Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,060 Year: 5,317/9,624 Month: 342/323 Week: 186/160 Day: 3/19 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Age of mankind, dating, and the flood
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2213 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 1 of 2 (705121)
08-23-2013 11:33 AM


On the "Can the standard "Young Earth Creationist" model be falsified by genetics alone?" thread, mindspawn posts the following:
Coyote writes:
The global flood is generally placed around 4,350 years ago by biblical scholars.
We have examples of Native American mtDNA types that are the same both before and after that date.
At On Your Knees Cave in southern Alaska a skeleton was dated to 10,300 years ago, and a rare mtDNA type was found. This is D4h3.
In a publication a couple of years back, it was noted that 47 living individuals had been found with that same haplotype. They were found along the west coasts of North and South America.
If a flood had occurred that haplotype would have been wiped out and replaced by Near Eastern mtDNA types.
That this didn't happen is another example of genetics disproving the YEC flood belief.
Coyote if you think about the logic of this argument of yours, the whole point is based on dating methods. Which is a separate argument to Bluegenes genetic argument.
I would say that man is post-flood, and due to incorrect dating methods was erroneously dated to 10300ya and instead was less than 4500ya. If you let me know how the fossil was dated we can delve into that aspect of it to see if I could be right. But you would have to open another thread for that because its irrelevant to this thread. Let me know if you do so.
The basis of your argument seems to be that religious belief is more accurate than scientific dating methods. I don't know if presenting you with scientific evidence will change your mind or not; too often, as Heinlein notes, "Belief gets in the way of learning."
I propose this thread to deal specifically with:
--Scientific evidence supporting dating methods and the age of modern humans, and
--Evidence from creationists supporting the Young Earth position and refuting that scientific evidence.
To begin with, the 10,300 year old date for On Your Knees Cave was established by radiocarbon or C14 dating. They did not date a fossil, but human bone. But this is not the only old radiocarbon date from the same area. The Manis Mastodon Site in northwestern Washington dates to about 13,800 years and Paisley Caves in southeastern Oregon date slightly older than that. It gets worse: Alaska has even older dates, and the Old World has dates on modern humans going back past 100,000 years (although these are not established using the radiocarbon method).
If anyone disagrees with scientific dating methods, here is the chance to present evidence showing how and where it is wrong.
Please limit discussion to the era of modern humans, ca. 200,000 years. Leave out the Cambrian explosion, K-T boundary and similar arguments.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 2 (705125)
08-23-2013 11:55 AM


Thread Copied to Dates and Dating Forum
Thread copied to the Age of mankind, dating, and the flood thread in the Dates and Dating forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024