[_ Old Earth _] carbon dating?

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observe:
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.

And yet here we have a committed YE scientist, well aware of the evidence and creationism, who admits the evidence favors science. A rather convincing admission, you have to admit.

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.

Nope. No evidence for that, whatever. When people first looked at the layers of the Earth, they were creationists. And they concluded that the Earth was very, very old. As it became clear to these Christians that the sediments could not be reconciled with a single flood, they suggested many floods, of which Noah's was the last.

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.

Sorry. No evidence like that exists. Are you telling me that volcanoes didn't exist before the fall?

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.

You just claimed evidence tells us this. Which is it?

We have fairly accurate copies of these taking us back to the day of creation, but not millions of years.

You're trying to stretch a book about God and man and our relationship to cover things it was never written to cover.

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

(suggests that the date might be off by millions of years)

That would still be better than 99% accuracy. Not bad.

Barbarian observes:
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.

Depends on how deep it is, and the surrounding matrix. On the surface, it cools rapidly and forms ryolite, with crystals generally too small to see. Sometimes, underground, magma will force it's way between other rocks and cool more rapidly, with the result being a finer-grained rock.

But intrusive (underground) ingeous rocks will form larger crystals, because the insulation of the surrounding rock makes cooling very slow indeed.

Barbarian on the errors of fundamentalism:
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.

YE creationism is like that. Exactly.

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

Wrong. Science makes no comments or reflections at all on religion.

that make trumped up dates appear scientifically indisputable in spite of escalating evidence that they are totally unreliable.

See above. Even scientifically-literate creationists like Harld Coffin and Kurt Wise acknowledge the evidence does not favor YE creationism.

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

Exactly how does YE creationism bring someone into Satan’s army?

I've spent a lot of years in university. Many young people have come to me, troubled that what they had been taught as Christian faith was clearly impossible. I try to point out that creationism is not a Christian doctrine, even if some Christians believe it. I encourage them to ask their minister whether or not their opinion on creationism will have anything to do with their salvation. Some make it. Some don't. YE creationism will have much to answer for with God.

If a person believes Genesis as written,

But remember, YE creationists don't accept Genesis as written.

they(YE creationists) believe Jesus meant what he said when he spoke of Adam and Eve and they trust what he said about other important issues.

So do orthodox Christians. The difference is, orthodox Christians don't try to change Genesis to a literal history. Neither did Jesus.

By allegorizing it, you have reduced the effectiveness of his teaching on sin and death

Nonsense. If you take it His way, it makes His teaching more effective.

and made the Bible to be little more than a glorified legend.

You think that's what He does when He speaks figuratively? No wonder you object to Scripture as it is.

Barbarian observes, 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

Well, in your example of what really happened, the British paper was misquoted when the word ‘Neandertal’ was exchanged for ‘Hahnhöfersand’

It wasn't a quote. And the WND story depends on the notion that Hahnhöfersand was the one responsible.

[quoteand 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. [/quote]

Stringer, however, is the final authority on what he said. WND simply got it wrong, and wrote instead what they wished he had said.

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.

I have no idea. WND printed some false material, the person wrongly characterized pointed out that it happened.

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.

Or more likely, as subsequent events showed, he was simply misquoted, and he set the record straight.

Barbarian on transitionals existing only as predicted:
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 they were poofed into existence by the green jackrabbit. But what counts is evidence.

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.

Or, as the evidence shows, they died out over a period of many thousands of years.

 

[unred typo]

Barbarian wrote: And yet here we have a committed YE scientist, well aware of the evidence and creationism, who admits the evidence favors science. A rather convincing admission, you have to admit.

Knowing how you misread things I write, I’d have to read the exact quote in context. Do you have a link or is it something you‘d rather not have me see for myself?

Barbarian wrote: Nope. No evidence for that, whatever. When people first looked at the layers of the Earth, they were creationists. And they concluded that the Earth was very, very old. As it became clear to these Christians that the sediments could not be reconciled with a single flood, they suggested many floods, of which Noah's was the last.

No evidence for what??? LOL. That’s an unbelievable statement. The earth reeks of it. You must have a severe case of tunnel vision. Except for the mistake you make with your strange dating method assumptions, we’re often talking about the same events. Of course you have to try to spin your estimation of the evidence as far from the actual record in Genesis as possible.
But even so, I’m sure there are many ways to interpret those layers but as I have said before, correctly rebuilding the past from them would be like reconstructing New Orleans from flood debris without the original plans. The Bible doesn’t say Noah’s flood was the first, just the only world wide complete deluge. Jasher records the previous flooding of the River Gihon which involved 1/3 of the world, so I would agree with that “many floods†assessment.

Barbarian wrote: Sorry. No evidence like that exists. Are you telling me that volcanoes didn't exist before the fall?

