dinosaurs on the ark and other scientific facts

[Phenomanul]

The following contains some quotes from a creationist article and rebukes of them...

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Every book on human evolution still maintain that rhodesian man ( rhodesiensis) existed about 200000 years ago. Radiocarbon dating yielded an age of roughly 10000 years. (Science Vol 144, pg 1000). This implies that this fossil is the remains of someone who died because of the great flood.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If we follow the link to check what t he article actually says it states that the bones dated were "animal bones" - and that there is "no clear-cut relation between these bones and the skull of rhodesienus"

A clear case of misrepresentation.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the summer of 1931, Gustav Riek excavated a newly discovered archaeological site in a small cave in southwestern Germany called Vogelherd. He and his team recovered several hominid bones and remarkable artifacts, such as a carved ivory horse, mammoth and bison, which he dated to t he Aurignacian (35000 years ago). These
were recently carbon dated to be between 3,900 to 5,000 years old. (Refer Geotimes, 2004 September)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again following the link we find a clear misrepresentation


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The new dates on the human bones do not call into question the age of the archaeological material (which was previously radiocarbon-dated to the Aurignacian period), Smith says. He, Conard and third author Peter Grootes thus conc luded that Neolithic humans unknowingly buried their dead near the entrances to Vogelherd Cave amidst relics of times long gone, and that is why Riek found the bones stratigraphically located next to older artifacts.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


(emphasis mine)
So we find t hat it is only the bones which have been redated - and that carbon dating CONFIRMED the age of the artifacts.

And this is just silly


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If evolutionists are right in maintaining that life started a few billion years ago, 99% of fossils would yield a radiocarbon date of more than 10000 years. But according to radiocarbon databases, more than 90% of fossils have an age less than 10000 years

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The carbon dating databases will ONLY include items that have been carbon dated. Most fossils are k nown to be too old to be usefully carbon dated and so the process will simply not be applied to them. Thus the claim must be false since we will not have carbon dates for anything more than a small proportion of fossils - and that biased towards those th ought to be young enough to give a useful date.

You are in way over your head if all you are using is google....

[Phenomanul]

The story of Noah's flood was lifted and adapted from an early mesopotamian flood myth, during the Babylonian exile.

Funny how the Babylonian exile occurred well over 800 years after the time of Moses, and yet the texts directly tie Adam to Abraham.

[midgetonadonkey]

You are way in over your head if all you are using is google....

What are you using for your tidbits of knowledge? God's word?

[Phenomanul]

What are you using for your tidbits of knowledge? God's word?

I'm just saying that trying to build an argument simply by rushing to google's aid is not solid ground -- fool's gold to be exact.

I've studied this topic extensively over the past 4 or 5 years. No disrespect to tlongII of course.

And no, I'm not suggesting that my current views are all correct or unmovable. Discusions with Smeagol, Extra Stout, FWD, scott, and DR have allowed me to reassess certain positions.

[PixelPusher]

Funny how the Babylonian exile occurred well over 800 years after the time of Moses, and yet the texts directly tie Adam to Abraham.

That's faulty logic. You're assuming for a fact that Moses wrote all of genesis and that it wasn't amended by jewish scribes over the centuries, much as the Assyans (sp?) included and excluded certain stories in Dead Sea Scrolls when compared to the modern Torrah or Old Testament. You can get anything to line up when you write it after the fact.

[Phenomanul]

That's faulty logic. You're assuming for a fact that Moses wrote all of genesis and that it wasn't amended by jewish scribes over the centuries, much as the Assyans (sp?) included and excluded certain stories in Dead Sea Scrolls when compared to the modern Torrah or Old Testament. You can get anything to line up when you write it after the fact.

I knew you would say that.... The significance doesn't lie in the "a priori" statement, or texts, but in the fact that the geneological count between Adam and Abraham, Abraham and King David, and King David to JESUS all number 14. How would the post Babylonian Jews known exactly how to revert the texts without affecting that significant detail? It may seem coincidental, or superfluous, but it is highly telling of GOD's sense of timing.

[tlongII]

I'm just saying that trying to build an argument simply by rushing to google's aid is not solid ground -- fool's gold to be exact.

I've studied this topic extensively over the past 4 or 5 years. No disrespect to tlong of course.

And no, I'm not suggesting that my current views are all correct or unmovable. Discusions with Smeagol, Extra Stout, FWD, scott, and DR have allowed me to reassess certain positions.

Of course I use Google for specific examples. It would be far too time consuming otherwise. I'm not in over my head whatsoever. I believe you have studied the topic for the past 4 or 5 years. Unfortunately, I also believe you have partaken in these studies with a bias.

You should Google more often.

