[_ Old Earth _] carbon dating?

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Nope. It takes a significant amount of contamination. Would you take the time to learn about how it works, so you understand?

I was quoting you.

Nope. You converted "it doesn't take much" to "a tiny bit", and then attributed it to me. I guess I should be flattered. You do that to God, too.

Do you read what you write?

Yep. In fact, it's still on the board.

Barbarian observes:
But it doesn't take much contamination to produce a false result.

And the "improved version", by Solo:

A tiny bit of contamination"

Barbarian observes:
They were. You just can't use C-14 for material that old.

So what was used to test the T Rex bones?

Don't know.

Barbarian observes:
As you learned earlier, no one is suprised that C-14 doesn't work for fossils. Nothing that old retains enough to be measured.

No one wants to admit they are not that old?

Why don't they think so? Evidence. Would you like to see some more?

Barbarian observes:
Sorry, someone's had a little fun with your lack of knowledge. Until recently we couldn't even test very old human material with C-14.

Right. But if they aren’t that old, they could be tested with C-14.

If pigs had wings, they could fly. Fact is, we can test human remains as old as 50,000 years or so, but we still can't test organic material millions of years old with C-14.

We’ll never know because evolutionists are afraid to take the chance they were wwr r rong.

Sorry. That's too paranoid to take seriously.

Barbarian observes:
From your comment about "a tiny trace of contamination", I gathered you didn't understand it. Apprently, you still don't.

That was a direct quote from you that gave me that.

No, it was a little "adjustment" to my words. But, as I said, you do that to God, too.

I guess it depends on which foot the shoe is on

Indeed. Your "direct quote" turned out to be completely fabricated. You learned well from your leaders.

Barbarian observes:
There are rough analogues to all that, and texts on radiodating spend a lot of words describing those cases, and how to avoid them.

Sure, I bet there are more exceptions than rules.

Not as many as say, for medical lab work, but still a lot.

Barbarian observes:
Then you don't know history very well. Marjorie Courtenay Latimer, although not a graduate biologist (she was a nurse) discovered the animal in 1938, I think. Her discovery was heralded around the world as a remarkable find, and she went on to have a long career as one of those lucky few who are famed ( that species of coelacanth was named for her) and successful (she was made the curator of a museum).
She died last year at the age of 97, respected and famed.

She had one in tow in front of television cameras… not much else they could do.

Evidence does have that effect, yes. That's why scientists who overturn old theories get the biggest rewards.

It was the one that wouldn’t go away.

Lots more like that in the history of evolutionary theory. Would you like to learn about them?

The only thing left was to give it a new name and make it sound like it was so much different than fossil specimens.

The fossil ones were found in shallow, fresh water habitats. The modern species are found in deep ocean habitats, and are considerably different. But there is no mistaking the family resemblance.

Barbarian observes:
Daniel Hunt Morgan, and Steven Gould would be surprised to hear that. Both men upset parts of Darwinian theory and were richly rewarded for their efforts.

"Objectivity cannot be equated with mental blankness; rather, objectivity resides in recognizing your preferences and then subjecting them to especially harsh scrutiny  and also in a willingness to revise or abandon your theories when the tests fail (as they usually do)."  Stephen Jay Gould

Yep. And yet Gould and Morgan were highly rewarded, and died respected scientists. Pretty much tanks your argument.

Barbarian observes::
(and this is offered)
Not much, is it?

(Barbarian posts 1 single example from the many on the site)
That wasn’t all of it either. You must have select-a-vision.

Feel free to post one from the site that you think is a better representation of a T-rex.

Barbarian observes:
Apparently so. The fossils they used were not the ones you suggested. But suppose they were. What if they found a T-rex skeleton. What do you think they'd think?

They found ceratopsian skulls, and made the best guess they could about what it looked like. Ditto for the giraffe and mammoths. And so we get stories and pictures of griffins and dragons and cyclopean beings.
Fact is, we know that happened. And even better, we have evidence that they actually found fossils of those animals.

If the actual animals had gone extinct, they would be stuck with reconstruction, yes.

And that's what happened. All over the world, these bones were found from time to time, and fantastic animals were proposed to explain them.

No magic. No recent dinosaurs.

I doubt if nomads and natives in North or South America or Mexico are interested in restoration of dinosaur bones to use as models for their art work.

We already know that happens, since we have historical records of it happening in Central Asia and Greece.

Barbarian, on the idea that low mw fractions can't cause immune responses:
Perhaps your guy hasn't had any graduate work in immunology. I have. And his story is laughable. Here's why:

On T-cell recognition of nickel as a hapten.

Emtestam L, Olerup O.

Department of Dermatology, Huddinge Hospital, Sweden.

T-cells recognize antigens as peptides associated with self-molecules encoded by genes of the HLA region. In patients with contact allergy to nickel, T-cells that are specific for non-peptide haptens have been described. Previously, we have isolated HLA class II-restricted nickel-specific T-cell clones from patients with nickel sensitivity. In this paper, data on the fine specificity of a nickel-specific HLA-DR4-restricted clone have been reevaluated. Genomic tissue typing employing polymerase chain reaction and sequence-specific primers were used. Nickel was presented to the T-cell clone by all three subtypes of HLA-DR4 included in our panel. Two different DRB4*0404-positive cells presented nickel, whereas only 3 of the 7 DRB1*0401-positive and one of the 3 DRB1*0408-positive cells restimulated the T-cell clone. These findings are compatible with the notion that nickel interacts with endogenous peptides in the antigen-presenting groove of the HLA molecule, thereby changing these peptides' antigenicity rather than their ability to bind to the HLA molecule. Variations of the endogenous peptide in the antigen-presenting groove as well as differences of the HLA molecules give the DR4 specificity of the nickel-specific clone MCE2.

Nickel has an atomic mass of 58.69. And yet, it is a powerful allergen, eliciting a strong immune response.

Quote:
How then is it remotely logical to suggest that a molecule weighing just over 1,000da (a heme group plus 3 or 4 amino acids) could elicit such a strong as well as specific immune response as Schweitzer et al. observed?


It could directly a T-cell, or it could easily combine with some fraction in the blood as a hapten. Since heme readily combines with globins to form hemoglobin, the latter seems most likely. Do you think your guy didn't know this? Or did he just hope you didn't?

Well, did you think I would know enough about what you were talking about to refute it?

If you don't know what you're talking about, what makes you think you're right?

I don’t know him...

More importantly, you didn't know enough about the subject to make an intelligent assessment of it.

but I know what you do to what I write, and you rarely interpret what I say correctly or at least you don’t repeat it that way so it seems you either are intentionally deceptive or have a comprehension issue yourself.

This from a guy who just fabricated a statement for me, and then called it a "direct quote."

Barbarian on the suggestion that I'll be shown up when we find a live dinosaur:
Well, that's certainly a consideration isn't it? Would you care to venture a guess as to when we will actually find such a thing?

Solo just mentioned an interesting, yet sad occurrence: "In 1967 a petroleum geologist discovered a large, half-meter-thick bone bed. As the bones were fresh, not permineralized, he assumed that these were recent bone. It took 20 years for scientists to recognize duckbilled dinosaur bones in this deposit as well as the bones of horned dinosaurs, and large and small carnivorous dinosaurs." (Helder, Margaret, 1992 "Fresh Dinosaur Bones Found," Creation Ex Nihilo, vol. 14, p. 16) Apparently it could be right under your noses right now and you wouldn’t “actually find such a thing†even then.

What a pity all the bones were lost. You do know that these are the guys who actually announced on their radio program that Neandertals were known to have used bagpipes, tubas, and windchimes, don't you?