Right, there were no volcanoes before the fall. Why would there be? Before the fall, everything God made was good. Did you mean before the flood? The previous smaller warning floods before Noah’s could have very well been the result of volcanic episodes.

Barbarian wrote: You just claimed evidence tells us this. Which is it?

Dirt, bones and rocks can only give a muddied picture of the past. You would have to be a ToE spin doctor to fabricate it into an eye witness account and then claim it as scientific fact. Fortunately, the Jews kept excellent records of the events of their history that correspond with the evidence in the earth‘s layers when they are interpreted correctly.

Barbarian wrote: You're trying to stretch a book about God and man and our relationship to cover things it was never written to cover.

That’s just your opinion. You have difficulty accepting it as truth, and I feel sorry for you but I doubt that I can change your mind any more than you can make me believe your opinions.

Barbarian wrote: Barbarian wrote: I have a rock on my desk over a billion years old.
(suggests that the date might be off by millions of years)
That would still be better than 99% accuracy. Not bad.

What’s a few thousand or million years of error in your world of misinformation, huh?

Barbarian wrote: Depends on how deep it ( granite )is, and the surrounding matrix. On the surface, it cools rapidly and forms ryolite, with crystals generally too small to see. Sometimes, underground, magma will force it's way between other rocks and cool more rapidly, with the result being a finer-grained rock.

But intrusive (underground) ingeous rocks will form larger crystals, because the insulation of the surrounding rock makes cooling very slow indeed.

I read all that at every site I went to. Other than saying that lava that was extruded into sea water cooled and hardened immediately, almost instantaneously, none gave the actual time estimate for cooling rock at any other level. I notice you skirted the issue as well.

So, which is it? Large or small crystals if it is between existing layers? You say “sometimes, underground, magma will force it's way between other rocks and cool more rapidly, with the result being a finer-grained rock†but then you add “intrusive (underground) ingeous rocks will form larger crystals, because the insulation of the surrounding rock makes cooling very slow indeed†which is a direct contradiction of your previous sentence. It seems like confusion is one of the ToE’s best defenses against a meaningful reality check.

Barbarian wrote: YE creationism is like that. Exactly.

Funny, but I was speaking of the OE crowd and the way they have one foot riding on the world, the other on the Word.

Barbarian wrote: Wrong. Science makes no comments or reflections at all on religion.

LOL. Who are you trying to fool? If you mean ‘true science’, then it doesn’t conflict with YE creationism, though it certainly makes negative reflections on the veracity of many other religions. If you are referring to the perversion of science known as the ‘theory of evolution,’ then there is no disputing that it makes negative reflections on young earth creationism.

Barbarian wrote: See above. Even scientifically-literate creationists like Harld Coffin and Kurt Wise acknowledge the evidence does not favor YE creationism.

So you imply but I will reserve my judgment of their statements when I get to read them in context, if you will ever provide me with a quote from a reliable source.

Barbarian wrote: I've spent a lot of years in university. Many young people have come to me, troubled that what they had been taught as Christian faith was clearly impossible. I try to point out that creationism is not a Christian doctrine, even if some Christians believe it. I encourage them to ask their minister whether or not their opinion on creationism will have anything to do with their salvation. Some make it. Some don't. YE creationism will have much to answer for with God.

Well, your answer is certainly a more palatable compromise for those without the fortitude to accept the truth. Maybe you will not be around to witness the crushing of the ToE when their house of cards falls. When you consider the very shaky foundation on sand upon which it is built, you would have better served them to question, not the plain reading of God’s word, but the silly notions that under girth the ToE. An elementary school child can understand why methods of dating by counting isotopes is foolish when there is no proof that the contamination of the specimens was a definite factor since all would probably have been subject to varying amounts of contamination while under flood waters from atmospheric ozone and subterranean regions.

Barbarian wrote: But remember, YE creationists don't accept Genesis as written.

But remember, that is only an opinion from someone who admittedly says the account isn’t even literal. How funny izzat?

Barbarian wrote: So do orthodox Christians. The difference is, orthodox Christians don't try to change Genesis to a literal history. Neither did Jesus.

Jesus didn’t have to try to change Genesis to a literal history. The people he was speaking to knew it was literal.

Barbarian wrote: Nonsense. If you take it His way, it makes His teaching more effective.

I have no comment since I don’t know enough of what you believe that Jesus taught, but if you have death that is not a result of Adam‘s sin, you only have a partial understanding of his teaching.

Barbarian wrote: You think that's what He does when He speaks figuratively? No wonder you object to Scripture as it is.

When he speaks figuratively, as in prophetic visions and in parables, it’s very clear that he’s doing so. You know that I don’t object to scripture as it is and no one believes those kind of deceptive characterizations you make. I know that you have been taught that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it but the people who read this board have functioning brains and are more in tune to the truth and less susceptible to brain washing techniques, except for those who have been hopelessly entangled in the ToE fabrications.

