The Missing Links in the Fossil Record

iouae

Well-known member
Clovis culture or pre-flood civilisation

"Clovis sites have since been identified throughout much, but not all, of the contiguous United States, as well as Mexico and Central America, and even into northern South America.[16]

It is generally accepted that Clovis people hunted mammoths, as Clovis points have repeatedly been found in sites containing mammoth remains. However, mammoth was only a small part of the Clovis diet; extinct bison, mastodon, gomphotheres, sloths, tapir, camelops, horse and a host of smaller animals have also been found at Clovis sites where they were killed and eaten. In total, more than 125 species of plants and animals are known to have been used by Clovis people in the portion of the Western Hemisphere they inhabited.[17][18]

The oldest Clovis site in North America is believed to be El Fin del Mundo in northwestern Sonora, Mexico, discovered during a 2007 survey. It features occupation dating around 13,390 calibrated years BP.[19] In 2011, remains of Gomphothere were found; the evidence suggests that humans did in fact kill two of them here. There's also the Aubrey site in Denton County, Texas, which produced a radiocarbon date that is almost identical.[20]

Disappearance of Clovis[edit]
Further information: Younger Dryas
The most commonly held perspective on the end of the Clovis culture is that a decline in the availability of megafauna, ....
Whether the Clovis culture drove the mammoth, and other species, to extinction via overhunting – the so-called Pleistocene overkill hypothesis – is still an open, and controversial, question.[23] It has also been hypothesized that the Clovis culture saw its decline in the wake of the Younger Dryas cold phase.[24] This 'cold shock', lasting roughly 1500 years, affected many parts of the world, including North America. This appears to have been triggered by a vast amount of meltwater – possibly from Lake Agassiz – emptying into the North Atlantic, disrupting the thermohaline circulation.[25]"


From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clovis_culture

Clovis culture is speculated to have been destroyed by "a vast amount of meltwater..." which disrupted the ocean currents. What about a worldwide flood disrupting the ocean's currents?
 

6days

New member
iouae said:
He is a geologist and a YEC yet he finds evidence for the earth looking older than 6000 years, against his beliefs.
He is a geogist and rejects scripture which says everything was created in six days. He believes the universe pre-existed before the six days of creation. He rejects the words of Jesus equating humanity with the foundations of the earth.

iouae said:
The galaxy is continually throwing out stuff, and due to gravity, attracting stuff. There are many ways comets could form.
Like I said... We know from science and observation, comets can't last millions of years, so you invent ways that comets might form to fit your belief system. BTW... you might want to present your ideas on comets to the 'Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences'. They just might go for your ideas and toss the current belief in an Oort Cloud.


The data fits the Bibles time frame. You invent hypotheticals to explain away the evidence, and which contradict the Bible.


