Coral Ridge Ministries and CSI
- Thread starter Nineveh
- Start date
aharvey
New member
Sorry, Jukia, I’m afraid your mammoth aging query got waylaid.
I don’t think it’s too difficult to determine the YEC technique for dating fossils. For the YECs reading this, I would be interested in any specific corrections or additions to the following description.
First, all fossils on earth are a priori required to be between 0 – 6000* years old (*age of Earth).
Second, since the global geologic record is considered to be virtually entirely the result of a single global event (i.e., the Global Flood), most fossils should be 4000* years old, and virtually all fossils should be no older than 4000 years (*date of Global Flood). (Is the diagram linked here basically sound? The left side comes directly from a creationist exposition ; the right side is my add-on)
Third, to assess the minimum age, assume, at least regarding species for which there is no documentation of human observation, that fossils must have been laid down before humans reliably documented such things. As bob b has observed, “dates prior to around 1200BC or so have been ‘established’ on dubious grounds.” Therefore, it should be safe to set the upper age limit of a fossil (of a taxon that no human has recorded seeing) to around 3000 years. Thus, the estimate of “3000-4000 years” is a safe, conservative estimate, probably unnecessarily broad, because according to step 2, virtually all fossils should be the same age.
Maybe there’s some bickering about the asterisked dates, but this won’t affect the basic procedure. How would YECs modify the above description?
I don’t think it’s too difficult to determine the YEC technique for dating fossils. For the YECs reading this, I would be interested in any specific corrections or additions to the following description.
First, all fossils on earth are a priori required to be between 0 – 6000* years old (*age of Earth).
Second, since the global geologic record is considered to be virtually entirely the result of a single global event (i.e., the Global Flood), most fossils should be 4000* years old, and virtually all fossils should be no older than 4000 years (*date of Global Flood). (Is the diagram linked here basically sound? The left side comes directly from a creationist exposition ; the right side is my add-on)
Third, to assess the minimum age, assume, at least regarding species for which there is no documentation of human observation, that fossils must have been laid down before humans reliably documented such things. As bob b has observed, “dates prior to around 1200BC or so have been ‘established’ on dubious grounds.” Therefore, it should be safe to set the upper age limit of a fossil (of a taxon that no human has recorded seeing) to around 3000 years. Thus, the estimate of “3000-4000 years” is a safe, conservative estimate, probably unnecessarily broad, because according to step 2, virtually all fossils should be the same age.
Maybe there’s some bickering about the asterisked dates, but this won’t affect the basic procedure. How would YECs modify the above description?
Nineveh
Merely Christian
No, I asked Czerkas if the Archaeoraptor was on display at San Diego. They implied the fossil isn't, ( but the jury is still out on models and pics). They offered it was on display at thiers. We all know it's a hoax! (For crying out loud) But feel free to email they guy yourself.
Well, good, I'm glad you know someone at SDNHM, cuz they ain't sent an email yet.
Unlike San Diego, CSI has a 1-800 # you can use to ask your questions, much like Jukia has (and is?).
aharvey
New member
So if "we all know it's a hoax," and the exhibit refers to it as a hoax, would you still find this offensive?
Yeah, but you're the one who's repeated posted in this thread that "the mammoth is really a mammoth." So I'm asking you how you know that. I don't think CSI can answer that one for me.
Nineveh
Merely Christian
I find it funny these "scientists" (that's the description on San Diego's website) have kept some "evidence" for themselves. The Archaeoraptor is as real as some of these (missing link) ape-man models on display at museums. Why not toss in a unicorn model too, as long as they display it as a hoax.
Well let's compare evidence. One "scientist" says he has an Archaeoraptor fossil, and one says he has a mammoth bone :think: hmmmmmm that's a toughie. Look, I know you and Jukia have a prob with the method of dating a bone. I have a problem with evo's MO using fakes as "evidence" proving theory. Archaeoraptor is only one, remember, it's not like this hasn't happened before (refer to Agent Smith's post)
BTW how's that call coming?
aharvey
New member
Originally posted by Nineveh
That's ok, I can wait
But, aharvey is going to call San Diego for us
Nineveh,
You really are selective in what you choose to read, aren't you? That does explain quite a bit of your recent posts. How else could one possibly explain why in your most recent posts, you still claim that evolutionists use hoaxes to "prove" the theory of evolution?
See my post #220. No, I mean read my post #220.
Like Jukia, too, I have to get back to work. To some extent this is work-related, being an evolutionary biologist and a biology professor and all. In addition (Nineveh, you'll get a laugh out of this!), I am helping to curate a new museum exhibit on the theory of evolution. Given my location in the Bible Belt, I thought it would be prudent to interact with some creationists to see how they think about these issues.
