U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-20-2010, 03:17 PM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,618 posts, read 12,123,334 times
Reputation: 3754

Advertisements

A new (Sept. 2010) study by Carr et al (a total of six distinguished and noted paleo-ecological geologists from three prestigious universities in England and South Africa) utilized plant morphology and highly accurate isothermal thermoluminescence dating to accurately place (with conservative limitations noted) the lignite (coal-bearing) formation studied at a minimum of 1.7M years of age.

NEW EVIDENCE FOR THE AGE AND PALAEOECOLOGY OF THE KNYSNA FORMATION, SOUTH AFRICA -- CARR et al. 113 (3): 241 -- South African Journal of Geology

Many plant species and their pollens were clearly identified as belonging to long-extinct species. The geo-structure and materials were dated according to the latest methodologies available, resulting in a clarification of the age of this structure as middle Miocene.

Miocene - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This study and publication, peer-reviewed and in keeping with the latest geological and ecological validation techniques, includes corroboration with previous uncontested studies on this same formation. It thus flies in the face of a Creationist's literal interpretation of the ancient Middle Eastern-limited bible, and is clearly strong, technically supported evidence for an ancient, organically evolved world.

The Miocene contained many animal species whose ancestors are alive today. Epoch-versions of whales, seals, etc. were in abundance, but were transitional in their form as related to today's species.

Feel free to critically review this study.


and.... Merry Christmas
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-21-2010, 12:47 AM
 
Location: S. Wales.
49,779 posts, read 16,018,242 times
Reputation: 5789
Thank you. It is another bit of evidence added to the monumental pile.

It can easily be dismissed as just the opinions of atheist professors by those whose information comes direct from a god who nevertheless can't tell them when they get their facts wrong.,
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2010, 03:55 AM
 
Location: egypt
1,216 posts, read 2,147,755 times
Reputation: 163
is this discovery suppoesd to refute the existence of God in general or just refute the bible ?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2010, 04:24 AM
 
Location: S. Wales.
49,779 posts, read 16,018,242 times
Reputation: 5789
Quote:
Originally Posted by elwill View Post
is this discovery suppoesd to refute the existence of God in general or just refute the bible ?
The discovery serves to support science on ancient earth million year old rocks, science on palaeontology and evolution in general.

That in itself tends to refute the denial of evolution theory and ancient earth by Young earth Creationists.

It further tends to discredit Bible - literalist readings of genesis (including the Flood) and that's all it does.

Evolution does not disprove a First cause god or even Biblegod. It is not really part of the religion debate at all other than showing that the Bible cannot be taken literally first page to last (as though that needed to be argued) and that science can provide better answers than Goddunnit.

I think that about covers it.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2010, 04:40 AM
 
Location: egypt
1,216 posts, read 2,147,755 times
Reputation: 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
The discovery serves to support science on ancient earth million year old rocks, science on palaeontology and evolution in general.

That in itself tends to refute the denial of evolution theory and ancient earth by Young earth Creationists.

It further tends to discredit Bible - literalist readings of genesis (including the Flood) and that's all it does.

Evolution does not disprove a First cause god or even Biblegod. It is not really part of the religion debate at all other than showing that the Bible cannot be taken literally first page to last (as though that needed to be argued) and that science can provide better answers than Goddunnit.

I think that about covers it.
thank you very much

i agree with you in that
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2010, 11:09 AM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,618 posts, read 12,123,334 times
Reputation: 3754
Agreed! Obviously there are those who take the bible absolutely literally, no matter what new evidence is provided by modern scientific methodologies.

We occasionally get postings here on C-D about some new scientific find that supposedly proves dinos and sea serpents existed in biblical times, or that snakes once had legs and therefore the bible's true, or that Noah's Flood is validated by a lone 1.5 day super-über day hike undertaken by a bunch of some off-the-wall non-scientist money-grubbing felons out for a glory and money-raising hike.

We also have insistence that Evolution is a fairy-tale with no supporting evidence, and that the world was **Insta-Poof!!** created exactly 6035 years ago. That is can';t be older than, say, 12,00 to 15,000 years old.

Unfortunately, the supporting posts and links provided are always from a self-accredited Christian university operating out of an abandoned barn in central Australia, and the so-called theological scientists have degrees they printed up in their basements. Or on the prison printer where they are currently incarcerated for running scams...

My goal here is simply to show the prolific and high level of professional peer-reviewed and accepted work inherent in all research papers accepted in real journals for publication. To offset the relentless flow of semi-liquid excretia from quadripedal, bovinid ruminants which these protestant types strongly resemble both in mental capability and facial expression...

"Moooo-hoo-hooo!!"

The occasional but predictable non-scientific anti-Evolution and anti-ancient-Earth press releases from Creationist wanna-be types here is easily swamped by just such work as the OP's link, and I'll probably continue to post those as they regularly come up, just to show the relative percentage of believable information compared to the onesee-twosee make-believe stuff.

I do, however, honestly welcome a non-combative critical review of this particular study, in point form perhaps, as to the exact technical reasons their conclusions are invalid. I'd expect the author of such a rebuke to provide us with his or her brief summary of the specific flaws in the techniques used (with appropriate links to technical, not religious, sites), or the flaws in the very conservative conclusions the authors reached.

After All: One expects a decent, measured and intellectually honest answer from someone versed in the science being criticized if the critic's opinion is to be respected and considered.

Merry Christmas!
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2010, 12:04 PM
 
Location: S. Wales.
49,779 posts, read 16,018,242 times
Reputation: 5789
Quote:
Originally Posted by elwill View Post
thank you very much

i agree with you in that
Good on you mate. I used to think that evolution discussion belonged on the biology thread, if there is one, and had no place on religion, much less philosophy, but it is clear that it does conflict with a literalist reading of genesis. But how many believers really take that chapter literally?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2010, 01:55 PM
 
6,605 posts, read 10,968,991 times
Reputation: 5170
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
Good on you mate. I used to think that evolution discussion belonged on the biology thread, if there is one, and had no place on religion, much less philosophy, but it is clear that it does conflict with a literalist reading of genesis. But how many believers really take that chapter literally?
The same people that would be scared of you because you have 666 reps.

Anyways, this is a very interesting find. Some researchers believe that South Africa was the birth place of humanity (that's humanity, not human civilization; the two are different).
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2010, 05:18 PM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,618 posts, read 12,123,334 times
Reputation: 3754
The follow-on studies at this site are also v. interesting, with many additional conclusions I'll list once I return to my iniquitous den-studio-lounge-library!

The basic facts obvious from this (and other...) indisputable cutting-edge studies is that, of course!! the earth and it's inhabitants are WHAYYyyy older than 6035, or 10,000, or even 100,000... years of age. More like tens of billions, minimum. This makes the biblical 'version' impossible on all accounts ...

(unless we laughingly divert to those hilarious stories about how "God changed time, temporarily, just to allow enough time for a more "paced' Creation, then switched it all back, he being of less-than-infinite capacity after all, and therefore had to adjust time to make it all fit". Just where, exactly, is that specific version written up in the all-knowing bible?)

This study's implications should leave a gaping hole in the "understandings" by the fanatic fringe, leading them inexoribly to question it further. If they are intellectually honest of course....

Nothing could be further from their approach and interest levels. The lack of any critical Christian commentary here is hugely telling.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2010, 12:04 AM
 
Location: Metromess
11,798 posts, read 23,454,689 times
Reputation: 5165
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman View Post
The Miocene contained many animal species whose ancestors are alive today.
I think you meant to say 'descendents', or something similar.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top