Neil deGrasse Tyson vs. Young Earth Creationism

rhinoceros

beegoodbees
They date the skulls based on where it looks like it should fit into the preexisting model. This is not science. Dating fossils based on layers and dating layers based on fossils I also have a problem with.

That's what you want to believe because these skulls are indisputable evidence against Christian creation. Anyway, what you wrote is a lie. For example, the G-skull is this one. You can read about how it was dated here.

I don't know what "christian creation" is but those skulls fit right in with the history presented in the Torah. It says that mans head swelled with knowledge.

I did not lie, in many cases that is exactly what is done.

There is no provable way to date very old bones or anything else because there is no benchmark or control to compare against. Just like the distance to the closest star it is also speculative.

reply to post by beegoodbees


Not to be a stickler but if you click the link about the dating you would not have said

I said fossils, those skulls are not fossils are they?

From the article....the first line from the article actually..

Tommorrow, Nature will be publishing a new study of the Dmanisi fossil specimens

Your first response to this thread contained a few "i believe, and it seems logical" so I am curious. If you believe everything was created why don't we see things alive today in the geologic record with say things that were alive before dinosaurs? Were they alive then or was there more creating later?

reply to post by drivers1492


OK, you got me with the fossil thing, my mistake. That does not detract meaning from my other statements though. That's what I get for staying up late last night.

To your other point,


"There is another explanation for the order of the fossils in the fossil record which fits the facts just as well, or even better than evolution. Notice that the oldest fossils are bottom dwelling, stationary animals such as sponges followed by slow moving bottom dwellers such as molusks, worms and trilobites. Next are swimmers such as jellyfish and fish. Next are animals who live on the margin between land and water, amphibians followed by reptiles. The last fossils to appear in the fossil record are fast moving land animals such as mammals and birds.

Notice that one of the oldest mammal fossils, found in the Jurrasic period, is a beaver-like mammal that lived on the margin between land and water. Likewise, the second oldest fossil of a bird, found in the Cretaceous Period, is a loon-like bird which also lived on the margin between land and water. They were buried before most of the mammals and birds because they lived near sea level. Click on each picture to read each article. Old Bird Fossil

According to this explanation, the fossil record simply shows the order in which animals would be buried if there was rapid sedimentation on a massive scale. Rapid sedimentation at the beginning of the Cambrian layers would also explain why so many fossils are suddenly found in these layers when very few fossils were formed before. This rapid sedimentation would be the expected result of a universal flood which is referred to in the writings and legends of many cultures all over the Earth. (See Why Does Nearly Every Culture Have a Tradition of a Global Flood? by John D. Morris, Ph.D.) "

if you are interested in reading the whole document here it is.

www.rodsgarden.50megs.com...

reply to post by beegoodbees


I can see how that makes sense as far as viewing the placement in the layers. Although I find it odd that we don't find anything mixed in don't you? Shall we say a tsunami in the past would rip animals from the bottom of the sea as well as the land and the preservation of these animals would be mixed together. Yet we don't see that. Ever. Do you not find that odd? Why no ducks in older strata? While I get the idea of bottom dwellers being buried first things do die in water and sink and become fossils but yet looking at the strata the animals we have today simply are not found in the oldest fossil record anywhere. For me, logical thinking would state, due to the sheer amount of animals we would find a couple somewhere. Since we don't it's reasonable to assume they weren't alive then. The facts are that there is a definite line of animals in the geologic column that show many animals did not exist in the past. Using the idea presented in the page you linked does not account for that. We find no hominid type fossils in the strata that contains dino's yet we exist and live in the same places in the environment they would have lived so why are we not there?



note.....I'm still reading through the link I just wanted to ask this question before finishing

reply to post by drivers1492


I apologize for the delay

Well without doing any research, off of the top of my head I believe the explanation is that reptiles sink rather quickly whereas mammals and birds float for a while first before sinking leaving more time for decomposition, scavenging and most importantly the sediment has time to settle before the mammals finally sink.

Let me know your thoughts on that and maybe I'll do a little more digging.

Just to be clear I don't claim to be able to prove creation or disprove evolution, my point is that evolution is not proven scientific fact but rather a hypothesis that cannot realistically be proven or disproven without a time machine. There are still a lot of unanswered questions. The first one being how did all of those fossils form in the first place? How did they get buried so quickly that they did not decompose which is what normally happens in nature.

I have no problem with evolution being taught (even though I think it is ridiculous) if they would just say "some scientists believe" before hand instead of presenting it as fact.

beegoodbees
I have no problem with evolution being taught if they would just say "some scientists believe" before hand instead of presenting it as fact.

