Creation vs. Evolution II

[quip]

No, that's egocentrism, Quip. I've already explained why: you and others are only interested in yourselves and your own thoughts. It must be a lonely universe for you....and disappointing where only your thoughts matter. Truth can't exist in that kind of world. The rest of us live as if truth is unchanging and constant.

I'm glad to see you're maintaining your sense of self-righteousness by presuming the thoughts and motives of others.

There are similarities and differences. I for instance, 'know' there is a God. How I know will not be the same way you remain agnostic or atheist. Can't as a matter of fact. Remember there are few atheists in this world and there is a 'reason' for this so "no" you and I philosophize differently. Scripture says a man that denies there is a God does so 'foolishly.' I concur with that because for all practical purposes, God is very evident in the universe (Einstein called atheism "lame" for 'good reason').

That still remains problematic as you cannot "know" God in any empirical sense much like the atheist cannot definitely claim a non existing one. Both methods must therefore rely upon experience, reason as well as intuition to form their respective opinions....the only difference being your cultural, religious inculcation.

 

[6days]

Can you corroborate your 1.8 myo skull story? Or are you just dodging dishonestly? This is now the third time I've had to ask for a source. A post number will do fine

Of course I can corroborate the story of how the skull changed the date of the rock by over 200 million years. Last time we discussed it you got angry and said "BS YOU'RE A LIAR"
Now can you find it?

 

[Greg Jennings]

Of course I can corroborate the story of how the skull changed the date of the rock by over 200 million years. Last time we discussed it you got angry and said "BS YOU'RE A LIAR"
Now can you find it?

I remember a similar exchange, but I do not remember what exact ages and objects were in question.

So, no I still cannot find it. However, a post number from yourself could fix that

 

[6days]

I remember a similar exchange, but I do not remember what exact ages and objects were in question.

So, no I still cannot find it. However, a post number from yourself could fix that

Richarad Leakey discovered modern looking skull KNM-ER1470*in 1972. He declared the skull was 2.9MYO.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/...ls/knm-er-1470

Geologist (paleocologist) Kay Behrensmeyer was there with Leakey. "She discovered a cluster of stone tools eroding out of a volcanic tuff, an ash layer from an ancient eruption that filled a small paleochannel. The site was named in her honor and the layer was named the Kay Behrensmeyer Site Tuff or KBS Tuff. .....The dating of the site was controversial, as it contradicted other paleobiological evidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kay_Behrensmeyer

In 1969 Leakey (BEFORE discovery of 1470) had sent samples of the tuff to F.J.Fitch U. of London and J.A.Miller Cambridge University. Dates provided were 212 to 230 million years old. (Potassium /argon)*However the associated fossils (Both above and below the tuff) determined the acceptable range for the radiometric dating. Because Australopithecine and other mammal fossils were found below the tuff, the date was determined to be 5 million year max... This was not based on any science, but only on evolutionary beliefs. Without the fossils, evolutionary geologists would simply accept the hundreds of millions of years as correct.

Because Leaky found the skull after the the tuff had been dated at more than 212 million years old, Fitch and Miller had to come up with new a different number. Using a different method, they now reported the Tuff was 2.61 million years old.

NEXT...
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, other scientists had found other fossils in the area and used different dating methods, but came up with numbers in the acceptable range.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../247520a0.html
(Pigs and elephant... 1.3 to 4.5MY)
In 1974, paleomagnetism (Article published in Nature) seemed to give a bullseye to the dating, in the area saying it was between 2.7 and 3.0MY.

HOWEVER.... Skull 1470 appeared too modern to be 2.9 MYO (Leakeys preferred date) according to current evolutionary stories. In 1975 a younger date of 1.82 MY was given on the strata. The current date given to skull 1470, assigned by consensus, is 1.9 MY.
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...t_Rudolf_Kenya

One thing in common was the various studies was mentioning the difficulty in obtaining good samples. IOW... A good sample is one that*provides a date consistent*with evolutionary expectations.* IOW.... Circular reasoning is used to obtain a date that fits with the just so stories.

Numerous other examples can be given where dates are adjusted up or down to fit the story. *J.M.Bowler in Journal of Human Evolution; in a article interestingly titled "REDATING Australias oldest Human Remains" says "For this complex laboratory-based dating to be successful, the data must be compatible with the external field evidence".
And..... Its sort of sad...sort of funny, that evolutionists can read a statement like that and not burst out laughing.

