|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,488 Year: 3,745/9,624 Month: 616/974 Week: 229/276 Day: 5/64 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The race issue | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2128 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Perhaps the time will come when archeology will unearth supportive evidence to this event. Perhaps not. Archaeology, genetics, and physical anthropology, as well as a host of other fields, have studied the race issue. It seems to have nothing to do with Babel. There are a lot of good books out there if you are interested. Stanley Garn's Human Races is a good place to start. You can pick that up used at very good rates. Molnar's Human Variation: Races, Types, and Ethnic Groups is also quite good. Get the most recent editions (3rd and 4th respectively, as I recall). Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2128 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
what growth rate has the environment permitted over the past 200 years? like i said, Tasmania itself has grown to 1/2 million in a little over 200 years Population growth is largely dependent on environment and technology. Early band societies grew to a few tens of thousands in California, while the more complex societies at the time of the European conquest numbered somewhere above 300,000 (some place the figure as high as a million). That area now supports tens of millions. For each environment and technology there is a limit. The same holds true for bacteria. If there was no limit you would be acetablulum deep in the little buggers in short order, and the earth would be covered with them miles deep not long after that. Ridiculous of course, as their environment will not permit that kind of growth with their technology. Why should primitive humans be any different? Or are you searching for some way to support a young earth with these arguments that you are making? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2128 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Umm, this isn`t exactly the carbon dating thread, but it`s well known that carbon dating isn`t accurate for more than 50,000 years at a maximum. However, carbon dating is more than inaccurate in many cases under this maximum, due to the levels of carbon during the fossilization process is never known, and the carbon levels worldwide are never constant. In fact, there is almost no carbon at all in the north and south poles. This is also a problem with most new parent-daughter dating methods. Pure nonsense. There is just as much carbon 14 at the north and south poles as anywhere else -- it's in the atmosphere! And C14 dating is not a parent-daughter dating method. Why don't you read up on these subjects before you post, or before you uncritically pass on creationist misinformation? That is a good way to avoid looking foolish.
You can`t know how much time has passed if you don`t know how much sand was in the hourglass when it started. C14 dating avoids this problem. I'll leave it up to you to figure out how. (Hint: de Vries 1958.) Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2128 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
I was more interested in making the point that useful information cannot be gained over time. Sorry.
I'm sorry as well. That is a religious belief that is not confirmed by scientific research. In fact, we see just the opposite. Over the millions of years we see all manner of change, including new information. You may choose to disbelieve this for religious reasons, but that doesn't make it so. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2128 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
"Pure nonsense. There is just as much carbon 14 at the north and south poles as anywhere else -- it's in the atmosphere!
Yes, I do know that. That problem was identified by de Vries (1958). His work led to the calibration curves we use today.
And C14 dating is not a parent-daughter dating method." I'm refering to the NEWER forms of Parent-Daughter dating, poopdink. Such as K-Ar, Ar-Ar, etc. Carbon levels are constantly changing, since the van allen belt is constantly changing (the belt that traps radiation around the earth...but you knew that right?). And since most all animals get their source of carbon from plants, any area where plants to not exist, would not take carbon from the atomsphere, giving any animals in these areas false readings. This is also true with marine life, and should be called into question as well. I know all about that too. That is why we use both a calibration for the atmospheric fluctuations and why we measure the C13, as well as the C14/C12 ratios. That lets us correct for isotopic fractionation. And marine life always needs to be treated differently. The C13 measurement is a large part of that. A few years ago one project had four human skeletons, but the diet appeared to be heavy in marine mammals. When we ran the C14 dates we had the stable isotopes C13 and N15 run at the same time. That let us estimate the percent of marine organisms in the diet. It was over 90%, and that reduced the calibrated age of one individual by about 500 years. So don't bother hunting around the creationist websites and finding little "gotchas" from those folks who have never done any radiocarbon dating and thinking you have a magic bullet to kill the whole method. We have a far greater interest in the accuracy of the method, and the resulting dates, than creationists ever could. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2128 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
"Yes, I do know that. That problem was identified by de Vries (1958). His work led to the calibration curves we use today."
You are making a fundamental mistake here. The research by de Vries (1958) showed the need for calibration curves. Those curves account for the variations in the earth's magnetic field and differing levels of cosmic rays. This makes your point (2) moot. Levels of C-14 can be greatly effected by any condition. quote: Bone of Contention: Is Evolution True (Sylvia Baker, 1986) Your point (1) is something that I would like to see evidence for. I suspect it is typical creationist nonsense. (And you don't date fossils with Carbon 14 dating anyway).
quote: "Radiocarbon: Ages in Error" (Robert E. Lee) Anthropological Journal of Canada Vol. 19, #3, 1981 Sorry, creationists. This does not support your efforts to discredit the Carbon 14 method.
The Carbon 'timescale' was only known for about 16,000 years. This means, that after that period, data was extrapolated. But recent discoveries in the polar ice cores tell us that the data is not accurate:
That's why we use a calibration curve! It allows us to account for these fluctuations and produce accurate dates.
quote: Agen338 : Olympus Situs Judi Slot Online Gacor Hari Ini Di Indonesia And speaking of the magnetic field, at a decay rate of 5% every 100 years, 10,000 years ago the earth's magnetic field would have been 128 times as strong as it is today. Evolutionists claim the last pole reversal was around 750,000 years ago (which is obviously untrue). But the earth would have been too hot at 10,000.
Off topic nonsense. Since this is off topic I will rebut with a link: rebuttal.
quote: Journal of Creation, August 1995 Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024