Darwinism Completely Refutes Intelligent Design

SPIEGEL ^ | December 26, 2005 | DANIEL DENNETT

[whispering out loud]

I'm not trying to negate anything, you stated, "If you have any specific questions, please don't hesitate to ask me". So I asked some questions which by the way went unanswered. As far as the relevance of my statement about beliefs, it has every relevance in a discussion started on the basis of the complete and total denial of creation.

[Coyoteman]

So I asked some questions which by the way went unanswered.

your questions:

I still can't believe that the method can be proved accurate for millions of years, once again I refer to scientific method, which states that there must be constant, and a variable, and the subject can only be proved for as long as the constant, and variable can be monitored, how can you say definitely, that the pattern holds true after a say 2500 years, or even 10,000 years, let alone 100,000 or 1,000,000 years, there was noone there to verify these constants. I still ask you to explain the disappearance of population, at between 11,000 and 17,000 years.

I already provided you links to answers on radiocarbon dating. That is the type I do. I do not do radiometric dating.

Those links I posted explain tree ring calibration and its use in radiocarbon dating. That is one method of determining whether the production of C14 is relatively constant, and accounting for the small variations which have occurred.

This method shows that we can "say definitely, that the pattern holds true after a say 2500 years, or even 10,000 years." Actually the tree ring calibration now extends some 11,600 years. Other methods (glacial varves, etc.) extend back over 20,000 years. So, to answer the question again: we can show that the method is accurate back some 20,000 years. The folks who do radiometric dating have ways to calibrate and verify their techniques as well.

As for the "disappearance of population, at between 11,000 and 17,000 years" -- I have never heard of such a disappearance. There were folks in many parts of the world during this time period. Only the Arctic and areas covered with glacial ice were all or mostly unpopulated at this time.

Can you cite a source for this claim? (Don't bother citing creationist sites. Even archaeologists can run out of patience.)

[whispering out loud]

your question was answered on post 227, as I said, population growth charts are posted all over the Internet, none of them going back accurately over 1000 years, from there you have to do the math yourself. If man were indeed more animalistic then it seems to me that the prehistoric human population would have grown even faster due to lack of inhibitions.

[Coyoteman]

This is far older than 17,000 years. They are are the oldest known modern human fossils. Deny all you want, they aren't going away. Rather, more will be found.

---

Herto skulls (Homo sapiens idaltu)

Some new fossils from Herto in Ethiopia, are the oldest known modern human fossils, at 160,000 yrs. The discoverers have assigned them to a new subspecies, Homo sapiens idaltu, and say that they are anatomically and chronologically intermediate between older archaic humans and more recent fully modern humans. Their age and anatomy is cited as strong evidence for the emergence of modern humans from Africa, and against the multiregional theory which argues that modern humans evolved in many places around the world.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/herto.html

[whispering out loud]

so tell me, what kind of birth control were they using for 100,000 + years?