 

[Jonahdog]

Richarad Leakey discovered modern looking skull KNM-ER1470*in 1972. He declared the skull was 2.9MYO.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/...ls/knm-er-1470

Geologist (paleocologist) Kay Behrensmeyer was there with Leakey. "She discovered a cluster of stone tools eroding out of a volcanic tuff, an ash layer from an ancient eruption that filled a small paleochannel. The site was named in her honor and the layer was named the Kay Behrensmeyer Site Tuff or KBS Tuff. .....The dating of the site was controversial, as it contradicted other paleobiological evidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kay_Behrensmeyer

In 1969 Leakey (BEFORE discovery of 1470) had sent samples of the tuff to F.J.Fitch U. of London and J.A.Miller Cambridge University. Dates provided were 212 to 230 million years old. (Potassium /argon)*However the associated fossils (Both above and below the tuff) determined the acceptable range for the radiometric dating. Because Australopithecine and other mammal fossils were found below the tuff, the date was determined to be 5 million year max... This was not based on any science, but only on evolutionary beliefs. Without the fossils, evolutionary geologists would simply accept the hundreds of millions of years as correct.

Because Leaky found the skull after the the tuff had been dated at more than 212 million years old, Fitch and Miller had to come up with new a different number. Using a different method, they now reported the Tuff was 2.61 million years old.

NEXT...
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, other scientists had found other fossils in the area and used different dating methods, but came up with numbers in the acceptable range.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../247520a0.html
(Pigs and elephant... 1.3 to 4.5MY)
In 1974, paleomagnetism (Article published in Nature) seemed to give a bullseye to the dating, in the area saying it was between 2.7 and 3.0MY.

HOWEVER.... Skull 1470 appeared too modern to be 2.9 MYO (Leakeys preferred date) according to current evolutionary stories. In 1975 a younger date of 1.82 MY was given on the strata. The current date given to skull 1470, assigned by consensus, is 1.9 MY.
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...t_Rudolf_Kenya

One thing in common was the various studies was mentioning the difficulty in obtaining good samples. IOW... A good sample is one that*provides a date consistent*with evolutionary expectations.* IOW.... Circular reasoning is used to obtain a date that fits with the just so stories.

Numerous other examples can be given where dates are adjusted up or down to fit the story. *J.M.Bowler in Journal of Human Evolution; in a article interestingly titled "REDATING Australias oldest Human Remains" says "For this complex laboratory-based dating to be successful, the data must be compatible with the external field evidence".
And..... Its sort of sad...sort of funny, that evolutionists can read a statement like that and not burst out laughing.

How old were the skulls and how do you know?

 

[Greg Jennings]

Richarad Leakey discovered modern looking skull KNM-ER1470*in 1972. He declared the skull was 2.9MYO.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/...ls/knm-er-1470

This link doesn't work, and Wikipedia doesn't go into WHY the dating was controversial. I need something that explains the original dating done by Leakey.

I did find this from the Smithsonian Institute, though:
"Louis Leakey saw KNM-ER 1470 only days before his death, and, believing the skull to be a million years older than it was, classified it as an “indeterminate species of Homo.” When scientists later dated the skull to 1.9 million years old..."
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/fossils/knm-er-1470

That seems to be suggesting that your 200 million year figure for Leakey's original claim just might be off

NEXT...
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, other scientists had found other fossils in the area and used different dating methods, but came up with numbers in the acceptable range.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../247520a0.html
(Pigs and elephant... 1.3 to 4.5MY)
In 1974, paleomagnetism (Article published in Nature) seemed to give a bullseye to the dating, in the area saying it was between 2.7 and 3.0MY.

Link doesn't work. You need links that work to corroborate anything.

HOWEVER.... Skull 1470 appeared too modern to be 2.9 MYO (Leakeys preferred date) according to current evolutionary stories. In 1975 a younger date of 1.82 MY was given on the strata. The current date given to skull 1470, assigned by consensus, is 1.9 MY.
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...t_Rudolf_Kenya

One thing in common was the various studies was mentioning the difficulty in obtaining good samples. IOW... A good sample is one that*provides a date consistent*with evolutionary expectations.* IOW.... Circular reasoning is used to obtain a date that fits with the just so stories.

