What Would Change Your Mind

I know the word secular seems to offend some, but any dating method that stretches the genealogy of Genesis beyond recognition, I will refer to as secular.

I will read both sides and post my thoughts, but I would still like to know what method was used to date these hominid fossils.

I read an article on the “walking with cavemen” special, they said they had 111 evolutionary scientists and did they all agree with each other?

‘Of course not. But that’s exactly the point, says director and executive producer Richard Dale: “The thing about science is that there isn’t just one truth. Everything is interpretation, and in this case, if you were to gather every piece of fossil evidence on which interpretations about early humans are based, it would fit quite easily into one small car.”

If a group of scientists can’t agree on something, why should I put my faith and trust in their assumptions?

My what if story is simple. I served in the US Navy and we still today protect our ship with not only armed sentries, but also with “rat guards” attached to our mooring lines, to prevent critters from entering the ship, not only in the US, but also overseas. You’re fooling yourself if you think that a specific kind of animal didn’t sneak aboard a ship or was carried for the intent to introduce it to the area wasn’t common in the 1400s.

I’ll get back to the other discussions at a later time. Some projects I’m working on are nearing their due date.

 

Nice dodge of the question! What are non-secular dating methods, how are they measured, and what is their accuracy?

 

Again, I posed the question first. What secular dating methods are being use?

 

Playing ping-pong? You posit that there is such a thing as a "non-secular" dating method and a "secular" method. I do not, so therefore it is on you (you're making the claim).

 

A non-secular dating method would be the Bible. It is an ancient written document that's transmission accuracy (consistency with the original writings) is "scientifically" attested to by textual critics to a degree much greater than any proof of pre-written natural history.

We, its proponents, argue from internal proofs that it is derived directly from God and therefore is accurate in everything that it addresses. Its earliest book, if historical at places where context indicates that it is, originates with someone who may well have known Noah and have seen dinosaur-like creatures. The accounts recorded in Genesis were written by someone who spent significant time in the direct presence of God (Moses).

It is treated as literal uniformly by the inspired writers of scripture. In addition, the earliest known writings of any kind that have been accurately dated appear suddenly about 4000 years ago and compliment the biblical record.

 

What types of secular dating methods are used to date these remains?
The same "secular" dating methods that proved the Shroud of Turin to be a fake, as well as the ones that recently proved the so-called "brother of Jesus" ossuary to be a hoax.

Evolutionists have these special names for early humans, simply to preserve their theory of evolution.
That statement displays your lack of knowlege of the subject. That doesn't negate the fact that these different homonids are all different, and appear in different time periods.

Evolutionist themselves cannot find any agreement among themselves regarding the date or the category of these human fossils.
That statement is a complete inaccuracy. But considering your lack of knowlege on the subject, it doesn't surprise me.

Many important hominid fossils are the subject of intense controversy among evolutionists involving the date, or the category, or both.
Name them, as well as the so called "controversy".

Do you not think that maybe traders may have introduced animals from S. America to W. Africa?
There's no evidenciary support of such trading.

We have a lion in our local zoo, does this mean N. America and Africa were once connected?
Two words: Straw Man

Again I refer you to the dating methods used.
You have yet to provide anything that contradicts the dating methods. However, you'd be fit to serve on the OJ Simpson defense team. What dating methods would suit you? Perhaps a ski cap or bloody glove?

 

Your assertion that a person will not be with Jesus why they die, of they believe in the possibility of evolution is jugdemental, unbiblical, and completely unchristian. The only thing that saves us is Jesus. Your assertion that it requires "something else" is heretical.

 

Radiometric dating is known to produce significantly unreliable results on objects more than a few hundred years old. Proof disproving these things which are only claimed to be at most 2000 years old does not validate the method for dating objects outside its legitimate capabilities.

There are no transitional links between these animals. The dating methods used with respect to their age is suspect. I find no reason whatsoever to not classify them as species of ape that have become extinct or deformed human beings.

