Evolution/Design and problems with the design argument (mass, mythology, bible)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You can date a fired ceramic directly. And that is by Thermoluminescent testing. The El Toro figurines are made of both fired ceramics, and stone. So it is not just clay. And the stone figurines, show all the evidence of weathered erosion. Do you really believe someone took the time to try and fake erosion?
"Although attempts have been made to date these figures using Thermoluminescence, or TL dating, and the earliest results, done when TL dating was in its infancy, suggested a date around 2500 BCE, later work showed these dates to be artificially old."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34
The only thing I have been told is B.S. Where is the scientific review that would prove your case?
You want me to produce a scientific review, to disprove a non scientific claim?
"There is no credible information to support the claims. The only sources are pseudoscience journalists, creationists, and crackpots, who have obvious ulterior motives for gullibility. Their own dating results are discordant with each other and with the ages of the native cultures, and even attempting to do carbon dating on the inorganic figurines shows their incompetence".
if there was ever a case of selective beliefs of convenience, this nonsense is The Poster Child version:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34
You can date a fired ceramic directly. And that is by Thermoluminescent testing. The El Toro figurines are made of both fired ceramics, and stone. So it is not just clay. And the stone figurines, show all the evidence of weathered erosion. Do you really believe someone took the time to try and fake erosion?
Or this provable lie:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34
The only thing I have been told is B.S. Where is the scientific review that would prove your case?
The early TL testing done on these Acambara figurines was done inaccurately, with now-known problems. Since then, by adding several key elements and coupling the technique with other advancements, it is now, and only now (well, since the '90s anyways..), accepted as accurate. and yet, the determinations that C34 relies on were done in the late '50s or '60s (I'm not going to waste my time to look it up again).
Those more recent and accurate evaluations have concluded that these figurines are, precisely, fakes. FAKES.
In addition, my almamater, Simon Fraser University, in Burnaby, B.C. Canada (near Vancouver), has expanded the TL technique to new levels of accuracy. I thus wrote to the City of Acambara last spring (3 different folks, individually) and asked if I could please have them send several tiny representative shards to the Catholic diocese in Vancouver for them to handle and ensure there's no subterfuge by Evil Scientists. From those shards, we'd be able to bypass the nonsense, the contamination, the bull-droppings that were often smeared on these "artifacts" (now THERE'S a willful misuse of a term, huh?) to see the obvious.
But "NNnnooo...ooo!!", as Steve Martin would say. "No" what, you ask? Well: No answer, no response, no shards, no interest. Of course not. Oh but why, would you ask? Why, the Acambara Dept. of Tourism, or a determination by the Acambara Minister of Antiquities of course.
Q: if your town had The World's Largest Donut perched out by the Interstate, or had The Largest Fiberglass Dinosaur!: "Come See and climb on "Bronty!", or had "Ancient Biblical Carvings that Prove Dinos Once Roamed With Mortal Men!", and these items pried scarce Tourista/Gringo dineros' outa they's pockitsez, what would you do? How would you, as a cash-strapped city father (or in this case, City Mother; the mayor's a woman...) respond to someone with (1) valid scientific credentials, and (2) the willing where-with-all to dump it all into the trash-heap of faker hoaxes?
Why, you'd not even bother to answer, even with a polite no-thanks, right?
Riiiiiight. Esp. when the chanting acolytes will just come charging back, predictable as an earthquake aftershock, and chime in that "science refuses to look in to this evidence, which, natch, proves it's all true!"
Good thing that this determination's veracity is not subject to a vote by educated folks, huh? With perhaps a death penalty for the "perps" & chanters if/when the majority comes to the obviously correct determination.
C34 relies on this strategy to fervently deny any and all conflicting evidence. His life's beliefs thus depend not on a concrete foundation, not a well-engineered sub-structure, but instead on a known shaky, disintegrating, built-of-mud-and-twigs base, unable to even support itself. And yet, he defends and even glorifies it. His Righteous Revisionism coupled with Devoute Denialism and cornball-website quote-mining reaches all new heights, as the following proves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34
You guys seem to be getting North America, and the USA confused. There are not six and a half million Jews living in the United States. There are six and a half million Jews living in North America. I am speaking of a single country, not a continent. And as of 2006 the number of Jewish people living in Israel for the first time surpassed the number of Jews that would be found living in the United States. And future projections show us that because of the younger Jewish population found in Israel, we can expect to see the vast majority of Jewish people living in Israel between the years 2030 and 2040. These projections, are based on demographics, yet would agree with the Biblical timeline.
