Posted on 06/09/2017 11:01:38 AM PDT by fishtank
June 8, 2017 | David F. Coppedge
Stop the Presses! Human Evolution Falsified!
Human bones found in Morocco undermine almost everything that has been taught about human evolution since Darwin. But is that news? Happens every year, doesn’t it?
This news is so hot, we have to get the word out now and wait for a fuller analysis later. Evolutionary paleoanthropology is in big trouble, if a new find in Morocco is as important as the news are making it out to be. Announced in Nature this week, the discoverers are dating bones from five individuals at over 300,000 Darwin Years old – over 100,000 years older than when they thought modern humans first began to emerge. And it was found in northern Africa – not at Olduvai Gorge or in some South African cave where most of the attention has been focused. Added to that, the discoverers found stone tools and chemical evidence of cooking, and are saying these people probably lived all over Africa at the same time!
(Excerpt) Read more at crev.info ...
You asked how so w/ young ages - read the links in #142. Furthermore, the vast majority of recorded civilization proves young ages as well. Are we to believe mankind was around for 100-300k years yet left virtually no traces.
I don’t care for the ‘micro’ term either since natural selection was discovered by another true scientist prior to Darwin. The only evolution defense for macro is mutations and those have been shown to be deleterious [deleted or mangled information at the DNA level] over 99% of the time. The other 1% are still highly debatable since ‘improvements’ still come with a loss of overall DNA information. Simply put try some random computer code mutations and let me know how much you have improved your computer functions.
Well when we see all the same processes with fossils and archaeology worldwide, please do tell how you ‘know’ other event sites [Grand Canyon for instance] to be long ages v localized and more recent catastrophes? Actually no need to answer b/c there is no good explanation. Some of the rocks at Mt.Saint Helens had there atomic clocks reset and some did not where radio-isotope dating showed millions of years - again simply another argument where you have no logical nor reasonable explanations.
Don’t get me wrong. I didn’t berak both hips at once. I broke the right hip in the garage in June when I was eighty. I recovered very quickly. I broke my left hip in the restroom in December, from which my recovery has been very slow. I am now eighty-one and not doing very well.
Sampling protocols have to show an awareness of error introduced by including clastic rocks which include older and newer rock within the sample. When “newly formed from magma” rock pushes up and even explodes, you will typically get older rock as well. Pieces of the existing mountain as well as the plug mixed with the explosive eruption.
Sampling protocols have to show an awareness of error introduced by including clastic rocks which include older and newer rock within the sample. When “newly formed from magma” rock pushes up and even explodes, you will typically get older rock as well. Pieces of the existing mountain as well as the plug mixed with the explosive eruption.
The geologic column is only complete at one spot in Australia. Elsewhere it has been “interrupted” by tectonic processes. You can take a trip to the Grand Canyon to see this. You will see a good number of sedimentary layers laid down over time with young rock overlying older rock. The there are unconformities related to the big tectonic uplift and faulting both normal old thrust faults which can mix up the stratification. Also, you will find folding and the introduction of metamorphic rock at the depths where sedimentary rock has been changed by great heat and pressure deeper in the crust.
You haven’t falsified my hypothesis, you are just saying that I must observe EVERY instance to validate it. Ridiculous.
“That is not moving the goalposts...”
Yes it is. If you make one proposition, then try to switch to a different proposition in the middle of an argument, it is moving the goalposts:
“Moving the Goalposts
(also known as: gravity game, raising the bar, argument by demanding impossible perfection [form of])
Description: Demanding from an opponent that he or she address more and more points after the initial counter-argument has been satisfied refusing to conceded or accept the opponent’s argument.”
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/129/Moving_the_Goalposts
“since both are devolving [and you even agreed!]”
No, I said that the earth+sun system (both of them together) was devolving, but that does not mean that the earth alone is necessarily devolving when looked at separately. You cannot simply equate the earth system and the earth+sun system, because they are vastly different.
“So please tell us how the sunlight [this is not directed work btw] is specifically causing more order on the Earth [more plant and animal life is not more order].”
I’ve never argued that, all I have argued is that you cannot call the earth a closed system since it receives a large amount of constant external energy input. Therefore it can never meet the definition of a closed system.
As I said, I’m a creationist, I’m not trying to argue for evolution, I’m simply pointing out that you made a false argument. There are plenty of good arguments against evolution, but that is not one of them.
