|
Dinosaur paintings - proof man and dinosaur existed together (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Seventil |
First off, great reply - I'm a bit out of practice - but I'm glad to see someone who is knowledgable and objectional on the subject.
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Scientists DO know how much carbon was present in the atmosphere. As I stated in my last post, they've refined a number of methods to determine the quantity of carbon, one of those being dendrochronology. The data can be derived from fossilized and living trees along with stalagmites:
|
dendrochronology: The study of climate changes and past events by comparing the successive annual growth rings of trees or old timber.
Now, bear with me here. I'm no... dendrochronologist - but could you agree that a worldwide catastrophe (like a year long flood and decreased atmospheric pressure) - would throw off any dendrochronological data?
Actually, wouldn't a catastrophe of that magnitude throw of ANY dating method? It is theorized that the pre-flood world had a layer of ice outside the atmosphere (it's in the Bible -- when the flood happened, it mentions water flowing from the "fountains of the deep" and from heaven." ). So, with a protective "ice-layer" suspended above the atmosphere - you now have a "hyporbaric-like" effect on the earth. Would this skew trying to date anything created during this time?
I just want you to consider the possibility. If the world was completely different a few thousand years ago - how can you trust modern dating techniques that are based off of how the world is today? |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
DAMNIT! DAMNIT! DAMNIT!!!!
Why do I always walk in late to these parties?!?!?!? Crap!!!
I'll allow Occ to continue covering your dating difficulties. I would like to personally pursue your comment on evolution being a religion - you state that it requires a lot of faith. Could you please clarify this?
Furthermore, you state that it is merely a "theory", and it should be taken as seriously as the creation theory.
A quick understanding of evolution fact vs. theory is in order:
The "fact" of evolution is the observed and tested process of the change of allele frequencies in a population over time. This can be easily observed and tested in a laboratory as well as in the field. The "theory" of evolution is the best known explanation for the series of events of the stages of changes of life through time, which is supported by the "fact" of evolution.
Speaking of theories, gravity is merely a theory as well, but the observed and measured events best explain this phenomena well. Of course if you disagree with these observed and measurable events, you could always jump off a cliff to test the validity of this mere "theory".
This is why there is a perversion of interpretive language when we discuss "Creationist Theory". There are no known observed valid events that give credence to even calling this a "theory". Nevertheless, that doesn't seem to stop the creationist camp from doing so.
Finally, I want to state that nothing in science is ever "proven", and this is certainly true whether we are discussing evolution, quantum physics, germ theory, or anything else. Observed and measurable phenomena merely give the strong support for the best explanation at hand. In terms of how life diversified into the billions of species on earth today, evolution best fits this bill.
Now, aside of dating, are there any other specific areas you wish to discuss? |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Seventil
First off, great reply - I'm a bit out of practice - but I'm glad to see someone who is knowledgable and objectional on the subject.
dendrochronology: The study of climate changes and past events by comparing the successive annual growth rings of trees or old timber.
Now, bear with me here. I'm no... dendrochronologist - but could you agree that a worldwide catastrophe (like a year long flood and decreased atmospheric pressure) - would throw off any dendrochronological data?
Actually, wouldn't a catastrophe of that magnitude throw of ANY dating method? It is theorized that the pre-flood world had a layer of ice outside the atmosphere (it's in the Bible -- when the flood happened, it mentions water flowing from the "fountains of the deep" and from heaven." ). So, with a protective "ice-layer" suspended above the atmosphere - you now have a "hyporbaric-like" effect on the earth. Would this skew trying to date anything created during this time?
I just want you to consider the possibility. If the world was completely different a few thousand years ago - how can you trust modern dating techniques that are based off of how the world is today? |
I know I said that I'd allow Occ to handle this, but what scientific data do you have to support your Biblical notions of a flood, as well as a layer of ice outside the atmosphere?
It is a very dangerous road to attempt to take the Bible and utilize it as a science book. Are you sure you want to pursue this further? |
|
|
| Seventil |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
I know I said that I'd allow Occ to handle this, but what scientific data do you have to support your Biblical notions of a flood, as well as a layer of ice outside the atmosphere?
