Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Generations

Expand Messages
  • peaceharris
    ... Harris: Enough of fairytales. When will evolutionists stop believing in fairy tales? Where in that above link does it say that the fossils were carbon
    Message 1 of 38 , Jun 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In OriginsTalk@y..., "Lowell Baker" <lbaker1@s...> wrote:
      > For the fairytale site you requested:
      > http://www.sciam.com/explorations/2001/012901human/


      Harris:

      Enough of fairytales. When will evolutionists stop believing in fairy
      tales?

      Where in that above link does it say that the fossils were carbon
      dated?

      All I'm asking is this: Find me a human fossil which has been carbon
      dated to be older than 20000 years. In the fairy tale link you
      provided there were 2 hypotheses. The first theory (out of africa)
      says there were homo sapiens 200k years ago. The other theory
      (multiregional evolution) says there were homosapiens 2 million years
      ago. In either case, why can't you find me 1 human fossil which has
      been carbon dated to be older than 20k years?

      Try searching in a radiocarbon database. Use google to get a link to
      a radiocarbon database.

      For an evolutionist, the fairytale of the frog becoming a prince is
      science.
    • L. K. Appleton
      Hi All, ... From: peaceharris To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 7:37 PM Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: u-pb dating of zircon on the kt
      Message 38 of 38 , Jun 29, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi All,
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 7:37 PM
        Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: u-pb dating of zircon on the kt layer

        Harris wrote:
        I am trying to find out whether radiometric dating with 2 independent
        methods on the same sample of rocks give concordant results.
        >

          There is a case of five "independent" dates on the same
        samples of rock, being rejected after a ten year controversity.
        This comes from an evolutionary book entitled; Bones of
        Contention, by Roger Lewin. This book received; "Winner
        of the 1989 Science Book Prize" The following is a few brief
        quote from that book, which should give some insight
        into this problem;
         
                  "In his note to Miller, Leakey expressed the hope
             that the material he was sending would be suitable for
             the Cambridge dating methods. As matters transpired, it
             wasn't. The date obtained was more than 200 million
             years, which quite obviously was way off target. The
             problem was this. Volcanic ash is ideal for creating an
             accurate dating framework for a geologic sequence,
             because of the various minerals it contains."
         
                  "And ideally, the ash layers, called tuffs, will
             form even blankets over the land as they settle to
             earth after being spewed from volcanic cones. Gradually
             each deposited tuff is covered with other sedimentary
             material, and eventually a layer cake of time is
             created, as volcanic tuffs are interspersed between
             other rock layers: the oldest is at the bottom, the
             most recent at the top. But the ideal situation rarely
             occurs, and particularly so at east Lake Turkana."
         
                  "Instead of being deposited evenly on the Koobi
             Fora terrain from the air, the tuffs in the region are
             formed when the ash from massive volcanic fallout is
             brought down from the highlands in rivers and streams
             and spills over onto the surrounding floodplains. The
             tuffs so formed are often very thick, measuring several
             meters in depth, but are frequently not pure because
             they are often churned through older deposits."
         
                  "Contamination with older rocks is therefore an
             ever-present danger in using material from these
             so-called reworked tuffs. And so it was with this first
             sample. The 221 million-year date obtained was that of
             contaminating "basement" rock."
         
        (Bones of Contention", Roger Lewin, 1987, Simon & Schuster,
        pp. 191-192)
         
        The above lays the background to this ten-year evolutionary
        dating controversy. The following, some pages further on,
        gets down to the crux of the matter;

               "Fitch and Miller stuck fast with their 2.61-million-year
               age (later modified to 2.42 for technical reasons)
               throughout the controversy. This despite the fact that
               after the first determination they never again obtained
               2.61 from their experiments."
         
               "For instance, at a conference in Nairobi held in
               September 1973 they presented 41 separate age
               determinations on the KBS Tuff, which varied between 223
               million and O.91 million years. Only seven of those 4I
               measurements came within a quarter of a million years
               either way of the original 2.61 number, while eight were
               as close to 1.9."
         
               "Richard Leakey remained steadfast in his public support
               of Fitch and Miller's date throughout the affair and
               abandoned it only in the late 1970s, when its thread of
               credibility had worn very thin indeed."
         
               (Bones of Contention", Roger Lewin, 1987, Simon &
               Schuster, pp. 194-195)
         
        Again skipping ahead;

            "The year 1974 saw the publication of several papers
        that independently appeared to support the Fitch-Miller
        position. One was a description of results from a different
        method of geological dating - paleomagnetic reversals - by
        Glynn Isaac and Andrew Brock."
         
        [. . . .]
          "A second technique - fission-track dating, of which more
        later - also bolstered the chronology favoured by Koobi Fora
        camp. Indeed, of the dozen or so papers published by this
        time in the scientific literature that directly related to
        the age of the KBS Tuff, only two explicitly said that the
        2.6 million year date was wrong. And both of these were by
        Basil Cooke, both based on the same pig evidence."
        (Bones of Contention, Roger Lewin, 1987, p. 206)
         
         
                The end result of this ten year evolutionary dating
        controversy was the "the pigs won".  That is the radio
        metric dating was rejected and a dating based on
        PIG fossils was accepted.  Radiometric dating is
        therefore  NOT a method of arriving at "precise"
        dating after all, wheras assumptions about pig
        evolution was taken as the primary basis for
        the dating!
         
          Little wonder that a Creationist author summarized this
        matter in the following terms;
         

            "The pigs won. In the ten-year controversy over the dating
         of one of the most important human fossils ever discovered,
         the pigs won. The pigs won over the elephants. The pigs won
         over (40)Ar-(39)Ar dating. The pigs won over fission-track
         dating. They won over paleomagnetism. The pigs took it all. But
         in reality, it wasn't the pigs that won. It was evolution that
         won. In the dating game, evolution always wins."
         
             (Bones of Contention, Marvin L. Lubenow, (1992). p. 266)
         

        Laurie Appleton
        lappleto@...
         
        "Evidence from the fossil record now points overwhelmingly away from
        the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in High School;"
        (Newsweek. 3/11/80, p. 54)

        ---
        Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
        Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
        Version: 6.0.372 / Virus Database: 207 - Release Date: 20/06/02
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.