What about other instruments, and that "overwhelming evidence"? Marvin Lubenow, author of the leading creationist book on human origins, Bones of Contention, goes on to say (starting at 3.25 minutes into the recording):

"Many of these items were discovered in the Neander valley of Germany where the very first Neandertal fossil was discovered in 1856. For instance a tuba, a musical instrument made from a mastodon tusk, what looks like a bagpipe made from a part of an animal bladder, a triangle, and a xylophone made from hollowed out bones."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/aprilfool.html


I just checked ICR, and apparently the article is no longer available. They withdrew the one about bagpiping Neandertals, too.

Barbarian's law: Evidence for a young Earth is always found by creationists, but is always unaccountably lost.

 

[unred typo]

The Barbarian wrote:

Nope. You converted "it doesn't take much" to "a tiny bit", and then attributed it to me. I guess I should be flattered. You do that to God, too.

If you mean that I put it into my own words, fine. To me, if it ‘isn’t much’ it’s a ‘tiny bit.’

The Barbarian wrote:

Yep. In fact, it's still on the board.
Barbarian observes:
But it doesn't take much contamination to produce a false result.
And the "improved version", by Solo: ( he meant ‘Unred Typo’ ) Quote: “A tiny bit of contamination"

You changed your whole tune. Let’s try putting our misquotes together to see who deviated from the original the most.
I converted “But it doesn't take much contamination to produce a false result†to “A tiny bit of contamination and you get these erroneous datesâ€Â.

You changed “But it doesn't take much contamination to produce a false result†to “It takes a significant amount of contamination (to produce a false result. )â€Â
Which of these THings is.. not ..like.. The.. OTher… WHich of these THings just DOESN’t beLOoong…


The Barbarian wrote:

Barbarian observes:
They were. You just can't use C-14 for material that old.
UT Quote: “ So what was used to test the T Rex bones?
Barbarian observes: Don't know.

And you assume that dating was even done?


The Barbarian wrote:

As you learned earlier, no one is suprised that C-14 doesn't work for fossils. Nothing that old retains enough to be measured.

Except YECs, as you learned earlier, were not impressed. We don’t believe that line. Nothing created on this earth is that old. Everything should be within 6 thousand years old. Sorry, but your dating method rots.


The Barbarian wrote:

Why don't they think so (that those T-Rex bones are young enough to date by C-14) ? Evidence. Would you like to see some more?

I’d like to see any.


The Barbarian wrote:

If pigs had wings, they could fly. Fact is, we can test human remains as old as 50,000 years or so, but we still can't test organic material millions of years old with C-14.

If pigs had organic material millions of years old they could fly too. You’re just not getting this concept. The earth was formed less than 6,000 years ago and everything on it is younger than that. If it dates older, there’s something wrong with your method, your sample, or your technique.


The Barbarian wrote:

Barbarian observes:
From your comment about "a tiny trace of contamination", I gathered you didn't understand it. Apprently, you still don't.
(UT previous Quote: “That was a direct quote from you that gave me that.â€Â)
No, it was a little "adjustment" to my words. But, as I said, you do that to God, too.

I explained it was from a direct quote you made, not that I was repeating a direct quote of yours. My exact words were: “That was a direct quote from you that gave me that.†I didn’t say it was a direct quote. Later, I did repeat a direct quote of this gem: “Bones, when they fossilize, as these have, are replaced by stone. Some of the bone at the center of the bones was not yet completely fossilized. But it doesn't take much contamination to produce a false result.â€Â
You’re making quite a bit of a “tiny bit†which you then changed to “a tiny trace†in your misquote of my statement and then you have the nerve to say I fabricated your direct quote? LOL. What a joke. You didn’t even read my statement correctly before you blew it all out of proportion. Then you misquote me twice. I hope you’re not as sloppy in your scientific endeavors.


The Barbarian wrote:

Indeed. Your "direct quote" turned out to be completely fabricated. You learned well from your leaders.

When I quote you directly, I use cut and paste and I don’t even correct your spelling. When I use my own words to restate something you wrote, I try to use synonyms that express what you said in a way that shows you if I have properly understood what you wrote or not. I’m not fabricating anything. If there is a difference between “a tiny bit†and “not very muchâ€Â, it certainly is not any worse than your rendering of mine to “a tiny traceâ€Â, is it? Not to mention your back-pedaling the whole argument to say that it’s “a significant amount.†:roll:

We have such enlightening conversations when you accuse me of making false statements without stopping to think. But it takes us hopelessly off topic. So I trust we can drop this nit pickiness now? It’s surely not very much to ask but I would think of it as a significant indulgence to give me a tiny trace of consideration by reading at least a tiny bit of what I write and not just a trace. :wink:

The Barbarian wrote:

Lots more like that in the history of evolutionary theory. Would you like to learn about them?

Not in this thread. We’re supposed to be ‘carbon datingâ€Â. These posts are windy enough.

( more off topic, no-where discussion that will probably surface in another thread *SNIP* )

The Barbarian wrote:

And that's what happened. All over the world, these bones were found from time to time, and fantastic animals were proposed to explain them.

No magic. No recent dinosaurs.

That’s one explanation. Another is that some people saw them in real life in the not too distant past. The truth is probably both happened.

The Barbarian wrote:

We already know that happens, since we have historical records of it happening in Central Asia and Greece.

I doubt if nomads and natives in North or South America or Mexico are interested in the reconstruction of dinosaur bones to use as models for their art work.



The Barbarian wrote:

If you don't know what you're talking about, what makes you think you're right?

You're misquoting me again. I said I didn't know what you were talking about. I know what I meant.
In reply to the reports of immune response tests done and the conclusions made about the T Rex tissue, while the one I sited was quite compelling, yours was better. I did say that you might get me to admit your con artists are better at it than mine. 8-)



The Barbarian wrote:

More importantly, you didn't know enough about the subject to make an intelligent assessment of it.

Which was my point. You illustrated it well. Thank you. :wink:


The Barbarian wrote:

This from a guy who just fabricated a statement for me, and then called it a "direct quote."

I explained that above, quite thoroughly. Would you like to hear it again? :-D



The Barbarian wrote:

Barbarian on the suggestion that I'll be shown up when we find a live dinosaur:
Well, that's certainly a consideration isn't it? Would you care to venture a guess as to when we will actually find such a thing?

A correction to your previous comments. I said, “If I were you, I’d be working on the idea that “dinosaurs surviving somewhere until recently†“certainly wouldn't rule out evolution.†I think God is in the process of serving up more fresh dino to amaze or dismay you.â€Â
That doesn’t say we might find a live dinosaur. It specifically says ‘dinosaurs surviving somewhere until recently’ which indicates fresh un-fossilized bones, able to be carbon-14 dated. As picky as you are about rephrasing your words, I’d think you’d be more careful with mine.
And no, I wouldn’t want to guess when evidence will make the entire imaginary world under the ToE invalid and obsolete. God has his own timetable and he’s not in any panic to expose these errors. He actually allows them so those who hate the real truth of the matter won’t be forced to believe it against their will.


The Barbarian wrote:

What a pity all the bones were lost. You do know that these are the guys who actually announced on their radio program that Neandertals were known to have used bagpipes, tubas, and windchimes, don't you?

Probably. They probably based their statements on findings that subsequently went missing. Things that step on the ToE seem to have a habit of doing that. Eventually, you’ll find a Neanderthal with some of those things or their equivalences and have rewrite the history of prehistoric man again. You’re just going to have to keep rewriting it until you get it to match the Bible, dates and all.

The Barbarian wrote:

What about other instruments, and that "overwhelming evidence"? Marvin Lubenow, author of the leading creationist book on human origins, Bones of Contention, goes on to say (starting at 3.25 minutes into the recording):
"Many of these items were discovered in the Neander valley of Germany where the very first Neandertal fossil was discovered in 1856. For instance a tuba, a musical instrument made from a mastodon tusk, what looks like a bagpipe made from a part of an animal bladder, a triangle, and a xylophone made from hollowed out bones."