So the reverse would be have to apply:

I have no problem with creation being taught if they would just say "some christians believe" before hand instead of presenting it as science.

cartenz

beegoodbees
I have no problem with evolution being taught if they would just say "some scientists believe" before hand instead of presenting it as fact.

So the reverse would be have to apply:

I have no problem with creation being taught if they would just say "some christians believe" before hand instead of presenting it as science.

Exactly, I think christianity is also ridiculous because unlike most christians I actually read the bible. Indoctrination is what it is regardless of the content. All sides of every story should be presented so people can make up their own mind.

The problems and assumptions regarding evolution are ignored, dismissed and or not taught at all (as far as I know from experience) so we have a bunch of people running around calling everyone who doubts ignorant when they themselves don't have all of the information (the definition of ignorance).

reply to post by beegoodbees


I had a reply almost finished and hit the mouse reaching for coffee and left the page......so lets try again.

Well without doing any research, off of the top of my head I believe the explanation is that reptiles sink rather quickly whereas mammals and birds float for a while first before sinking leaving more time for decomposition, scavenging and most importantly the sediment has time to settle before the mammals finally sink.

If the layering we see is due to this why are the structure remains and stone tools or relics not in the lower layers. Since heavier was on the bottom first, then those items would be below the animal remains not above. There are no tools or structure remains found below ancient animal remains anywhere in the world. So I'm not sure how this could be true in any way. At the very least we should find a hint of something which we haven't or anything even close to it. Yet we do find early birds and mammals in strata among the dino strata. That means that it does happen outside of the proposed layering so we should find evidence of man in that strata as well would you not agree?

Just to be clear I don't claim to be able to prove creation or disprove evolution, my point is that evolution is not proven scientific fact but rather a hypothesis that cannot realistically be proven or disproven without a time machine. There are still a lot of unanswered questions. The first one being how did all of those fossils form in the first place? How did they get buried so quickly that they did not decompose which is what normally happens in nature.

I'm not asking you to prove anything only your opinions on the subject as they are different than mine. I do agree there are many questions that are not answered. How fossils form is well known by studying the fossils themselves and there are a variety of ways. I do think one issue with fossil formation is when people hear that they are buried quickly they have it in their minds that its done either instantly or within a day or two. Thats not the case at all. I had a cow that got out year before last and went up into the mountain for some reason. When I did finally find it she was dead and so far up in the woods there was no way for me to get to her and bury her. This summer I was in the same area and came across her remains. It was mostly buried some still on top and some was gone. The point is the bones were being covered and has the potential to fossilize. On a geologic timescale 2 years is quick. I suppose depending on how old you believe our planet to be would also affect if you consider this quick. Bones can lay for quite a while before they breakdown is my point so the "quick" time isn't really quick unless your looking at geologic time.

beegoodbees
There is no provable way to date very old bones or anything else because there is no benchmark or control to compare against.

Disprove this method:

Potassium–argon dating, abbreviated K–Ar dating, is a radiometric dating method used in geochronology and archaeology. It is based on measurement of the product of the radioactive decay of an isotope of potassium (K) into argon (Ar). Potassium is a common element found in many materials, such as micas, clay minerals, tephra, and evaporites. In these materials, the decay product 40Ar is able to escape the liquid (molten) rock, but starts to accumulate when the rock solidifies (recrystallizes). Time since recrystallization is calculated by measuring the ratio of the amount of 40Ar accumulated to the amount of 40K remaining. The long half-life of 40K allows the method to be used to calculate the absolute age of samples older than a few thousand years

Then disprove this method:

Argon–argon (or 40Ar/39Ar) dating is a radiometric dating method invented to supersede potassium-argon (K/Ar) dating in accuracy. The older method required splitting samples into two for separate potassium and argon measurements, while the newer method requires only one rock fragment or mineral grain and uses a single measurement of argon isotopes. 40Ar/39Ar dating relies on neutron irradiation from a nuclear reactor to convert a stable form of potassium (39K) into the radioactive 39Ar. As long as a standard of known age is co-irradiated with unknown samples, it is possible to use a single measurement of argon isotopes to calculate the 40K/40Ar* ratio, and thus to calculate the age of the unknown sample. 40Ar* refers to the radiogenic 40Ar, i.e. the 4040Ar produced from radioactive decay of 40K. 40Ar* does not include atmospheric argon adsorbed to the surface or inherited through diffusion and its calculated value is derived from measuring the 36Ar (which is assumed to be of atmospheric origin) and assuming that 40Ar is found in a constant ratio to 36Ar in atmospheric gases.