No, I have not said that, but in order for observation alone to validate a hypothesis, you must make a statistically significant amount of observations! Otherwise you are engaging in the basic error of insufficient sample size. This is not a controversial point, or it shouldn't be, except if you are emotionally committed to a hypothesis for which you are unable to make a statistically significant number of observations.
It is a great argument you simply show a complete lack of understanding thermodynamics. BTW you were the one to bring up sunlight first in a prior post. Adding neither sun nor sunlight does not change the proposition. Take away the sunlight and a devolving Earth only devolves faster.
Same proposition, 2 different examples, included subject that you 1st introduced, initial argument still not satisfied, clearly showing your misapplication of ‘moving the goalposts’.
Goal is still the same - you need to show how sunlight is increasing order on Earth. But please don’t bother responding as you have already completed many circuits of you circular logic.
Why the assumption that the age of man is necessarily linked to the age of the earth? The Bible and science and well as logic indicates otherwise.
Getting tangled up in the age of the earth in a discussion about Intelligent Design is a rabbit hole. They are two entirely separate issues. The Bible indicates, and science does not disagree, that sometime, probably a LONG time, after God created the heavens and the earth (Gen 1:1), there was darkness and a flood (Gen 1:2). AFTER all of that, God initiated a (re)creation that included man pointing to around 6000 years ago (Gen 1:3-31).
“Micro-evolution” within an animal group is also a separate issue from Darwinism (”macro-evolution”). Getting tangled up in a debate about micro-evolution in a discussion about Darwinism is also a rabbit hole IMO. Dang man, there’s lots of evidence of micro evolution. Shoot, even now, just recently, they’ve discovered a new breed of coyote never seen before. Burros, donkeys, horses. Those are simple examples, generally through cross-breeding. NONE of these micro-evolutions within an animal group involve the utterly refuted transfer between animal groups required by Darwinism.
The simplest example I’ve seen of what Darwin asks people to believe is blowing up a garage and expecting to see a working car as a result.
The GREATEST refutation of Darwinism, however, IMO, is the overwhelming evidence with which we are surrounded, of intelligent design that has complexity and purpose which requires an Intelligent Designer.
All ages are assumptions and not scientific [see scientific method]. Not reading the Bible as you rather loosely interpreted in prior post. To attribute life to ID and not God is not Biblical and a bigger rabbit hole imho. Also I was not putting micro on par w/ macro. Still stand by my links in post 142.
Doesn't answer the question of why you assume that the age of man is necessarily linked to the age of the earth.
But since we're on the subject, carbon dating and other dating methods are not scientifically sound methods in your opinion?
Not reading the Bible as you rather loosely interpreted in prior post.
Not so loose. It is a verse-by-verse reading of the beginning of Genesis that is in agreement with many Biblical scholars, and the Holy Spirit I think. It also comports with true scientific findings.
To attribute life to ID and not God is not Biblical
Never said that. ID proves that God created life.
Thanks for a great link, well worth the read, much appreciated!
Please believe me when I say that that I am not trying to be condescending; but given the HUGE number of variables that need to fall into place - in just the right sequence, for life to appear spontaneously, the chances are over-overwhelming small.
It's as unlikely as declaring that the below rock formations were found at the bottom of a rock-slide - and not just once, but over and over...
Today it's not clear if God's interventions in nature will appear to us as anything other than "random chance" or "happy coincidence" or even in Chaos Theory, as a "great attractor".
But it is clear that God's interventions in human history are intended to be seen by all as His Work.
For example, many Founders were Enlightenment men who believed in the Great Clock Maker --who was thought to be generally "hands off" of His creation.
However, by the ends of their lives, all understood that Providence operated in their lives to accomplish His ends.
Oooops..
“meteor” = metmom
Automatic word completions!
I found it fascinating and in no way violating the integrity of Scripture.
“Same proposition, 2 different examples”
Incorrect. Your first proposition was: “For all intents and purposes the Earth IS considered a closed system.” Your second proposition was: “the Earth and Sun are and will continue to both completely devolve rather than the Sun turning our Earth into a more highly ordered planet.” The first proposition excludes any consideration of the sun, since you claimed the earth was a “closed system”. The second proposition now suddenly includes the sun. They cannot be the same proposition.
“But please don’t bother responding...”
Classic tactic of someone who knows they are losing an argument but is too proud to admit it. Sorry, but if you want to keep responding to me with nonsense, I am going to continue to point it out. Maybe quit while you are behind.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.