They are probably lost in some professor’s closet, hidden under a pile of other ‘mistakes’ that someone uneducated in the dating scheme unearthed. I don’t believe any of the ToE ‘evidence’ that’s connected with that whole evolutionary scam. It has no doubt been detached from any recent inventions that might connect it to the actual century the gentlemen lived in.
Here’s an excerpt of the reports from the 2005 WorldNetDaily.com © Posted: February 19, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern:

A flamboyant anthropology professor, whose work had been cited as evidence Neanderthal man once lived in Northern Europe, has resigned after a German university panel ruled he fabricated data and plagiarized the works of his colleagues.
Reiner Protsch von Zieten, a Frankfurt university panel ruled, lied about the age of human skulls, dating them tens of thousands of years old, even though they were much younger, reports Deutsche Welle.
"The commission finds that Prof. Protsch has forged and manipulated scientific facts over the past 30 years," the university said of the widely recognized expert in carbon data in a prepared statement.
Among their findings was an age of only 3,300 years for the female "Bischof-Speyer" skeleton, found with unusually good teeth in Northern Germany, that Protsch dated to 21,300 years.
Another dating error was identified for a skull found near Paderborn, Germany, that Protsch dated at 27,400 years old. It was believed to be the oldest human remain found in the region until the Oxford investigations indicated it belonged to an elderly man who died in 1750.
The Herne anthropological museum, which owned the Paderborn skull, did its own tests following the unsettling results. "We had the skull cut open and it still smelt," said the museum's director. "We are naturally very disappointed."

Did they have “bagpipes, tubas, and wind chimes†in 1750? I thought so but I’m usually confused by conflicting ‘facts.’ :


The Barbarian wrote:

I just checked ICR, and apparently the article is no longer available. They withdrew the one about bagpiping Neandertals, too.

I’m not sure if you can still find the WorldNetDaily.com article I posted either. I’m sure the ToE pontiffs hate the embarrassment and would rather see it buried deeper than a bladder bagpipe.
My question is why would modern skulls pass for a Neanderthal in the first place? Perhaps facial and structural bones have nothing to do with advancing evolution, but with advancing age or the regional narrowing of the gene pool within families that had strong physical features in their DNA.


The Barbarian wrote:

Barbarian's law: Evidence for a young Earth is always found by creationists, but is always unaccountably lost.

I think you’re right. That law seems to be strictly enforced, too. I believe there is another one that says that misinformation purposely leaked to creationists can always be used later to prove their incompetence and discredit all their evidence as phony. Then there are planted artifacts that leave creationists holding the bag when it is later ‘discovered‘ they were fake, giving an impression that the entire community was involved. These underhanded tactics go on by unscrupulous zealots on both sides of the issue, unfortunately. :
God’s law supercedes all of those, however.

There is nothing hid, that shall not be revealed.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Nope. You converted "it doesn't take much" to "a tiny bit", and then attributed it to me. I guess I should be flattered. You do that to God, too.

If you mean that I put it into my own words, fine.

No, I mean you made something else up and claimed it was "a direct quote" of what I said.

To me, if it ‘isn’t much’ it’s a ‘tiny bit.’

You can think anything you want. But when you pretend I said it, it's a dishonesty.

Barbarian observes:
They were. You just can't use C-14 for material that old.

So what was used to test the T Rex bones?

Barbarian observes:
Don't know.

And you assume that dating was even done?

Always is. If you want to know, read the primary literature. It will tell you.

Barbarian observes:
As you learned earlier, no one is suprised that C-14 doesn't work for fossils. Nothing that old retains enough to be measured.

Except YECs, as you learned earlier, were not impressed. We don’t believe that line.

No, that's wrong, too. There are many eduated YE creationists, like Kurt Wise, and Willam Coffin, who admit that the evidence indicates an old earth. They just put their particular reading of scripture above evidence. Coffin stated this under oath. He said, if it were not for his religious beliefs, he would think the Earth was very old.

Barbarian observes:
Why don't they think so (that those T-Rex bones are young enough to date by C-14) ? Evidence. Would you like to see some more?

(denial)

Barbarian observes:
If pigs had wings, they could fly. Fact is, we can test human remains as old as 50,000 years or so, but we still can't test organic material millions of years old with C-14.

The earth was formed less than 6,000 years ago and everything on it is younger than that.

Sorry, that doesn't fit the evidence. Here's another way to test your doctrine;

In the Pacific, there are atolls growing up from the fringing reefs of sinking volcanoes. The reef grows up as the volcano sinks, and if it's fast enough, it eventually forms a ring-shaped atoll.

At Enitiwok, SeaBees drilled cores that went roughly a mile down before they hit volcano. Reef coral grows about 0.5 cm per year. How long has coral been growing on Enitiwok atoll?

If it dates older, there’s something wrong with your method, your sample, or your technique.

Sorry. We know it works, because it's been calibrated by tests on events of known age. Would you like to learn about some of them?

Barbarian observes:
From your comment about "a tiny trace of contamination", I gathered you didn't understand it. Apprently, you still don't.

That was a direct quote from you that gave me that.

Barbarian observes:
No, it was a little "adjustment" to my words. But, as I said, you do that to God, too.

I explained it was from a direct quote you made, not that I was repeating a direct quote of yours.

We all can see what you did. It was not honest.

Barbarian observes:
Indeed. Your "direct quote" turned out to be completely fabricated. You learned well from your leaders.

When I quote you directly, I use cut and paste and I don’t even correct your spelling. When I use my own words to restate something you wrote, I try to use synonyms that express what you said in a way that shows you if I have properly understood what you wrote or not. I’m not fabricating anything.

Don't bother denying what you did. Just stop doing it.

Barbarian observes:
And that's what happened. All over the world, these bones were found from time to time, and fantastic animals were proposed to explain them.

No magic. No recent dinosaurs.

That’s one explanation.

It has the virtue of being consistent with the facts.

Another is that some people saw them in real life in the not too distant past.

It has the drawback of lacking any evidence.

Barbarian observes:
We already know that happens, since we have historical records of it happening in Central Asia and Greece.

Barbarian on the suggestion that I'll be shown up when we find a live dinosaur:

Well, that's certainly a consideration isn't it? Would you care to venture a guess as to when we will actually find such a thing?

God has his own timetable and he’s not in any panic to expose these errors. He actually allows them so those who hate the real truth of the matter won’t be forced to believe it against their will.

In other words, don't hold my breath.

Barbarian on the ICR as an authoritative source:
What a pity all the bones were lost. You do know that these are the guys who actually announced on their radio program that Neandertals were known to have used bagpipes, tubas, and windchimes, don't you?

Probably. They probably based their statements on findings that subsequently went missing.

Nope. It was a joke in a magazine that one of their "researchers" read and took seriously. Hard to believe, but true.

Marvin Lubenow, author of the leading creationist book on human origins, Bones of Contention, goes on to say (starting at 3.25 minutes into the recording):

"Many of these items were discovered in the Neander valley of Germany where the very first Neandertal fossil was discovered in 1856. For instance a tuba, a musical instrument made from a mastodon tusk, what looks like a bagpipe made from a part of an animal bladder, a triangle, and a xylophone made from hollowed out bones."

Did they have “bagpipes, tubas, and wind chimes†in 1750? I thought so but I’m usually confused by conflicting ‘facts.’

The Barbarian wrote: Quote:
I just checked ICR, and apparently the article is no longer available. They withdrew the one about bagpiping Neandertals, too.

I’m not sure if you can still find the WorldNetDaily.com article I posted either. I’m sure the ToE pontiffs hate the embarrassment and would rather see it buried deeper than a bladder bagpipe.

The professor in question had a lot of differences with most paleontologists about Neandertals. He didn't write much, and was rarely cited in other publications.

Consequently, it didn't cause much stir, because nobody's research depended on this guy.

My question is why would modern skulls pass for a Neanderthal in the first place?

Probably because early Neandertals overlap in skull proportions with H. sapiens. Later ones were a lot different. The problem was that the ones like anatomically modern humans should be very old.