Barbarian wrote: Barbarian observes, here's the WND story:
[quote:3be95]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

It wasn't a quote. And the WND story depends on the notion that Hahnhöfersand was the one responsible.[/quote:3be95]

See the quotation marks? That means it was a direct quote that was attributed to Chris Stringer and also one to Thomas Terberger. Did you find a retraction printed by the Brit paper or WND? If not, why not?

BTW, Hahnhöfersand was not “the one responsibleâ€Â, since Hahnhöfersand is the supposedly ‘fossilized’ remains, not a person connected with the scandal. You need to slow down when you’re reading these articles and posts.

A bigger issue is how those remains were ever considered to be so ancient in the first place, in spite of so much controversy, since only YE creationist scientists are supposed to be that stupid to not recognize the difference between unfossilized recent skulls and fossilized ancient ones. Why don’t you try changing the subject now? I think that would work best for you.

Barbarian wrote: Stringer, however, is the final authority on what he said. WND simply got it wrong, and wrote instead what they wished he had said.

Well, if he didn’t say it, he should make the guilty parties print a retraction, don’t you think?

Barbarian wrote: I have no idea. WND printed some false material, the person wrongly characterized pointed out that it happened.

The right thing to do would be to expose their ‘misquote’ by forcing them to print a retraction. Otherwise, we are left believing that the quotes in question were accurately reported.

Barbarian wrote: Or more likely, as subsequent events showed, he was simply misquoted, and he set the record straight.

He has only implied that he didn’t mean what he said previously by making a statement that skirts the issue.

Barbarian wrote: Maybe they were poofed into existence by the green jackrabbit. But what counts is evidence.

What the evidence shows is that the Neanderthal and other so called ancient hominids were just the most common examples of the descendants of Adam who were destroyed in the flood because they refused to repent.

Barbarian wrote: Or, as the evidence shows, they died out over a period of many thousands of years.

Are you sure? I saw a man with distinct Neandertal features recently buying camping supplies. I believe a remnant of the genes for some of their physical characteristics are still being circulated but are slowly dying out as they are watered down with the ones we consider favorable by our culture’s standards. I think you might call it elimination by natural selection.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian wrote: And yet here we have a committed YE scientist, well aware of the evidence and creationism, who admits the evidence favors science. A rather convincing admission, you have to admit.


Knowing how you misread things I write, I’d have to read the exact quote in context. Do you have a link or is it something you‘d rather not have me see for myself?




Quote:
Barbarian wrote: Nope. No evidence for that, whatever. When people first looked at the layers of the Earth, they were creationists. And they concluded that the Earth was very, very old. As it became clear to these Christians that the sediments could not be reconciled with a single flood, they suggested many floods, of which Noah's was the last.


No evidence for what??? LOL. That’s an unbelievable statement. The earth reeks of it. You must have a severe case of tunnel vision. Except for the mistake you make with your strange dating method assumptions, we’re often talking about the same events. Of course you have to try to spin your estimation of the evidence as far from the actual record in Genesis as possible.
But even so, I’m sure there are many ways to interpret those layers but as I have said before, correctly rebuilding the past from them would be like reconstructing New Orleans from flood debris without the original plans. The Bible doesn’t say Noah’s flood was the first, just the only world wide complete deluge. Jasher records the previous flooding of the River Gihon which involved 1/3 of the world, so I would agree with that “many floods†assessment.





Quote:
Barbarian wrote: Sorry. No evidence like that exists. Are you telling me that volcanoes didn't exist before the fall?


Right, there were no volcanoes before the fall. Why would there be? Before the fall, everything God made was good. Did you mean before the flood? The previous smaller warning floods before Noah’s could have very well been the result of volcanic episodes.





Quote:
Barbarian wrote: You just claimed evidence tells us this. Which is it?


Dirt, bones and rocks can only give a muddied picture of the past. You would have to be a ToE spin doctor to fabricate it into an eye witness account and then claim it as scientific fact. Fortunately, the Jews kept excellent records of the events of their history that correspond with the evidence in the earth‘s layers when they are interpreted correctly.




Quote:
Barbarian wrote: You're trying to stretch a book about God and man and our relationship to cover things it was never written to cover.


That’s just your opinion. You have difficulty accepting it as truth, and I feel sorry for you but I doubt that I can change your mind any more than you can make me believe your opinions.



Quote:
Barbarian wrote: Barbarian wrote: I have a rock on my desk over a billion years old.
(suggests that the date might be off by millions of years)
That would still be better than 99% accuracy. Not bad.


What’s a few thousand or million years of error in your world of misinformation, huh?




