Should we take the bible literal?

[carlosMM]

Originally posted by Phydeaux

It would not have been "slight changes" more biger changes such as a stronger magnetic field which would make changes. Dike or gang?

this makes no sense! a stronger magnetic field would be evident in the rock record. It isn't. Also, how would it influence radioactivity?

Dike and gang (Gang, German) are terms for intrusions of volcanic rock into existing rocks. That is lava pushes between and partially melts existing rock forming more or less narrow bands that then cool and harden.

 

[Phydeaux]

Originally posted by carlosMM
WHO tried WHAT in the lab?

Sure there is parts we do not fully understand. Structures below the size of th wavelength of light are extremely hard to study, because of the dificulty to measure them. But we do understand gravity down to a level that is sufficent to disprove the bible ten times over!

If the evolution theory was right we shoudl see lots of WHAT???? Specify, please (I want a direct answer to this!!!)

Acutally, it si the otehr way round: the first land animals were carnivours, and so were the first dinosaurs and so were the first mammals.... All these lines later developed omnivorous and herbivorous lines, too.

Please refarin from saying 'they' all the time, clarify what you mean! (unless you want to appear to be trying to be intentionally confusing!)

Some people who work in a lab have done test that show the flood could have happenened and the flood would have made banks just like the one's we see today. If Evolution was true we would see omnivorous turning into carnivours, the reason why I said this is because you ask me do we see that happening and I say no. If that is true then what did the carnivours eat before there where many of them. This is a place where Evolution is rong.

 

[carlosMM]

Phydeaux, sure a huge flood will make banks as we see them today - when the Mississippi river rises in a spring foold and leaves his bed and fllods his floodplains we certainly get deposits by that. but ther ea re NO DEPOSITS ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD that would indicate a WORLD WIDE FLOOD at any given tiime.

We do see omnivores tuirn into carnivors - with the expected change in tooth morphology! Not just *snaü* and they eat other stuff, but hundreds and thousands of generations of change!

And learn to quote so that one doesn't ahve to run all over the thread to see what the heck you are talking about

The early land animals ate insects (insectivores, strictly). Evolution is not 'rong' - you just know too little and draw false conclusions!

another thing: 'some people' - have you read their results? Have you studied that stuff? Have you at least read about their results in a respectable source, like a serious newpaper or magazine? I bet you haven't!

 

[Phydeaux]

Originally posted by Gothmog


Uh oh, you're starting to babble here. Read my post above again. The ice climatology matches with the sea floor climatology, both are dated by numerous independent methods. Now what were you saying?

I was saying that the ice would be melted because of the heat there for it would not be there. Maybe the "numerous" are wrong, all of the theory's seem to be based on this other theory which was based on this other theory which was based on the first theory, THAT IS CONFUSING AND BAD SCIENCE!

 

[carlosMM]

Originally posted by Phydeaux


I was saying that the ice would be melted because of the heat there for it would not be there. Maybe the "numerous" are wrong, all of the theory's seem to be based on this other theory which was based on this other theory which was based on the first theory, THAT IS CONFUSING AND BAD SCIENCE!

this is getting past ridiculous:

Whre does all the ice come from then today, hu? And how come the ice cores give older dates the further you go back, and all the dates from evrything happen to match? A bit too much for coincidental errors in all methods......... They would show different times if they all were false, not by chance all show the SAME times....

 

[deckard]

I have never read much off the bible, started it but only finished the first chapter. Of course this is the King James bible which was translated into english from latin, I think. Who knows what the translators did when they came to a piece they did not quite understand.

 

[anarres]

Originally posted by Phydeaux
I was saying that the ice would be melted because of the heat there for it would not be there. Maybe the "numerous" are wrong, all of the theory's seem to be based on this other theory which was based on this other theory which was based on the first theory, THAT IS CONFUSING AND BAD SCIENCE!