Numerous other examples can be given where dates are adjusted up or down to fit the story. *J.M.Bowler in Journal of Human Evolution; in a article interestingly titled "REDATING Australias oldest Human Remains" says "For this complex laboratory-based dating to be successful, the data must be compatible with the external field evidence".
And..... Its sort of sad...sort of funny, that evolutionists can read a statement like that and not burst out laughing.

I'm afraid that link does not direct me to the study in question. It took me to a home page

Out of all of you links used for source corroboration, exactly 0 contained information. You're going to need to do a little better

 

[Caino]

More examples of cross-bedding. These deposition layers form over long periods of time.

Wiki: "Cross bedding forms during deposition on the inclined surfaces of bedforms such as ripples and dunes, and indicates that the depositional environment contained a flowing medium (typically water or wind). Examples of these bedforms are ripples, dunes, anti-dunes, sand waves, hummocks, bars, and delta slopes.Cross-bedding is widespread in many environments. Environments in which water movement is fast enough and deep enough to develop large-scale bed forms fall into three natural groupings: rivers, tide-dominated coastal and marine settings."

 

[6days]

*This link doesn't work....

Hmmmm.... strange. The links still all work from my posting a couple months ago...but not in the copy now. You can find the info or the original post if you are interested though.

*
That seems to be suggesting that your 200 million year figure for Leakey's original claim just might be off

You didn't read it well.*

 

[MichaelCadry]

This link doesn't work, and Wikipedia doesn't go into WHY the dating was controversial. I need something that explains the original dating done by Leakey.

I did find this from the Smithsonian Institute, though:
"Louis Leakey saw KNM-ER 1470 only days before his death, and, believing the skull to be a million years older than it was, classified it as an “indeterminate species of Homo.” When scientists later dated the skull to 1.9 million years old..."
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/fossils/knm-er-1470

That seems to be suggesting that your 200 million year figure for Leakey's original claim just might be off



Link doesn't work. You need links that work to corroborate anything.


I'm afraid that link does not direct me to the study in question. It took me to a home page

Out of all of you links used for source corroboration, exactly 0 contained information. You're going to need to do a little better

Dear Greg Jennings,

I've watched as you've made 6days do ALL of the WORK, and you just go ahead and say no. Do your own seeking then. If I were 6days, I would not have bothered to tell you again in the first place. You make everyone else do your work for you. God is watching from above and He does not think you are funny at all. Same with you JonahDog. If I were 6days and Lon, I would let you go ahead and believe what you want to. It's no skin off their backs. We have all found every thing we could possibly give to you, short of a belief in Jesus Christ as God's Son. I'd say, you all did not listen, so 6days and Lon owe you NOTHING!! Jesus said, 'If you go to a house and they don't believe you, cast the dust off of your feet at that house.' We are the saps whom you don't want to believe, who, because of of a strong love for his fellow men, have kept trying to persuade you to seek God and Jesus, His Son. We have given you all ample time to see where you've went wrong. We should just leave you in the dust. There is a limit! It all rests on your heads, now!!

Michael

 

[NWL]

I think I'll join in the anti-global flood fun:

Here is a picture of a meandering stream:

Here is a picture of the Grand Canyon (which according to YECreationists was created in the flood):

And here is another of the Canyon from very high up:

It's clear that a stream cut the Grand Canyon

The Durham Grand Canyon, formed in a matter of mintutes due to large amount of water flooding.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wear/8200932.stm

 

[Greg Jennings]

Hmmmm.... strange. The links still all work from my posting a couple months ago...but not in the copy now. You can find the info or the original post if you are interested though.

More likely, I'll find yet another link that doesn't work, just like every single one you just posted except for a Wikipedia page about one scientist.

You didn't read it well.*

Actually I did. I even quoted it for you. Here it is again:
I did find this from the Smithsonian Institute, though:
"Louis Leakey saw KNM-ER 1470 only days before his death, and, believing the skull to be a million years older than it was, classified it as an “indeterminate species of Homo.” When scientists later dated the skull to 1.9 million years old..."
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/...ls/knm-er-1470

"A million" is not equal to "200 million." The Smithsonian Institute directly contradicts your claim that the original skull date done by Leakey was 200 million years. You have not provided a single source backing up your claims. Unless you find a link that works AND agrees with your statement then I'll have to conclude this was a giant attempt at dishonest persuasion by yourself.