Tom, your conclusion that millions of Jews globally are migrating to Israel as a sign that your hoped-for End-Times prophecy is aligning itself, is of course, unsustainable. As the numbers show. On realizing that your argument is fallacious, you then hope to get us all tied up in details, when the simple fact is this: the world's Jews are not flocking to a place hat could well go up in smoke one afternoon because of the other nut-balls in the ME.
no matter how you slice it, the NA, and American, Jewish population is nonetheless far in excess of the Israeli population, and growing in the relative sense. The global population of Jews outside of Israel far exceeds that in their native country. There's no indication of any such migration. This pre-prophecy prediction falls flat on it's face. THUD.
If this thinking is any indication of how you'd defend Intelligent Design, we're all quite safe from the keen edge of your insightful mind.
To add in a summary that actually relates to the OP: the "evidence" for ID is completely fallacious, factually unsupportable and logically implausible, and is a construct of some very ethically-questionable theists. It's been shown in a court of law to be errant and purposefully deceptive in every honest evaluation.
By contrast, the growing body of evidence for Evolution is vast, inter-supporting across all disciplines, and easily proved now in the lab and in the field.
Case closed. Oh but now, watch for the chanting denialism. As if that were somehow convincing....
Here's a website for creationists/IDers that explains potassium argon dating and how it works:
Potassium-Argon Dating (http://id-archserve.ucsb.edu/Anth3/Courseware/Chronology/09_Potassium_Argon_Dating.html - broken link)
Excellent article, Agno-soldier. As well, at the bottom of the page is a "Previous & Next" cursor, which enables the interested reader to examine several of the other established dating methods. In particular, I appreciate that the authors carefully list the various limitations, and strengths, of each method. No effort to hide anything.
For example, the Carbon 14 method notes the need for a large sample (for statistical validity), plus careful notes kept on the conditions where the sample was taken, surrounding soil layer types, disturbances, etc.; the care needed to avoid contamination of samples by handlers, and correct sample packaging, or the inept inclusion of materials from the "surrounds".
As a fine example, all of these sources of inaccuracy and local contaminators were duly noted in discussion of how the Acambara figurine samples were handled. All of them. Not to mention that this technique is totally inappropriate for inorganic samples. And yet, the defenders of this nonsense "find" routinely ignore those real limitations, but then they gleefully use these limitations against scientific discoveries in some later, unrelated discussions. You know; where the technique was appropriate, the samples were carefully taken, and the results very credible.
My thoughts exactly. Perhaps brother Campbell would furnish us with more detail regarding the condemnation from other research establishments that such a monumental ****-up at Oakridge would have generated in the scientific community. What say you Campbell?
In June of 1990, Hugh Miller submitted two dinosaur bone fragments to the Department of Geosciences at the University in Tucson, Arizona for carbon-14 analysis. Miller did not tell those who did the testing that they were dinosaur bones. The dates returned were between 10,000-16,000 years old. And not millions of years.
Often this is the only way such test occur, because the belief that dinosaurs died out millions of years ago is so strong, that such test are never considered. And of course, that is why there was such a strong belief that soft tissue would never be found in dinosaur bones either. Yet science again was proven wrong. Such examples are often ignored by science, and rather then consider the obvious. They try to explain away the results or just ignore such findings. And this is were common sense departs, and keeping up appearences begin.
if there was ever a case of selective beliefs of convenience, this nonsense is The Poster Child version:
Or this provable lie:
The early TL testing done on these Acambara figurines was done inaccurately, with now-known problems. Since then, by adding several key elements and coupling the technique with other advancements, it is now, and only now (well, since the '90s anyways..), accepted as accurate. and yet, the determinations that C34 relies on were done in the late '50s or '60s (I'm not going to waste my time to look it up again).