I agree but there is evidence that landbridges existed in the past and any attempt to date those bridges is invariably dependent on assumptions about natural history.

Radiometric dating is dependent on assumptions about how much mother element was present at the beginning. For instance, recently formed lava may be dated as very old. It also depends on uniformatarian historical models that even evolutionists reject when proposing ideas like punctuated equillibrium or when explaining the extinction of dinosaurs.

The geologic column is assumed as a general rule but not proven in nature. In nature, "anomalies" contaminate the theoretical model everywhere. The bottom line is that it is assumed because it necessarily fits in with the long periods required by gradual evolution.

All dating methods make assumptions about the past based on present evidence. This precludes their results from ever being classified as "fact".

 

I guess he needs to understand that God isn't going to be mad at him for being a creationist.

Or possibly, he thinks that evolution=atheism.

 

By your reasoning then, the landbridges are dependent on assumptions about natural history as well.

 

By your reasoning then, the landbridges are dependent on assumptions about natural history as well. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes. I would not deny this truth. There are numerous ways the evidence might be interpretted. Aetheistic evolution often depends on highly improbable sequences of chance events but that does not remove it from the realm of physical possibilities. I believe it to be physically possible but critically improbable.

I would also submit that the strongest evidence against atheistic evolution is its lack of a prime cause. All effects must have cause. One of the last explainations I heard was a perpetually expanded and collapsing universe model that somehow conserved energy and matter.

I am not post-modern nor do I harbor much sympathy for those who are. I simply do not see how reasonable people operating under any set of assumptions can use words like "fact" or "true" when alternative possibilities exist- whether uninvestigated or not catagorically proven false.

 

Actually I think we are talking about regular evolution, not evolution that atheists would subscribe to (I didn't know there was a difference).

So this "atheistic" evolution postulates a cause? In other words their is no distinction between the "atheistic" evolution and abiogenesis? I'm glad that scientific evolution doesn't combine the two theories, then it would indeed need to know the "cause", but since it doesn't combine the two theories and it is not dependent on explaining abiogenesis, this is quite a big difference between "atheistic" evolution and scientific evolution.

I have to ask, who subscribes to this "atheistic" evolution?

So should we give credence to *every* possibility, no matter how improbable? Should I actually have to take into consideration other creation theories, such as the ancient egyption's idea of creation?

 

Radiometric dating is known to produce significantly unreliable results on objects more than a few hundred years old.
There are mulsiple radiometric techniques that have been shown to be quite accurate.

There are no transitional links between these animals.
That's a common reply. You have specimen 1, and specimen 2, and it's said "there's no transitional link between 1 and 2". Then, specimen 1.5 is found, which fits between 1 and 2. Then the arguement becomes "there's no transisional link between 1 and 1.5", until specimen 1.25 comes about, and so on, and so on, and so on.

I find no reason whatsoever to not classify them as species of ape that have become extinct or deformed human beings.
There's no evidence to support these. Neanderthals, for example, show no evidence of deformity. They do, however, show evidence of language and culture. They were not, however, Hom Sapiens.

there is evidence that landbridges existed in the past and any attempt to date those bridges is invariably dependent on assumptions about natural history.
Land bridges have existed between upper asia and north America (they're still there, just submerged). There's no evidence of land bridges between South America and Africa. Rather, the plates and rifts support the idea that they were one united continent.

Radiometric dating is dependent on assumptions about how much mother element was present at the beginning.
Not really. Radiometric isotope decay is precisely measurable.

The geologic column is assumed as a general rule but not proven in nature.
It's not that simple. When looking at geologic layers worldwide, there's a very specific and predictable pattern that develops.

In nature, "anomalies" contaminate the theoretical model everywhere.
Anomalies are quite expected and generally predictable.

All dating methods make assumptions about the past based on present evidence. This precludes their results from ever being classified as "fact".
There's no evidence to suggest that the findings about the geological timeline are in error. There's no evidence that the earth is only 6,000 years old. There' no evidence to suggest all animals in the fossil record ecisted at one specific time and place 6000 years ago, 600,000 years ago, or 6 million yearg ago (assuming that carbon dating is "inaccurate").

