The Big Club Theory

Pages

AuthorTopic: The Big Club Theory
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #50
quote:
Where did this number range come from?

Counting the lifetimes of the generations from Adam to the modern times gives you about 6000 years. So how do you come up with the 8,000-15,000 number?
Presumably because he doesn't quite have the balls to deny that the ancient Egyptians existed.

[ Friday, May 19, 2006 15:35: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #51
quote:
Originally written by wz. As:

A half-formed wing is pretty useless for flying.
Actually, a half-formed wing can give some gliding power that's better than nothing when you're jumping from two or three stories up.

But your point is well-taken: body parts do change function in unpredictable ways from time to time.

quote:
Originally written by Thuryl:

quote:
Where did this number range come from?

Counting the lifetimes of the generations from Adam to the modern times gives you about 6000 years. So how do you come up with the 8,000-15,000 number?
Presumably because he doesn't quite have the balls to deny that the ancient Egyptians existed.

Well, ancient Egyptian history typically starts somewhat less than 6,000 years ago — 5,000 years ago is more conventional. But Mesopotamian history goes back much farther. For the really old sites, such as Jericho, history begins 8,000 years ago or more.

You know, I'd never thought about it that way before, but New Earth Creationists really have some explaining to do about ancient civilizations that go back earlier than 4004 B.C.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
The Establishment
Member # 6
Profile #52
quote:
You know, I'd never thought about it that way before, but New Earth Creationists really have some explaining to do about ancient civilizations that go back earlier than 4004 B.C.
The devil did it. :P

--------------------
Your flower power is no match for my glower power!
Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00
Law Bringer
Member # 6785
Profile #53
It's easy to explain the dating of ancient cultures. The basis for the dates is usually carbon-14 dating and the creationist claim is that the ration of carbon-14 to carbon-12 is not constant over time. So these old dates are actually incorrect. They use the same arguement for other radioactive dating including that atomic bomb testing has contaminated the samples,

Now when you use tree ring dating to build your chronology as the Tree Ring Laboratory at the University of Arizona do as an alternative they have a greater problem. There the overlaying of
hundreds of tree records has been cross checked with carbon dating.

But when God is on your side you can always find an explanation. Didn't you watch The Simpsons last Sunday?

[ Friday, May 19, 2006 21:14: Message edited by: Randomizer ]
Posts: 4643 | Registered: Friday, February 10 2006 08:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #54
For the record, archeological dating goes well beyond C-14 dating. If it were just C-14 dating, I wouldn't believe the dates either, because C-14 dating, by itself, is crappy on small time scales. It's good for millions of years, but it sucks for just a couple thousand years.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #55
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

For the record, archeological dating goes well beyond C-14 dating. If it were just C-14 dating, I wouldn't believe the dates either, because C-14 dating, by itself, is crappy on small time scales. It's good for millions of years, but it sucks for just a couple thousand years.
Actually, it's the other way around; carbon dating is only useful for objects going back from a few thousand years to a few tens of thousands of years, because if something's been dead longer than that, the carbon-14 has decayed to the point that accurately measurable quantities are no longer present. Different radioisotope dating methods, like potassium-argon dating, are used for geological time scales.

[ Friday, May 19, 2006 22:23: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Shock Trooper
Member # 4445
Profile #56
quote:
Originally written by Thuryl:

quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

For the record, archeological dating goes well beyond C-14 dating. If it were just C-14 dating, I wouldn't believe the dates either, because C-14 dating, by itself, is crappy on small time scales. It's good for millions of years, but it sucks for just a couple thousand years.
Actually, it's the other way around; carbon dating is only useful for objects going back from a few thousand years to a few tens of thousands of years, because if something's been dead longer than that, the carbon-14 has decayed to the point that accurately measurable quantities are no longer present. Different radioisotope dating methods, like potassium-argon dating, are used for geological time scales.

pwn3d

To give this post some actual content:

Where the world came from is an ultimately insignificant question compared to the question of what to do with it now that it's here, so perhaps its best to let the creationists continue getting worked up over that. In any case, I'm inclined to cut them a little slack, since most people's belief (mine included) in the correct age of the universe is as blind-faith as theirs in the incorrect one, and believing the correct thing because that's what one has been told is only slightly more admirable than believing the incorrect thing because that's what one has been told, and certainly doesn't entitle one to throw around condescending vitriol.

