What on earth is there to comment on. The Bible says it, I accept it as fact, and I could not care less what the scientific community has to say about what is revealed in the Word of God.
Millions of years ago ! ?
- Thread starter wincam
- 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.
What on earth is there to comment on. The Bible says it, I accept it as fact, and I could not care less what the scientific community has to say about what is revealed in the Word of God.
ivanc0 said:
Maybe he didn't ignore it? You tossed out a laundry list of things. Who the heck has the time or inclination to give a duly diligent response to each one? To do so would require a good sized book. In the event you were wrong and he could disprove everything, the old maxim still holds true:
"The amount of energy necessary to refute [junk] is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
-Alberto Brandolini
(Not exactly how he put it, but same point)
It's not really courteous or fair to toss out laundry lists and demand that each item not be ignored.
The article points to the fact they have NO IDEA what they are doing. Let alone fact checking against their so called facts
This is from the article
She roamed Earth up to 13,000 years ago when the now flooded cave systems in Mexico’s Yucatan Peninsula were much the same, apart from the water level being much lower than it is now.
Her almost complete remains, including an intact skull and preserved DNA, were lying 130 feet below sea level near a variety of extinct animals, such as an elephant like creature called a gomphothere.
These helped scientists establish the age of the bones as between 12,000 and 13,000 years old.
Her pristine preservation enabled the researchers to extract enough DNA to establish the prehistoric girl was an ancestor of the earliest Americans, who arrived from north east Asia between 15,000 and 20,000 years ago, and modern Native Americans.
The ancestry of the earliest Americans is still debated because the facial features of the oldest American skeletons don't look much like those of modern Native Americans.
'Modern Native Americans closely resemble people of China, Korea, and Japan,' James Chatters, lead author on the study, said, 'but the oldest American skeletons do not.'
[h=1]Gomphotheres
[/h] [h=3]Ancient Four-Tusked Elephant
[/h]
[TABLE="class: columns_block grid_block, width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="class: column_0"]
[/TD]
[TD="class: column_1"] An ancient Elephant Ancestor, Gomphotheres have both upper and lower tusks.
At a height of 8ft.(2.4M), it lived about 13 to 1.6 Million Years Ago. These prehistoric elephants have low and elongated skulls. They ranged widely in North America and Florida during the Miocene and Pliocene Periods.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
http://www.fossil-treasures-of-florida.com/gomphotheres.html
So they figured the age of the girl at 12,000-13,000 years old BECAUSE the skeleton was found amoung animals that lived 1.6-13 MILLION years ago. RIGHT.
So they figured the age of the girl at 12,000-13,000 years old BECAUSE the skeleton was found amoung animals that lived 1.6-13 MILLION years ago. RIGHT.
Here's how National Geographic explains it:
"Assessing the skeleton’s age required a novel approach given the challenging environmental conditions. The research team analyzed tooth enamel and bat-dropped seeds using radiocarbon dating and calcite deposits found on the bones using the uranium-thorium method, establishing an age of between 12,000 and 13,000 years. They used similar methodology to date the remains of a variety of gomphothere (an extinct relative of the mastodon) found near the skeleton to around 40,000 years ago. The more than 26 large mammals found at the site included saber-toothed cats and giant ground sloths, which were largely extinct in North America 13,000 years ago. The skeleton’s age was further supported by evidence of rising sea levels, which were as much as 360 feet (120 meters) lower during the last ice age than they are today."
Oldest Most Complete, Genetically Intact Human Skeleton in the New World Indicates Shared Ancestry – National Geographic Society Press Room
Do you have information from a credible scientific source that this skeleton is less than 6,000 years old, as opposed to 13,000 years old?
Do you have any CREDIBLE evidence that it is 13,000 years old? The URANIUM/THORIUM dating method that they used is FLAWED to begin with
FIVE URANIUM/THORIUM DATING INACCURACIES—Here are some of the reasons why we cannot rely on radioactive dating of uranium and thorium:
(1) Lead could originally have been mixed in with the uranium or thorium. This is very possible, and even likely. It is only an assumption that integral or adjacent lead could only be an end product.
In addition, common lead (lead 204), which has no radioactive parent, could easily be mixed into the sample and would seriously affect the dating of that sample. *Adolph Knopf referred to this important problem (*Scientific Monthly, November 1957). *Faul, a leading authority in the field, recognized it also (*Henry Faul, Nuclear Geology, 1954, p. 297).
When a uranium sample is tested for dating purposes, it is assumed that the entire quantity of lead in it is "daughter-product lead" (that is, the end-product of the decayed uranium). The specimen is not carefully and thoroughly checked for possible common lead content, because it is such a time-consuming task. Yet it is that very uranium-lead ratio which is used to date the sample! The same problem applies to thorium samples.