Quote:
Barbarian wrote: Depends on how deep it ( granite )is, and the surrounding matrix. On the surface, it cools rapidly and forms ryolite, with crystals generally too small to see. Sometimes, underground, magma will force it's way between other rocks and cool more rapidly, with the result being a finer-grained rock.


But intrusive (underground) ingeous rocks will form larger crystals, because the insulation of the surrounding rock makes cooling very slow indeed.

I read all that at every site I went to. Other than saying that lava that was extruded into sea water cooled and hardened immediately, almost instantaneously, none gave the actual time estimate for cooling rock at any other level. I notice you skirted the issue as well.

So, which is it? Large or small crystals if it is between existing layers? You say “sometimes, underground, magma will force it's way between other rocks and cool more rapidly, with the result being a finer-grained rock†but then you add “intrusive (underground) ingeous rocks will form larger crystals, because the insulation of the surrounding rock makes cooling very slow indeed†which is a direct contradiction of your previous sentence. It seems like confusion is one of the ToE’s best defenses against a meaningful reality check.






Quote:
Barbarian wrote: YE creationism is like that. Exactly.


Funny, but I was speaking of the OE crowd and the way they have one foot riding on the world, the other on the Word.




Quote:
Barbarian wrote: Wrong. Science makes no comments or reflections at all on religion.


LOL. Who are you trying to fool? If you mean ‘true science’, then it doesn’t conflict with YE creationism, though it certainly makes negative reflections on the veracity of many other religions. If you are referring to the perversion of science known as the ‘theory of evolution,’ then there is no disputing that it makes negative reflections on young earth creationism.




Quote:
Barbarian wrote: See above. Even scientifically-literate creationists like Harld Coffin and Kurt Wise acknowledge the evidence does not favor YE creationism.

So you imply but I will reserve my judgment of their statements when I get to read them in context, if you will ever provide me with a quote from a reliable source.

You will find Coffin's testimony in the transcript of Rev. Bill McClean VS State Board of Education:

Q: "The Burgess shale (a geological formation in the Canadian Rockies with exceptionally well preserved marine fossils) is said to be 500 million years old, but you think it is only 5,000 years old, don't you?"
A: "Yes."
Q: "You say that because of information from the scriptures, don't you?" A: "Correct."
Q: "If you didn't have the Bible, you could believe the age of the Earth to be many millions of years, couldn't you?"
A: "Yes, without the Bible."

Barbarian observes:
I've spent a lot of years in university. Many young people have come to me, troubled that what they had been taught as Christian faith was clearly impossible. I try to point out that creationism is not a Christian doctrine, even if some Christians believe it. I encourage them to ask their minister whether or not their opinion on creationism will have anything to do with their salvation. Some make it. Some don't. YE creationism will have much to answer for with God.

Well, your answer is certainly a more palatable compromise for those without the fortitude to accept the truth.

It is the truth. It's why I have them ask their ministers, most of whom, even the creationists, will admit that creationism is not essential to salvation.

Maybe you will not be around to witness the crushing of the ToE when their house of cards falls. When you consider the very shaky foundation on sand upon which it is built, you would have better served them to question, not the plain reading of God’s word, but the silly notions that under girth the ToE.

Evidence, remember. Science has it. Creationism doesn't.

An elementary school child can understand why methods of dating by counting isotopes is foolish when there is no proof that the contamination of the specimens was a definite factor since all would probably have been subject to varying amounts of contamination while under flood waters from atmospheric ozone and subterranean regions.

That's testable. We can see how much, if any diffusion takes place in different sorts of rock. Moreover, with isochrons, we don't even have to assume what the initial state was.

Barbarian observes:
But remember, YE creationists don't accept Genesis as written.

But remember, that is only an opinion from someone who admittedly says the account isn’t even literal.

Can't be, as even early Christians recognized.

Barbarian observes: So do orthodox Christians. The difference is, orthodox Christians don't try to change Genesis to a literal history. Neither did Jesus.

Jesus didn’t have to try to change Genesis to a literal history. The people he was speaking to knew it was literal.

Not according to rabbinical sources. There has never been an orthodoxy on that point.

Barbarian observes:
Nonsense. If you take it His way, it makes His teaching more effective.

I have no comment since I don’t know enough of what you believe that Jesus taught, but if you have death that is not a result of Adam‘s sin, you only have a partial understanding of his teaching.

God told Adam that he would die the day he ate from the tree. Yet Adam lives on physically for many years after. He dies spiritually the day he eats, however. This is how we know God was speaking of a spiritual death.

Barbarian observes:
You think that's what He does when He speaks figuratively? No wonder you object to Scripture as it is.

When he speaks figuratively, as in prophetic visions and in parables, it’s very clear that he’s doing so.

In other words, some of it, you accept, and some you don't.

You know that I don’t object to scripture as it is

You have openly rejected it.

and no one believes those kind of deceptive characterizations you make.

I suspect even you are begining to realize it.