It is a very dangerous road to attempt to take the Bible and utilize it as a science book. Are you sure you want to pursue this further? |
As the mountains rose and the ocean basins sank after the Flood (Psalm 104:5-8, Gen. 8:1), the waters rushed off the rising mountains into the new ocean basins. This rapid-erosion through still-soft, unprotected sediments formed the topography we still see today, in places like the Grand Canyon. The uniformitarian assumption—that today’s slow erosion rates that take place through solid rock are the same as has always been—is faulty logic, and ignores catastrophes like the Flood. (2 Pet. 3:3-8 says that the scoffers are "willingly ignorant" of the Flood.)
Niagara Falls’ erosion rate (four to five feet per year) indicates an age of less than 10,000 years. Don’t forget Noah’s Flood could have eroded half of the seven-mile-long Niagara River gorge in a few hours as the flood waters raced through the soft sediments.)
The size of the Mississippi River delta, divided by the rate mud is being deposited, gives an age of less than 30,000 years. (The Flood in Noah’s day could have washed out 80% of the mud there in a few hours or days, so 4400 years is a reasonable age for the delta.)
The current population of earth (5.5 billion souls) could easily be generated from eight people (survivors of the Flood) in less than 4000 years.
Many ancient cultures have stories of an original creation in the recent past and a worldwide Flood. Nearly 300 of these Flood legends are now known.
Can we at least consider the possibility? Is it so unfeasible? |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Seventil
First off, great reply - I'm a bit out of practice - but I'm glad to see someone who is knowledgable and objectional on the subject.
dendrochronology: The study of climate changes and past events by comparing the successive annual growth rings of trees or old timber.
Now, bear with me here. I'm no... dendrochronologist - but could you agree that a worldwide catastrophe (like a year long flood and decreased atmospheric pressure) - would throw off any dendrochronological data?
Actually, wouldn't a catastrophe of that magnitude throw of ANY dating method? It is theorized that the pre-flood world had a layer of ice outside the atmosphere (it's in the Bible -- when the flood happened, it mentions water flowing from the "fountains of the deep" and from heaven." ). So, with a protective "ice-layer" suspended above the atmosphere - you now have a "hyporbaric-like" effect on the earth. Would this skew trying to date anything created during this time?
I just want you to consider the possibility. If the world was completely different a few thousand years ago - how can you trust modern dating techniques that are based off of how the world is today? |
I'm not quite certain how a catastrophe would skew the data. If anything, dendrochronology would correct for catastrophic events that may skew the carbon 14 dating. If the Earth was bombarded with a crapload of carbon from space, the growth ring would record it. If all teh carbon was removed from the atmosphere the growth ring would record it. On top of that, scientists utilize a variety of measures to calibrate the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. They find recently-formed carbonate deposits (i.e. stalagmites) and cross-calibrate the carbon-14 in them with another short-lived radioactive isotope. Varving involves examining sedament layers in lakes or bays whose sedimentations have seasonal patterns influenced by climate. From that they can deduce carbon levels. Furthermore scientists can perform ice cores by drilling into the antarctic shelf to get samples that tell scientists about the atmosphere. Each of these different methods typically give us the same results.
As for a flood, are you insinuating that a flood leached radioactive isotopes out of rocks, disturbing their ages? Water can affect the ability to date rock surfaces or other weathered areas, however, there is generally no trouble dating interior portions of most rocks from the bottom of lakes, rivers, and oceans. Additionally, if ages were disturbed by leaching, the leaching would affect different isotopes at vastly different rates. Ages determined by different methods would be in violent disagreement. If the flood were global in scope, why then would we have any rocks for which a number of different methods all agree with each other? In fact, close agreement between methods for most samples is a hallmark of radiometric dating. |
|
|
| Seventil |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
I'm not quite certain how a catastrophe would skew the data. If anything, dendrochronology would correct for catastrophic events that may skew the carbon 14 dating. If the Earth was bombarded with a crapload of carbon from space, the growth ring would record it. If all teh carbon was removed from the atmosphere the growth ring would record it. On top of that, scientists utilize a variety of measures to calibrate the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. They find recently-formed carbonate deposits (i.e. stalagmites) and cross-calibrate the carbon-14 in them with another short-lived radioactive isotope. Varving involves examining sedament layers in lakes or bays whose sedimentations have seasonal patterns influenced by climate. From that they can deduce carbon levels. Furthermore scientists can perform ice cores by drilling into the antarctic shelf to get samples that tell scientists about the atmosphere. Each of these different methods typically give us the same results.