Then disprove this method:

Magnetostratigraphy is a geophysical correlation technique used to date sedimentary and volcanic sequences. The method works by collecting oriented samples at measured intervals throughout the section. The samples are analyzed to determine their characteristic remanent magnetization (ChRM), that is, the polarity of Earth's magnetic field at the time a stratum was deposited. This is possible because volcanic flows acquire a thermoremanent magnetization and sediments acquire a depositional remanent magnetization, both of which reflect the direction of the Earth's field at the time of formation.

Then finally calculate the odds that all these three methods give the same estimate independently.

edit. quotes are from wikipedia

beegoodbees
A few skulls that look similar but different is far from a complete chain especially since some of them seem to be devolving at times. Where is the link between H and I? Where is the link between K and L?

The skulls don't necessarily (probably) represent just one lineage. With time and new discoveries, new skulls are added. Let me ask you this, if species are more-or-less static, then where are the 2 million year old skulls of Homo sapiens? Where are the 100 million year old giraffe bones? Where are all the old bones of contemporary species? Fossilization is a rare thing, but if contemporary species existed as they're now 100 million years ago, then surely for example at least one 100 million year old skull of some contemporary mammal such as a dolphin or a bear would have been uncovered already. But no such thing. Explain the missing bones.

reply to post by beegoodbees


In that case, I fully expect you to address rhinoceros's two posts above as intelligently and thoroughly as he answered yours. Otherwise, you're demonstrating the same behavior you just decried.

drivers1492
reply to post by beegoodbees

 

I had a reply almost finished and hit the mouse reaching for coffee and left the page......so lets try again.

Well without doing any research, off of the top of my head I believe the explanation is that reptiles sink rather quickly whereas mammals and birds float for a while first before sinking leaving more time for decomposition, scavenging and most importantly the sediment has time to settle before the mammals finally sink.

If the layering we see is due to this why are the structure remains and stone tools or relics not in the lower layers. Since heavier was on the bottom first, then those items would be below the animal remains not above. There are no tools or structure remains found below ancient animal remains anywhere in the world. So I'm not sure how this could be true in any way. At the very least we should find a hint of something which we haven't or anything even close to it. Yet we do find early birds and mammals in strata among the dino strata. That means that it does happen outside of the proposed layering so we should find evidence of man in that strata as well would you not agree?

Just to be clear I don't claim to be able to prove creation or disprove evolution, my point is that evolution is not proven scientific fact but rather a hypothesis that cannot realistically be proven or disproven without a time machine. There are still a lot of unanswered questions. The first one being how did all of those fossils form in the first place? How did they get buried so quickly that they did not decompose which is what normally happens in nature.

I'm not asking you to prove anything only your opinions on the subject as they are different than mine. I do agree there are many questions that are not answered. How fossils form is well known by studying the fossils themselves and there are a variety of ways. I do think one issue with fossil formation is when people hear that they are buried quickly they have it in their minds that its done either instantly or within a day or two. Thats not the case at all. I had a cow that got out year before last and went up into the mountain for some reason. When I did finally find it she was dead and so far up in the woods there was no way for me to get to her and bury her. This summer I was in the same area and came across her remains. It was mostly buried some still on top and some was gone. The point is the bones were being covered and has the potential to fossilize. On a geologic timescale 2 years is quick. I suppose depending on how old you believe our planet to be would also affect if you consider this quick. Bones can lay for quite a while before they breakdown is my point so the "quick" time isn't really quick unless your looking at geologic time.

You make some good points. As far as the cow is concerned, even buried bones will decompose, that is why we don't find bones and fossils everywhere we dig. In order to become a fossil it has to be buried deep enough, fast enough to be protected from the decaying forces of the world. I can think of no circumstance that would create all of these fossils in certain layers only as opposed to being found almost everywhere or almost nowhere other than a large scale movement of water and or earth.

As for the tools and structures you mentioned, as I have already stated, anything found that does not fit the current model is ignored, hidden explained away by geological shifts or all of the above. Any such finds will most likely not be displayed or debated but rather locked away in the museum basement. Similar to what happens when fossils are found in the wrong layers or order.

here are some examples I managed to find.

www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk...

rhinoceros

beegoodbees
There is no provable way to date very old bones or anything else because there is no benchmark or control to compare against.