iouae said:
And when they look through telescopes, they see galaxies colliding. Every stage of galaxy collision is out there, with the final stage being black holes, or two black holes spinning together. The evidence for a very old galaxy is a trip to some stargazing platform away. Or a library with a good cosmology book, with Hubble photographs from deep space.
You seem star struck with science fiction, and old earth beliefs, rather than awe struck by our Creator. If you want to see evidence our universe is young and consistent with God's Word then where is the population 3 stars... Why are there massive and 'young' in appearance galaxies at the far fringes of our universe.... Why believe in hypotheticals, such as dark energy, and faster than speed of light expansion, to fit secular beliefs... instead of just seeing we don't have to explain away evidence when we trust God's Word?
iouae said:
That is true that I am biased, but my mind is still open because I respect science
I hope that is true iouae.... but it seems you are confusing secular opinions with science. (I also am biased, as is everyone. Nobody is a blank slate.)
iouae said:
The genome is just fine. If it were not, then the fantastic, vibrant wonderful life we see around us would be extinct. Instead they are all doing just fine with their DNA, as are you.
As I suggested earlier. You reject science and try protect your beliefs in an old earth with psuedo-science and science fiction. Our genome is not 'just fine'. Every geneticist knows there is a problem of increasing load. Genetic disorders are increasing. Geneticists have referred to this as "the population bomb". We could also take a look at fitness of the most highly adapted organisms...often on islands, or in coral reefs. They often are endangered because adaptation and speciation eliminates genetic variation.
iouae said:
My belief is that the Bible nowhere gives the age of the universe.
Then Jesus was mistaken ... and you are correct? Jesus accepted the creation account at face value, as did the majority of the fathers of Christianity, as did most Christians up until1800+AD. It is only in the past 200 years that many compromise and believe in an old earth like the non christian Epicureans...who Paul argued against. Jesus referred to humanity from the beginning of creation (and the foundations of the world) which according to the geneaologies...according to your geologist...was about 6,000 years ago. Not 14,000,000,000 years ago. Old earthers often not only try explain away the science, but explain away God's Word and try mold it to fit their beliefs.
iouae said:
So I just take whichever date scientists suggest.
Do you also take the word of scientists who say dead men don't rise from the grave?... that Noahs flood was a myth? Did you also accept the word of scientists who denied the humanity of Neandertals? Or, do you only accept their word when it fits your beliefs. Obviously you must mean you only accept scientists opinions who believe in an old earth? Why don't you just trust the Word of the One who made science, and scientists? Why not trust scientists who reject secular opinions?
iouae said:
The earth BECAME without form and void, and after that, in 6 days
Haha... Like I said, you try and find ways to explain away scripture to fit your beliefs. (Sort of like the NWT 'translation' has changed words to fit their beliefs). There is good reason why the other major translations don't use that word... context. http://biblehub.com/genesis/1-2.htm The word can be translated as 'became and it is in a few instances where context demands it, but in almost all situations the word is 'was'. I understand though... you want and need that verse to say 'became to help justify old earth beliefs.
iouae said:
I believe YEC is poisoning religious belief in science-savvy kids of today.
That may explain why you compromise on scripture and science. The PEW research I mentioned earlier found the exact opposite of what you believe. Kids who believed the creation account were more apt to believe, virgin birth, and the resurrection...and we're more plugged into their churches. BTW, a far larger percentage of home schooled kids believe in Biblical creation than those in public schools, yet the home echoed students score higher in college entrance exams than those in public school. Christian parents should teach both the Biblical young earth and the evolutionist old earth models. The students are far more engaged when they can compare the models, being told how to think...as opposed to what to think.
 

Jonahdog

BANNED
Banned
Clovis culture is modern men doing modern things to modern creatures, like killing mastodons. Therefore I believe they were sons of Adam, but pre-flood. So C14 MUST be wrong. I don't have to find more evidence because I believe Adam was created 6000 years ago. And there is tons of evidence of C14 being wrong.

Ah, no real intellectual curiosity. Now I understand. You can just use the C-14 is wrong mantra, with nothing else other than the Bible is right and you are satisfied. Sad.
 

iouae

Well-known member
(I also am biased, as is everyone. Nobody is a blank slate.)As I suggested earlier. You reject science and try protect your beliefs in an old earth with psuedo-science and science fiction. Our genome is not 'just fine'. Every geneticist knows there is a problem of increasing load. Genetic disorders are increasing. Geneticists have referred to this as "the population bomb". We could also take a look at fitness of the most highly adapted organisms...often on islands, or in coral reefs. They often are endangered because adaptation and speciation eliminates genetic variation.

I am not aware of this "problem". The solution I would recommend is Dale Carnegies book "How to stop worrying and start living".

It is not a problem. If it were a problem, then they go extinct, like 99% of all species have already. Problem solved.



Then Jesus was mistaken ... and you are correct? Jesus accepted the creation account at face value, as did the majority of the fathers of Christianity, as did most Christians up until1800+AD. It is only in the past 200 years that many compromise and believe in an old earth like the non christian Epicureans...who Paul argued against. Jesus referred to humanity from the beginning of creation (and the foundations of the world) which according to the geneaologies...according to your geologist...was about 6,000 years ago. Not 14,000,000,000 years ago.

"Foundation" or "beginning" means whatever the writer has in mind. The Bible is always interpreted.
Jesus wrote it and He knows what He meant, not a YEC on TOL.