As for a flood, are you insinuating that a flood leached radioactive isotopes out of rocks, disturbing their ages? Water can affect the ability to date rock surfaces or other weathered areas, however, there is generally no trouble dating interior portions of most rocks from the bottom of lakes, rivers, and oceans. Additionally, if ages were disturbed by leaching, the leaching would affect different isotopes at vastly different rates. Ages determined by different methods would be in violent disagreement. If the flood were global in scope, why then would we have any rocks for which a number of different methods all agree with each other? In fact, close agreement between methods for most samples is a hallmark of radiometric dating. |
Good point about simularities in dating techniques. However, from some of the stuff I've seen (and it may be biased, but I many look for "mismatches" in dating techniques of course) -- there have been some extremely dramatic differences in the past while dating specimens.
Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old. Science vol. 224, 1984, pp. 58-61
Living mollusk shells were dated up to 2300 years old. Science vol. 141, 1963, pp.634-637
A freshly killed seal was carbon dated as having died 1300 years ago! Antarctic Journal vol. 6, Sept-Oct. 1971, p.211
"One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years and another part at 44,000. --Troy L. Pewe, Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 (U.S. Gov. printing office, 1975) p. 30.
"One part of Dima [a baby frozen mammoth] was 40,000, another part was 26,000 and the "wood immediately around the carcass" was 9-10,000. --Troy L. Pewe, Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 (U.S. Gov. printing office, 1975) p. 30
"The lower leg of the Fairbanks Creek mammoth had a radiocarbon age of 15,380 RCY, while its skin and flesh were 21,300 RCY. --In the Beginning Walt Brown p. 124
The two Colorado Creek mammoths had radiocarbon ages of 22,850 670 and 16,150 230 years respectively." --In the Beginning Walt Brown p. 124
"A geologist at the Berkeley Geochronology Center, [Carl] Swisher uses the most advanced techniques to date human fossils. Last spring he was re-evaluating Homo erectus skulls found in Java in the 1930s by testing the sediment found with them. A hominid species assumed to be an ancestor of Homo sapiens, erectus was thought to have vanished some 250,000 years ago. But even though he used two different dating methods, Swisher kept making the same startling find: the bones were 53,000 years old at most and possibly no more than 27,000 years— a stretch of time contemporaneous with modern humans." --Kaufman, Leslie, "Did a Third Human Species Live Among Us?" Newsweek (December 23, 1996), p. 52.
"Structure, metamorphism, sedimentary reworking, and other complications have to be considered. Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first." --O’Rourke, J. E., "Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, vol. 276 (January 1976), p. 54
-------------------------
Now, I'm not naive enough to realize these might have been "worse case scenarios" -- but do you really think ANY dating method isn't biased toward evolution? |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Seventil
As the mountains rose and the ocean basins sank after the Flood (Psalm 104:5-8, Gen. 8:1), the waters rushed off the rising mountains into the new ocean basins. This rapid-erosion through still-soft, unprotected sediments formed the topography we still see today, in places like the Grand Canyon. The uniformitarian assumption—that today’s slow erosion rates that take place through solid rock are the same as has always been—is faulty logic, and ignores catastrophes like the Flood. (2 Pet. 3:3-8 says that the scoffers are "willingly ignorant" of the Flood.)
Niagara Falls’ erosion rate (four to five feet per year) indicates an age of less than 10,000 years. Don’t forget Noah’s Flood could have eroded half of the seven-mile-long Niagara River gorge in a few hours as the flood waters raced through the soft sediments.) |
Say, you wouldn't happen to know a guy named Kent Hovind, would you?
You are right, Niagra Falls is probably not much more than 10,000 years old. The last period of ice age glaciation in the area of Niagra came to an end about 11,000 or 12,000 years ago. Niagra Falls is certainly not older than that. So what? Since when does the age of Niagra Falls constrain the age of the earth it's sitting on?
| quote: | | The size of the Mississippi River delta, divided by the rate mud is being deposited, gives an age of less than 30,000 years. (The Flood in Noah’s day could have washed out 80% of the mud there in a few hours or days, so 4400 years is a reasonable age for the delta.) |
Again I ask, since when did the age of the earth have anything to do with the Mississippi delta? Because of oil exploration, geologists know that the sediment in regions around the Mississippi River delta is 7 miles thick! (Hayward, 1985, p.83). Did you ever wonder how Noah's flood, which was quite shallow according to Dr. Hovind, perhaps less than a quarter of a mile deep, managed to stack up 7 miles of sediment?