Saying something is "BAD SCIENCE" because it confuses you kind of sums up your cavileer attitude to the scientific methods and proofs discussed in this thread.

I really can't see you convincing anyone but yourself here with this kind of debate.

 

[Phydeaux]

Originally posted by carlosMM
Phydeaux, sure a huge flood will make banks as we see them today - when the Mississippi river rises in a spring foold and leaves his bed and fllods his floodplains we certainly get deposits by that. but ther ea re NO DEPOSITS ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD that would indicate a WORLD WIDE FLOOD at any given tiime.

We do see omnivores tuirn into carnivors - with the expected change in tooth morphology! Not just *snaü* and they eat other stuff, but hundreds and thousands of generations of change!

And learn to quote so that one doesn't ahve to run all over the thread to see what the heck you are talking about

The early land animals ate insects (insectivores, strictly). Evolution is not 'rong' - you just know too little and draw false conclusions!

another thing: 'some people' - have you read their results? Have you studied that stuff? Have you at least read about their results in a respectable source, like a serious newpaper or magazine? I bet you haven't!

Ok, is there not rocks that where formed by water with dinos and other kinds in it that are really deap all over the world?

What other stuff?

I wached a TV show about it, is that good enough?

 

[carlosMM]

Originally posted by deckard
I have never read much off the bible, started it but only finished the first chapter. Of course this is the King James bible which was translated into english from latin, I think. Who knows what the translators did when they came to a piece they did not quite understand.

invent! write what they thought best! obviously. which throws the entire 'dictated by God' thing out the window

 

[Gothmog]

I was saying that the ice would be melted because of the heat there for it would not be there.

Well that was my point, the ice didn't melt so there must not have been a global flood. The ice shows no sign of ever having been covered with water. The global climatology from the period of time when modern man has walked the earth is well known and supported by numerous independent methods.

Maybe the "numerous" are wrong, all of the theory's seem to be based on this other theory which was based on this other theory which was based on the first theory, THAT IS CONFUSING AND BAD SCIENCE!

The theories support each other. That is confusing to some people, but that is how science works. We look for independent conformation. We do not just accept one measurement to date the age of something, or the nature of the past climate. We look for more and more. We use things we know with high confidence to tell us about things that we aren't as confident about. etc. etc.

Sorry it isn't as simple as the bible makes it sound, but that is just what the evidence tells us - not a global conspiracy against creationists.

 

[Mark Young]

Originally posted by Phydeaux


Ok, is there not rocks that where formed by water with dinos and other kinds in it that are really deap all over the world?

What other stuff?

I wached a TV show about it, is that good enough?

Opinions should be formed after much research and thought and definelty NOT baseed on one TV program, which have the habit of sensationalising or romantising a half baked idea. (American documentary makers are notorious at this).
I like to watch doco's as well but I have come to realise that they only put forth one specific view and do everything to convince the watcher of this view whilst ignoring anything that might suggest a different model.
I reckon you should do some study on the climatology of the earth and how the cycle of greenhouse and ice ages, it really made me go but it will help you form a more educated opinion then the hollywood manufactured one that you posess at the moment.

 

[carlosMM]

Originally posted by Phydeaux


Ok, is there not rocks that where formed by water with dinos and other kinds in it that are really deap all over the world?

No, there isn't. And there is evidence to prove that there also never WAS (might have been eroded after all)

I wached a TV show about it, is that good enough?

Sir Eric says it all concerning TV shows. Sorry, Americans (and many Britons) are liable to believe in TV more than in reading - but that is being abused by the media. I have even learned not to trust scientific papers, and to go looking for errors, flaws and intentional BS before I base MY research on that of someone else.

 

[Phydeaux]

Originally posted by carlosMM


this is getting past ridiculous:

Whre does all the ice come from then today, hu? And how come the ice cores give older dates the further you go back, and all the dates from evrything happen to match? A bit too much for coincidental errors in all methods......... They would show different times if they all were false, not by chance all show the SAME times....