Old earthers often not only try explain away the science, but explain away God's Word and try mold it to fit their beliefs. Do you also take the word of scientists who say dead men don't rise from the grave?... that Noahs flood was a myth? Did you also accept the word of scientists who denied the humanity of Neandertals? Or, do you only accept their word when it fits your beliefs. Obviously you must mean you only accept scientists opinions who believe in an old earth? Why don't you just trust the Word of the One who made science, and scientists? Why not trust scientists who reject secular opinions? Haha... Like I said, you try and find ways to explain away scripture to fit your beliefs.

There is a correct interpretation of scripture which meshes perfectly with a correct interpretation of the scientific evidence. I continually let the one modify the other in my mind, with scripture always taking the precedence, but not before looking at all possible translations of scripture. It's a search for truth.

(Sort of like the NWT 'translation' has changed words to fit their beliefs). There is good reason why the other major translations don't use that word... context. http://biblehub.com/genesis/1-2.htm The word can be translated as 'became and it is in a few instances where context demands it, but in almost all situations the word is 'was'. I understand though... you want and need that verse to say 'became to help justify old earth beliefs.That may explain why you compromise on scripture and science.

Well at least you accurately know what I believe Gen 1:2 says, so I don't have to keep repeating it to you in future. Why reject "became" out of hand? If it's "became" then any age for the universe is possible.

The PEW research I mentioned earlier found the exact opposite of what you believe. Kids who believed the creation account were more apt to believe, virgin birth, and the resurrection...and we're more plugged into their churches. BTW, a far larger percentage of home schooled kids believe in Biblical creation than those in public schools, yet the home echoed students score higher in college entrance exams than those in public school. Christian parents should teach both the Biblical young earth and the evolutionist old earth models. The students are far more engaged when they can compare the models, being told how to think...as opposed to what to think.

Please don't tell me you home schooled your kid!
 

iouae

Well-known member
Ah, no real intellectual curiosity. Now I understand. You can just use the C-14 is wrong mantra, with nothing else other than the Bible is right and you are satisfied. Sad.

I am continually looking into these things. But I am 80% sure C14 dating is incorrect 50% of the time.

Every person has a bull dust detector in their mind. I am 80% sure Clovis culture represents humans living post-Adam, pre-flood. I have a 20% belief Clovis culture may predate Adam, and be part of hominid experimentation by God, before the recreation of the earth in Genesis 1. There is seldom certainty.

I am 95% sure Adam was created 6000 years ago. But there is 5% doubt in that all the genealogies listed in Genesis may not be a full and final list, because some of the genealogies of Jesus in the NT left some people out. If this were true, then bishop Ussher's calculation might be short.

So what do you believe regarding these issues? Does your favourite coffee mug read something like the following...

things-to-do-drink-coffee-slogan-mug-large-size-available-size-15oz-ceramic-89770-p.png
 
Last edited:

Jonahdog

BANNED
Banned
I am continually looking into these things. But I am 80% sure C14 dating is incorrect 50% of the time.

/QUOTE]
When is it accurate, and how do you know. since you are continually looking into this, perhaps you could cite some scientific papers that support your conclusion.
 

iouae

Well-known member
Not a scientific paper, it is a religious site. It has no data, it refers to no scientific papers. Perhaps that is your basic problem---you dont understand how scientists do their work.

What about this one

https://www.labmate-online.com/news...king-news/how-accurate-is-carbon-dating/30144

It ends with this...
"For example, recently science teams at the British Antarctic Survey and Reading University unearthed the discovery that samples of moss could be brought back to life after being frozen in ice. The kicker? That carbon dating deemed the moss to have been frozen for over 1,500 years. Now, if this carbon dating agrees with other evolutionary methods of determining age, the team could have a real discovery on their hands. Taken alone, however, the carbon dating is unreliable at best, and at worst, downright inaccurate."
 

6days

New member
Because we are looking back to when these galaxies started, 13.75 billion years ago.

Ok.... 2 problems with your answer.
1. The massive galaxies I mentioned actually appear MATURE to secular scientists. They admit this "structure should not exist in a region of the universe they think is young.
2. You are confusing a distance of 13.75 with a time of 13.75. (How long did it take God to spread the stars? That is a time question...not distance). I would suggest you read some articles from astronomers and astrphysicists who stand on the authority of God's Word "In six days...God made everything"
 

iouae

Well-known member
Ok.... 2 problems with your answer.
1. The massive galaxies I mentioned actually appear MATURE to secular scientists. They admit this "structure should not exist in a region of the universe they think is young.