(I'm not talking about anyone here, just the culture war in general)
Posts: 293 | Registered: Saturday, May 29 2004 07:00
Infiltrator
Member # 6652
Profile #57
The difference would be that there is credible evidence for the correct age, which is why we know it's correct. Believing evidence that others have told you isn't blind faith.

--------------------
But I don't want to ride the elevator.
Posts: 420 | Registered: Sunday, January 8 2006 08:00
Shock Trooper
Member # 4445
Profile #58
Yes, you hold the correct belief. Now, the challenge is to get over yourself. Memorizing evidence ain't that much more impressive than memorizing bible verses.

How complete is your understanding of that evidence? I'd like to know. It's probably somewhere on a level with mine, namely, a level that doesn't justify talking down to anyone. Furthermore, accepting someone's say-so that evidence exists is pretty much the definition of blind faith. Creationists were raised to believe the wrong source. You were raised to believe the right one. That's the difference.

[ Saturday, May 20, 2006 08:10: Message edited by: PoD person ]
Posts: 293 | Registered: Saturday, May 29 2004 07:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 6403
Profile #59
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

... 4004 B.C.
That date, given by Anglican bishop James Ussher (1581-1656), is woefully innacurate. Check your sources :P .

The correct date, given by the rabbinate of the Talmud, is 3760 B.C.

--------------------
??? ??????
???? ?????
Posts: 883 | Registered: Wednesday, October 19 2005 07:00
Warrior
Member # 7067
Profile #60
quote:
Counting the lifetimes of the generations from Adam to the modern times gives you about 6000 years. So how do you come up with the 8,000-15,000 number?

How much time space are you giving inbetween the generations? I got about 8,850. (This is probably highly inaccurate so don't quote me on this.) So make it 7,000-12,000.
quote:
quote:
Originally written by Major:
Yes, but, not 6,000 years ago more like 8,000-15,000 years ago.
You mean you don't believe any of the evidence that the earth is older than that? They found rocks that were billions of years old. It's not arguable. It's cold, hard fact.
It is arguable. [See I just argued against it. :P (just as good as your argument)]
quote:
And please don't give me any of that "to test our faith" stuff. Such poor reasoning causes my eyes to burn out of their sockets.
Who said anything about test of faith stuff?

Creationists were raised to believe the right source. You were raised to believe the wrong one. That's the difference. :This could go either way.
Besides you don't have to be raised that way to believe that way.

--------------------
"I knocked him out, but I managed to hit the reply button before he fell down."-The person behind him.
Posts: 153 | Registered: Monday, April 24 2006 07:00
The Establishment
Member # 6
Profile #61
quote:
It is arguable. [See I just argued against it. (just as good as your argument)]
You have a very naive view of what makes a good argument if you want to argue about radiometric dating by saying just saying its arguable and not presenting an argument. Personally, it's insulting that you dismiss this claim out of hand especially when I tend to know a lot about it.

Could you please comment on your previous assertion that mutations can create no new genes in light of the documented evidence to the contrary.

[ Saturday, May 20, 2006 11:00: Message edited by: *i ]

--------------------
Your flower power is no match for my glower power!
Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
Profile #62
I'm not so extremely confident that anyone knows the correct age of the universe. People seem to have converged somewhere around 14 billion years , and I consider it highly probable that this is right; but for years there were conflicting theories favoring a figure closer to 10 billion, or closer to 20 billion. The current figure has been stable for a few years now, but it's not out of the question that we might revise it again.

15,000 years, however, is right out.

I used to be interested enough in the various meta-issues in this debate that I would patiently discuss it. I've lost that interest since coming reluctantly to the conclusion that young earthers are usually not at all interested in the universe. I think they actually wish it would go away and stop posing obnoxious problems for their view of Scripture (a view which to me is itself very unscriptural). As far as I am concerned, I'm afraid, the relevant verse on this topic is now Matthew 7:6.

[ Saturday, May 20, 2006 11:25: Message edited by: Student of Trinity ]

--------------------
We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty.
Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00
Law Bringer
Member # 335
Profile Homepage #63
quote:
Originally written by Major:

Who said anything about test of faith stuff?
How do you justify things that are tested and found to be older than the Earth, then? What about fossils?