Well... In this book I have some,

An Egyptian aftifact made of wood gave four different dates by four different institutionsall using the same C-14 dating method:
a. Spanish INST. 5,000 years
b. French INST. 4,500 years
c. University of Californie 1,700
d. University of Penn. 1,200
If dating can be off this much concerning relatively young artifacts, how far off will the dating be concerning "ancient" objects?

There are some more on that page but I don't have time to right them, and this, more from the book,

a. Another discrepancy between dating methods is seen in connection with Zinjanthropus; the skull which the famous Anthropolgists, the leakeys, found in Africa.
B. The rocks by which the bones where found where dated by Potassim-Argon and arrived at an age of 1,750,000 years.
c. Then some one dated Mammal from the same bed which Zinjanthropus was discovered using C-14 and the bones gave a date of only 10,000 years.

 

[carlosMM]

Originally posted by Phydeaux


Well... In this book I have some,



There are some more on that page but I don't have time to right them, and this, more from the book,

I know. There always is the problems of

- lab contamination (i.e. not the artifact is actually dated, but something else that got stuck to it in the lab, or a mixture)
- field contamination (same as above, but before the object reaches the lab)
- intentional 'mistakes' - speaks for itself
- erranoeus field data (the supposedly older object is mixed up with a different one - what a surprise it is younger!)
- taphonomical contamination (i.e. animals digging or so get older/younger charcoal or whatever attached to the object
- broken machines (giving false readings)
- calculation errors (how easy is it to read a handwritten, smeared 2 for a 3 or vice versa, now if that is a 10 to the power of 3 instead ofa 10 to the power of 2, that makes a huge difference.
- errors to do with 'association'

Now, the last one accounts for most of the conflicting data, so I will explain it:

It used to be you needed several grams to date C-14. Many objects (seeds) didn't bring that much. Others couldn't be sampled - imagine cutting a piece that weighs several grams out of a 180 gram bone fragment
So, what to date? Well, charcoal from the same level! That often is abundant!

Where the problem here? The charcoal may be significantly older or younger Now, if you can (as we can toady) date with a lot less matter, you cna date the actual object. no surprise you will sometimes find dates to vary!


As for the two examples you quote:

the first is an example of surface contamination I would think. They wouldn't bore holes into an old artefact, what they'd do is take tiny snips fromthe surface - and depending where you take them, what touched the artefact in that place etc you will get varying results. Also, maybe the thing was repaired after it had been sitting around for a few centuries?

The huge ages from the European institutes are probably simply errors in thedating process. But by now the method has been used so much that most erros have been found out.

the second example:
the mammal bones obviously do not belong into the rocks! how they got depoited there I have no idea, but AFAIK most of the Lewaky finds were surface finds - prone to have younger bones lying around.

 

[Phydeaux]

Originally posted by carlosMM


this makes no sense! a stronger magnetic field would be evident in the rock record. It isn't. Also, how would it influence radioactivity?

Dike and gang (Gang, German) are terms for intrusions of volcanic rock into existing rocks. That is lava pushes between and partially melts existing rock forming more or less narrow bands that then cool and harden.

This is from my book

a. The Magnetic field of the Earth deflects cosmic rays away from the Earth.
b. The greater the strength of the magnetic field, the greater deflection of cosmic rays.
c. The greater deflection of cosmic rays, the less C-14 will be produced.
b. The less C-14 produced, the less will fluctuate down to the Earth to be absorbed by living organisms.

 

[carlosMM]

btw, I liked your last post! You gave hard data, things I can properly respond to, no need to search through all the thread! This way we can discuss!


another thing to add is, that when you ONLY take C-14 dates, it will be hard to find these error. what you then also need is other methods of dating - i.e. by stratigraphy (what lies deeper down is older, unless things are flipped onto their heads), association with other material that you can date otherwise (i.e. clay piece with typical ornaments - if you find them in several places you ca sample all places and assume that they are of roguhly the same age - a sudden difference of say 200000 years in ONE place means you C-14 from thre was screwed) and so on.