I know that you have been taught that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it

A meta-lie. Cool. No, I was never taught that.

but the people who read this board have functioning brains and are more in tune to the truth and less susceptible to brain washing techniques, except for those who have been hopelessly entangled in the ToE fabrications.

Then maybe you would be better off, focusing on evidence.

Barbarian observes,
here's the WND story:
Quote:

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

Barbarian on the contested words:
It wasn't a quote. And the WND story depends on the notion that Hahnhöfersand was the one responsible.

See the quotation marks? That means it was a direct quote that was attributed to Chris Stringer and also one to Thomas Terberger.

I don't think so. The words in contention were a characterization, not presented as an actuall quote.

[quoteDid you find a retraction printed by the Brit paper or WND? If not, why not? [/quote]

Maybe because no one asked for it? Scientists are misquoted in the popular press frequently. They rarely bother to ask for a retraction.

BTW, Hahnhöfersand was not “the one responsibleâ€Â, since Hahnhöfersand is the supposedly ‘fossilized’ remains, not a person connected with the scandal.

But they were the ones that caused the error. You probably read it a bit fast, and missed the point.

A bigger issue is how those remains were ever considered to be so ancient in the first place, in spite of so much controversy, since only YE creationist scientists are supposed to be that stupid to not recognize the difference between unfossilized recent skulls and fossilized ancient ones.

Not hard to see. He just faked them. And because the weren't important finds, or critical to our understanding of man's history on Earth, no one bothered to write about them, and therefore, no one checked his work.

Why don’t you try changing the subject now?

This is taking a rather interesting turn. I think we'll give it a little more time. You see, the good doctor was a fraud, but he had little impact on anyone else's work, so he got away with it longer than if his work had been cited by others frequently. Because he was not important, it was longer before science caught up with him.

I think that would work best for you.

This was a very good example of the way science corrects itself. Compare to the professional creationists, who even when caught in a lie, continue to be accepted by their fellows.

Barbarian observes:
Stringer, however, is the final authority on what he said. WND simply got it wrong, and wrote instead what they wished he had said.

Well, if he didn’t say it, he should make the guilty parties print a retraction, don’t you think?

He issued a correction, made it clear that WND got it wrong, and let it at that. Sounds about right to me.

What the evidence shows is that the Neanderthal and other so called ancient hominids were just the most common examples of the descendants of Adam who were destroyed in the flood because they refused to repent.

So why don't we find them in "flood deposits", but much later?

Barbarian observes:
Or, as the evidence shows, they died out over a period of many thousands of years.

Are you sure?

Yep.

I saw a man with distinct Neandertal features recently buying camping supplies. I believe a remnant of the genes for some of their physical characteristics are still being circulated but are slowly dying out as they are watered down with the ones we consider favorable by our culture’s standards. I think you might call it elimination by natural selection.

Nope. We have recovered a bit of Neandertal DNA,and they are almost certainly a distinct species. Moreover, they lived alongside humans in some places for a very long time, and there is little or no evidence that they every interbred.

And that would be unique in human history.

 

[courtlawpro]

In science there are no real 100% facts.

In our courts today this statement would hold-up, however, In God's Court this would not. We are gods of relativity and rationalism (finite) Righteousness is an absolute attribute of God. He does not change and holds the franchise exclusively and forever. We, on the otherhand, are an image, severely cracked, unless redeemed and under repair. I ask this person who made this statement: Are you 100% sure there are "no real 100% facts." ?

 

[Barbarian]

In our courts today this statement would hold-up, however, In God's Court this would not.

In science, however, the preponderance if evidence is all that counts. That may seem flawed to you, but consider how much science has discovered with that methodology.

We are gods of relativity and rationalism (finite)

Fortuntely, God placed us in a universe where such things are very useful in learning about it. If you don't know why this is so, you might want to consider Darwin for a bit.

Are you 100% sure there are "no real 100% facts." ?

In science, no there aren't. Fortunately, we have other ways of knowing God.

 

[Heidi]

It is absolutely impossible to rely on carbon 14 dating because of the amount of radiation in the air of today's world compared to the air of the ancient world. We also do not know what is in the air of the ancient world. Carbon 14 dating can only be considered reliable in controlled environments in which the same characteriscs are present in each environment.

In addition, one would also have to measure the amount of radiation in the world 50 years ago to see how fast carbon would decay at that time and how the air affect its rate of decay. So as usual, there are way too many variables which scientists cannot calculate in order to accurately assess the age of an object. And that is precisely why the scientific projections of the age of the earth or objects keep changing in each generation. :wink:

 

[courtlawpro]

In science, no there aren't. Fortunately, we have other ways of knowing God.

How does science ponder evidence if is it is not authentic? And: If the evidence is not 100% reliable what does that do to the foundation of one's premiss or position? Who or what is this God you refer?