—Alorael, who has never heard anything but hoax or test. What other possibilities are there? God has an odd sense of humor?
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Warrior
Member # 7067
Profile #64
quote:
You have a very naive view of what makes a good argument if you want to argue about radiometric dating by saying just saying its arguable and not presenting an argument.
I was not trying to argue against a statement that says "They have found billion year old rocks." I can't argue with someone who says something, but doesn't tell me what it is. All I was trying to do was show him that he needs to show me what he is talking about. Did you not get the:"just as good as your argument" thing?
quote:
Personally, it's insulting that you dismiss this claim out of hand especially when I tend to know a lot about it.

I certianly did not mean to insult you, but I couldn't understand what rocks he was talking about.
quote:
Could you please comment on your previous assertion that mutations can create no new genes in light of the documented evidence to the contrary.

Your link in the quotation doesn't work. And I don't have time to look up all the different things they show, but some of them meannothing such as:"A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002)." There are two substances (major) that make up bones. One of them(great, I can't think of the name now) Makes it harder-stronger the other makes it more flexible. Thus, if you remove the flexibleness of that one it will make it harder-stronger.
quote:
How do you justify things that are tested and found to be older than the Earth, then? What about fossils?

Yes,I know I still can't figure out how DNA managed to be still there after billions of years.

--------------------
"I knocked him out, but I managed to hit the reply button before he fell down."-The person behind him.
Posts: 153 | Registered: Monday, April 24 2006 07:00
The Establishment
Member # 6
Profile #65
The point with the gene in the bones is that mutations can and do create new properties that can be beneficial or at least are not inherently descructive. In other words, not all mutations are harmful (not directly your claim, but closely related) and the second section shows that new info is indeed added contrary to your claim. Care to comment or would you be willing to refine your stance on genetics?

As for the link not working, all I had to do was take off the last parentheses and I got it to work. From there you should be able to use the search engine.

As far as old rocks, take any rock found to be in excess of 1 million years as shown by appropriate radiometric dating methods. How do you reconcile the existence of these isotopic ratios consistent with the decay rates and predicted theoretical models?

[ Saturday, May 20, 2006 13:26: Message edited by: *i ]

--------------------
Your flower power is no match for my glower power!
Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00
Warrior
Member # 7067
Profile #66
quote:
The point with the gene in the bones is that mutations can and do create new properties that can be beneficial or at least are not inherently descructive. In other words, not all mutations are harmful (not directly your claim, but closely related) and the second section shows that new info is indeed added contrary to your claim. Care to comment or would you be willing to refine your stance on genetics?

I never said that mutetions are always bad. Matter of fact I believe some are good, at least for the animals they happen in. (Such as rats becoming resistant to rat poison.)
quote:
As for the link not working, all I had to do was take off the last parentheses and I got it to work. From there you should be able to use the search engine.

I shall do that shortly.
quote:
As far as old rocks, take any rock found to be in excess of 1 million years as shown by appropriate radiometric dating methods. How do you reconcile the existence of these isotopic ratios consistent with the decay rates and predicted theoretical models?

Dispite the very many things I could say I'll just ask: how does dna last even a million years.

--------------------
"I knocked him out, but I managed to hit the reply button before he fell down."-The person behind him.
Posts: 153 | Registered: Monday, April 24 2006 07:00
Infiltrator
Member # 6652
Profile #67
quote:
Originally written by PoD person:

Yes, you hold the correct belief. Now, the challenge is to get over yourself. Memorizing evidence ain't that much more impressive than memorizing bible verses.

How complete is your understanding of that evidence? I'd like to know. It's probably somewhere on a level with mine, namely, a level that doesn't justify talking down to anyone. Furthermore, accepting someone's say-so that evidence exists is pretty much the definition of blind faith. Creationists were raised to believe the wrong source. You were raised to believe the right one. That's the difference.

I agree with you there- I'm no rocket scientist. It just seemed you were equating a belief that had no proof with a belief that had proof.

I'm not trying to talk down to anyone. Excuse me if I slip occasionally. :P

Now, to Major:

DNA traces found in ancient rock salt

It happens. DNA in ancient rocks. You want to wonder about why it happens, that's fine with me. The article voices several explanations. More could likely be found through a Google search. But it happens.

This would likely explain away your queries much better than I can.

Since these forums won't let me link to google searches, I shall link to but one of many examples. Here.

Search "billion-year old rocks" and you'll get many, many hits.