I very much doubt that. You have sources, reliable secular scientists?
 

6days

New member
iouae said:
I am not aware of this "problem". (increasing genetic load)
Unaware and uninterested in science that challenges your old earth beliefs?


Genetics is just one branch of science that helps confirm Ex. 20:11


iouae said:
It is not a problem. If it were a problem, then they go extinct, like 99% of all species have already. Problem solved
Your 'knowledge' of genetics is noted. Unfortunately for you though, your 'knowledge' is not based in conventional wisdom or education. Extinctions cause a loss of genetic diversity and ALL geneticists see extinctions as s problem. They even ponder human extinction based on data of high rate of VSDM's.

.

iouae said:
"Foundation" or "beginning" means whatever the writer has in mind. The Bible is always interpreted.
Jesus wrote it and He knows what He meant, not a YEC on TOL
Words have meaning, and scripture was meant to be understood by its plain language... without linguistic gymnastics.

You seem to think that Jesus should have worded things differently. It might have suited your belief system if Jesus had talked about recreating everything. Sadly, many young people apply your eisigesis approach to Scripture and say words like "virgin" and "resurrection" means whatever the writer had in mind... not the plain meaning.

iouae said:
There is a correct interpretation of scripture which meshes perfectly with a correct interpretation of the scientific evidence
Absolutely!

We always need to take a stand on God's Word as our absolute source of truth.... not scientific interpretations that contradict His Word. There is a long history of people being duped by 'science' nterpretations that science later proves false. (junk DNA, transitional fossils such as coelacanth, psuedogenes, evolutionary trees, Neandertals etc)

iouae said:
Well at least you accurately know what I believe Gen 1:2 says, so I don't have to keep repeating it to you in future. Why reject "became" out of hand? If it's "became" then any age for the universe is possible
Yea... if you could just change a few words here and there like the NWT does, scripture can take on new meaning. However context within the chapter does not allow the word in Genesis 1:2 to be changed to became. The context of "day 1' suggests a absolute beginning. There was nothing previous. There are good reasons the major teams of translaters do not use the word 'became.

In addition to the Hebrew context, we can use exegetical interpretation of Scripture. We can see if other Bible authors referred to Genesis as plain easy to understand history. We can examine Corinthians and Romans to see how allegorical interpretation of Genesis destroys the Gospel. We can study what Jesus said about Genesis and Moses.
 

6days

New member
iouae said:
I very much doubt that. (Mature galaxy in young universe) You have sources, reliable secular scientists?
You doubt it because of your secular beliefs about our origins. That is also the reason secular scientists propose rescue device explanations... trying to explain away the data.


Anyways... what you doubted was easy to find. Here was the first Google result "...This indicates that the galaxy must have been forming stars for a long time, which is tricky because the Universe itself is not that old at this point –...https://saoastronews.wordpress.com/2015/03/13/mature-galaxy-in-the-young-universe/
 

Jonahdog

BANNED
Banned
What about this one

https://www.labmate-online.com/news...king-news/how-accurate-is-carbon-dating/30144

It ends with this...
"For example, recently science teams at the British Antarctic Survey and Reading University unearthed the discovery that samples of moss could be brought back to life after being frozen in ice. The kicker? That carbon dating deemed the moss to have been frozen for over 1,500 years. Now, if this carbon dating agrees with other evolutionary methods of determining age, the team could have a real discovery on their hands. Taken alone, however, the carbon dating is unreliable at best, and at worst, downright inaccurate."

Ah, a PR piece from a scientific equipment supplier with no reference to that particular paper they cite. Sorry, not very helpful
 
Last edited:

iouae

Well-known member
You doubt it because of your secular beliefs about our origins. That is also the reason secular scientists propose rescue device explanations... trying to explain away the data.