[midgetonadonkey]

It may seem coincidental, or superfluous, but it is highly telling of GOD's sense of timing.

Why can't you believe it's coincidental? Why must it be God's "sense of timing? If God is responsible for this coincidence, is God responsible for all coincidences?

[midgetonadonkey]

Google>>God's Word

[PixelPusher]

I knew you would say that.... The significance doesn't lie in the "a priori" statement, or texts, but in the fact that the geneological count between Adam and Abraham, Abraham and King David, and King David to JESUS all number 14. How would the post Babylonian Jews known exactly how to revert the texts without affecting that significant detail? It may seem coincidental, or superfluous, but it is highly telling of GOD's sense of timing.

More faulty logic. Jewish scribes who lived in the time of the Babylonian exile lived AFTER King David, so lining it up wouldn't be all that difficult. And Jesus's supposed lineage to King David was ascribed by early Christian writers who lived, suprise, AFTER Jesus of Nazereth.

You're gonna have to do better than using a contrived geneology to prove the age of the earth.

[MannyIsGod]

Let me put it this way....

Moses wrote the first five books of the current Biblical cannon (at least it is believed he wrote all five), the Pentateuch of the Hebrew Torah.

There are so many details that Moses (or any author) would have no way of knowing unless he was being guided from above. I'm pretty sure that no one kept references of the geneologies all the way to Adam. Particularly because most of the people that lived before Noah's flood lived to ages all but impossible to attain in the post-flood world (In fact GOD himself capped man's age at 120 years right after the flood). How then would Moses know that Methuselah was 969 years old (I'm pretty sure even Methuselah himself had lost count), or that Adam lived to be 935 years old? I'm not even sure Moses realized that Methuselah himself died the very year of the flood.

Why even present such factual statements? If all that was needed was a simple "Methuselah or so and so lived to be a ripe old man." The fact is that they are significant in the context of the Messianic prophecy of JESUS Christ. Furthermore, why would these ridiculous ages not strike the reader as odd?

There is much about the Bible that renders all concept of coincidences null.

Holy smokes, Batman. Seems like you're fitting the situation to your needs.

[LaMarcus Bryant]

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 10 (9 members and 1 guests)
LaMarcus Bryant, MannyIsGod, UtownSpur, PixelPusher, Phenomanul, tlongII, S y, jav, sa_butta


hmmm i wonder what mother wunderkind has to say about god creating the book my parents keep in their living room.




BTW--Is it just me or do hegamboa's posts about this subject remind you of that South Park episode on Mormonism?

[Phenomanul]

Of course I use Google for specific examples. It would be far too time consuming otherwise. I'm not in over my head whatsoever. I believe you have studied the topic for the past 4 or 5 years. Unfortunately, I also believe you have partaken in these studies with a bias.

You should Google more often.

I've done enough to understand the concepts of all affected fields (Biology, Chemistry, Organic Chemistry, Geology, Ocean Science, Material Science, Astronomy, Physics, Nuclear Physics, Paleontology, Cosmology, Climatology, Anthropology, Molecular Biology, Study of Consciousness, Philosophy, etc...) Plus, I am fluent in 3 languages, and an avid historian... Ironic, considering I absolutely hate politics...

Googleling for data isn't bad, or unwarranted when the concepts you are looking for are understood. Sometimes, however it feels as if people here google simply because they can't defend their position well enough that they feel inclined to support their arguments by using other peoples'. Again, this in itself is not necessarily bad. What's bad is when people enter a topic, with an "I told you so at ude," not having their ducks in order and then pretend like they knew what they were talking about all along... I'm not necesarily accusing you of employing this coy, however every one of these threads has always led to someone attempting to fool me with said method. The context of their posts however, provides sufficient proof that they don't really understand what they are talking about.

More often than not I can find errors in other people's scientific conclusions when given the data. Most scientists aren't even well rounded enough to even offer up opposition. Biased... perhaps. Honest?? Completely. And that is what keeps me going in this pursuit to 'enlighten' others. While that may not be the best verb (some may see it as arrogant), it still represents part of what I do in these threads... I try and show others the reasoning behind the concepts on the 'other side'.... Most; are too completely brain-washed by concepts they have rarely questioned. In fact, I'm pretty certain that half of those offering opposition in this very thread... struggled to attain A's in their Chemistry, Physics, and Biology classes. They simply assume that what they have managed to learn 'must be' true. They wouldn't understand it any other way. They don't realize that they too are religiously attached to their beliefs.... albeit their religion is science.

[Phenomanul]

More faulty logic. Jewish scribes who lived in the time of the Babylonian exile lived AFTER King David, so lining it up wouldn't be all that difficult. And Jesus's supposed lineage to King David was ascribed by early Christian writers who lived, suprise, AFTER Jesus of Nazereth.