--------------------
But I don't want to ride the elevator.
Posts: 420 | Registered: Sunday, January 8 2006 08:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #68
quote:
Originally written by Major:

quote:
How do you justify things that are tested and found to be older than the Earth, then? What about fossils?

Yes,I know I still can't figure out how DNA managed to be still there after billions of years.

Just to clarify, whether fossils still have DNA in them is irrelevant; DNA isn't needed in order to test the age of a rock.

(Incidentally, your apparent ignorance of basic facts about how rocks are dated bodes ill for the possibility of a constructive discussion with you. I don't blame you for not knowing much about genetics, since the fine details of genetics are rarely fleshed out in publications aimed at the lay reader, but radioisotope dating is something you can learn about in any good popular science book about geology.)

[ Saturday, May 20, 2006 18:06: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
The Establishment
Member # 6
Profile #69
quote:
Dispite the very many things I could say I'll just ask: how does dna last even a million years.
I didn't even mention DNA. I said radiometric dating methods. This means looking at the ratios of species concentrations of naturally occurring radioactive isotopes to determine the age of a rock. Care to respond?

As an aside: DNA not lasting millions of years, I don't see why it couldn't. It is a stable organic molecule and if vitrified there should be no external disturbance so why would it not stay together. What means would cause the chemical bonds to break apart?

I never said you said that all mutations were bad, it's just a common argument. You still have yet to respond to the claim that mutations cannot add information, the more relevant point.

--------------------
Your flower power is no match for my glower power!
Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00
Shaper
Member # 247
Profile Homepage #70
No!! DNA, Plasmid vectors, gene expression oh my! :)

--------------------
The Knight Between Posts.
Posts: 2395 | Registered: Friday, November 2 2001 08:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #71
quote:
Originally written by Thuryl:

carbon dating is only useful for objects going back from a few thousand years to a few tens of thousands of years, because if something's been dead longer than that, the carbon-14 has decayed to the point that accurately measurable quantities are no longer present.
If that's actually true, then C-14 dating is almost entirely useless, because on small time scales, the margin of error is too large.

Then again, I may be biased by the total fiasco of attempting to carbon-date the Shroud of Turin. ("It's 1250, give or take a couple thousand years!")

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
The Establishment
Member # 6
Profile #72
Why would the uncertainties be too large over shorter time scales of a hundreds of years? The half-life of carbon-14 is 5730 years. This makes it good for at most about 20 half-lives or about 100k years, but that's pushing it as background radition would interfere with the spectrum -- beta decay does not emit at a nice peak energy.

One can assume up until the industrial revolution that the isotopic abundances in carbon were roughly constant (there are some refinements to that making the science more exact). In other words, if we were able to capture something at the moment an organism died or object stopped the regular intake of atoms, we would have a pretty good idea of the expected count rate.

This count rate decreases over time as the carbon-14 atoms decay. By measuring this count rate, assuming a fixed decay rate, and a known beta energy spectrum, one can track back to the original date within some uncertainty band. This is a direct consequence of the total number of counts.

For something very old > 100k years of age, one would have to count for a very, very long time to get any accurate answer -- if indeed one is possible at all due to other background disturbances. However, if something is fairly recent, say 2000 years ago, getting the counting statistics fine enough should not take prohibitively at all.

When doing isotopic dating, things are good from a fraction of a half-life to several half-lives on the time scale.

--------------------
Your flower power is no match for my glower power!
Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #73
I don't really care enough to derail the topic further. Suffice it to say that historical dating of the Mesopotamians goes far beyond carbon-14 dating, which was my main point.

I'm just bitter about a particular failure of carbon-14 dating.

[ Saturday, May 20, 2006 20:35: Message edited by: Kelandon ]

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Law Bringer
Member # 6785
Profile #74
quote:
Then again, I may be biased by the total fiasco of attempting to carbon-date the Shroud of Turin. ("It's 1250, give or take a couple thousand years!")

I was at the University of Arizona when they dated the Shroud of Turin and know several people that did it. The accuracy was to less than 50 years. The joke was that the other two samples that were supposed to make it a "blind" test looked nothng like the distinctive weave of the Shroud. People were upset that the dating was conclusive and that no experimental error could push the date back to the time of Christ. The other two samples that were of known dates were also dated correctly.

Later there were claims that the tested section was from different material than the main part of the Shroud and the tests were invalid.
Posts: 4643 | Registered: Friday, February 10 2006 08:00

Pages