:: Hooberus, I see you're still at it -- posting things you cannot back up and running away when challenged. Note that this is a prophecy for purposes of this thread.
: Actually Alan, I can only recall one instance in which I deliberately declined to continue an origins discussion with you on another thread. This was not due to the fact that I felt that your arguments were not answerable, but due to other reasons.
Then your memory leaves something to be desired, as apparently does your ability to fathom what constitutes an answer to a challenge. An answer does not consist merely of posting a link to some website. An answer may consist of your own discussion of the contents of a website, along with a link to it.
Furthermore, I was not only talking about threads in which I commented, but about the many posts of yours where you ran away from discussion with other posters.
My point is this: You don't have enough understanding of the material you sometimes quote, but most often simply list links to, to discuss it intelligently. You obviously simply find material that sort of supports your ideas, and post it with little or no understanding. See my challenge about your reference to Gish on the Turkana boy below for a typical example. In this, you're very much like Watchtower writers who comb the literature for anything that supports their silly notions, ignore anything they don't like, print only what seems to support them even when context indicates the opposite, and are too ignorant and/or cowardly to answer letters that challenge them.
:: Note that I don't accept the 10,000 year figure. If you read a careful explanation for such a figure in, say, Whitcomb and Morris' The Genesis Flood, you can see how much straw pulling they do to get this high figure. Of course, not even they are particularly convinced of it, but advance it only to get around certain rather obvious problems.
: High figures (like 5,000 years before Abraham) are given as an outside limit in the book The Genesis Flood.
That is essentially what I just said.
: It would not take much of an extension to accomidate Egyptian chronology and the Biblical flood.
Using the outside limit figures, yes, but not the figures they lean towards.
: For example if the flood occurred in 4500 BC, then there is more than enough time to accomidate Egyptian dates.
Yes, if you use that date. Unfortunately, a great many solid Fundamentalist bible commentators can show why the Bible does not allow for such dates.
: It could also be that the Egyptian chronologies are not strictly accurate, which would allow for an even more recent flood date.
You're forgetting the rotation of the Egyptian calendar with respect to the seasons. I think I mistated something in an earlier post about this, since I was writing off the cuff. According to the link http://webexhibits.org/calendars/timeline.html the earliest known date in the Egyptian calendar was its founding, 4236 B.C. In order to obtain enough observations to get a decent calendar, they must have begun observing at least a thousand years earlier. This extends the beginning of Egyptian civilization at least as far back as 5000 B.C.
: For example one could propose a flood date of 3,000BC and a pyramid date of 2,000 BC. However even if one accepts standard Egyptian chronology there really is no large conflict with a recent Biblical flood.
Only if you discount the many Bible commentators who literally interpret the given chronology.
::: Also there is evidence that all living people decended recently from one man and one woman.
:: ... You're probably talking about the "mitochondrial Eve" theory ...
:: So Hooberus, your claim that there is evidence that all living people decended recently from one man and one woman is wrong on a variety of counts: all of the evidence presented talks about time scales from 75,000 to 325,000 years, which if anything, disproves the Adam and Eve story, and the evidence for the timescale of descent through the male is so scanty as to be useless.
: The date of 200,000 plus years for mitochondrial eve is based on the evolutionary assumption that humans and apes shraed a common ancestor 4 plus million years ago! Hense it is faulty reasoning to use a date based on humans and apes sharing a common ancestor to attempt to disprove a Biblical chronology in which humans were created separately.
: The following quote is taken from an icr arcticle:
: "It is also necessary for the evolutionist to determine the rate of mutational changes in the DNA if these mutational changes are to be used as a "molecular clock." Since there is nothing in the nuclear DNA or the mtDNA molecules to indicate how often they mutate, we might also ask how the evolutionist calibrates his "molecular clock." ..."
This is yet another fine example of how Young-Earth Creationists fail to complete the circle of logic. They fail to account for the fact that a great many hominid, hominoid and ape fossils form a sequence both in time and in structure, and that this sequence could not possibly exist in the time frame of the less than 6.000-10,000 years allowed by their creation notions. Radioisotope dating provides absolute dates for many of these fossils. All sorts of other evidence is perfectly consistent with these dates, including the simple fact that massive changes have occurred in the geology of the regions in which the fossils have been found, which changes had to have been after the claimed global flood of Noah! There is no way that YECs can explain any of this, and so they don't even try. They know very well that no dating methods at all support their young-earth ideas. Thus there is no logical reason to doubt the overall reliability of modern dating methods.
: The following taken from the book Refuting Evolution by Jonathan Sarfati Eight printing November 1999, gives evidence that the date for eve may be much more recent than the figures which assume evolution.
Sarfati is a crackpot and I will not waste space commenting on his nutty ideas. If you want to argue for him, go to it.
:: Such a sparkling disproof of the geological record is difficult to argue with. Nevertheless, I'll tackle it.