Perhaps facial and structural bones have nothing to do with advancing evolution, but with advancing age or the regional narrowing of the gene pool within families that had strong physical features in their DNA.

That would not explain why Neandertal children had the same features. Age won't do it. In fact, very old people get less robust, not more robust.

The Barbarian wrote: Quote:

I believe there is another one that says that misinformation purposely leaked to creationists can always be used later to prove their incompetence and discredit all their evidence as phony.

The Neandertal Bagpipes thing was so wildly absurd that no one thought anyone would be dumb enough to think it was true. They were wrong.

Then there are planted artifacts that leave creationists holding the bag when it is later ‘discovered‘ they were fake, giving an impression that the entire community was involved. These underhanded tactics go on by unscrupulous zealots on both sides of the issue, unfortunately.

There was one by the New Mexico Skeptics that drew in a few creationists. Not very nice. Funny, but not nice.

http://www.nmsr.org/Archive.html

Again, it was so wildly unrealistic, I wouldn't have thought anyone would fall for it.

"Pilar Pendeja" should have been a giveaway.

 

[MrVersatile48]

C U @Time & Being @2.30pm?

It's the topic @ the Vic, Abercrombie Square, by Liverpool Uni TODAY, guys!

http://www.philosophyinpubs.org.uk/INDEX/index.asp

& fullschedule page:-

http://www.philosophyinpubs.org.uk/DYNA ... edules.asp

Back with http://www.multimap.co.uk page..

http://www.multimap.com/map/places.cgi? ... ents+Union

Luv real intellectual stimulation..

& we Scousers know how to lighten it up wif a few jokes..

& are humble enough to say when we don't understand & ask ya to put it simpler,OK?

Luv ALL U guys in here..

inc U,Conan..

let's all get together some time for some fun nights out @ the Philahrmonic..Empire Theatre ..

Carling Academy..

Manchester Palace/Opera House..etc..

after these fortnighly afternoon discussions, eh?

see http://www.cclive.com & http://www.gigwise.co.uk

Right back..

 

[Barbarian]

By definition, a humble person doesn't tell others that he is humble.

 

[unred typo]

The Tiny Bit versus Tiny Trace versus Little Bit versus Significant Amount Debate of the Century

The saga continues. I arrive here to read more accusations that I contributed Barbarian with something he didn’t say. This is unbelievably tedious. As much as I loathe going back to dredge up back posts of little interest to anyone but Barbarian, this just doesn’t seem to go away. Not only that but he now accuses me of lying about it. His actual words were “not honest†and “dishonesty†but I interpret that as an accusation of “lying.†He may disagree. :wink:

As trite as his argument is, I will deal with it in this separate post so if anyone is actually reading this thread they can skip this to the other off topic portions, if I even get back to them today. :roll:

_________________________________________________________________

Sun Oct 23, 2005 2:04 pm
Barbarian writes: Bones, when they fossilize, as these have, are replaced by stone. Some of the bone at the center of the bones was not yet completely fossilized. But it doesn't take much contamination to produce a false result.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Mon Oct 24, 2005 11:03 am
Unred writes:
That’s always been my feeling actually. A tiny bit of contamination and you get these erroneous dates much older than they actually were. If it gives you the date you really wanted though, there is no reason to question it, is there?

Unred writes:
As you told us, “it doesn't take much contamination to produce a false result.â€Â

------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Mon Oct 24, 2005 3:16 pm
Barbarian writes:
Nope. It takes a significant amount of contamination. Would you take the time to learn about how it works, so you understand?

Barbarian writes:
From your comment about "a tiny trace of contamination", I gathered you didn't understand it. Apprently, you still don't.

Barbarian writes:
More than a tiny trace.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

( Editor‘s note: Since this is getting confusing now, I’ll add more quotes and quotation marks for your reading pleasure and put the quotes in italics.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Mon Oct 24, 2005 10:04 pm
Unred writes:
The Barbarian wrote: Quote: “Nope. It takes a significant amount of contamination. Would you take the time to learn about how it works, so you understand?â€Â

I was quoting you. Do you read what you write? Here it is again:
The Barbarian wrote previously: Quote: “Bones, when they fossilize, as these have, are replaced by stone. Some of the bone at the center of the bones was not yet completely fossilized. But it doesn't take much contamination to produce a false result.â€Â


Unred writes:
Barbarian wrote: Quote: From your comment about "a tiny trace of contamination", I gathered you didn't understand it. Apprently, you still don't.â€Â

That was a direct quote from you that gave me that. I guess it depends on which foot the shoe is on and whether it pinches the ToE.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Tue Oct 25, 2005 2:59 pm
Barbarian writes:
Barbarian observes: Nope. It takes a significant amount of contamination. Would you take the time to learn about how it works, so you understand?

( UT ) Quote: I was quoting you.

Nope. You converted "it doesn't take much" to "a tiny bit", and then attributed it to me. I guess I should be flattered. You do that to God, too.

( UT )Quote: Do you read what you write?

Yep. In fact, it's still on the board.

Barbarian observes: But it doesn't take much contamination to produce a false result.
And the "improved version", by Solo ( UT ): A tiny bit of contamination"

Barbarian observes: From your comment about "a tiny trace of contamination", I gathered you didn't understand it. Apprently, you still don't.

( UT ) Quote:That was a direct quote from you that gave me that.

No, it was a little "adjustment" to my words. But, as I said, you do that to God, too.

( UT ) Quote:I guess it depends on which foot the shoe is on

Indeed. Your "direct quote" turned out to be completely fabricated. You learned well from your leaders.

( UT ) Quote:but I know what you do to what I write, and you rarely interpret what I say correctly or at least you don’t repeat it that way so it seems you either are intentionally deceptive or have a comprehension issue yourself.

This from a guy who just fabricated a statement for me, and then called it a "direct quote."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wed Oct 26, 2005 6:51 am
Unred Typo writes:
The Barbarian wrote: Quote: “Nope. You converted "it doesn't take much" to "a tiny bit", and then attributed it to me. I guess I should be flattered. You do that to God, too.â€Â

If you mean that I put it into my own words, fine. To me, if it ‘isn’t much’ it’s a ‘tiny bit.’

The Barbarian wrote: Quote: “Yep. In fact, it's still on the board.â€Â
Barbarian observes:
But it doesn't take much contamination to produce a false result.
And the "improved version", by Solo: ( he meant ‘Unred Typo’ ) Quote: “A tiny bit of contamination"

You changed your whole tune. Let’s try putting our misquotes together to see who deviated from the original the most.

I converted “But it doesn't take much contamination to produce a false result†to “A tiny bit of contamination and you get these erroneous datesâ€Â.

You changed “But it doesn't take much contamination to produce a false result†to “It takes a significant amount of contamination (to produce a false result. )â€Â

Which of these THings is.. not ..like.. The.. OTher… WHich of these THings just DOESN’t beLOoong…

The Barbarian wrote: Quote: “Barbarian observes:
From your comment about "a tiny trace of contamination", I gathered you didn't understand it. Apprently, you still don't.
(UT previous Quote: “That was a direct quote from you that gave me that.â€Â)
No, it was a little "adjustment" to my words. But, as I said, you do that to God, too. “

I explained it was from a direct quote you made, not that I was repeating a direct quote of yours. My exact words were: “That was a direct quote from you that gave me that.†I didn’t say it was a direct quote. Later, I did repeat a direct quote of this gem: “Bones, when they fossilize, as these have, are replaced by stone. Some of the bone at the center of the bones was not yet completely fossilized. But it doesn't take much contamination to produce a false result.â€Â
You’re making quite a bit of a “tiny bit†which you then changed to “a tiny trace†in your misquote of my statement and then you have the nerve to say I fabricated your direct quote? LOL. What a joke. You didn’t even read my statement correctly before you blew it all out of proportion. Then you misquote me twice. I hope you’re not as sloppy in your scientific endeavors.