 

[Gothmog]

Yes, I addressed the C14 source issue in the Neanderthal thread. First of all it is only a small correction factor, second the correction factor can be worked out from independent data and then validated against other independent data. I went into more detail about the specifics in the Neanderthal thread. Don't make me dig it up and quote it, please.

 

[carlosMM]

Originally posted by Phydeaux


This is from my book

as gothmog says. that is a SMALL factor! 10 to 15% off at the very max - luckily we have other ways of correcting. For example: warves. That are seasonal layers in lakes - alternating dark and light layers, one for esummer and one for winter. One dark and one light per year... Now go down and count them, find a larger object ( a nut a bird dropped into the lake), date that with C-14 and compare to the number of layers you counted..... etc.

or, tree rings - as you probably know, you can dientify specific groups fo rings for certain years - like you have a tree that you cut down today, and one that was cut 20 years ago - you can comapre the different thicknesses of the layers - a war and dry year for one tree in your garden is a warm and dry year for a tree in your neighbours garden as well. A wet year, a cold year etc, too. Now, weather influences the way the rings look - if you cna match portions then you can take ever older trees, cut by the Romans and used for a bride or preserved in a lake or whatever to make a treering-line back inot time. Now, date samples and comare to the rings you counted.....

that way, you can find how big the error is, and how to correct it!

 

[Phydeaux]

Originally posted by carlosMM


I know. There always is the problems of

- lab contamination (i.e. not the artifact is actually dated, but something else that got stuck to it in the lab, or a mixture)
- field contamination (same as above, but before the object reaches the lab)
- intentional 'mistakes' - speaks for itself
- erranoeus field data (the supposedly older object is mixed up with a different one - what a surprise it is younger!)
- taphonomical contamination (i.e. animals digging or so get older/younger charcoal or whatever attached to the object
- broken machines (giving false readings)
- calculation errors (how easy is it to read a handwritten, smeared 2 for a 3 or vice versa, now if that is a 10 to the power of 3 instead ofa 10 to the power of 2, that makes a huge difference.
- errors to do with 'association'

Now, the last one accounts for most of the conflicting data, so I will explain it:

It used to be you needed several grams to date C-14. Many objects (seeds) didn't bring that much. Others couldn't be sampled - imagine cutting a piece that weighs several grams out of a 180 gram bone fragment
So, what to date? Well, charcoal from the same level! That often is abundant!

Where the problem here? The charcoal may be significantly older or younger Now, if you can (as we can toady) date with a lot less matter, you cna date the actual object. no surprise you will sometimes find dates to vary!


As for the two examples you quote:

the first is an example of surface contamination I would think. They wouldn't bore holes into an old artefact, what they'd do is take tiny snips fromthe surface - and depending where you take them, what touched the artefact in that place etc you will get varying results. Also, maybe the thing was repaired after it had been sitting around for a few centuries?

The huge ages from the European institutes are probably simply errors in thedating process. But by now the method has been used so much that most erros have been found out.

the second example:
the mammal bones obviously do not belong into the rocks! how they got depoited there I have no idea, but AFAIK most of the Lewaky finds were surface finds - prone to have younger bones lying around.

The wooden artefact was most likely in a tomb it was most likely not "contaminated" or "repaired". Even if it was "repaired" they would not have dated that and it should not have been 5,000 to 1,200.

Yeah sure. They where in the same rock. I don't think there would be that much chang in date I mean come on 1,750,000 to 10,000. I think the mamal was put in with the pict of Zinjanthropus as living with it, and now I'm starving to death I beter go eat before I become a fosil.

 

[Grille]

Originally posted by Phydeaux


This is from my book

If any composition, you take your book very literal.