"It is stretching the long arm of coincidence much too far, to suggest that there just happened to be a vast hole in the ocean bed seven miles deep near the mouth of the Mississippi, and that the Flood just happened to fill that hole with sediment, while leaving nearby areas of the Atlantic unfilled; and that similar coincidences just happened to occur around the mouths of all the world's great rivers."
(Hayward, 1985, p.84)
There is no quick way to get that 7 miles of sediment. It takes time for the earth to sink under a load. Suppose you went down to the Gulf of Mexico one fine day, say just off the Texas coast, and dumped a pile of sediment there 7 miles high! I haven't the foggiest idea how long that mountain of sediment would sit there before sinking down to sea level, but I can assure you that it would not disappear overnight. Parts of that heap would probably still be there centuries later.
A super-charged Mississippi River isn't even going to build mountains of sediment to begin with. The onrushing, sediment-loaded water would just be pushed further into the gulf. You would get a "delta" vastly more spread out than the one we have -- and nowhere near 7 miles thick. Think about it.
Source: Hayward, Alan. 1985. Creation and Evolution Triangle SPCK, Holy Trinity Church, Marylebone Road, London NW14DU
| quote: | | The current population of earth (5.5 billion souls) could easily be generated from eight people (survivors of the Flood) in less than 4000 years. |
Yes, and by the same reasoning 8 germs could populate every cubic inch of available living space on Earth to the tune of 1 million strong in less than a week! That is, if we allow for a generous die-off rate such that the fourth generation has about 40 germs instead of 128, and if we assume that the population divides every hour, each and every cubic inch of living space on the earth (from 100 feet below ground to a mile above) would have 1 million germs after 158 generations. I guess, by creationist reckoning, the earth must be a week old! If it were a few thousand years old, the germ population would have gone through the roof!
Yes, given unlimited living space, an inexhaustible supply of food, a good deal of luck in the early stages, and a high motivation to travel while having more kids than is practical, eight people
could probably populate the earth in a few thousand years. Eight germs could do it in less than a week. Eight bunny rabbits would fall somewhere in between. Eight cats would give us yet another figure. What do any of these figures have to do with the age of the earth? Nothing! What do these figures have to do with actual growth rates? Absolutely nothing!
The human exponential growth rate of the last few hundred years is possible only because of technology. When our ability to stay one jump ahead of starvation and disease fails, when our resources are finally squandered, then you'll see a dramatic change in that growth rate! It will no longer be exponential; it will be disastrous!
When man lived in scattered tribal groups, which is what he did for 99% of his history, the net human population growth was zero most of the time, just as it is for animals today. Animal populations, especially small animals such as rabbits or mice, often undergo cycles of boom and bust but their net growth is zero. No permanent increase in population can be sustained unless it is supported by a permanent change in the environment. Such a change might include the loss of a predator due to the colonization of new territory, a permanent increase in the food supply due to climatic change or a change in dietary habits, or a variety of other factors. In the case of man, hunting technology, the development of agriculture, and the use of fossil fuels have played major roles. After a favorable change in the environment, a population of animals (or people) may record a permanent jump before leveling off at a zero net growth again. Thus, the growth rate, before technology intervened in a major way, necessarily involved a series of plateaus where the population was in approximate equilibrium with the environment. No doubt, many tribal groups died out. Anthropologists can cite several examples of early human or near-human species, side branches on our evolutionary tree, which left no descendants. There was no assurance that early man would even survive. When favorable changes did occur, large jumps between plateau levels would likely have been exponential. Indeed, the human exponential growth rate of the last 300 years or so can be thought of as one long jump to a new plateau, which has been raised artificially high by technology. Those who imagine that eight people gave rise to everyone living today according to a simple exponential growth curve have demonstrated an inability to think things through. Let's look at the equation involved in these growth rate calculations.