Those more recent and accurate evaluations have concluded that these figurines are, precisely, fakes. FAKES.
In addition, my almamater, Simon Fraser University, in Burnaby, B.C. Canada (near Vancouver), has expanded the TL technique to new levels of accuracy. I thus wrote to the City of Acambara last spring (3 different folks, individually) and asked if I could please have them send several tiny representative shards to the Catholic diocese in Vancouver for them to handle and ensure there's no subterfuge by Evil Scientists. From those shards, we'd be able to bypass the nonsense, the contamination, the bull-droppings that were often smeared on these "artifacts" (now THERE'S a willful misuse of a term, huh?) to see the obvious.
But "NNnnooo...ooo!!", as Steve Martin would say. "No" what, you ask? Well: No answer, no response, no shards, no interest. Of course not. Oh but why, would you ask? Why, the Acambara Dept. of Tourism, or a determination by the Acambara Minister of Antiquities of course.
Q: if your town had The World's Largest Donut perched out by the Interstate, or had The Largest Fiberglass Dinosaur!: "Come See and climb on "Bronty!", or had "Ancient Biblical Carvings that Prove Dinos Once Roamed With Mortal Men!", and these items pried scarce Tourista/Gringo dineros' outa they's pockitsez, what would you do? How would you, as a cash-strapped city father (or in this case, City Mother; the mayor's a woman...) respond to someone with (1) valid scientific credentials, and (2) the willing where-with-all to dump it all into the trash-heap of faker hoaxes?
Why, you'd not even bother to answer, even with a polite no-thanks, right?
Riiiiiight. Esp. when the chanting acolytes will just come charging back, predictable as an earthquake aftershock, and chime in that "science refuses to look in to this evidence, which, natch, proves it's all true!"
Good thing that this determination's veracity is not subject to a vote by educated folks, huh? With perhaps a death penalty for the "perps" & chanters if/when the majority comes to the obviously correct determination.
C34 relies on this strategy to fervently deny any and all conflicting evidence. His life's beliefs thus depend not on a concrete foundation, not a well-engineered sub-structure, but instead on a known shaky, disintegrating, built-of-mud-and-twigs base, unable to even support itself. And yet, he defends and even glorifies it. His Righteous Revisionism coupled with Devoute Denialism and cornball-website quote-mining reaches all new heights, as the following proves.
Tom, your conclusion that millions of Jews globally are migrating to Israel as a sign that your hoped-for End-Times prophecy is aligning itself, is of course, unsustainable. As the numbers show. On realizing that your argument is fallacious, you then hope to get us all tied up in details, when the simple fact is this: the world's Jews are not flocking to a place hat could well go up in smoke one afternoon because of the other nut-balls in the ME.
no matter how you slice it, the NA, and American, Jewish population is nonetheless far in excess of the Israeli population, and growing in the relative sense. The global population of Jews outside of Israel far exceeds that in their native country. There's no indication of any such migration. This pre-prophecy prediction falls flat on it's face. THUD.
If this thinking is any indication of how you'd defend Intelligent Design, we're all quite safe from the keen edge of your insightful mind.
To add in a summary that actually relates to the OP: the "evidence" for ID is completely fallacious, factually unsupportable and logically implausible, and is a construct of some very ethically-questionable theists. It's been shown in a court of law to be errant and purposefully deceptive in every honest evaluation.
By contrast, the growing body of evidence for Evolution is vast, inter-supporting across all disciplines, and easily proved now in the lab and in the field.
Case closed. Oh but now, watch for the chanting denialism. As if that were somehow convincing....
According to Ranking America, as of 2009, there are now more Jews in Israel then in the United States.
In the year 1914 there were 50 Jewish agricultural settlements to be found in Palestine. And a total Jewish population of 85,000. As of 2009, there are now 5,660,700 Jews living in Israel. So your belief that there is no migration to Israel, has little to do with reality. And demographics show us, that Israel has a much younger population then the rest of the world. And between the years 2030, and 2040 the vast majority of Jewish people will be found living in Israel.