So can you give me an actual working corroborating source? Or were you just blowing smoke the whole time? Again, a simple post number will do. If it's really here on this thread, then why not just tell me where?

 

[Greg Jennings]

The Durham Grand Canyon, formed in a matter of mintutes due to large amount of water flooding.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wear/8200932.stm

Yes, that also was clearly cut by a stream. Floods most definitely helped to build the Grand Canyon by giving the stream cutting it more discharge. What you YECs don't seem to be able to understand is that in a GLOBAL FLOOD the land would be covered in water WAY too fast to produce a canyon of any great depth. You need gravity acting on the water stream to cut rock like that, and you need uplift too but that's irrelevant here.

I'm sure you'll discount all I just said, but that's only because you've never studied hydrology, geology, or any kind of environmental science.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Dear Greg Jennings,

I've watched as you've made 6days do ALL of the WORK, and you just go ahead and say no. Do your own seeking then. If I were 6days, I would not have bothered to tell you again in the first place. You make everyone else do your work for you. God is watching from above and He does not think you are funny at all. Same with you JonahDog. If I were 6days and Lon, I would let you go ahead and believe what you want to. It's no skin off their backs. We have all found every thing we could possibly give to you, short of a belief in Jesus Christ as God's Son. I'd say, you all did not listen, so 6days and Lon owe you NOTHING!! Jesus said, 'If you go to a house and they don't believe you, cast the dust off of your feet at that house.' We are the saps whom you don't want to believe, who, because of of a strong love for his fellow men, have kept trying to persuade you to seek God and Jesus, His Son. We have given you all ample time to see where you've went wrong. We should just leave you in the dust. There is a limit! It all rests on your heads, now!!

Michael

Click on his links Michael. Except for one, they ALL do not work. I asked him for source corroboration and he gave me bs, and I called him on it. I even provided a source OF MY OWN that contradicted his unsupported claims. I scoured the Internet and found NOTHING agreeing with him, save for Wikipedia saying the dating was controversial and not explaining why or how.

If you don't like that, then maybe you should take issue with his dishonesty, rather than my pointing it out

 

[6days]

That seems to be suggesting that your 200 million year figure for Leakey's original claim just might be off

You didn't read it well.

Actually I did.

Typical Greg...reading but not understanding. I don't think you even know what you are arguing about.*


Here it is again.....

Three years before Leaky found the skull, he sent samples of the tuff to F.J.Fitch U. of London and J.A.Miller Cambridge University. Dates provided were 212 to 230 million years old. (Potassium /argon)


IOW...The radiometric dating of the rock, disagreed with the skull 'dating' found in those rocks, by more than 210 million years.*

The links on original post on p-33 works.*

 

[Lon]

I'm glad to see you're maintaining your sense of self-righteousness by presuming the thoughts and motives of others.

Of course I can. You wear it on your sleeve, Quip. It is more than evident. Honestly, it is a sad thing seeing you settle for second-best all the time. People without Jesus, whether they know it or not, are missing out on great things. I try not to get into equitable debate where you'd think you were somehow on par. You aren't and it'd be tragic to let you think you have any credence in comparison. My only hope is ever to point to the much much better and much much higher. I actually know what you are missing. My only goal is ever to try and shine the light on Him, whether you ultimately want Him or not. Your life without Him is the tragedy. So... as to me debating unfairly, you are correct. It cannot be any other-wise. You are missing out to your own detriment. That's not nearly as snarky or arrogant as you are misreading into it. It really isn't.

That still remains problematic as you cannot "know" God in any empirical sense much like the atheist cannot definitely claim a non existing one. Both methods must therefore rely upon experience, reason as well as intuition to form their respective opinions....the only difference being your cultural, religious inculcation.

:nono: It is all your problem. It is near literally like telling a blind man that denies 'red' that red exists. I rather pray you will gain the where-with-all to realize you have and are blind. Again, don't misread confidence with arrogance. They are different though often look the same. Try to think 'love' instead of 'attack.' I truly believe truth, though blunt, is the best thing for another human being. I'm not as mean or as arrogant as you imagine. A bit off the O.P. premise, but take a moment to ponder if not respond? -Lon

 

[quip]

Of course I can. You wear it on your sleeve, Quip.