(2) Leaching is another problem. Part of the uranium and its daughter products could previously have leached out. This would drastically affect the dating of the sample. Lead, in particular, can be leached out by weak acid solutions.
(3) There can be inaccurate lead ratio comparisons, due to different types of lead within the sample. Correlations of various kinds of lead (lead 206, 207, etc.) in the specimen is done to improve dating accuracy. But errors can and do occur here also.
Thus, we have here astounding evidence of the marvelous unreliability of radiodating techniques. Rock known to be less than 300 years old is variously dated between 50 million and 14.5 billion years of age! That is a 14-billion year error in dating! Yet such radiodating techniques continue to be used in order to prove long ages of earth’s existence. A chimpanzee typing numbers at random could do as well.
Sample datings from a single uranium deposit in the Colorado Caribou Mine yielded an error spread of 700 million years.
(4) Yet a fourth problem concerns that of neutron capture. *Melvin Cooke suggests that the radiogenic lead isotope 207 (normally thought to have been formed only by the decay of uranium 235) could actually have been formed from lead 206, simply by having captured free neutrons from neighboring rock. In the same manner, lead 208 (normally theorized as formed only by thorium 232 decay) could have been formed by the capture of free neutrons from lead 207. Cooke checked out this possibility by extensive investigation and came up with a sizeable quantity of data indicating that practically all radiogenic lead in the earth’s crust could have been produced in this way instead of by uranium or thorium decay! This point alone totally invalidates uranium and thorium dating methods!
(5) A fifth problem deals with the origin of the rocks containing these radioactive minerals. According to evolutionary theory, the earth was originally molten. But, if true, molten rocks would produce a wild variation in clock settings in radioactive materials.
"Why do the radioactive ages of lava beds, laid down within a few weeks of each other, differ by millions of years?"—*Glen R. Morton, Electromagnetics and the Appearance of Age.
It is a well-known fact, by nuclear researchers, that intense heat damages radiodating clock settings; yet the public is solemnly presented with dates of rocks indicating long ages of time when, in fact, the evolutionary theory of the origin of rocks would render those dates totally useless.
2—THORIUM-LEAD DATING—A majority of the flaws discussed under uranium-lead dating, above, apply equally to thorium-lead dating.
The half-lives of uranium 238, 235, and thorium 232 are supposedly known, having been theorized. But whenever dates are computed using thorium,—they always widely disagree with uranium dates! No one can point to a single reason for this. We probably have here a cluster of several major contamination factors; and all of these contamination factors are beyond our ability to identify, much less calculate. To make matters worse, contaminating factors common to both may cause different reactions in the thorium than in the uranium! (*Henry Faul, Nuclear Geology, p. 295).
"The two uranium-lead ages often differ from each other markedly, and the thorium-lead age on the same mineral is almost always drastically lower than either of the others."—*L.T. Aldrich, "Measurement of Radioactive Ages of Rocks," in Science, May 18, 1956, p. 872.
3-4—LEAD 210 AND HELIUM DATING—Two other methods of dating uranium and thorium specimens should be mentioned.
First, there is uranium-lead 210 dating. Lead 210 is frequently used to date uranium.
Second is the uranium-helium method. Helium produced by uranium decay is also used for the same dating purpose.
But the lead 210 method is subject to the very same entry or leaching problems mentioned earlier. Helium leakage is so notorious as to render it unfit for dating purposes.
Inaccurate Dating Methods
Old Earth Mythology: New Diagrams Created By Man Less Than 200 Years Ago
The Painted Mountains of China: Can Only Exist Because Of A Master Creator
T
Tintin
Guest
Jack, what part of scientific peer-reviewed journals not giving a flying fig about God and hence, not a foot-hold to Him and biblical creation in their writings, do you not understand? Your adherence to human reasoning is frightening.
Scientific peer-reviewed journals don't allow alternative beliefs. What happened to robust scientific dialogue? Oh, I forgot! Evolutionary teachings, that's what. So much for critical thinking. 'Our' way or the highway. Well, I'd rather the highway.