And as far as the El Toro figurines. Two groups tried to rebuke them in 1997. Yet the test results for the dinosaur figurine came back 1500 years B.P. Of course such facts I'm sure will be filtered out by those who do not want to believe. Just like those who did not want to believe that soft tissue was found in dinosaure bones today. Which again revealed the nonsense of Evolutions timeline for dinosaurs. And equally, how the same did not want to believe that C-14 testing has shown dinosaur bones to be thousands of years old, and not millions. In June of 1990, Hugh Miller submitted two dinosaur bone fragments to the Department of Geosciences at the University in Tucson, Arizone for carbon-14 analysis. He never told them the bones were from dinosaurs. As a result, they tested both of them, and the dates returned were from 10,000-16,000 years old. Which was far from millions of years old. And in keeping with the expected soft tissue find one would expect to find, it the bones were thousands of years old, and not 80 million years old.
http://www.apologericspress.org/articles/3469 (broken link)
Printable version - More Soft Dinosaur Tissue (http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/print/3518 - broken link)
In June of 1990, Hugh Miller submitted two dinosaur bone fragments to the Department of Geosciences at the University in Tucson, Arizona for carbon-14 analysis. Miller did not tell those who did the testing that they were dinosaur bones. The dates returned were between 10,000-16,000 years old. And not millions of years.
And what has it got to do with you furnishing us with more detail regarding the condemnation from other research establishments that such a monumental ****-up at Oakridge would have generated in the scientific community?
In June of 1990, Hugh Miller submitted two dinosaur bone fragments to the Department of Geosciences at the University in Tucson, Arizona for carbon-14 analysis. Miller did not tell those who did the testing that they were dinosaur bones. The dates returned were between 10,000-16,000 years old. And not millions of years.
Often this is the only way such test occur, because the belief that dinosaurs died out millions of years ago is so strong, that such test are never considered. And of course, that is why there was such a strong belief that soft tissue would never be found in dinosaur bones either. Yet science again was proven wrong. Such examples are often ignored by science, and rather then consider the obvious. They try to explain away the results or just ignore such findings. And this is were common sense departs, and keeping up appearences begin.
Printable version - More Soft Dinosaur Tissue (http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/print/3518 - broken link)
When are you going to realize that these types of sites cannot be trusted?...I wouldn't even open them except for entertainment value...(they are always good for a laugh) and to see what lie they are telling the creationists today.
If Hugh Miller submitted dino bones for carbon 14 dating, then he was either ignorant or just plain stupid...It's just not done, as was explained to you a few posts back...Is your memory failing?
And what has it got to do with you furnishing us with more detail regarding the condemnation from other research establishments that such a monumental ****-up at Oakridge would have generated in the scientific community?
The very obvious weak link in the 16,000 year old dino bones claim is the veracity of whether what was submitted for testing by someone with a theological interest in seeing C14 dating disproved WAS actually dino bones.As far as I can tell,the only proof that they were is the guy's own claim that they were.
That this is regarded as any kind of scientific proof shows the low standards of those who oppose real science.
And what has it got to do with you furnishing us with more detail regarding the condemnation from other research establishments that such a monumental ****-up at Oakridge would have generated in the scientific community?
Nothing is going to be generated in the scientific community. They have a clear record of ignoing such evidence. And that is why after 60 years the El Toro figurines have yet to have an honest scientific review from the scientific community. The only negatives about the figurines for the most part, come from one mans opinion from the 1950s. My apologetics sites, at least give names, and labs, and dates. All we get from your sites, are denials, and old reports with no attempts to to back up their denials. Clearly, believers in evolution have something to hide, and that is why they ignore this kind of evidence. And that is the reason they refuse to do scientific reviews on this kind of evidence. And even when your debunkers are proven wrong as occured in 1997, when they tried to debunk the El Toro figurines by time testing. We hear nothing from your side on such failed attempts. So please, why on earth would you think there would be any condemnation from your side? It's obvious, they don't care about such results. It's all about following the party line, and not much more. In the 1940s and 50s no one understood that some species of Saurian dinosaurs had dermal spines running along their back. They were thought to look as the Sinclair gasoline filling station Brontosaurs. Yet, when they saw some of the El Toro figurines, they displayed such conical dermal spines running along their backs. It was not until Stephen Czerkas article of 1992, did this understanding become common knowledge.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
