Moderator: Moderators
For debate:EarthScienceguy wrote: There is now more evidence than ever before about 6-day creation.
*StudentsSherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Sun May 29, 2022 10:44 am [Replying to Eloi in post #451]
My own scientific education and skills are rooted in physics, mathematics, electronics. Student's of physics more than any other branch of science, confront deep questions like this from the outset, the further away one gets from theoretical physics the less one appreciates the significance of assumptions. Biologists likely consider certain things to be "facts" that a physicist never would.
From here
Thank y'all for coming to my Ted talk on the splinter in the eye, and the plank in the other'n.Moderator wrote:Eloi wrote: 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??Moderator Warning
Please debate without the uncivil comments.
Please review our Rules.
______________
Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.
And yet here we are, the both of us, in the principal's office.Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Sun May 29, 2022 11:17 am [Replying to Eloi in post #453]
Nobody is permitted make personal accusations yet sadly it does and is happening.
I think you're missing my point about 14-C dating. That technique ... no matter what is being dated ... is only good for things that are about 50,000 years old or less. The Homo sapien Omo remains are dated at about 200,000 years old, the recent find in Morocco about 300,000 years old, Neanderthal bones can be considerably older than that, erectus/ergaster goes back to around 1.8 million years, and habilis to nearly 2.5 million years, with several other Homo species in between these. Since all of these examples are more than 50,000 years old, they CANNOT be dated using 14-C and some other methods must be used. That has been my point. Also, for truly fossilized bone, the organic material has been replaced by minerals so there is no carbon left to date!As for the dating methods, there are several, but my questions were about the dating methods of ancient biological remains, like those of those HOMOs (ape-men). I have not found in my research any other method, only the C14 method that is used to directly date this type of material. The other methods are to date the terrain or the environment around the genetic material and, of course, the age of a terrain does not give the age of what is on it, and another one I found to date nails or teeth by the material of their covers... The point is that those nails or teeth can belong to anyone, LOL.
(emphasis mine). Have you done the math? You gave 2 examples, and there are certainly more than 2. But how many fraud events have there been compared to legitimate results? It is miniscule if you actually do the math. Piltdown Man was suspected to be a hoax by many people from the beginning, but the available analysis techniques and known fossil record were not up to the task of proving it until decades later. And it was the scientific community who kept at it and found the hoax eventually.Piltdown Man was believed in the scientific community for about 50 years; for 20 years the Indian fraud on the Himalayan man remained undisclosed... Do the math: how many more frauds and for how long. Obviously, many of the "evolutionist" conclusions are supported by frauds that are not yet discovered and others that arise.
No, that is the point he's making, he said that other than C14 dating how can they date these other fossils that are older, older than the limits of C14 dating.DrNoGods wrote: ↑Sun May 29, 2022 12:22 pm [Replying to Eloi in post #453]
I think you're missing my point about 14-C dating. That technique ... no matter what is being dated ... is only good for things that are about 50,000 years old or less. The Homo sapien Omo remains are dated at about 200,000 years old, the recent find in Morocco about 300,000 years old, Neanderthal bones can be considerably older than that, erectus/ergaster goes back to around 1.8 million years, and habilis to nearly 2.5 million years, with several other Homo species in between these. Since all of these examples are more than 50,000 years old, they CANNOT be dated using 14-C and some other methods must be used. That has been my point. Also, for truly fossilized bone, the organic material has been replaced by minerals so there is no carbon left to date!As for the dating methods, there are several, but my questions were about the dating methods of ancient biological remains, like those of those HOMOs (ape-men). I have not found in my research any other method, only the C14 method that is used to directly date this type of material. The other methods are to date the terrain or the environment around the genetic material and, of course, the age of a terrain does not give the age of what is on it, and another one I found to date nails or teeth by the material of their covers... The point is that those nails or teeth can belong to anyone, LOL.
andIt is impossible to give an evolutionary sequence to the human fossils because there is a coverage gap involving the dating methods which evolutionists believe are the most reliable—radiocarbon and potassium-argon (K-Ar). This gap is from about 40,000 ya (years ago) to about 200,000 ya on the evolutionist's time scale. It covers roughly the period known as the Middle Stone Age (MSA). This coverage gap lies beyond what is considered the effective range for radiocarbon and prior to what is considered the effective range for potassium-argon. This problem period may be even larger because: (1) some dating authorities believe that the effective range for K-Ar doesn't begin until about 400,000 ya, and (2) many of the older fossils are found at sites that lack the volcanic rocks necessary for K-Ar dating and hence cannot be dated by this method at all.
andIn the past 15 years, the major focus of human evolution has shifted from the origin of "all" humans to the origin of "modern" humans, and the very time during which modern humans are alleged to have evolved from their more primitive human ancestors is the period covered by this gap. At least 406 human-fossil individuals are placed by evolutionists in this 40,000-to-200,000 ya time-period gap and hence are questionably dated.[2] The inability of the radiocarbon and the K-Ar methods to cover this time period explains why many alternate dating methods have been devised to attempt to give coverage in this area. However, these alternative methods have serious problems of their own.
From: The Dating GapThe admissions now being made about the dating methods that have been previously used by evolutionists to cover this time period are particularly interesting. These admissions have profound implications for human evolution. In the Science article on ostrich-eggshell dating,[3] the authors state that many of the dates assigned to human fossils in this 40,000-to-200,000-years ago period based on the older methods were only "provisional," and that all such dating is "uncertain." These are remarkable admissions. Anyone familiar with the paleoanthropological literature knows that this is not the way most of the dates for fossil discoveries in that time period have been presented. This time period is critical for human evolution, and evolutionists have consistently claimed a degree of certainty in their dating which now appears to be unjustified.