 

[Heidi]

Barbarian wrote: And yet here we have a committed YE scientist, well aware of the evidence and creationism, who admits the evidence favors science. A rather convincing admission, you have to admit.


Knowing how you misread things I write, I’d have to read the exact quote in context. Do you have a link or is it something you‘d rather not have me see for myself?




Quote:
Barbarian wrote: Nope. No evidence for that, whatever. When people first looked at the layers of the Earth, they were creationists. And they concluded that the Earth was very, very old. As it became clear to these Christians that the sediments could not be reconciled with a single flood, they suggested many floods, of which Noah's was the last.


No evidence for what??? LOL. That’s an unbelievable statement. The earth reeks of it. You must have a severe case of tunnel vision. Except for the mistake you make with your strange dating method assumptions, we’re often talking about the same events. Of course you have to try to spin your estimation of the evidence as far from the actual record in Genesis as possible.
But even so, I’m sure there are many ways to interpret those layers but as I have said before, correctly rebuilding the past from them would be like reconstructing New Orleans from flood debris without the original plans. The Bible doesn’t say Noah’s flood was the first, just the only world wide complete deluge. Jasher records the previous flooding of the River Gihon which involved 1/3 of the world, so I would agree with that “many floods†assessment.





Quote:
Barbarian wrote: Sorry. No evidence like that exists. Are you telling me that volcanoes didn't exist before the fall?


Right, there were no volcanoes before the fall. Why would there be? Before the fall, everything God made was good. Did you mean before the flood? The previous smaller warning floods before Noah’s could have very well been the result of volcanic episodes.





Quote:
Barbarian wrote: You just claimed evidence tells us this. Which is it?


Dirt, bones and rocks can only give a muddied picture of the past. You would have to be a ToE spin doctor to fabricate it into an eye witness account and then claim it as scientific fact. Fortunately, the Jews kept excellent records of the events of their history that correspond with the evidence in the earth‘s layers when they are interpreted correctly.




Quote:
Barbarian wrote: You're trying to stretch a book about God and man and our relationship to cover things it was never written to cover.


That’s just your opinion. You have difficulty accepting it as truth, and I feel sorry for you but I doubt that I can change your mind any more than you can make me believe your opinions.



Quote:
Barbarian wrote: Barbarian wrote: I have a rock on my desk over a billion years old.
(suggests that the date might be off by millions of years)
That would still be better than 99% accuracy. Not bad.


What’s a few thousand or million years of error in your world of misinformation, huh?




Quote:
Barbarian wrote: Depends on how deep it ( granite )is, and the surrounding matrix. On the surface, it cools rapidly and forms ryolite, with crystals generally too small to see. Sometimes, underground, magma will force it's way between other rocks and cool more rapidly, with the result being a finer-grained rock.


But intrusive (underground) ingeous rocks will form larger crystals, because the insulation of the surrounding rock makes cooling very slow indeed.

I read all that at every site I went to. Other than saying that lava that was extruded into sea water cooled and hardened immediately, almost instantaneously, none gave the actual time estimate for cooling rock at any other level. I notice you skirted the issue as well.

So, which is it? Large or small crystals if it is between existing layers? You say “sometimes, underground, magma will force it's way between other rocks and cool more rapidly, with the result being a finer-grained rock†but then you add “intrusive (underground) ingeous rocks will form larger crystals, because the insulation of the surrounding rock makes cooling very slow indeed†which is a direct contradiction of your previous sentence. It seems like confusion is one of the ToE’s best defenses against a meaningful reality check.






Quote:
Barbarian wrote: YE creationism is like that. Exactly.


Funny, but I was speaking of the OE crowd and the way they have one foot riding on the world, the other on the Word.




Quote:
Barbarian wrote: Wrong. Science makes no comments or reflections at all on religion.


LOL. Who are you trying to fool? If you mean ‘true science’, then it doesn’t conflict with YE creationism, though it certainly makes negative reflections on the veracity of many other religions. If you are referring to the perversion of science known as the ‘theory of evolution,’ then there is no disputing that it makes negative reflections on young earth creationism.




Quote:
Barbarian wrote: See above. Even scientifically-literate creationists like Harld Coffin and Kurt Wise acknowledge the evidence does not favor YE creationism.

So you imply but I will reserve my judgment of their statements when I get to read them in context, if you will ever provide me with a quote from a reliable source.

You will find Coffin's testimony in the transcript of Rev. Bill McClean VS State Board of Education:

Q: "The Burgess shale (a geological formation in the Canadian Rockies with exceptionally well preserved marine fossils) is said to be 500 million years old, but you think it is only 5,000 years old, don't you?"
A: "Yes."
Q: "You say that because of information from the scriptures, don't you?" A: "Correct."
Q: "If you didn't have the Bible, you could believe the age of the Earth to be many millions of years, couldn't you?"
A: "Yes, without the Bible."