P(n) = P(1 + r)n
P(n), called the function P of n, is the population generated after n years. (With the proper adjustment of r, n could be months or generations, etc. For our purposes, years will do nicely and r will be adjusted accordingly.) P (the multiplied factor on the right-hand side of the equation) is the initial population which, in our case, is eight. The growth rate is r which would be close to zero for humanity per year. A negative value would indicate a population decline. Henry Morris used a value for r of 0.0033 [0.33%] in a similar calculation which started with Adam and Eve. However, since the flood supposedly reduced the population to eight people 1656 years after creation, a figure Dr. Hovind gives based on patriarchal ages, we should start our exponential curve at the latter date. If we assume, for the sake of this argument, that the earth is 6000 years old, then we start our calculation with 8 people 4344 years ago. We must wind up with the present population of 5.5 billion people.
It turns out that if r = 0.0047 then after 4344 years we would wind up with about 5.6 billion people (1995), which is close enough. After substituting the values for P and r into the above equation we are at liberty to try out different values for n to obtain the population at different times. At the time the Israelites entered Canaan, for instance, we get a world population of 2024! By the time you divide that up between Egypt, Canaan, the rest of the world, and Israel, that leaves maybe 6 or 7 people for the Israeli army! If we go back to the time that the Hykos were expelled from Egypt, in 1560 BC, we get a world population of 325 people!
We can't calculate the population at the time the Great Pyramid of Cheops was built, around 2500 BC, because it was supposedly washed away by Noah's flood!! Being an antediluvian structure, many people might have been available to work on it. Odd, that the Great Pyramid of Cheops shows no water marks. Stranger still, that the Egyptians should be unaware of Noah's flood! I would think that Noah's flood, coming a mere century or thereabouts after the Great Pyramid of Cheops was built, would have found a prominent place in the Egyptian annals.
As you can see, an exponential growth curve leads to absurdity when we assume that 8 people generated today's population. Creationists, of course, could jack the r value way up at the start, jack it way down in the middle, and jack it up again for modern times, but the ad hoc nature of such an argument becomes a little too obvious. Regarding the foolishness of this whole enterprise, Dr. Alan Hayward had this to say:
"Nobody who has ever studied the population explosion would make such an unwise extrapolation. It is well known that growth rates have increased enormously in recent centuries. Population expert Paul Ehrlich gives world average yearly growth rates of 0.9 per cent between 1850 and 1930, 0.3 per cent between 1650 and 1850, and a mere 0.07 per cent in the thousand years prior to 1650. And in the fourteenth century the population increase must have been very small indeed, and it may even have been turned into a big decrease, because of the Black Death. Ehrlich's figures are not just guesses; they are based on historical records. These facts show how misguided it is to extrapolate present population trends into the remote past."
(Hayward, 1985, p.136)
| quote: | | Many ancient cultures have stories of an original creation in the recent past and a worldwide Flood. Nearly 300 of these Flood legends are now known. |
Some creation myths are set in the mists of time, and no date can be affixed. The Australian aborigine, for example, speaks of a primeval dream-time. Some eastern religions speak of a creation cycle much older than 6000 years. Other cultures, I suspect, use or once used a more recent date. Thus, we have a spread of dates, to the extent that a date can be applied.
No tribe is going to have memories of the hundreds of thousands of years that Homo sapiens has been on this planet! An ancient, quite naturally, would have assumed that his tribe or city-state began its ascent shortly after the world began. Memory, even if boosted by imagination, is not likely to go back more than several thousand years. Ditto for the age of the world as given by most myths.
You really should understand "Dr. Dino" a little better. Ever seen his Patriot University?:
Here's a little more info. on the fraud:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/
| quote: | | Can we at least consider the possibility? Is it so unfeasible? |
Absolutely not. I'm completely open to any possibility, provided there is valid, testable, observed and/or measurable data to support it as well as being clear of any logical fallacies. I hope you feel the same way. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Seventil
Good point about simularities in dating techniques. However, from some of the stuff I've seen (and it may be biased, but I many look for "mismatches" in dating techniques of course) -- there have been some extremely dramatic differences in the past while dating specimens.
Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old. Science vol. 224, 1984, pp. 58-61
Living mollusk shells were dated up to 2300 years old. Science vol. 141, 1963, pp.634-637
A freshly killed seal was carbon dated as having died 1300 years ago! Antarctic Journal vol. 6, Sept-Oct. 1971, p.211
"One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years and another part at 44,000. --Troy L. Pewe, Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 (U.S. Gov. printing office, 1975) p. 30.
"One part of Dima [a baby frozen mammoth] was 40,000, another part was 26,000 and the "wood immediately around the carcass" was 9-10,000. --Troy L. Pewe, Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 (U.S. Gov. printing office, 1975) p. 30
"The lower leg of the Fairbanks Creek mammoth had a radiocarbon age of 15,380 RCY, while its skin and flesh were 21,300 RCY. --In the Beginning Walt Brown p. 124
The two Colorado Creek mammoths had radiocarbon ages of 22,850 670 and 16,150 230 years respectively." --In the Beginning Walt Brown p. 124
"A geologist at the Berkeley Geochronology Center, [Carl] Swisher uses the most advanced techniques to date human fossils. Last spring he was re-evaluating Homo erectus skulls found in Java in the 1930s by testing the sediment found with them. A hominid species assumed to be an ancestor of Homo sapiens, erectus was thought to have vanished some 250,000 years ago. But even though he used two different dating methods, Swisher kept making the same startling find: the bones were 53,000 years old at most and possibly no more than 27,000 years— a stretch of time contemporaneous with modern humans." --Kaufman, Leslie, "Did a Third Human Species Live Among Us?" Newsweek (December 23, 1996), p. 52.
"Structure, metamorphism, sedimentary reworking, and other complications have to be considered. Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first." --O’Rourke, J. E., "Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, vol. 276 (January 1976), p. 54
-------------------------
Now, I'm not naive enough to realize these might have been "worse case scenarios" -- but do you really think ANY dating method isn't biased toward evolution? |
Hehehe those are classic Hovind's! Coast to Coast AM!
Anyway a scientist examined some of his claims:
KH = Kent Hovind
Bold = response of the scientist
| quote: |
KH: For instance, I'll just give you a few quick examples: Living mollusc shells were carbon dated 2300 years old. Science magazine, volume 141. Freshly-killed seal was carbon-dated at having died 1300 years ago, and they just killed it. That's Antarctic Journal, volume 6, page 211. Shells from living snails were carbon-dated at 27,000 years old. Science magazine, volume 224, page 58-61.
These examples are lifted from the "Answers in Genesis" website, and show only that neither Hovind nor AiG understand the limitations of C-14 dating. Marine creatures acquire much of their carbon from limestone that has been buried in the sea for millions of years. The C-14 originally present in the limestones is long gone, so of course these organisms appear to be old. Anyone acquainted with C-14 dating knows about this limitation, see Carbon Dating. More information on C-14 dating and contamination can be found at Carbon 14 - Contamination.
Keith Littleton summarized it very well in a Talk.Origins newsgroup post: "Radiocarbon dating is like a hammer. A person has to know how to use it properly in order to build a house with it. If a person is ignorant of how to use a hammer, then... using a hammer to build a house has problems that go on and on."
KH: One part of a mammoth was carbon-dated at 29,000 years old. Another part is 44,000 years old. Here's two parts of the same animal. That's from USGS Professional Paper #862.
Hovind makes a big-time misrepresentation here. I looked at the data in USGS Professional Paper 862. It is a 1975 paper by Troy Pewe entitled "Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska". It is a description of stratigraphic units in Alaska, but does contain more than 150 radiocarbon dates. Many of these dates are from the 1950's and 60's. There are three references to mammoths: hair from a mammoth skull (found by Geist in 1951 in frozen silt); "flesh from lower leg, Mammuthus primigenius" (found by Osborne in 1940, 26 m below the surface); and the "skin and flesh of Mammuthus primigenius [baby mammoth] (found by Geist in 1948 "with a beaver dam"). The dates given are, respectively, 32,700; 15,380; and 21,300 years BP BUT the last is thought to be an invalid date because the hide was soaked in glycerin.