Anyways... what you doubted was easy to find. Here was the first Google result "...This indicates that the galaxy must have been forming stars for a long time, which is tricky because the Universe itself is not that old at this point –...https://saoastronews.wordpress.com/2015/03/13/mature-galaxy-in-the-young-universe/

The article ends with ...
"This is not the first time astronomers have discovered objects that appear to be much older than expected at high redshift. Last year, Caroline Straatman of Leiden University found a population of very mature compact galaxies at a redshift of 4, when the Universe was 1.6 billion years old, which means they too must have been vigorously forming stars while the Universe was very young.

This shows how little we still know about the early universe and the first galaxies. Understanding the formation and evolution of these distant galaxies is one of the main goals of astronomers, but is only possible if these objects can be detected. Hopefully, in the next decade more advanced telescopes will allow astronomers to look back to these epochs and answer fundamental questions about the galaxies which populated the Universe 13 billion years ago."

The whole article was about how old the universe is. Did you overlook this while finding that there are still mysteries out there? I did learn something, thank you. And I think it is amazing what cosmologists have managed to find out. But how does the fact that galaxies formed very quickly 13 billion years ago help your cause?
 

iouae

Well-known member
Genetics is just one branch of science that helps confirm Ex. 20:11


Your 'knowledge' of genetics is noted. Unfortunately for you though, your 'knowledge' is not based in conventional wisdom or education. Extinctions cause a loss of genetic diversity and ALL geneticists see extinctions as s problem. They even ponder human extinction based on data of high rate of VSDM's.

6days, I learn a lot from you, and am thankful for that.

But the above idea that organisms just wind down because their genes corrupt over time is nonsense.

Check out this link to organisms which have been around since the Cambrian, and still going strong. They don't seem to know they should be dead long ago.

https://io9.gizmodo.com/12-of-the-most-astounding-living-fossils-known-to-sci-1506539384
 

6days

New member
iouae said:
But how does the fact that galaxies formed very quickly 13 billion years ago help your cause?
Sorry, but I can't help but laugh.


You doubted a secular article would claim a mature galaxy would be in a region of the universe they considered young, and that is exactly what the article says! Now..... you don't see the circular reasoning they use trying to make the data fit their beliefs? NO matter the data... they believe it can't be old.... it only appears that way, according to their 'science'. (It ain't science my friend; it's a false belief system)


The universe is young, and it is no surprise that God created huge galaxies in the distant universe. The heavens declare the majesty of our Creator.


iouae said:
But the above idea that organisms just wind down because their genes corrupt over time is nonsense.
It might be nonsense according to secular beliefs, but Scripture tells us that all creation suffers the consequences of man's sin.


As mentioned earlier, secular geneticists know that our genome (And the genome of all primates) is in a downward spiral. We suffer about 150 NEW slightly deleterious mutations and about 3 deleterious mutations which are added to our genome with each successive generation. These are added to the thousands of harmful mutations each of us already have. Natural selection is incapable of detecting and removing these mutations. (Waiting once again for you to say you doubt secular geneticists in secular journals agree)


iouae said:
Check out this link to organisms which have been around since the Cambrian,
Those "living fossils" have been around since creation, as we have.
 

Jonahdog

BANNED
Banned
Sorry, but I can't help but laugh.


You doubted a secular article would claim a mature galaxy would be in a region of the universe they considered young, and that is exactly what the article says! Now..... you don't see the circular reasoning they use trying to make the data fit their beliefs? NO matter the data... they believe it can't be old.... it only appears that way, according to their 'science'. (It ain't science my friend; it's a false belief system)


The universe is young, and it is no surprise that God created huge galaxies in the distant universe. The heavens declare the majesty of our Creator.


It might be nonsense according to secular beliefs, but Scripture tells us that all creation suffers the consequences of man's sin.


As mentioned earlier, secular geneticists know that our genome (And the genome of all primates) is in a downward spiral. We suffer about 150 NEW slightly deleterious mutations and about 3 deleterious mutations which are added to our genome with each successive generation. These are added to the thousands of harmful mutations each of us already have. Natural selection is incapable of detecting and removing these mutations. (Waiting once again for you to say you doubt secular geneticists in secular journals agree)


Those "living fossils" have been around since creation, as we have.
Nope, nope, and nope
 
Top