Disprove this method:

Potassium–argon dating, abbreviated K–Ar dating, is a radiometric dating method used in geochronology and archaeology. It is based on measurement of the product of the radioactive decay of an isotope of potassium (K) into argon (Ar). Potassium is a common element found in many materials, such as micas, clay minerals, tephra, and evaporites. In these materials, the decay product 40Ar is able to escape the liquid (molten) rock, but starts to accumulate when the rock solidifies (recrystallizes). Time since recrystallization is calculated by measuring the ratio of the amount of 40Ar accumulated to the amount of 40K remaining. The long half-life of 40K allows the method to be used to calculate the absolute age of samples older than a few thousand years

Then disprove this method:

Argon–argon (or 40Ar/39Ar) dating is a radiometric dating method invented to supersede potassium-argon (K/Ar) dating in accuracy. The older method required splitting samples into two for separate potassium and argon measurements, while the newer method requires only one rock fragment or mineral grain and uses a single measurement of argon isotopes. 40Ar/39Ar dating relies on neutron irradiation from a nuclear reactor to convert a stable form of potassium (39K) into the radioactive 39Ar. As long as a standard of known age is co-irradiated with unknown samples, it is possible to use a single measurement of argon isotopes to calculate the 40K/40Ar* ratio, and thus to calculate the age of the unknown sample. 40Ar* refers to the radiogenic 40Ar, i.e. the 4040Ar produced from radioactive decay of 40K. 40Ar* does not include atmospheric argon adsorbed to the surface or inherited through diffusion and its calculated value is derived from measuring the 36Ar (which is assumed to be of atmospheric origin) and assuming that 40Ar is found in a constant ratio to 36Ar in atmospheric gases.

Then disprove this method:

Magnetostratigraphy is a geophysical correlation technique used to date sedimentary and volcanic sequences. The method works by collecting oriented samples at measured intervals throughout the section. The samples are analyzed to determine their characteristic remanent magnetization (ChRM), that is, the polarity of Earth's magnetic field at the time a stratum was deposited. This is possible because volcanic flows acquire a thermoremanent magnetization and sediments acquire a depositional remanent magnetization, both of which reflect the direction of the Earth's field at the time of formation.

Then finally calculate the odds that all these three methods give the same estimate independently.

edit. quotes are from wikipedia

edit on 30-10-2013 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)

In order to be proven scientifically we need a control or a benchmark if you like. Something that we already know is a certain age to compare these methods against. Since we have nothing that we know indisputably is 50 million or a hundred million years old all of the mentioned methods are based on speculation.

A large part of that speculation is that gravity, geomagnetic, solar and all other forces known and unknown have remained unchanged and that a hundred million years ago every type of rock, mineral and chemical had exactly the same properties as they do now.

To chemically date something you have to know what the chemical composition was when it formed, it is impossible to know this.

The odds that they would all come up with the same answer are 1 to 1. You see they start out with the number they want and then they keep fiddling with it until it says the right number. Using one speculation to prove another is not science. Whenever a test disagrees with the current model, just like the physical evidence it is ignored or suppressed. Here is an excerpt from an article that explains how modern pseudoscience works.

"What would happen if a dinosaur bone were carbon dated? - At Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Scientists dated dinosaur bones using the Carbon dating method. The age they came back with was only a few thousand years old.

This date did not fit the preconceived notion that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. So what did they do? They threw the results out. And kept their theory that dinosaurs lived "millions of years ago" instead.

This is common practice.

They then use potassium argon, or other methods, and date the fossils again.

They do this many times, using a different dating method each time. The results can be as much as 150 million years different from each other! - how’s that for an "exact" science?

They then pick the date they like best, based upon their preconceived notion of how old their theory says the fossil should be (based upon the Geologic column).

So they start with the assumption that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, then manipulate the results until they agree with their conclusion.

Their assumptions dictate their conclusions.

So why is it that if the date doesn't fit the theory, they change the facts?

Unbiased science changes the theory to support the facts. They should not change the facts to fit the theory."


As I said, just like the distance to the nearest star, it is all speculative. Did you ever ask yourself how scientists "know" how far away a star is?

reply to post by beegoodbees


How can you just shrug off his explanations when he gave you a very detailed rundown of exactly how the process operates? You just went, "Meh, I don't care."

That's not very professional at all. How do you expect us to take you seriously when you don't extend the same courtesy to our sincere efforts?

reply to post by Grimpachi

I don’t know why but he is so easy to listen to. He is right though creationism has no place in science.

So far as I am aware, faith has never sought to take a place in science. Both have indeed tried to displace the other, but never... so far as I am aware, neither has ever tried to insert themselves in the other.

rhinoceros

beegoodbees
A few skulls that look similar but different is far from a complete chain especially since some of them seem to be devolving at times. Where is the link between H and I? Where is the link between K and L?