That's quite disingenuous of you Lon being that everyone that disagrees with your religious outlook must "where it on their sleeve", lest you wouldn't have made such a broad-brushed comment last post:

No, that's egocentrism, Quip. I've already explained why: you and others are only interested in yourselves and your own thoughts.

lain:

It is more than evident. Honestly, it is a sad thing seeing you settle for second-best all the time. People without Jesus, whether they know it or not, are missing out on great things. I try not to get into equitable debate where you'd think you were somehow on par. You aren't and it'd be tragic to let you think you have any credence in comparison. My only hope is ever to point to the much much better and much much higher. I actually know what you are missing. My only goal is ever to try and shine the light on Him, whether you ultimately want Him or not. Your life without Him is the tragedy. So... as to me debating unfairly, you are correct. It cannot be any other-wise. You are missing out to your own detriment. That's not nearly as snarky or arrogant as you are misreading into it. It really isn't.



:nono: It is all your problem. It is near literally like telling a blind man that denies 'red' that red exists. I rather pray you will gain the where-with-all to realize you have and are blind. Again, don't misread confidence with arrogance. They are different though often look the same. Try to think 'love' instead of 'attack.' I truly believe truth, though blunt, is the best thing for another human being. I'm not as mean or as arrogant as you imagine. A bit off the O.P. premise, but take a moment to ponder if not respond? -Lon

Well, since 'red' can be mutually experienced, objectively verified and measured....no it's not literally like that.

No one stands on a corner or goes door-to-door handing out pamphlets claiming that there is no existing god and one is eternally punished for believing in such a god....rather that view is obtained through reason and the objective critique of all forms of religion. This is something you're unwilling, nay, fearful to undertake.

Until an objective approach is drawn...."us vs. them" arrogance will always predominate. The problem still remains with you Lon and other such ilk...you're just too spiritually blinded to recognize this.

 

[randomvim]

there is no vs. between these two thoughts. evolution is a theory for diversification that has correct and incorrect parts to it.

creation focuses on cause for things that exist/live. errors persist in various concepts of creation as well.

Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk

 

[6days]

there is no vs. between these two thoughts. evolution is a theory for diversification that has correct and incorrect parts to it.

creation focuses on cause for things that exist/live. errors persist in various concepts of creation as well.

Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk

There ia a eternity of difference between the common ancestry belief system and the gospel. The purpose of the physical death of Last Adam hinges on accurate account of original sin by first Adam.

 

[randomvim]

There ia a eternity of difference between the common ancestry belief system and the gospel. The purpose of the physical death of Last Adam hinges on accurate account of original sin by first Adam.

1. we dont know how Adam looked.

2. Common ancestry is not denied as Adam was first human which would have been first of the family "homo." Genetically different enough from the common ancestor which is a theory - unless this has remained a hypothesis.

3. the word Adam means man, which there is a very real metephorical meaning in creation story that depicts more than literal meaning as this is the beginiing of the entire race.

4. evolution relates to the human origion: "I made you from clay." By which we were formed into man - that is a process

5. clay aslo depicts atoms.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Click on his links Michael. Except for one, they ALL do not work. I asked him for source corroboration and he gave me bs, and I called him on it. I even provided a source OF MY OWN that contradicted his unsupported claims. I scoured the Internet and found NOTHING agreeing with him, save for Wikipedia saying the dating was controversial and not explaining why or how.

If you don't like that, then maybe you should take issue with his dishonesty, rather than my pointing it out

Dear Greg J,

Whether it be 200 million years or cut down to 1 million years, for that matter, it's still way too high. Man was not on Earth even 10 thousand years ago. You just don't get it. The various dating methods are wrong. Different variables do apply to each thing dated or even the dating itself. I don't trust your dating methods at ALL!! Potassium/argon your heart out or Uranium and all of the rest. Why don't you tell us now why you prized the Carbon-14 method and told everyone it was absolutely right, and it was WRONG!!

See Matt. 10:14-15KJV. "And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily, I say unto you. It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city {or person}."

Trying To Get Though To You!! One Last Ditch Effort!!

Michael