The Barbarian wrote: Quote: “Indeed. Your "direct quote" turned out to be completely fabricated. You learned well from your leaders. “

When I quote you directly, I use cut and paste and I don’t even correct your spelling. When I use my own words to restate something you wrote, I try to use synonyms that express what you said in a way that shows you if I have properly understood what you wrote or not. I’m not fabricating anything. If there is a difference between “a tiny bit†and “not very muchâ€Â, it certainly is not any worse than your rendering of mine to “a tiny traceâ€Â, is it? Not to mention your back-pedaling the whole argument to say that it’s “a significant amount.†8)

We have such enlightening conversations when you accuse me of making false statements without stopping to think. But it takes us hopelessly off topic. So I trust we can drop this nit pickiness now? It’s surely not very much to ask but I would think of it as a significant indulgence to give me a tiny trace of consideration by reading at least a tiny bit of what I write and not just a trace. ;)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thu Oct 27, 2005 8:56 pm
( Editor’s note: I’m not sure if some of Barbarian’s writings are former quotes of his own or if he means to repeat himself. Since he doesn’t use quotes here, I won’t either, although it’s confusing. Get another cup of coffee.)
Barbarian writes:
Barbarian observes: Nope. You converted "it doesn't take much" to "a tiny bit", and then attributed it to me. I guess I should be flattered. You do that to God, too.

( UT )Quote: If you mean that I put it into my own words, fine.

No, I mean you made something else up and claimed it was "a direct quote" of what I said.

( UT )Quote: “To me, if it ‘isn’t much’ it’s a ‘tiny bit.’â€Â

You can think anything you want. But when you pretend I said it, it's a dishonesty.

Barbarian observes:
From your comment about "a tiny trace of contamination", I gathered you didn't understand it. Apprently, you still don't.

( UT )Quote:
“That was a direct quote from you that gave me that.â€Â

Barbarian observes:
No, it was a little "adjustment" to my words. But, as I said, you do that to God, too.

( UT )Quote:
“I explained it was from a direct quote you made, not that I was repeating a direct quote of yours.â€Â

We all can see what you did. It was not honest.

Barbarian observes:
Indeed. Your "direct quote" turned out to be completely fabricated. You learned well from your leaders.

( UT )Quote:
“When I quote you directly, I use cut and paste and I don’t even correct your spelling. When I use my own words to restate something you wrote, I try to use synonyms that express what you said ina way that shows you if I have properly understood what you wrote or not. I’m not fabricating anything.â€Â

Don't bother denying what you did. Just stop doing it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This ends our great scientific/theological debate. If you read down to this point, you will have learned some valuable lessons. You will have gained new insights into the evolutionary mind. You will see the lengths one will go to in order to discredit his opponent. You will realize that although Barbarian should see the error of his ways, and make an apology, he continues to view me as the ignorant offender. Your results may vary. Especially if your name is Barbarian or Steve. :roll: :wink:

 

[Barbarian]

I arrive here to read more accusations that I contributed Barbarian with something he didn’t say.

More specifically, you made something up and when called on it, said it was a "direct quote." It was nothing of the kind, and you knew it.

As much as I loathe going back to dredge up back posts of little interest to anyone but Barbarian,

I'm bored of it, too. Anyone who wants to check can go back and see.

This ends our great scientific/theological debate. If you read down to this point, you will have learned some valuable lessons. You will have gained new insights into the evolutionary mind.

Not to mention creationist ethics.

You will see the lengths one will go to in order to discredit his opponent.

Like making statements up and then claiming they are "direct quotes." I don't want your apology, I just want it to stop.

 

[unred typo]

Barbarian wrote: More specifically, you made something up and when called on it, said it was a "direct quote." It was nothing of the kind, and you knew it.

It was the direct quote of yours: “it doesn't take much contamination to produce a false result†on which I based my statement of “a tiny bit of contamination and you get these erroneous datesâ€Â. I did not say my statement was a direct quote of yours and you, Sir, know it. If you don’t, you have a severe reading comprehension problem.

Barbarian wrote: I'm bored of it, too. Anyone who wants to check can go back and see.

You better get used to it or quit calling my ethics into question.

Barbarian wrote: Like making statements up and then claiming they are "direct quotes." I don't want your apology, I just want it to stop.

I didn’t offer an apology. I am sorry that you don’t understand plain written English. I am sorry that you feel the need to falsely accuse me. I am sorry that you don’t even acknowledge that it is you who should apologize to me. If you want this embarrassment to stop, you will stop pretending to be offended when it is you who twisted my words. You know it and I know it and God knows it. Everyone can read the record and there is no mistaking what you are trying to pull.

 

[Imagican]

Well now, let's see. We have many examples of art created by ancient man. i don' recall EVER seeing any examples of T-Rex or Brontosaurs or Triceratops.

And I see that you do accept that the bones that we've found of T Rex are real. Many traditionalist seem to think that they were created somehow to confuse those that know the truth about the past as translated by their fore-fathers.

And I still think that it's presumptuous of you and those that so believe, that you believe that 'our world' is so awful important to God that He would alter His reality to suit ours.

Carbon dating exists and is a matter of fact. Perhaps not 100 percent, but then physics isn't either. Traditionalist continually point out that there are discrepancies in carbon dating, yet ignore the overwhelming majority of the cases in which there is no doubt as to its accuracy.

Layers of sedimentary deposits that obviously took much much time are written off as happening during a year long flood. That's just silly. Perhaps it would have been an excusable mistake upon it's original inception, but now that we have learned so much, it's just ridiculous to deny simply because one refuses to accept that they and everyone that taught them, were wrong.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
More specifically, you made something up and when called on it, said it was a "direct quote." It was nothing of the kind, and you knew it.

It was the direct quote of yours: “it doesn't take much contamination to produce a false resultâ€Â

But that's not what you said it was, was it?

on which I based my statement of “a tiny bit of contamination and you get these erroneous datesâ€Â. I did not say my statement was a direct quote of yours and you, Sir, know it.

No, and I don't think anyone else does, either. You're entitled to your opinion as to what "doesn't take much" means, but you aren't entitled to attribute that opinion to me, or say it was a direct quote.

Barbarian observes:
I'm bored of it, too. Anyone who wants to check can go back and see.

You better get used to it or quit calling my ethics into question.

The more you talk about it, the worse it's going to be for you.

Barbarian obseves:
I don't want your apology, I just want it to stop.

I didn’t offer an apology.

I know. I don't care. Just stop it.

If you want this embarrassment to stop, you will stop pretending to be offended when it is you who twisted my words. You know it and I know it and God knows it. Everyone can read the record and there is no mistaking what you are trying to pull.

So if you know it, and I know it, and God knows it, and everyone can read the record, and see, what are you trying to spin it for?

Don't attribute to me, things I didn't say. And there will be no more trouble.

 

[unred typo]

.

Unred reply: I see you had to spit my sentence in the middle to get the results you needed. How clever.

Just for the record:

Barbarian wrote: (direct quote)
More specifically, you made something up and when called on it, said it was a "direct quote." It was nothing of the kind, and you knew it.

Unred previous replyunsplit quote)
It was the direct quote of yours: “it doesn't take much contamination to produce a false result†on which I based my statement of “a tiny bit of contamination and you get these erroneous datesâ€Â. I did not say my statement was a direct quote of yours and you, Sir, know it.



P.S. I also noticed that you had no explanation as to how you went from; “But it doesn't take much contamination to produce a false result†to “It takes a significant amount of contamination.†These are both direct quotes from you, btw.

 

[Solo]

That's exactly how I read it, unred. I don't know where Barbarian's misunderstanding comes from...............Oh yes I do, nevermind. :wink:

 

[Barbarian]

I think we all know where Solo's opinion comes from, um?

Anyway, if unread says he didn't mean it that way, I'll take his word for it.

I assume it won't happen again. With unread typo, I mean.