NOWHERE IN THE PAPER DOES IT SAY, OR EVEN IMPLY, THAT THESE SPECIMENS ARE PARTS OF THE SAME ANIMAL. They were found in different places, at different times, by different people. One is even termed "baby", and the other is not. To construct this Fractured Fairy Tale, Hovind must have hoped that no one listening would check and see what his reference really said.
KH: One part of Dima, the frozen mammoth, the baby one that was emaciated, was 40,000 years old. Another part was 26,000, and the wood around the carcass was dated at 9000 years old. I mean, in spite of all the hoopla, carbon dating just simply doesn't work.
The only dates I have found for "Dima" are close to 40,000 years BP: "The field evidence and radiocarbon analysis indicate that the baby mammoth, who was named Dima, was buried in a bog or small lake by a mudslide 44,000 years ago" (Newell, p. 66) and "...Dima was dated at 41,000 + 900 BP", see The Mysterious Origins of Man: Atlantis, Mammoths, and Crustal Shift. Since Hovind completely misrepresented the Alaskan mammoth data above, it is not unreasonable to assume that his information about "Dima" is also incorrect.
KH: It's based on some very fundamental assumptions. A couple of Russian scientists carbon-dated dinosaur bones at under 30,000 years old. Hugh Miller in Columbus, Ohio, had four dinosaur bone samples carbon-dated, and they came back at 20,000 years old. The only reason they even dated them is that he did not tell them they were dinosaur bones.
According to Robert Kalin, a specialist at the University of Arizona's radiocarbon dating laboratory, Hugh Miller's fossils were not bone. Like most ancient fossils, the organic portion of the bone had long ago been replaced by minerals. The young "dates" are from contamination and/or carbon-containing preservatives (Lepper 1992).
|
The guy actually went on to destroy the rest of Hovind's claims, I only cut and pasted the applicable parts. If you want to read the entire peice or look at sources:
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/...fairy_tales.htm |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
Hovind is by far one of my favorite creationists!
He's just so darn silly! |
|
|
| Seventil |
Haha :D I've read all the anti-whatever stuff. It's like a constant circle that goes around, around, around.
Look at science with a naked eye, and I think it makes more sense from a creationist point of view.
EDITED: Didn't see Opus's reply. Sorry. ;) |
|
|
| Seventil |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Hehehe those are classic Hovind's! Coast to Coast AM!
Anyway a scientist examined some of his claims:
KH = Kent Hovind
Bold = response of the scientist
The guy actually went on to destroy the rest of Hovind's claims, I only cut and pasted the applicable parts. If you want to read the entire peice or look at sources:
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/...fairy_tales.htm |
Owned! :p There is a constant loop of this crap everywhere. I'm sure somewhere on Hovind's site there is an article disproving the disproving.
Occrider/Opus: I'm gaining more respect of you guys because you are educated on this topic. I am, by no means, so steadfast in my belief that I see past simple logic.
So, if you guys could: If a flood did happen, and what I believe is true - how would that effect current scientific dating methods? |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Seventil
Haha :D I've read all the anti-whatever stuff. It's like a constant circle that goes around, around, around. |
Explain - how did our refutations incite a circular motion of argumentation?
Rather than make such a strange claim, why don't you address the points Occ and I have given you to YOUR initial claims?
| quote: | You guys still haven't addressed my question, you've instead complicated the issue.
Is it that unfeasible to believe that a flood happened? |
I did address your question specifically. Here it is again, in case you missed it:
| quote: | | Absolutely not. I'm completely open to any possibility, provided there is valid, testable, observed and/or measurable data to support it as well as being clear of any logical fallacies. I hope you feel the same way. |
It's not unfeasible at all, but you have to have some supporting evidence for your assertions in order for me to jump on the boat (or Ark for that matter). So far your evidence has been refuted quite easily. Unless you have any further evidence to support your notions, you are simply making baseless claims.
Why should I believe a baseless claim?
Is it any better for me to tell you that I believe in the Great Cookie Monster from the Planet "Zoinks"? Wouldn't you want to know a little more about that belief with some evidence to support it?
I must tell you though, I do have followers, so be careful what you say. They may not take too kindly to your blasphemy, should you undermine our beliefs.
| quote: | | Look at science with a naked eye, and I think it makes more sense from a creationist point of view. |
To look at science outside of supporting evidence is nothing shy of utter perversion. |
|
|
|
|