 

Having read a different perspective that pointed to tests done at different labs with radically different dates, I would be interested in any objective proof you have of this accuracy. The testimony as I recall it used volcanic rock known to have been formed within the last few hundred years. The lowest age given by the labs was in the 10's of millions of years.

How exactly is it said to fit? Actually the point is moot since the specimens aren't 1, 2, 1.5, 1.25, 1.1, or 1.01 until scientist place them in an assumed model.

Note that I did not say that isotope decay is not measurable. I said that this method of dating is based on the assumption that environmental conditions have been relative static for the sample and how much of the mother element was present at the point of formation.

That is pretty much what I said except that it isn't all that predictable nor does it yield a "written in stone" interpretation of its formation.

John, come on. I disagree with you but I know you are reasonable. Anomalies by definition are things that show up where they are not expected or predicted.

Actually the fact that any two labs can take any unknown but measurable sample and give two different ages shows the methods to be very much in doubt. The fact of petrified trees extended through several strata defies the common assumptions about the geologic column.

The Bible is significant evidence of this.

There really is no assumption about carbon dating being inaccurate. The dispute is over just how inaccurate it is.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp

While I expect that you would reject this resource out of the box, please read the article and tell me why you think I should.

 

The dating proved the authenticity of the ossuary. It was the inscription that was concluded as a hoax.

If you’re still having problems naming these hominid fossils try reading in the Bible, the part about the Tower of Babel and how “the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.” I doubt you will give much thought of this since in your opinion Genesis is a fairytale anyway.

This isn’t anything new. Scientists have been known to disagree with each other, it happens even in my line of work. Again, I refer back to my quote of the “Walking with Cavemen” by the director who plainly stated that not all the 111 scientists agreed upon how the movie should properly portray the cavemen. BTW we still have cavemen to this day. The Taliban in Afghanistan.

I admit the trading quote I made between S. America and W. Africa was wrong in the assumed date of 1400. However, I’m sure trading was conducted between the two, maybe not W. Africa, maybe S. Africa and the animals migrated to the area, well before the discovery of these bones.

I’m not a geologist, but I did sleep in a Holiday Inn express last night.

Actually, secular-dating methods when used properly and the data not massaged to fit the evolutionists belief system would work just fine.

Basically, from what I’ve read and since it’s coming from mainly Bible believing creationist, I’II take their word before anyone else’s. Call me closed-minded, call me what you will, but assumptions that try and destroy the credibility of the Bible IMO isn’t worth my attention.

The problem with these radiometric-dating procedures is that in order to properly date an object one must know the amounts of C14 in the atmosphere at the time of the supposed living organism was alive. There is no way having knowing what the C14 & C12 were beyond recorded history. If they say they know this millions of years ago, they are going off of assumptions, which IMO isn’t good science.

Plants will discriminate carbon dioxide containing C14. They will take in less than is expected, which will produce an older than actual date. A buddy geologist of mine tested an orange or apple peel and it was determined to be significantly older that it actually was. The same buddy in college sent 3 different labs volcano rocks that were no more than 200 years old. Each lab reported back a varying of ages from a few million to several billions of years old.

Quoting from AiG:

Why should scientists consider the flood? Not all, but most are atheists anyway. The ones that aren’t will not admit it, b/c of their status within the community and of course the paycheck. My wife wouldn’t get a recommendation to dental school from an organic chemistry professor b/c she believed in special creation. How absurd is that! We didn’t see the ACLU chomping at the bit!

 

AiG agrees, somewhat: "The isotope concentrations can be measured very accurately, but isotope concentrations are not dates. To derive ages from such measurements, unprovable assumptions have to be made."

[ June 25, 2003, 04:45 PM: Message edited by: john6:63 ]

 

Can someone point me to a website(s) that describe the theory and appplications of carbon and roadiometric dating techniques. I really want to have a thorough understanding of these dating methods before I respond to the question of this thread.