But it's clear that nothing will ever shake your steadfast belief that any evidence for evolutionary theory must be (I'm guessing, by definition) fraudulent. Indeed, I 'm willing to bet that the very fact that people like me are trying to change your mind on this only strengthens your conviction that you have uncovered the truth about evolution. And, conversely, that when we stop trying (which should be ... right ... about ... now), you will feel completely vindicated.
docpotato
New member
It's funny that even after evolutionists perpetrate hoaxes to prove their theory, some other people working for the same theory go ahead and REVEAL that it's a hoax.
I would think that people like Nineveh here would be more in support of Nature magazine and the like since they are constantly revealing evolutionist hoaxes! Clearly they are doing the work of creationists for them, disproving things left and right so that the theory of evolution is now in shambles!
Of course they are quick to embrace the work and word of scientists when they reveal a hoax but loathe to accept the work of scientists when they don't like it. Funny that.
I would think that people like Nineveh here would be more in support of Nature magazine and the like since they are constantly revealing evolutionist hoaxes! Clearly they are doing the work of creationists for them, disproving things left and right so that the theory of evolution is now in shambles!
Of course they are quick to embrace the work and word of scientists when they reveal a hoax but loathe to accept the work of scientists when they don't like it. Funny that.
Nineveh
Merely Christian
I was giving examples of past hoaxes. ( MO = modus operandi = a method of procedure = past experience)
Yeah, and like Jukia you have time to make long winded posts, but not enough time to dial a phone. I've emailed CSI, I wonder where the info will come from first?
What's clear is I would like to find out if the Archaeoraptor is part of the Czerkas' exhibit in San Diego or not. Just a little evidence, a smidgen of proof, a few facts instead of "educated guesswork". I know, that's a lot to ask of an evo.
***
Speaking of reading the right things: "Why do you think it's on their main page?" (post 221)
The mammoth isn't on the "main" page of CSI (nor Coral Ridge's), I saw that when I emailed. I wonder where you got the idea it was (educated guess)?
Flipper
New member
I just got off the phone from the SDMNH palaeontology department.
They do not have archaeoraptor in their new exhibition and pointed out to me straight away (without any prompting) that archaeoraptor was a fake. When I explained why I was asking, the person I was speaking to pointed out that the specimens they do have are amazingly obvious transitional forms. He said that the fossils are preserved in such detail that it's clear they are feathered raptors.
So I suppose that settles that?
They do not have archaeoraptor in their new exhibition and pointed out to me straight away (without any prompting) that archaeoraptor was a fake. When I explained why I was asking, the person I was speaking to pointed out that the specimens they do have are amazingly obvious transitional forms. He said that the fossils are preserved in such detail that it's clear they are feathered raptors.
So I suppose that settles that?
Free-Agent Smith
New member
Do dogs evolve twice a year, at the beginnings of the warm and cold seasons or do they adapt? Does their DNA change each season to reflect it?
OK, they aren't classified as dinosaurs. What makes certain reptiles dinosaurs and not others?
Nineveh
Merely Christian
Thank you Flipper
So there are no plastic models or pics? That's great!Yep, that settles it for me... except the part about, "amazingly obvious transitional forms"
Storrs Olson, curator of birds at the Smithsonian Institution's Natural History Museum seems to take issue.
aharvey
New member
Now you can't really say that, can you? He wrote the letter to which you refer five years ago, well before the "amazingly obvious transitional forms" hit the scene. Get it? Storrs Olson was not referring to the specimens that are on display in San Diego. Now if I understand your MO correctly, you're going to reply that unless I can prove that the fossils in the new exhibit are not the ones he was complaining about, then you are correct in implying that they are (despite the temporal incongruity)!
Nineveh
Merely Christian
Ya know, busy busy guy... It would seem to me the first thing you might do would at least offer flipper the phone charge for fulfilling your promise and offereing the evidence to back your claim.
If I felt the urge, I'm sure I could find info about how these fossils really aren't "missing links". If they were, the world would not be able to escape the NEWS of it all. Any missing link anywhere for anything is usually at least a cover story on National Geographic.
Nineveh posted:
Dimo, really now. The reason you can't come up with evo-science backing your claim "junk DNA" has a "future use" is because it doesn't.
Dimo:
Like I said Nineveh, I have neither the time nor the understanding of this subject to try and convince you of something you do not want to understand. The whole subject started with your condemnation of science for using the term "junk" to referr to DNA for which there is no documented effect on a phenotype. If your argument is not that this in any way undermines the value of natural philosophy, then I have nothing further to convince you of. My claim that some DNA that appears to have no function may have a future use, is a peripheral issue here. It has no bearing on your original argument. The truth is neither you nor I know for sure if this peripheral example is accurate or not. You choose the side that this cannot possibly be so, I believe that it is possible and likely.
