond roughly 50,000 years. Therefore, Kent's argument of an "equilibrium" isn't even in the ballpark.
The only thing here that's "all crap" is the tiny minority of vocal critics of carbon and radiometric dating that tend to share both a lack of expertise and an agenda (which, thankfully and predictably, has failed miserably in the academic world) to discredit the work of the overwhelming majority of the scientific consensus.
...As if to imply that quoting without citing, which is precisely what you've done in your next post down, is any less pretentious and disingenuous? Shall I send you the exact link of the article authored by John D. Morris that you ripped, word-for-word, without giving credit? You're being quite hypocritical. 
Last edited:
Not referring to this particular member, but, in my experience, SOME people claim to be Christian when applying for membership to join a Christian Forums/Site do so because they believe it will make it easier to be approved for membership. Not realizing that the majority of Christian Forums/Sites do not exclude non believers or professed atheists simply because of their non belief.........again, not saying this person is one of them.
But I often wonder about this same thing when reading through the comments of new members.
But I often wonder about this same thing when reading through the comments of new members.
...Adding 400,000 years to the presently-established age of the planet wouldn't take it anywhere close to 5 billion years. It'd require almost 500,000,000 years, silly. Moreover, the geological age of Earth has nothing to do with the age of certain specimens that at one point lived on its surface.
400,000 years is quite an inflation by itself. After all within 100 years you can go from horses and bugeys to cars and TV. Within 1,000 years advanced civilizations can rise and fall leaving hardly a trace. So iwho is to say Donkey Kong Country did not actually happen and then disappear without a trace within 400,000 years?
EDIT: Oh and me thinks there is clear evolution in Donkey Kong Country. You will notice Donkey Kong is bigger, hunched over and wears a tie as where Diddy Kong stands more upright, smaller, and has a hat. Clear evolution.
Last edited:
A
Tintin, my primary concern in this thread isn't to argue for one creation model over another (YEC, OEC, TE, etc...) as it is not a salvation issue but rather to argue for creator God when His existence and interaction is wrongly dismissed.
That said, I may correct major errors and add content to the discussion but please don't think I'm being argumentative when I do so.
In that spirit, I believe you were referencing sedimentary layers and marine fossils found on all seven continents including the peaks of many mountain ranges? This is true. Even the summit of Mount Everest is littered with marine fossils. However; while some see these as evidence of a global Flood, geophysicists see them as evidence of plate tectonics.
For example, geophysicists assert that from its past location adjacent to Antarctica in the south Indian Ocean, the Indian subcontinent slowly began drifting north. As it approached Asia, the ocean floor between the two plates buckled up to form the Himalayas. This rising of that particular piece of ocean floor explains why marine fossils are so common on Mount Everest, much more common than on the lands to the north and south of the Himalayas. The beginning of this marine layer uplift predates the Genesis Flood by many millions of years.
Because the uplift shows no major discontinuities, geophysicists conclude that it has been proceeding fairly continuously for approximately the past fifteen million years.
Likewise, they assert that the North America's vast alluvial plain has everything to do with events in the distant past and nothing to do with the Genesis Flood account. The North American prairies lay for tens of millions of years under a huge shallow sea. This ancient sea explains the region's huge limestone and fossil-fuel deposits. A number of independent dating techniques show that the prairies emerged from under water more than 200 million years ago, long before the Genesis Flood account.
Now I believe there are about 200 distinct known flood stories across ancient civilizations. More than 85 percent of these mention a large vessel that saved the human race from extinction suggesting a common original source. Of course, they vary wildly but as with creation accounts, we see traces of a pattern: the greater the story's distance (in time and geography) from Mesopotamia, the greater the distortion relative to both the biblical record (Genesis 6 -9) and the established scientific record. As with creation accounts, the least scientifically distorted of the nonbiblical accounts is the Babylonian one though over time it was distorted as well just like creation accounts and monotheism to the point God intervened extending special revelation to normalize the distortions in what we today call the bible.
I argue with Biologos and RTB for a local flood event BUT the information I'm sharing here is relevant to any flood model including the one you align with (AIGs). The point being we need to understand what geophysicists are asserting and rationally address it. Peace.
That said, I may correct major errors and add content to the discussion but please don't think I'm being argumentative when I do so.