 

[unred typo]

Thanks, Solo. Hard to believe that an intelligent person is having such a hard time with this small reading assignment, though, isn’t it? Yet this is an example of the type of misinformation tactics used to confuse and buffalo the general public who don’t take the time to understand the issues. Blessed are your ears for they hear.

Since Barbarian assumes it won't happen again, “With unread typo, I meanâ€Â, I guess I am supposed to be admitting that I didn’t mean to misrepresent him but I won’t do it again or should I take it that he’s saying, in the future, he won’t falsely accuse me of misrepresenting him, but he doesn’t guarantee he won’t try it with someone else? :wink: Watch your back.

 

[unred typo]

Imagican wrote:
Well now, let's see. We have many examples of art created by ancient man. i don' recall EVER seeing any examples of T-Rex or Brontosaurs or Triceratops.

Try here:
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks-acambaro.htm

Imagican wrote: And I see that you do accept that the bones that we've found of T Rex are real. Many traditionalist seem to think that they were created somehow to confuse those that know the truth about the past as translated by their fore-fathers.

There is no reason to deny dinosaur bones. God made a variety of creatures. Some went extinct before Noah’s flood. Some were apparently taken aboard the ark, only to go extinct some time later.

Imagican wrote: And I still think that it's presumptuous of you and those that so believe, that you believe that 'our world' is so awful important to God that He would alter His reality to suit ours.

What reality are you referring to?

Imagican wrote: Carbon dating exists and is a matter of fact. Perhaps not 100 percent, but then physics isn't either. Traditionalist continually point out that there are discrepancies in carbon dating, yet ignore the overwhelming majority of the cases in which there is no doubt as to its accuracy.

Carbon dating may actually work fairly well for the time after the flood or for most of it until the present but the preflood world may have been significantly different, and some phenomena such as contamination from a unique radiation source that may have been released giving all the animal remains completely erroneous levels of “old†carbon. To assume that things continue as they always were for millions of years seems more than little naive.

Imagican wrote: Layers of sedimentary deposits that obviously took much much time are written off as happening during a year long flood. That's just silly. Perhaps it would have been an excusable mistake upon it's original inception, but now that we have learned so much, it's just ridiculous to deny simply because one refuses to accept that they and everyone that taught them, were wrong.

Sure it’s just silly. I don’t believe in a flood like that. I find the account in Jasher adds quite a bit of good solid info to the Genesis account. It tells of a flooding of the Gihon River before the Noachian flood that overflowed 1/3 of the earth. That would certainly account for much of the sedimentary layers at some of the lowest levels. The flood evidence is more than one layer but it is not all the layers.


:fadein:

 

[unred typo]

The Barbarian wrote: No, that's wrong, too. There are many eduated YE creationists, like Kurt Wise, and Willam Coffin, who admit that the evidence indicates an old earth. They just put their particular reading of scripture above evidence. Coffin stated this under oath. He said, if it were not for his religious beliefs, he would think the Earth was very old.

Five, almost six, thousand years is very old. If I gave you a pile of rocks and asked you to pick out the ones that were thousands of years old and those that were supposedly millions or billions, I bet you couldn’t do it.
I can understand his statement, though, and if the Bible did not specifically state so and Jesus also did not imply a literal Genesis account, I would not be particularly interested in the age of the earth myself and I dare say that evolutionists would lose interest in the topic as well. The main reason for the Theory of Evolution is to discredit the Bible and the God of the Bible. Ask Rez, privately, when he is not trying to paint it as strictly science. It is the theory of choice for Atheists.

The Barbarian wrote: The professor in question had a lot of differences with most paleontologists about Neandertals. He didn't write much, and was rarely cited in other publications.
Consequently, it didn't cause much stir, because nobody's research depended on this guy.

Hmmmn. Not according to theWorldNetDaily.com article… Read it and weep :

The fallout from Protsch's false dating of northern European bone finds is only beginning.
Chris Stringer, a Stone Age specialist and head of human origins at London's Natural History Museum, said: "What was considered a major piece of evidence showing that the Neanderthals once lived in northern Europe has fallen by the wayside. We are having to rewrite prehistory."
"Anthropology now has to revise its picture of modern man between 40,000 and 10,000 B.C.," added Thomas Terberger, an archaeologist at the University of Greifswald.

The Barbarian wrote in answer to why modern skulls could pass for a Neanderthal in the first place : Probably because early Neandertals overlap in skull proportions with H. sapiens. Later ones were a lot different. The problem was that the ones like anatomically modern humans should be very old.

Errrrr…are you saying early Neanderthals look more like us than the later ones? Please explain.

The Barbarian wrote: That would not explain why Neandertal children had the same features. Age won't do it. In fact, very old people get less robust, not more robust.

I said that perhaps facial and structural bones have nothing to do with advancing evolution, but with advancing age or the regional narrowing of the gene pool within families that had strong physical features in their DNA. That would certainly explain the characteristics showing up in the children.

The Barbarian wrote: The Neandertal Bagpipes thing was so wildly absurd that no one thought anyone would be dumb enough to think it was true. They were wrong.
There was one by the New Mexico Skeptics that drew in a few creationists. Not very nice. Funny, but not nice. http://www.nmsr.org/Archive.html Again, it was so wildly unrealistic, I wouldn't have thought anyone would fall for it. "Pilar Pendeja" should have been a giveaway.

They knew that it had to be absurd enough to later claim as a joke and yet believable enough to suck in some trusting creationists. Like I said before, you probably could get me to admit my con artists aren’t as good as yours. I’ll add that creationists probably are more trusting than evolutionists. Maybe there is some truth to the expression that ‘it takes one to know one.’

:roll:

 

[Barbarian]

The Barbarian wrote: No, that's wrong, too. There are many eduated YE creationists, like Kurt Wise, and Willam Coffin, who admit that the evidence indicates an old earth. They just put their particular reading of scripture above evidence. Coffin stated this under oath. He said, if it were not for his religious beliefs, he would think the Earth was very old.

Five, almost six, thousand years is very old.

Coffin said the evidence showed millions of years at least. He prefers his reading of Scripture, but he freely admits that without scripture, he would think it was much older.

If I gave you a pile of rocks and asked you to pick out the ones that were thousands of years old and those that were supposedly millions or billions, I bet you couldn’t do it.

By eyeballing them? Some, I could, because they only form in very low oxygen atmospheres. Others, like granite, only form over millions of years, and others, like metamorphic rocks, take millions of years to get their peculiar "foliated" form.

I can understand his statement, though, and if the Bible did not specifically state so and Jesus also did not imply a literal Genesis account, I would not be particularly interested in the age of the earth myself and I dare say that evolutionists would lose interest in the topic as well. The main reason for the Theory of Evolution is to discredit the Bible and the God of the Bible.

Since the men who discovered natural selection were both Christians when they wrote their works, that's not possible.

Ask Rez, privately, when he is not trying to paint it as strictly science. It is the theory of choice for Atheists.

And Christians. Most educated people, in fact.

The Barbarian observes:
The professor in question had a lot of differences with most paleontologists about Neandertals. He didn't write much, and was rarely cited in other publications.

Consequently, it didn't cause much stir, because nobody's research depended on this guy.

Hmmmn. Not according to theWorldNetDaily.com article… Read it and weep :

Rather, I read it and laughed:

Here's the WND story:
The fallout from Protsch's false dating of northern European bone finds is only beginning.
Chris Stringer, a Stone Age specialist and head of human origins at London's Natural History Museum, said: "What was considered a major piece of evidence showing that the Neanderthals once lived in northern Europe has fallen by the wayside. We are having to rewrite prehistory."
"Anthropology now has to revise its picture of modern man between 40,000 and 10,000 B.C.," added Thomas Terberger, an archaeologist at the University of Greifswald.

And what really happened:
Chris Stringer, head of the Human Origins Department at London's Natural History Museum, was misquoted in one British paper as saying Hahnhöfersand was significant in establishing the Neandertal presence in northern Europe, and that without it scientists would have to "rewrite prehistory." Hahnhöfersand was never even considered Neandertal, Stringer tells Archaeology. The redating of the remains has a "negligible" impact on scholarship, he adds.

