Moderator: Moderators
For debate:EarthScienceguy wrote: There is now more evidence than ever before about 6-day creation.
I'm sure you have absolutely no idea either...
What do you mean "linked" to man in America? Early humans migrated out of Africa and spread around the world over time, and didn't make it to the Americas until tens of thousands of years after the African exodus. But the earliest human fossils that have been found are from Africa, not America, and you're not going to find Homo habilis fossils in the Americas because that species never left Africa. Ditto for Homo erectur/ergaster fossils. But ergaster/erectus fossils have been found in Asia because that species made it to Asia and died there. It isn't that complicated. The "ape remains" as you call them ARE linked to man in America ... via the migration paths taken by man as they spread around the world ... from their origin in Africa.You are not answering my question. It seems that you don't understand it... maybe I'm not explaining myself well.
What is the reason that there are no ape remains "linked" to man in America?
No, I provided links to various isotopic dating methods which you evidently did not bother to visit. What I've said several times is that 14-C can't be used for fossils older than about 50,000 years and other isotopes must be used. How did you miss that? Archaic human fossils older than about 50,000 years are NOT dated using 14-C, because the half life is only about 5,700 years and after about 10 half lives (where the original quantity is down by a factor of 1024) there isn't enough left to measure accurately. Here is another link if you actually want to know how it works:I see: you don't know any other method "used to date archaic human fossils" but C14 ... You were bluffing.
I know of other methods of dating ... but not human fossils, as you say. Any other than C14?
I didn't say it was ... but it represents general agreement among the scientists who study the subject and put their analyses and conclusions out for scrutiny and challenges. Consensus changes if new data comes along to justifty that.A consensus is not evidence of anything.
If you'd bother to read the details and visit the supplied links you'd find that the answers are not imprecise and ambiguous. Why not try that?Do not make us dizzy ... if you are so convinced of this whole matter, why are your answers so imprecise and ambiguous and yet you still pretend you have answers to the questions??
Bull biscuits!
You admit to having no idea yet have no problem attacking the science involved. I feel that you do not ask your many questions in good faith. The answers are readily available on the internet, but you seem to expect a compelling case in a paragraph on a religion forum. Even then, when you get answers, rather than actually refuting the content you merely reject it or deny it is valid. Theories are developed in science as the best explanation of the available observations. But it never rests there. Those theories can be used to make predictions and then those predictions may be tested. Based on the results, theories are either reaffirmed, modified or even rejected. So far there has been nothing to challenge the age of the earth or the evolution of species, two things that seem to stick in the craw of many creationists. Hand waving and "yeah, but" doesn't knock a theory down. Nor does pointing to an ancient book of anonymous musings offer any viable alternative.
"I ain't got me no clue on me that fancy shmancy sciencey stuff, but I'm here to tell it, they's them wrong on every bunch of it!"brunumb wrote: ↑Sun May 29, 2022 2:55 amYou admit to having no idea yet have no problem attacking the science involved. I feel that you do not ask your many questions in good faith. The answers are readily available on the internet, but you seem to expect a compelling case in a paragraph on a religion forum. Even then, when you get answers, rather than actually refuting the content you merely reject it or deny it is valid. Theories are developed in science as the best explanation of the available observations. But it never rests there. Those theories can be used to make predictions and then those predictions may be tested. Based on the results, theories are either reaffirmed, modified or even rejected. So far there has been nothing to challenge the age of the earth or the evolution of species, two things that seem to stick in the craw of many creationists. Hand waving and "yeah, but" doesn't knock a theory down. Nor does pointing to an ancient book of anonymous musings offer any viable alternative.
Moderator Warning
Why would you think that? One of the most baffling, but persistent features of discussions with science-deniers in general and creationists in particular is the apparent belief that absolutely nobody anywhere knows anything and everyone is bluffing. Do you think that about all specialists? Do you think that, say, all electricians, airline pilots, and lawyers are just making it up as they go? Do you imagine that nobody except a professional auto mechanic could possibly know how an automobile engine works? This is even more baffling in the case of scientists because one of the requirements is that one's entire methodology must be published. There's no such thing as a scientific trade secret. If you don't know the process of identifying ancient remains, it's not because the knowledge isn't available to you, but because you've simply chosen not to avail yourself of it. It is a mistake to assume that everyone else is equally disinterested in such things.
So, a paleontologist somewhere lied, but his colleagues trusted him? How is that news?
Who are "they" and who says "they" don't? Dishonest people are reported all the time, to the point that it fades into the background. When a civil engineer is caught dishonestly signing off on shoddy contract work, few people care unless the building collapses and kills someone. The people that do care are the ones that rely on that engineer's signature. The same thing happens with dishonest scientists. I guarantee that it's a big deal among that scientist's colleagues, but most people don't care about paleontology.
An article in The Watchtower concluding with a non sequitur supported by an out-of-context quote from the Bible? Color me shocked!Eloi wrote: ↑Sat May 28, 2022 10:24 pmI'll tell you how this article ends:
Obviously, this new case of fraud in science does not cast doubt on the entire scientific world. It does, however, provide further evidence that arguments of paleontology when pitted against the unfailing accuracy of the Bible record are often nothing more than what the apostle Paul called “the contradictions of the ‘knowledge’ which is not knowledge at all.”—1 Timothy 6:20, The New Jerusalem Bible.
Exactly, but the only way to do that is to learn how scientists actually do their jobs.
A phrase I see thrown around here rather a lot, directed at those who regard the bible as inspired, is "attacking science" or the equally emotive "denying science". But disagreeing with some person's interpretation of science is not to attack science but to attack the interpretation or the underlying assumptions.brunumb wrote: ↑Sun May 29, 2022 2:55 amYou admit to having no idea yet have no problem attacking the science involved. I feel that you do not ask your many questions in good faith. The answers are readily available on the internet, but you seem to expect a compelling case in a paragraph on a religion forum. Even then, when you get answers, rather than actually refuting the content you merely reject it or deny it is valid. Theories are developed in science as the best explanation of the available observations. But it never rests there. Those theories can be used to make predictions and then those predictions may be tested. Based on the results, theories are either reaffirmed, modified or even rejected. So far there has been nothing to challenge the age of the earth or the evolution of species, two things that seem to stick in the craw of many creationists. Hand waving and "yeah, but" doesn't knock a theory down. Nor does pointing to an ancient book of anonymous musings offer any viable alternative.