The skulls don't necessarily (probably) represent just one lineage. With time and new discoveries, new skulls are added. Let me ask you this, if species are more-or-less static, then where are the 2 million year old skulls of Homo sapiens? Where are the 100 million year old giraffe bones? Where are all the old bones of contemporary species? Fossilization is a rare thing, but if contemporary species existed as they're now 100 million years ago, then surely for example at least one 100 million year old skull of some contemporary mammal such as a dolphin or a bear would have been uncovered already. But no such thing. Explain the missing bones.

I never said static, I said that (and I think it has been somewhat proven since I first hypothesized it) that within the so called junk dna are all of the possible variations of a species. These variations are triggered as needed for optimum survival. Life was made to cope with the natural changes of this planet. A good example of this is the pepper moth.

The pepper moth is often used to prove evolution. In fact this is observable evidence against evolution. The pepper moth changed from white to black and back to white over a relatively short period of time in order to match the changing color of the trees. This should have happened over a very long period of time according to evolution.

Also these changes if happening by accidental mutations would be very unlikely to happen at all. Is it a coincidence that these moths accidentally mutated at just the right time to match the changing color of the trees? First from light to dark and then back again?

AfterInfinity
reply to post by beegoodbees

 

How can you just shrug off his explanations when he gave you a very detailed rundown of exactly how the process operates? You just went, "Meh, I don't care."

That's not very professional at all. How do you expect us to take you seriously when you don't extend the same courtesy to our sincere efforts?

I don't care if you take me seriously, I do this for people who are interested in truth who may or may not be members that might stumble across this, not for religious zealots, and not for my own personal gratification.

I still have been given no explanation as to why the chimp skull has had it's canine teeth removed or filed down to make it look more human or to how people thousands of years ago drew pictures and made carvings of dinosaurs that supposedly died out tens of millions of years before.

www.genesispark.com...

reply to post by beegoodbees

You make some good points. As far as the cow is concerned, even buried bones will decompose, that is why we don't find bones and fossils everywhere we dig. In order to become a fossil it has to be buried deep enough, fast enough to be protected from the decaying forces of the world. I can think of no circumstance that would create all of these fossils in certain layers only as opposed to being found almost everywhere or almost nowhere other than a large scale movement of water and or earth.

That's not quite correct. If you read about some forms of fossilization you will find that the depth and speed are not required since they are created by the influx of the minerals and water. And to make a point about the flood idea, have you considered the shear volume of animals that we would be talking about comparing that to the amount of fossils we have found? Seems like we would have a few more since it was global and killed everything.

As for the tools and structures you mentioned, as I have already stated, anything found that does not fit the current model is ignored, hidden explained away by geological shifts or all of the above. Any such finds will most likely not be displayed or debated but rather locked away in the museum basement. Similar to what happens when fossils are found in the wrong layers or order.

Ooparts are fascinating to read about. I don't hold your view of the global archeological conspiracy but, I do agree that in some cases finds have been overlooked and stifled because they were just too far outside the established norm. The problem I have is that I cant find a reason to cover it up if it were true. Just peoples desire to be famous if they were able to present a confirmed archeological dig of man dating to 100 million years destroys that idea. Point being, if man had existed there wouldn't be ooparts or anything to argue about here because the tools and the structures would be there. You can't deny facts, well you can but in the long run facts will rule the day in science. There has been fraud and mistakes which makes folks almost salivate with excitement, but that's true in any part of life. But as it stands the geologic record does not support creation or a flood. Not that floods didn't happen just not one that covered the planet.

reply to post by drivers1492


Ok, fossils can form in shallow ground in the right conditions. IF this has been going on for hundreds of millions of years then where are all of the fossils at? There aren’t enough fossils according to you to support a global flood but yet there are enough to support the idea that animals have been living dying and evolving for hundreds of millions of years? Although I’m sure it is not intentional this sounds like double talk to me. Also the formation you are talking about requires the influx of water and minerals. What would cause a large influx of water and minerals in order to form a lot of fossils all over the earth all at once leaving them in only a few layers of sediment? A global flood certainly would. Every ancient civilization all over the world that has any kind of ancient records or oral history all say the same thing. There was a flood. Coincidence?

As far as the tools and structures, we agree that some have been found. If there was a deluge most structures would not have survived to be found at all (large stone pyramids and the like aside). The tools that have been found are just the ones we know about, how many could have been found that we don’t know about. If scientists don’t want to be discredited, they would certainly not want to mess up the current model with pesky things like evidence.

As far as a motive to cover it up well for an individual scientist like I said already, if they go against the grain they are discredited and pushed aside(not to mention they would be acknowledging that they might be wrong). As far as a motive for the establishment as a whole it really comes down to a desire to prove that there is no God and therefore the establishment is the highest law of the land. Obedience is mandatory!