In that spirit, I believe you were referencing sedimentary layers and marine fossils found on all seven continents including the peaks of many mountain ranges? This is true. Even the summit of Mount Everest is littered with marine fossils. However; while some see these as evidence of a global Flood, geophysicists see them as evidence of plate tectonics.
For example, geophysicists assert that from its past location adjacent to Antarctica in the south Indian Ocean, the Indian subcontinent slowly began drifting north. As it approached Asia, the ocean floor between the two plates buckled up to form the Himalayas. This rising of that particular piece of ocean floor explains why marine fossils are so common on Mount Everest, much more common than on the lands to the north and south of the Himalayas. The beginning of this marine layer uplift predates the Genesis Flood by many millions of years.
Because the uplift shows no major discontinuities, geophysicists conclude that it has been proceeding fairly continuously for approximately the past fifteen million years.
Likewise, they assert that the North America's vast alluvial plain has everything to do with events in the distant past and nothing to do with the Genesis Flood account. The North American prairies lay for tens of millions of years under a huge shallow sea. This ancient sea explains the region's huge limestone and fossil-fuel deposits. A number of independent dating techniques show that the prairies emerged from under water more than 200 million years ago, long before the Genesis Flood account.
Now I believe there are about 200 distinct known flood stories across ancient civilizations. More than 85 percent of these mention a large vessel that saved the human race from extinction suggesting a common original source. Of course, they vary wildly but as with creation accounts, we see traces of a pattern: the greater the story's distance (in time and geography) from Mesopotamia, the greater the distortion relative to both the biblical record (Genesis 6 -9) and the established scientific record. As with creation accounts, the least scientifically distorted of the nonbiblical accounts is the Babylonian one though over time it was distorted as well just like creation accounts and monotheism to the point God intervened extending special revelation to normalize the distortions in what we today call the bible.
I argue with Biologos and RTB for a local flood event BUT the information I'm sharing here is relevant to any flood model including the one you align with (AIGs). The point being we need to understand what geophysicists are asserting and rationally address it. Peace.
A
And it's an informal discussion forum which means that while source citations are useful and desirable and always best practice, there's no requirement to conform to APA, MLA, etc... standards here. So yes, include them if you have them on hand and it's convenient to include them but I'm not calling you disingenuous or a plagiarist and certainly am not going to derail the discussion over you not providing them with the understanding that if a source or sources become important to qualifying the content I may ask for your source(s) at which time you should be prepared to provide them. Peace.
you would not see a believer, if he stared you in the face.
i was crying because they killed lucy.
but science has given most people, a view of the world, a view of a universe , and gave drugs to doctor, to help illness, cars, planes etc. etc etc
only question that would need asking, did they do it for self, or to cheat death. or for the glory of god.
i was crying because they killed lucy.
but science has given most people, a view of the world, a view of a universe , and gave drugs to doctor, to help illness, cars, planes etc. etc etc
only question that would need asking, did they do it for self, or to cheat death. or for the glory of god.
T
Don't be silly! Why would peer-reviewed scientific papers in journals, being founded in evolutionary beliefs and naturalism, present opposing views that don't support their agenda? It would involve critical thinking and robust, scientific dialogue. We can't have that! No, no, no. We must present only one perspective so the masses believe and don't question anything. Scientists and philosophers are the new high priests! Who's with me?
Just because you think you're thinking critically, doesn't mean you are. If you can actually explain, correctly, to me the mechanism for evolution by natural selection, as is cited in a scientific journal, and portray sufficient understanding of its premises in order to make coherent argument against its premises as they are stated then I'll happily hear your perspective, even if all those high priests won't.
However, if you fail to convey a genuine understanding of what evolutionary theory is as it is stated in peer reviewed and published scientific journals then I will discard your arguments into the annals of all the other creationist arguments that fall under ''the argument from personal incredulity''.
Those are fair premises for debate, Tintin, for you can only argue against something when you understand what it actually is that you are arguing against.
However, if you fail to convey a genuine understanding of what evolutionary theory is as it is stated in peer reviewed and published scientific journals then I will discard your arguments into the annals of all the other creationist arguments that fall under ''the argument from personal incredulity''.
Those are fair premises for debate, Tintin, for you can only argue against something when you understand what it actually is that you are arguing against.