Barbarian observes:
I've spent a lot of years in university. Many young people have come to me, troubled that what they had been taught as Christian faith was clearly impossible. I try to point out that creationism is not a Christian doctrine, even if some Christians believe it. I encourage them to ask their minister whether or not their opinion on creationism will have anything to do with their salvation. Some make it. Some don't. YE creationism will have much to answer for with God.

[quote:0fd0a]Well, your answer is certainly a more palatable compromise for those without the fortitude to accept the truth.

It is the truth. It's why I have them ask their ministers, most of whom, even the creationists, will admit that creationism is not essential to salvation.

Maybe you will not be around to witness the crushing of the ToE when their house of cards falls. When you consider the very shaky foundation on sand upon which it is built, you would have better served them to question, not the plain reading of God’s word, but the silly notions that under girth the ToE.

Evidence, remember. Science has it. Creationism doesn't.

An elementary school child can understand why methods of dating by counting isotopes is foolish when there is no proof that the contamination of the specimens was a definite factor since all would probably have been subject to varying amounts of contamination while under flood waters from atmospheric ozone and subterranean regions.

That's testable. We can see how much, if any diffusion takes place in different sorts of rock. Moreover, with isochrons, we don't even have to assume what the initial state was.

Barbarian observes:
But remember, YE creationists don't accept Genesis as written.

But remember, that is only an opinion from someone who admittedly says the account isn’t even literal.

Can't be, as even early Christians recognized.

Barbarian observes: So do orthodox Christians. The difference is, orthodox Christians don't try to change Genesis to a literal history. Neither did Jesus.

Jesus didn’t have to try to change Genesis to a literal history. The people he was speaking to knew it was literal.

Not according to rabbinical sources. There has never been an orthodoxy on that point.

Barbarian observes:
Nonsense. If you take it His way, it makes His teaching more effective.

I have no comment since I don’t know enough of what you believe that Jesus taught, but if you have death that is not a result of Adam‘s sin, you only have a partial understanding of his teaching.

God told Adam that he would die the day he ate from the tree. Yet Adam lives on physically for many years after. He dies spiritually the day he eats, however. This is how we know God was speaking of a spiritual death.

Barbarian observes:
You think that's what He does when He speaks figuratively? No wonder you object to Scripture as it is.

When he speaks figuratively, as in prophetic visions and in parables, it’s very clear that he’s doing so.

In other words, some of it, you accept, and some you don't.

You know that I don’t object to scripture as it is

You have openly rejected it.

and no one believes those kind of deceptive characterizations you make.

I suspect even you are begining to realize it.

I know that you have been taught that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it

A meta-lie. Cool. No, I was never taught that.

but the people who read this board have functioning brains and are more in tune to the truth and less susceptible to brain washing techniques, except for those who have been hopelessly entangled in the ToE fabrications.

Then maybe you would be better off, focusing on evidence.

Barbarian observes,
here's the WND story:
Quote:

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

Barbarian on the contested words:
It wasn't a quote. And the WND story depends on the notion that Hahnhöfersand was the one responsible.

See the quotation marks? That means it was a direct quote that was attributed to Chris Stringer and also one to Thomas Terberger.

I don't think so. The words in contention were a characterization, not presented as an actuall quote.

[quoteDid you find a retraction printed by the Brit paper or WND? If not, why not? [/quote:0fd0a]

Maybe because no one asked for it? Scientists are misquoted in the popular press frequently. They rarely bother to ask for a retraction.

BTW, Hahnhöfersand was not “the one responsibleâ€Â, since Hahnhöfersand is the supposedly ‘fossilized’ remains, not a person connected with the scandal.

But they were the ones that caused the error. You probably read it a bit fast, and missed the point.

A bigger issue is how those remains were ever considered to be so ancient in the first place, in spite of so much controversy, since only YE creationist scientists are supposed to be that stupid to not recognize the difference between unfossilized recent skulls and fossilized ancient ones.

Not hard to see. He just faked them. And because the weren't important finds, or critical to our understanding of man's history on Earth, no one bothered to write about them, and therefore, no one checked his work.

Why don’t you try changing the subject now?

This is taking a rather interesting turn. I think we'll give it a little more time. You see, the good doctor was a fraud, but he had little impact on anyone else's work, so he got away with it longer than if his work had been cited by others frequently. Because he was not important, it was longer before science caught up with him.

I think that would work best for you.

This was a very good example of the way science corrects itself. Compare to the professional creationists, who even when caught in a lie, continue to be accepted by their fellows.

Barbarian observes:
Stringer, however, is the final authority on what he said. WND simply got it wrong, and wrote instead what they wished he had said.

Well, if he didn’t say it, he should make the guilty parties print a retraction, don’t you think?