The situation left many anthropologists scratching their heads. Binshof-Speyer Woman? Who was that? Despite media reports to the contrary, the fossils were actually of little significance on the paleoanthropological playing field. Hahnhöfersand made a bit of a splash in the 1980s when some scholars identified in it both Neandertal and modern human characteristics, but it was always considered controversial. "The three redated specimens were not as pivotal as some reports imply," agrees Martin Street, who sees a bigger issue at hand: "Clearly, it would be ideal if the age of a whole range of other alleged Pleistocene hominid fossils could be confirmed by absolute methods [such as carbon-14 dating], but it remains to be seen whether this lesson will be learned by the anthropological community."
http://www.archaeology.org/0505/newsbriefs/insider.html

As usual, WND relied on hearsay by a newspaper, without bothering to get the facts from the source.

Barbarian on why intermediates were suggested:
Probably because early Neandertals overlap in skull proportions with H. sapiens. Later ones were a lot different. The problem was that the ones like anatomically modern humans should be very old.

Errrrr…are you saying early Neanderthals look more like us than the later ones?

Yep. The very ancient Mt. Carmel specimens are much more like anatomically modern humans than later ones.

The Neandertals were physically diverse, but in general they were larger boned and more heavily muscled than most modern humans. This was particularly true of the European Neandertals, like the La Chapelle-aux-Saints man. Some of the Southwest Asian Neandertals were less robust in appearance and somewhat more like modern humans.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/mod_homo_2.htm

Barbarian observes:
That would not explain why Neandertal children had the same features. Age won't do it. In fact, very old people get less robust, not more robust.

I said that perhaps facial and structural bones have nothing to do with advancing evolution, but with advancing age or the regional narrowing of the gene pool within families that had strong physical features in their DNA. That would certainly explain the characteristics showing up in the children.

Seems unlikely. We don't see that kind of evolution going on today among humans, not even very isolated ones like the Andaman islanders.

Barbarian observes:
The Neandertal Bagpipes thing was so wildly absurd that no one thought anyone would be dumb enough to think it was true. They were wrong.
There was one by the New Mexico Skeptics that drew in a few creationists.

Not very nice. Funny, but not nice. http://www.nmsr.org/Archive.html Again, it was so wildly unrealistic, I wouldn't have thought anyone would fall for it. "Pilar Pendeja" should have been a giveaway.

They knew that it had to be absurd enough to later claim as a joke and yet believable enough to suck in some trusting creationists.

When you have folks like those at the World Net Daily, it isn't too hard, as the latest flap demonstrates.

 

[unred typo]

Barbarian wrote: Coffin said the evidence showed millions of years at least. He prefers his reading of Scripture, but he freely admits that without scripture, he would think it was much older.

With all due respect to Mr. Coffin, he doesn’t look old enough to making that evaluation. Who on earth actually knows what a million year old anything looks like? Unless he has seen God, I doubt that he has seen anything older than this planet and everything on it, which is well under 10 thousand years old, according to my experts who wrote Genesis.

Barbarian wrote: By eyeballing them? Some, I could, because they only form in very low oxygen atmospheres. Others, like granite, only form over millions of years, and others, like metamorphic rocks, take millions of years to get their peculiar "foliated" form.

Very impressive but wrong. Your dates are missing the mark by millions of years. The nice thing for you is no one has lived that long to dispute the claim. If I had a few million dollars to play with, I’d build me an impressive date-o-analyzer and destroy all of those phony declarations of antiquity.

Barbarian wrote: Since the men who discovered natural selection were both Christians when they wrote their works, that's not possible.

It wouldn’t be the first time Christians bought into a big lie, would it? Do I have to remind you that the enemy is Satan and his title is ‘father of lies’? Inspirations such as the ToE come from his drawing board.

Barbarian wrote: And Christians. Most educated people, in fact.

It is the theory of choice for Atheists. And those who are lead by the nose behind them. When they come up with one with more ego appeal and less holes in it, you’ll see the ToE dropped like a hot rock from Hades. My prediction is probably it will be that an ‘alien’ from another galaxy will come and take credit for dropping the first couple here 6,000 years ago, explain the Bible was written by his inspiration, and that he is not only the OT God but the long awaited Messiah. He will have unlocked the secrets of miracles and perform wonders before an adoring crowd of true believers. Jesus will probably be proclaimed an imposter and the Antichrist will take his place. When Satan can use the Bible for his benefit, it will return to favor. Mark my words, but I’m not claiming to be a prophet so please don’t stone me if I’m wrong. :wink:

Barbarian wrote: Rather, I read it and laughed:
Here's the WND story:
The fallout from Protsch's false dating of northern European bone finds is only beginning.
Chris Stringer, a Stone Age specialist and head of human origins at London's Natural History Museum, said: "What was considered a major piece of evidence showing that the Neanderthals once lived in northern Europe has fallen by the wayside. We are having to rewrite prehistory."
"Anthropology now has to revise its picture of modern man between 40,000 and 10,000 B.C.," added Thomas Terberger, an archaeologist at the University of Greifswald.
And what really happened:
Chris Stringer, head of the Human Origins Department at London's Natural History Museum, was misquoted in one British paper as saying Hahnhöfersand was significant in establishing the Neandertal presence in northern Europe, and that without it scientists would have to "rewrite prehistory." Hahnhöfersand was never even considered Neandertal, Stringer tells Archaeology. The redating of the remains has a "negligible" impact on scholarship, he adds.
The situation left many anthropologists scratching their heads. Binshof-Speyer Woman? Who was that? Despite media reports to the contrary, the fossils were actually of little significance on the paleoanthropological playing field. Hahnhöfersand made a bit of a splash in the 1980s when some scholars identified in it both Neandertal and modern human characteristics, but it was always considered controversial. "The three redated specimens were not as pivotal as some reports imply," agrees Martin Street, who sees a bigger issue at hand: "Clearly, it would be ideal if the age of a whole range of other alleged Pleistocene hominid fossils could be confirmed by absolute methods [such as carbon-14 dating], but it remains to be seen whether this lesson will be learned by the anthropological community."
http://www.archaeology.org/0505/newsbriefs/insider.html
As usual, WND relied on hearsay by a newspaper, without bothering to get the facts from the source.

How very nice of Chris Stringer not to go after the WDN or the British paper for misquoting him. Did the paper print a retraction? Do you think Chris Stringer will learn not to speak out without checking first with the ToE papacy? If he doesn’t watch his mouth I guess he will have to go back in for re-indoctrination. What have we learned from this incident?

Barbarian wrote: Yep. The very ancient Mt. Carmel specimens are much more like anatomically modern humans than later ones.

Thanks for the info. I have a feeling I may need that in the future.

Barbarian wrote: Seems unlikely. We don't see that kind of evolution going on today among humans, not even very isolated ones like the Andaman islanders.

LOL. How would you see that kind of evolution going on today among humans when it is supposed to take thousands or millions of years? Do you have a book with detailed drawings or pictures of every Neanderthal child born over the last 5,000 years? Sometimes the things you say so matter of factly defy logic.

Barbarian wrote: When you have folks like those at the World Net Daily, it isn't too hard, as the latest flap demonstrates.

When you have the wildest of claims being alleged as fact by the majority of the scientific community, naturally the general public is immune to absurdity. :roll:

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian wrote: Coffin said the evidence showed millions of years at least. He prefers his reading of Scripture, but he freely admits that without scripture, he would think it was much older.

With all due respect to Mr. Coffin, he doesn’t look old enough to making that evaluation.

How old do you think one has to be, to evaluate evidence? Coffin said the evidence would be convincing to him, if he did not have a religious faith in a YE.

Who on earth actually knows what a million year old anything looks like?

I have a rock on my desk over a billion years old.