You're gonna have to do better than using a contrived geneology to prove the age of the earth.

Whatever, be my guest to feel whatever you want. But just so you know; the oldest hebrew texts were written before the babylonian exile. Not after. Which I'm sorry to say renders your contrived solution as null.

Furthermore, I never stated that the geneologies themselves proved a young earth model. I simply stated that the generational count was significant in that structure is given where none was needed. I don't believe the early councils that gathered the canons even realized this detail. You do realize that people continue to find amazing 'coincidences' in the Bible that few if any have ever found? Not all has been revealed.

[j-6]

Midget and LaMarcus.... go back into your troll cave.

Well, thay are quoting a Ministry...

[Phenomanul]

I'm out.... I have to get home to watch the Denver/Spurs Game.

Peace.

[BuddyHolly]

People once thought the earth was flat, not for a "hot minute" or a couple of weeks or a few years, but for hundreds upon hundreds.

Phe, you've been a live for how long? And you think you know the exact history of earth, humans, universe, etc because of nothing more than glorified Harry Potter books?? If you were born and those books told you that in order to get into heaven you had to stick your thumb up your anus, guess where your thumb would be at this moment.

[PixelPusher]

Whatever, be my guest to feel whatever you want. But just so you know; the oldest hebrew texts are dated to before the babylonian exile. Not after. Which I'm sorry to say renders your contrived solution as null.

Care to explain that statement? The oldest known Hebrew scriptures are the Dead Sea Scrolls, dating from 250 B.C. - 65 A.D. That means the oldest piece of scripture known was written at least three centuries after the Babylonian exile.

Furthermore, I never stated that the geneologies themselves proved a young earth model. I simply stated that the generational count was significant in that structure is given where none was needed. I don't believe the early councils that gathered the canons even realized this detail. You do realize that people continue to find amazing 'coincidences' in the Bible that few if any have ever found? Not all has been revealed.

They didn't have to have an agreed upon number they all had to stick to, since the ~6000 years old hypothesis was arrived upon long after all the books of the Torrah/Bible had been written and settled. Literalist interpretations of the Bible are a relatively modern phenomenom, mostly a reactionary response to science. Early Rabbis and scholars were more concered with the lessons and meanings of the Genesis stories and gave little or no thought to the "scientific accuracy" of these stories; they simply assumed they were accurate, the way you do.

[Phenomanul]

People once thought the earth was flat, not for a "hot minute" or a couple of weeks or a few years, but for hundreds upon hundreds.

Phe, you've been a live for how long? And you think you know the exact history of earth, humans, universe, etc because of nothing more than glorified Harry Potter books?? If you were born and those books told you that in order to get into heaven you had to stick your thumb up your anus, guess where your thumb would be at this moment.

Another weak take from BH.

[leemajors]

Judaism had a strong oral tradition before whoever wrote the Torah did so - to assume that no one embellished much or added whatever to that oral tradition is ridiculous.

[PixelPusher]

Most scientists aren't even well rounded enough to even offer up opposition.

And so a lone dedicated specialist finds himself at a loss against a jack-of-all-trades; except that "jack" gets to cherry pick the bits and pieces from this or that subject, and lacks any deep comprehension of any of them.

[Marklar MM]

[Phenomanul]

Care to explain that statement? The oldest known Hebrew scriptures are the Dead Sea Scrolls, dating from 250 B.C. - 65 A.D. That means the oldest piece of scripture known was written at least three centuries after the Babylonian exile.

Ahh you assume no one at the library of Alexandria had access to these scrolls. Unfortunately the fires that ravaged the library also destroyed some very precious texts hebrew texts (according to some Jewish sources from the Museum in Jerusalem).

They didn't have to have an agreed upon number they all had to stick to, since the ~6000 years old hypothesis was arrived upon long after all the books of the Torrah/Bible had been written and settled. Literalist interpretations of the Bible are a relatively modern phenomenom, mostly a reactionary response to science. Early Rabbis and scholars were more concered with the lessons and meanings of the Genesis stories and gave little or no thought to the "scientific accuracy" of these stories; they simply assumed they were accurate, the way you do.

Again I don't jump off a cliff and attempt to assert that the age of the earth is ~6,000 years old... I simply haven't precluded the possibility that that the statement is true.

Believing in GOD has nothing to do with proof and everything to do with spirituality... the two are mutually exclusive concepts when you think about it.

[LaMarcus Bryant]

Well, thay are quoting a Ministry...

Thats why its so funny

[midgetonadonkey]

Another weak take from BH.

Your stupid "God told them what to write" is weak as . Don't talk about other people's arguments being weak. You make me ashamed about being from Corpus.