He issued a correction, made it clear that WND got it wrong, and let it at that. Sounds about right to me.

What the evidence shows is that the Neanderthal and other so called ancient hominids were just the most common examples of the descendants of Adam who were destroyed in the flood because they refused to repent.

So why don't we find them in "flood deposits", but much later?

Barbarian observes:
Or, as the evidence shows, they died out over a period of many thousands of years.

Are you sure?

Yep.

I saw a man with distinct Neandertal features recently buying camping supplies. I believe a remnant of the genes for some of their physical characteristics are still being circulated but are slowly dying out as they are watered down with the ones we consider favorable by our culture’s standards. I think you might call it elimination by natural selection.

Nope. We have recovered a bit of Neandertal DNA,and they are almost certainly a distinct species. Moreover, they lived alongside humans in some places for a very long time, and there is little or no evidence that they every interbred.

And that would be unique in human history.[/quote]

When I was in school, Neanderthals were considered a forerunner of man. It appears that scientists have changed their minds again just as they will do in the future. Putting your faith in scientists is putting your faith in shifting sand, my friend. But the biblical account of creation is still confirmed by the reality that each animal breeds its own kind and humans rules over the animals.

Of course they never interbred. Animals and humans cannot interbreed. That is an elementary fact that evolutionists have no ability to understand, which is precisely why apes cannot be our ancestors.

 

[Barbarian]

It is absolutely impossible to rely on carbon 14 dating because of the amount of radiation in the air of today's world compared to the air of the ancient world.

Fortunately, there are ways of testing that. We can, for example take a look at varves, the ages of which are absolutely known. It turns out that the proportion has changed slightly over the ages, and the calibration curve for C-14 testing is adjusted for that small variation.

We also do not know what is in the air of the ancient world.

We can know that precisely, not only from varves, but from paleoair in bubbles trapped in glaciers.

In addition, one would also have to measure the amount of radiation in the world 50 years ago to see how fast carbon would decay at that time and how the air affect its rate of decay.

We know the rate of decay of C-14 is absolute at temperatures lower than that which would melt granite. That's been tested. Since the weak force, which mediates nuclear decay, is tied to the speed of light, and the amount of background radiation, any change in the force to allow faster decay would have fried all living things on earth as the decay accelerated.

 

[Barbarian]

How does science ponder evidence if is it is not authentic?

Science only considers actual evidence.

And: If the evidence is not 100% reliable what does that do to the foundation of one's premiss or position?

It means that all the advances mankind has made in medicine, chemistry biology, electronics, etc. has been achieved by that process of inference rather than "100% reliable." Not bad, um?

Who or what is this God you refer?

His name is Jesus. He died so you could have eternal life. Would you like to hear more about Him?

 

[strengthened]

Can we use Carbon 14 dating on the most radioactive planet in the Solar system?

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Can we use Carbon 14 dating on the most radioactive planet in the Solar system?

Io? Sure, but you won't get much out of it, it's surface isn't even a halflife long for C14.

 

[strengthened]

Can we use Carbon 14 dating on the most radioactive planet in the Solar system?

Io? Sure, but you won't get much out of it, it's surface isn't even a halflife long for C14.

Would there be any possibilities that C14 dating can be contaminated in any way to distort the dates? What causes inaccurate readings?

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Can we use Carbon 14 dating on the most radioactive planet in the Solar system?

Io? Sure, but you won't get much out of it, it's surface isn't even a halflife long for C14.

Would there be any possibilities that C14 dating can be contaminated in any way to distort the dates? What causes inaccurate readings?

The possiblity on earth of that happening is incredibly small on the surface, and most of our radioactive materials are at a point underground where the rock is liquid. Having two or three good measurements is enough for the possiblity of contamination by other radiation sources to be nullified.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

The possiblity on earth of that happening is incredibly small on the surface, and most of our radioactive materials are at a point underground where the rock is liquid. Having two or three good measurements is enough for the possiblity of contamination by other radiation sources to be nullified.

Unless C12 levels in the past were different from todays levels. In that case,

the ratio would change accordingly. An increase in C12 in the past would give

indicated radiocarbon ages that appeared much older than the really were:

 

[jwu]

An increase in C12 in the past would give

indicated radiocarbon ages that appeared much older than the really were:

It however would be indicated by samples whose ages were determined by independent methods.

You still haven't explained what mechanism accounts for the correlation of various independent dating methods. (Let's keep this focused in the other C14 thread, there is no need to talk about the same things in two)

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

It however would be indicated by samples whose ages were determined by independent methods.

You still haven't explained what mechanism accounts for the correlation of various independent dating methods. (Let's keep this focused in the other C14 thread, there is no need to talk about the same things in two)

Welcome back jwu. :P

Good to see you back in the saddle.

Again, sorry for your loss.

O.K., I'll respond to this in the other post.