At any rate this term "junk" is inappropriate. And since you and I agree that it is a misnomer then why are we discussing it anymore.
Ninveh posted:
You wanted to appear to have an understanding of something you didn't, so you told a "little white lie" out of your ignorance.
Dimo:
I do not want to appear to be anything that I am not. I did not claim that I had any peer reviewed literature on this. I explained right from the beggining that my example was from my own personal experience. After considering that the term "junk" is a mosnomer, I felt that discussing the remaining misconceptions would only serve to confuse the situation. I do believe that this subject is being investigated by professionals. Perhaps you should consult these folks, I am sure they have much peer reviewed evidence for one or both sides of this debate.
Nineveh posted:
Sort of like what evo did when it named DNA it didn't understand as "junk". And that in a nut shell was my point: the world view of evo functions by the rule: "if you can't blind them with brilliance, baffle them with BS". Thank you for illustrating my point.
Dimo:
But you said in a previous post that scientists understand that "junk" DNA is not really "junk". It is the layperson who grasps onto this term "junk" as more explanatory than it really is. All scientists meant by "junk" was that they did not know the influence of this DNA. Kind of like when some people throw things out that seem to be no longer usefull. Although this was not the best analogy many people in the general public, (and I'm qouting you) "for better or worse let the term stick". Then lay people such as yourself use it as evidence that these scientists are BSing us.
There is also another saying; "People often find what they don't understand to be of no value or use, or even wrong or evil." You my friend are a prime example of this.
Dimo, really now. The reason you can't come up with evo-science backing your claim "junk DNA" has a "future use" is because it doesn't.
Dimo:
Like I said Nineveh, I have neither the time nor the understanding of this subject to try and convince you of something you do not want to understand. The whole subject started with your condemnation of science for using the term "junk" to referr to DNA for which there is no documented effect on a phenotype. If your argument is not that this in any way undermines the value of natural philosophy, then I have nothing further to convince you of. My claim that some DNA that appears to have no function may have a future use, is a peripheral issue here. It has no bearing on your original argument. The truth is neither you nor I know for sure if this peripheral example is accurate or not. You choose the side that this cannot possibly be so, I believe that it is possible and likely.
At any rate this term "junk" is inappropriate. And since you and I agree that it is a misnomer then why are we discussing it anymore.
Ninveh posted:
You wanted to appear to have an understanding of something you didn't, so you told a "little white lie" out of your ignorance.
Dimo:
I do not want to appear to be anything that I am not. I did not claim that I had any peer reviewed literature on this. I explained right from the beggining that my example was from my own personal experience. After considering that the term "junk" is a mosnomer, I felt that discussing the remaining misconceptions would only serve to confuse the situation. I do believe that this subject is being investigated by professionals. Perhaps you should consult these folks, I am sure they have much peer reviewed evidence for one or both sides of this debate.
Nineveh posted:
Sort of like what evo did when it named DNA it didn't understand as "junk". And that in a nut shell was my point: the world view of evo functions by the rule: "if you can't blind them with brilliance, baffle them with BS". Thank you for illustrating my point.
Dimo:
But you said in a previous post that scientists understand that "junk" DNA is not really "junk". It is the layperson who grasps onto this term "junk" as more explanatory than it really is. All scientists meant by "junk" was that they did not know the influence of this DNA. Kind of like when some people throw things out that seem to be no longer usefull. Although this was not the best analogy many people in the general public, (and I'm qouting you) "for better or worse let the term stick". Then lay people such as yourself use it as evidence that these scientists are BSing us.
There is also another saying; "People often find what they don't understand to be of no value or use, or even wrong or evil." You my friend are a prime example of this.
Nineveh
Merely Christian
It's pretty simple Dimo, you were bluffing and got busted. I am finding it humorous that evos can't seem to find the time to prove their bold statements, but can spend quite a while making these long winded posts.
My whole argument was proven with your attitute. It takes a pompous attitude to look at DNA, not know what it is, then lable it junk. I've already told you this 2 or 3 times. I'm sorry you still don't understand. But you do provide a good example of the attitude.
Because you still fail to see offereing your personal belief of "junk DNA" is just that: your idea, no peer review to back you up, no scientific underpinnings, it's just your idea being passed off onto someone you felt was ignorant about the concept of 'junk DNA".
I didn't have a misconception of "junk DNA" you do with your belief that evo-science would even suggest your definition for it.
And it's still not defined by evo-science the way you define it.
Why? Because I won't let you buffalo me into your definition of "junk DNA"?
You ask why we are still going on with this, it's because you keep replying offering longer and longer ecxcuses for your lack of information on why you believe "junk DNA" is defined as you define it.
For me, the matter was settled when you stated you did't have any evo-science to back your belief.