Scientific peer-reviewed journals don't allow alternative beliefs. What happened to robust scientific dialogue? Oh, I forgot! Evolutionary teachings, that's what. So much for critical thinking. 'Our' way or the highway. Well, I'd rather the highway.
actually light created before the stars, and while what would become the earth could rightly be said to still be "formless" is completely consistent with current cosmological theory. it's the right order.
whether or not what we call the laws of physics are universally consistent over all space and time is a different question. i got problems with Hubble. i got problems with that consistency. i kinda doubt it. some other astronomers in my generation are starting to doubt it too. whole other story though.
i'm using "photons with a mean-free-path greater than the planck length" as a definition of light. by no means does light have as it's only source , the sun, sol. or any other star. light a candle to prove that to yourself.
every big-bang type theory of the early universe - every single-point-of-origin theory - implies a very dense, hot and energetic 'soup' of energy and elementary particles (and photons) that expanded (stretched - see Job 9:8, Psalm 104:2 - that's consistent with the Word too) into the universe we see today. at first it was too dense for any photon to travel more than a planck-length before running into another particle or photon. i.e. there was no "light." then, He said "let there be light" - and there was light. the density of the universe became such that photons could travel measurable distances. modern cosmology predicts that this happened at a specific instant in time - fully consistent with the Word.
it is also implied by (most) modern theories and observation that the universe was (and is) more or less homogeneous. so that these photons bound up with everything else that would become the stars and the planets and all else that is more or less permeated all of it. so this sudden appearance of light in the universe would have been 'universal' at once - everywhere, there was light.
and as the universe cooled and expanded, the photons traveled further, and there became 'space' where there was not light. God separated the light from the darkness. albeit an enormous number of photons in the universe, a finite one. and photons appear to travel in time - they are not omnipresent. it takes a measurable amount of time to fill a room with them after you light that candle.
here's where i start to differ with 24-hr literalism. we don't need for the sun to be formed before there was light, or the earth to cast a shadow before there is something we can call not-light (or "darkness"). but to hold on to "day = 24 hour earth day" do we need them to be fully formed?
doesn't it say that the Lord called the light "day" and the dark "night" ? while the earth was "formless and void" ?
don't the prophets speak of "that day" and refer to a length of time from the tribulation right through the end of the millennium ?
anyhow, it only looks inconsistent when we insist on things like light having to originate from sol, and a 'day' being measured by the rotation of a fully formed earth relative to sol.
nevertheless, God may do with His universe as He wishes. everything we think we know about it's workings and beginnings is inferred by incomplete observation. mankind could be very, very, wrong about it. it's beyond me why the Lord would make it look 'just so' when it wasn't anything near 'so' though.
I think maybe there is a misunderstanding of what I meant and it my fault. I was not talking about the Hebrew word for light. When I said, "The Word clearly disputes this theory." What I meant was that the Word of God,specifically Gen 1, disputes that theory.
Did Dr. Dino (Kent Hovind) write his part of that from his prison cell?
Dr Dino is a credible source?
it seems to me that Genesis 1 also disputes that "light" as it was first created comes from the sun. observational science disputes that too.
most of what i put there was for ivan's sake - to show the sun doesn't need to be formed before light exists, and that modern cosmology is not at odds with Genesis.
you know, as far as 'physics' as we know it existing when the universe was created, all the single-point-of-origin theories agree too. everything is so hot and so dense at the beginning that no physics we can understand today makes any sense.
people get "puffed up" with knowledge when they study science and forget that all their theories point to a universe whose origin is ultimately completely indescribable by any of those theories. that currently astronomers are convinced that up to 90% of all the matter and energy in the universe is unobservable. that every bit of math they do is done on faith that a host of 'fundamental constants' have the same value everywhere and always have. there is no evidence for that. there is just observation of a ridiculously small area and teeny-weeny slice of time. science is all taken on faith that the universe has order and remains ordered. all of it should turn us to humility, but 'knowledge puffs up" -- even though more knowledge always leads us to an awareness of more ignorance!
You ignore the credible scientists that are quoted in that article.
Here's are more with the places they were published
Inaccurate Dating Methods
Evolution Handbook 3
Inaccurate Dating Methods "His [Joly’s] suggestion of varying rate of disintegration of uranium at various geological periods would, if correct, set aside all possibilities of age calculation by radioactive methods."—*A.F. Kovarik, "Calculating the Age of Minerals from Radioactivity Data and Principles," in Bulletin 80 of the National Research Council, June 1931, p. 107.
Lead Contamination (common lead content) *Adolph Knopf referred to this important problem (*Scientific Monthly, November 1957). *Faul, a leading authority in the field, recognized it also (*Henry Faul, Nuclear Geology, 1954, p. 297).
"Why do the radioactive ages of lava beds, laid down within a few weeks of each other, differ by millions of years?"—*Glen R. Morton, Electromagnetics and the Appearance of Age.
"The two uranium-lead ages often differ from each other markedly, and the thorium-lead age on the same mineral is almost always drastically lower than either of the others."—*L.T. Aldrich, "Measurement of Radioactive Ages of Rocks," in Science, May 18, 1956, p. 872.
Movement of Argon 40 Gas Problem (*J.F. Evernden, et al., "K/A Dates and the Cenozoic Mammalian Chronology of North America," American Journal of Science, February 1964, p. 154).
Potassium Leaching Problem *Rancitelli and *Fisher (*Planetary Science Abstracts, 48th Annual Meeting of the American Geophysical Union, 1967, p. 167).