:: The fossil record has nothing to do with "evolutionary assumptions", nor does the geological timescale...
:: Boiling them all down: that plants and animals occur in the fossil record in a sensible sequence that can be dated via reliable methods such as radioisotopes...
: While some fossils are generally found above other groups of fossils, There are more than enough instances of missing systems with no evidence of erosion to call into question the whole concept of geologic ages.
Nonsense. Instead of doing as usual, why don't you take an example you think you can explain, and explain it to us?
Oh please! Woodmorappe is a thoroughgoing ass. His argument is a stereotypical strawman through and through. He claims that no single "geologic column" exists and that this is proof that evolution is wrong. His argument is a strawman for a simple reason: No scientist is claiming that a single "geologic column" exists. Indeed, solid geology shows that the surface of the earth has undergone massive changes via plate tectonics and erosion. Furthermore, every place on earth would be expected to have a different "geologic column" and each such "column" would be expected to be different since the history of each place on earth is different from every other. Why YECs refuse to think about such simple things is a reflection of their overall refusal to think.
:::: The creation account generally: The Bible sets forth the creation of various plant and animal types in a specific order. This order is not observed in the paleontological record.
::: Most creationists hold that the fossil record was laid down by the flood not during creation, hense the order in the fossil record need not conform to the creation sequence in the Bible. Don't you know what creationists actually believe about these things?
:: Of course I know what they believe. So-called "flood geology" is a most ridiculous notion. To claim that the fossil sequence is such as it is because some animals were smarter than others and so knew to run for higher ground is the height of stupidity.
: If you know what they believe then why did you use the argument "The creation account generally: The Bible sets forth the creation of various plant and animal types in a specific order. This order is not observed in the paleontological record." ?
Because a lot of creationists -- even sometimes those of the young-earth variety -- claim that the order of creation given in Genesis is consistent with the fossil record. The fact that so-called "flood geologists" often make inconsistent claims is not my problem.
: Since a few progressive creationists believe that the fossil record was laid down during periods of creation I assume this is what you were referring to.
: However most main-line creationist organizations do not hold to this.
Indeed, YECs have styled themselves as "mainline" but the true mainline churches completely reject their nonsense. JWs make a similar claim, inferring that because they teach "the truth" given to them via their Governing Body, and no one else does, they're mainline Christians -- fact, the only Christians.
: Several of the evolutionary proponets here have used this faulty argument here and it makes me wonder how much they really know about the creation model.
There is no "creation model" besides "God did it".
:: To claim that the fossil sequence is such as it is because some animals were smarter than others and so knew to run for higher ground is the height of stupidity.
: Mobility is only one of many diffferent mechanisms proposed to explan the limited order found in fossils.
Yes, and all are at least as ridiculous as the mobility argument. Take, for example, how YECs try to explain away the existence of millions of annual varves in the Green River formation in Wyoming. These varve layers are usually only fractions of a millimeter thick, and are often continuous over thousands of square kilometers. Physics proves that in any real situation, the varves must have been formed very slowly, over the better part of a year for each one, since in any real situation turbulence would disturb the settling of the microscopic clay particles that comprise the varves. But YECs claim that these millions of layers formed in a few months during Noah's flood, necessitating the laying down of one new varve every two seconds or so. Do you know how YEC "researchers" attempt to "prove" that such layers can be formed so rapidly? They mix up sediments in a test tube and let them settle! Buy they fail to note the effect of turbulence, which would be there in massive amounts during Noah's flood. Turbulence prevents test tube results from applying over an area of thousands of square miles. So they deliberately ignore basic physics in order to support their nonsensical claims.
:: For example, in 1984 there was discovered near Lake Turkana in Kenya the partial skeleton of a Homo erectus boy of about 10-12 years of age. It was buried in sediments that, via a variety of evidences, are obviously much older than 4,500 to 10,000 years. You can find tons of information on this by going to any search engine and typing the words homo, erectus and boy. The first one that Google came up with for me was this: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/15000.html . A number of websites have pictures of the skull of this boy. It is obviously not that of a modern human, being quite outside the range of skull shapes and brain capacities of any modern human. But the rest of the skeleton is quite human. How do young-earth creationists explain evidence like this? Answer: they don't. They either ignore it, or come up with amazingly stupid claims that don't address the reality of what was found.
: Turkana boy is discussed in Gish's book Evolution: The fossils Still Say No!
Gish thoroughly misrepresents the evidence. I've read his books; I know firsthand how this man -- supposedly an honest Christian -- stoops to gross misrepresentations. He really ought to write for the Watchtower.
: I've read some of the information on this and other homo erectus fossils from the talk-origin site. The site misrepresents what Gish's book actually says on homo-erectus.
Nonsense. You have no idea what you're talking about. Here are several discussions:
Can you point out even one thing that misrepresents Gish's claims? I don't think so. I don't think so because it's painfully obvious that you're incapable of reasoning for yourself on this subject.