Barbarian on how to read ages of rock:
By eyeballing them? Some, I could, because they only form in very low oxygen atmospheres. Others, like granite, only form over millions of years, and others, like metamorphic rocks, take millions of years to get their peculiar "foliated" form.

Very impressive but wrong.

Nope. We know that the size of crystals in a rock are determined by the time it takes to harden. And granite is millions of years old. And we know how long granite takes to form gneiss.

Barrbarian on the notion that evolution was invented to deny God:
Since the men who discovered natural selection were both Christians when they wrote their works, that's not possible.

It wouldn’t be the first time Christians bought into a big lie, would it?

Creationism, slavery, etc. Yes. But denying God, no.

Do I have to remind you that the enemy is Satan and his title is ‘father of lies’?

Satan likes YE creationism. Good recruiting tool.

It (evolution) is the theory of choice for Atheists.

And Christians. And most educated people.


Here's the WND story:
The fallout from Protsch's false dating of northern European bone finds is only beginning.
Chris Stringer, a Stone Age specialist and head of human origins at London's Natural History Museum, said: "What was considered a major piece of evidence showing that the Neanderthals once lived in northern Europe has fallen by the wayside. We are having to rewrite prehistory."
"Anthropology now has to revise its picture of modern man between 40,000 and 10,000 B.C.," added Thomas Terberger, an archaeologist at the University of Greifswald.

And what really happened:

Chris Stringer, head of the Human Origins Department at London's Natural History Museum, was misquoted in one British paper as saying Hahnhöfersand was significant in establishing the Neandertal presence in northern Europe, and that without it scientists would have to "rewrite prehistory." Hahnhöfersand was never even considered Neandertal, Stringer tells Archaeology. The redating of the remains has a "negligible" impact on scholarship, he adds.

The situation left many anthropologists scratching their heads. Binshof-Speyer Woman? Who was that? Despite media reports to the contrary, the fossils were actually of little significance on the paleoanthropological playing field. Hahnhöfersand made a bit of a splash in the 1980s when some scholars identified in it both Neandertal and modern human characteristics, but it was always considered controversial. "The three redated specimens were not as pivotal as some reports imply," agrees Martin Street, who sees a bigger issue at hand: "Clearly, it would be ideal if the age of a whole range of other alleged Pleistocene hominid fossils could be confirmed by absolute methods [such as carbon-14 dating], but it remains to be seen whether this lesson will be learned by the anthropological community."
http://www.archaeology.org/0505/newsbriefs/insider.html
As usual, WND relied on hearsay by a newspaper, without bothering to get the facts from the source.

What have we learned from this incident?

That the WND doesn't check their sources very well.

Barbarian on Neandertals:
Yep. The very ancient Mt. Carmel specimens are much more like anatomically modern humans than later ones.

Thanks for the info. I have a feeling I may need that in the future.

Barbarian on rapid evolution:
Seems unlikely. We don't see that kind of evolution going on today among humans, not even very isolated ones like the Andaman islanders.

LOL. How would you see that kind of evolution going on today among humans when it is supposed to take thousands or millions of years? Do you have a book with detailed drawings or pictures of every Neanderthal child born over the last 5,000 years?

Not every one. Just every one found so far is that way. Maybe it's just bad luck. But the evidence says otherwise.

 

[unred typo]

Barbarian wrote: How old do you think one has to be, to evaluate evidence? Coffin said the evidence would be convincing to him, if he did not have a religious faith in a YE.

You’re right. You don’t have to be old at all to make an erroneous conclusion from insufficient evidence or knowledge based on a faulty premise. Children do it all the time. But then again, in the study of the earth, we are children in our knowledge.

When we look at the earth’s layers, the evidence is that there was a cataclysmic event about four thousand years ago and the earth changed dramatically from that point forward. Beneath that evidence, we can see about two thousand years of geological history, including a major famine and a previous flooding of about one third of the earth’s surface. Over Noah’s flood layers of volcanic ash, basalt and granite intrusions into the catacombs of the subterranean watershed, and sedimentary debris; the buried tons of shale, coal, oil and gas from the uprooted forests and fields and herds of dead wildlife, fish and people, there are about 4 thousand years of relative calm, with sporadic bouts of activity around the globe.

Since no one is alive to give an eye witness account of all this, we must rely on the written testimonies of those who were. We have fairly accurate copies of these taking us back to the day of creation, but not millions of years.

Barbarian wrote: I have a rock on my desk over a billion years old.

Sure you do. Do you mind if I test it in my date-o-meter time blaster? It’s the very latest technology. You might not even be familiar with it since it’s so new and improved. While other methods are sometimes off by a hundred thousand or millions of years, mine has a margin of error of less than 3,000 years. Pretty impressive.

Barbarian wrote: Nope. We know that the size of crystals in a rock are determined by the time it takes to harden. And granite is millions of years old. And we know how long granite takes to form gneiss.

How long does granite take to harden? I’m glad you know. I couldn’t seem to find that information online and I checked out several geological sites.

Barbarian wrote: Creationism, slavery, etc. Yes. But denying God, no.

The truth is, Jesus had us pegged when he said the children of the kingdom were not as crafty as the children of the world. The nice thing is that in our simplicity, we just trust God and seek truth and he will lead us. When we think the world has a better idea, we get drawn off into all sorts of errors. The flat earth people were relying on their limited view of the earth and the misinterpretation of a few verses based on faulty human reasoning. It’s happening again when believers in the ToE reason away the plain reading of Genesis in favor of the faulty logic of dating methods that make trumped up dates appear scientifically indisputable in spite of escalating evidence that they are totally unreliable.

Barbarian wrote: Satan likes YE creationism. Good recruiting tool.

Exactly how does YE creationism bring someone into Satan’s army? If a person believes Genesis as written, they believe Jesus meant what he said when he spoke of Adam and Eve and they trust what he said about other important issues. By allegorizing it, you have reduced the effectiveness of his teaching on sin and death and made the Bible to be little more than a glorified legend.

Barbarian wrote: Here's the WND story:
The fallout from Protsch's false dating of northern European bone finds is only beginning.
Chris Stringer, a Stone Age specialist and head of human origins at London's Natural History Museum, said: "What was considered a major piece of evidence showing that the Neanderthals once lived in northern Europe has fallen by the wayside. We are having to rewrite prehistory."
"Anthropology now has to revise its picture of modern man between 40,000 and 10,000 B.C.," added Thomas Terberger, an archaeologist at the University of Greifswald.

And what really happened:

Chris Stringer, head of the Human Origins Department at London's Natural History Museum, was misquoted in one British paper as saying Hahnhöfersand was significant in establishing the Neandertal presence in northern Europe, and that without it scientists would have to "rewrite prehistory." Hahnhöfersand was never even considered Neandertal, Stringer tells Archaeology. The redating of the remains has a "negligible" impact on scholarship, he adds.

Well, in your example of what really happened, the British paper was misquoted when the word ‘Neandertal’ was exchanged for ‘Hahnhöfersand’ and Stringer’s comment is hardly an actual denial that he made the previous quote reported by the paper. Looks like a kind of evasion tactic to me.

Barbarian wrote: ( What we learned )That the WND doesn't check their sources very well.

Ooops. You missed some of my questions. I wanted to know if Chris Stringer was going after WND or the paper that had misquoted him, or at least make them print a retraction. If not, I wonder if he made the statements and only wished he hadn’t made them when he realized the ramifications on the reputation of the scientific community.

Barbarian wrote: Not every one. Just every one found so far is that way. Maybe it's just bad luck. But the evidence says otherwise.

Perhaps the Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons and other specimens of what you label as ‘early man’ were the most common examples of the descendants of Adam who had forsaken God and became the wicked nations that were destroyed in the flood because they refused to repent. Maybe the reason that we hardly ever see their very distinct physical features today is because the entire branch of that part of Adam’s family were exterminated, with only remnants of those genes surviving in Noah’s family.

.