200 year old lava rock dated at 1.60 million to 2.96 billion years! (See *Science, October 11, 1968; *Journal of Geophysical Research, July 15, 1968).
Date selections which agree with the 19th-century geologic column dating theories. (*L.R. Stieff, *T.W. Stern and *R.N. Eichler, "Evaluating Discordant Lead-Isotope Ages," U.S. Geological Survey Professional Papers, 1963, No. 414-E).
Moon rocks varied from 2 million to 28 billion years!(For more on this, see *Proceedings of the Second, Third and Fourth Lunar Conferences; Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volumes 14 and 17.)
FIVE WAYS TO CHANGE THE RATES (see *H.C. Dudley, "Radioactivity Re-Examined," Chemical and Engineering News, April 7, 1975, p. 2).
"Sunset Crater, an Arizona Volcano, is known from tree-ring dating to be about 1000 years old. But potassium-argon put it at over 200,000 years [*G.B. Dalrymple, ‘40 Ar/36 Ar Analyses of Historical Lava Flows,’ Earth and Planetary Science Letters 6, 1969, pp. 47-55].
"For the volcanic island of Rangitoto in New Zealand, potassium-argon dated the lava flows as 145,000 to 465,000 years old, but the journal of the Geochemical Society noted that ‘the radiocarbon, geological and botanical evidence unequivocally shows that it was active and was probably built during the last 1000 years.’ In fact, wood buried underneath its lava has been carbon-dated as less than 350 years old [*Ian McDougall, *H.A.
Polach, and *J.J. Stipp, ‘Excess Radiogenic Argon in Young Subaerial Basalts from Auckland Volcanic Field, New Zealand,’ Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, December 1969, pp. 1485, 1499]."Even the lava dome of Mount St. Helens [produced in 1980] has been radiometrically dated at 2.8 million years[H.M. Morris, ‘Radiometric Dating,’ Back to Genesis, 1997]."—James Perloff, Tornado in a Junkyard (1999), p. 146.
it seems to me that Genesis 1 also disputes that "light" as it was first created comes from the sun. observational science disputes that too.
most of what i put there was for ivan's sake - to show the sun doesn't need to be formed before light exists, and that modern cosmology is not at odds with Genesis.
you know, as far as 'physics' as we know it existing when the universe was created, all the single-point-of-origin theories agree too. everything is so hot and so dense at the beginning that no physics we can understand today makes any sense.
people get "puffed up" with knowledge when they study science and forget that all their theories point to a universe whose origin is ultimately completely indescribable by any of those theories. that currently astronomers are convinced that up to 90% of all the matter and energy in the universe is unobservable. that every bit of math they do is done on faith that a host of 'fundamental constants' have the same value everywhere and always have. there is no evidence for that. there is just observation of a ridiculously small area and teeny-weeny slice of time. science is all taken on faith that the universe has order and remains ordered. all of it should turn us to humility, but 'knowledge puffs up" -- even though more knowledge always leads us to an awareness of more ignorance!
It would seem to me that plasma energy and light were created first.
it seems to me that Genesis 1 also disputes that "light" as it was first created comes from the sun. observational science disputes that too.
most of what i put there was for ivan's sake - to show the sun doesn't need to be formed before light exists, and that modern cosmology is not at odds with Genesis.
you know, as far as 'physics' as we know it existing when the universe was created, all the single-point-of-origin theories agree too. everything is so hot and so dense at the beginning that no physics we can understand today makes any sense.
people get "puffed up" with knowledge when they study science and forget that all their theories point to a universe whose origin is ultimately completely indescribable by any of those theories. that currently astronomers are convinced that up to 90% of all the matter and energy in the universe is unobservable. that every bit of math they do is done on faith that a host of 'fundamental constants' have the same value everywhere and always have. there is no evidence for that. there is just observation of a ridiculously small area and teeny-weeny slice of time. science is all taken on faith that the universe has order and remains ordered. all of it should turn us to humility, but 'knowledge puffs up" -- even though more knowledge always leads us to an awareness of more ignorance!
I think you are right about the absence of physics in the very beginning at least before the separation of of light and darkness. It is when we see the separation of light and darkness that we see the operation of physics begin to show up. The phenomenon of evening and morning can only happen if the earth begins to rotate on its axis with light in one hemisphere and darkness in the other.
Can you answer these questions, so we know what you think a credible source is?
See, now there is part of your problem.
Information from 1931.
What I would be interested in is some credible evidence that the skeleton I referred to is not 13,000 years old.
Did you read the WHOLE LIST and not just you wanted to? Did you even get to the bottom where the last one is FROM 1999 Truth is truth whether it's from 1,000 BC or 2014 AD.