Common ancestor or common Creator?

[spiritman]

the earliest signs of our kind (cave paintings) date to less than 8,000 years ago, at least as of right now.

What about these;

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/ubir/hd_ubir.htm

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/chav/hd_chav.htm

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/apol/hd_apol.htm

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/lasc/hd_lasc.htm

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/blac/hd_blac.htm

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/wadi/hd_wadi.htm

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/jomo/hd_jomo.htm

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/malt/hd_malt.htm

Hi Kem,

first off I'd like to say " Nice art work and artifacts".

However with that being said, here's the problem.

1. Radiometric dating has already been proven to be in accurate.

2. most of the artifacts, and drawings in your links are dated through radiometric means.

3. Therefore the dates listed are not accurate or trust worthy.

4. Radiometric dating requires that the scientist taking the readings knows for a fact whether or not any thing affected the decay rate of the parent element in the past.

5. since we have no equipment or any one there doing this at the time, that's impossible.

6. therefore see explanation #1.

[ConScience]

1. Radiometric dating has already been proven to be in accurate.

2. most of the artifacts, and drawings in your links are dated through radiometric means.

3. Therefore the dates listed are not accurate or trust worthy.

4. Radiometric dating requires that the scientist taking the readings knows for a fact whether or not any thing affected the decay rate of the parent element in the past.

5. since we have no equipment or any one there doing this at the time, that's impossible.

6. therefore see explanation #1.

Are you familiar with the Franchthi cave, in Greece?

Carbon dating (which I think we both agree works pretty much flawlessly up to 6,000 years - we have a divergence of opinion beyond that) has shown that artifacts found there are clearly as old as the ark. AND THEN SOME. Carbon dating has been used to show that the finds were from a span of 30,000 years.

I have about half of the complete published findings (and, let me tell you, it cost a pretty penny - each fascicle was $45 - $150, and there are 12 of them!).

The research is impeccably carried out and the excavations are wonderfully documented. I can only recommend that you buy them (strike that ... borrow them!). It is interesting, explanatory and it's GREAT reading material for bedtime (Zzzzz)

[ConScience]

1. Radiometric dating has already been proven to be in accurate.

These glib statements do cause a lot of work, don't they?

So (starting where we left off earlier):

The Waters above the firmament prevent C-14 being produced, right?

How far were the waters above the face of the earth. And let's be sensible, here. Yes, in your map of the world, God can do anything, but we've not seen much that can't be explained by science, so again, let's be sensible. How far above the earth was the water above the firmament?

And before you answer the question, you do realize that all of that water, preventing C-14 from being manufactured, would completely block plant life from ultra-violet radiation, right?

Anyway, go for it: how high was the water? 1 mile, 10 miles? 25 miles? Please bear in mind that the highest clouds are noctilucent clouds which 'live' at about 50 miles above the surface of the earth.

[ConScience]

1. Radiometric dating has already been proven to be in accurate.

These glib statements do cause a lot of work, don't they?

So (starting where we left off earlier):

The Waters above the firmament prevent C-14 being produced, right?

How far were the waters above the face of the earth. And let's be sensible, here. Yes, in your map of the world, God can do anything, but we've not seen much that can't be explained by science, so again, let's be sensible. How far above the earth was the water above the firmament?

And before you answer the question, you do realize that all of that water, preventing C-14 from being manufactured, would completely block plant life from ultra-violet radiation, right?

Anyway, go for it: how high was the water? 1 mile, 10 miles? 25 miles? Please bear in mind that the highest clouds are noctilucent clouds which 'live' at about 50 miles above the surface of the earth.

Predicted answer: "high enough"

Indeed! I've just been reading this nonsense on other threads about the 'proof' that C-14 is wrong. So I decided to debunk the nonsense once and for all.

[spiritman]

1. Radiometric dating has already been proven to be in accurate.

Um. . .no. Not even kind of sort of close. No one has shown radiometric dating to be inaccurate, even the RATE group has admitted that a huge amount of radioactive decay has taken place and that an old earth is the simplest explanation for this. We have a whole thread dedicated to radiometric dating techniques and their correlations, if you want to invalidate radiometric dating you need to do more than play semantic games with "assumptions" or quote mine out of date articles, or look at awfully dishonest experiments - you could start by proposing a force that can alter all isotope decay rates differently.

4. Radiometric dating requires that the scientist taking the readings knows for a fact whether or not any thing affected the decay rate of the parent element in the past.

No actually, no more than detectives need to sequence the DNA of every person on the planet to determine if each is unique enough to match a single suspect to a single crime scene or than physicists need to measure every electron in the known universe in order to give the average size of one. The decay rates of the isotopes we use for radiometric dating have been studied for decades and bombarded with every force we know how to create to see what affects their decay rates - to date nothing remotely close to what could occur on earth's surface has had a significant effect. And even if you could change the decay rate of a single isotope, since every isotope has a unique decay rate how are you going to change ALL of them so that different radiometric dating techniques come to the same conclusions just like they actually do? Then how are you going to explain how those different radiometric dating techniques also correlate with non-radiometric dating techniques?

5. since we have no equipment or any one there doing this at the time, that's impossible.

You are swallowing very very very bad science. Open your eyes, are all the physicists, biologists, geneticists, and paleontologists lying to you? Or could this really be true?

Hum thanks lurker that's a good ideal, let's see if we can find anything that would occur in nature that would have an effect on Radioactive decay. Oh here you go.

. here are two links for you to read:

click here

click here

Well lurker, it doesn't look to good for evolution so far we have

1. Several supposed transitional forms that I've listed, that were fakes or mistakes

2. The speed of light has been proven to no longer be constant

3. and now the mother of them all to nail the nail in the coffin, is Radioactive decay, can be affected by naturally occurring situations. ie distance from the earth to the sun, etc etc.

[ConScience]

Hum thanks lurker that's a good ideal, let's see if we can find anything that would occur in nature that would have an effect on Radioactive decay. Oh here you go.

. here are two links for you to read:

click here

click here

Remember, I'm a physicist.

So, in my professional opinion? It's not based on anything ... real.

[spiritman]

Hum thanks lurker that's a good ideal, let's see if we can find anything that would occur in nature that would have an effect on Radioactive decay. Oh here you go.

. here are two links for you to read:

click here

click here

Remember, I'm a physicist.

So, in my professional opinion? It's not based on anything ... real.

I know I know this is all a bad dream and we are going to wake up

[ConScience]

Hum thanks lurker that's a good ideal, let's see if we can find anything that would occur in nature that would have an effect on Radioactive decay. Oh here you go.

. here are two links for you to read:

click here

click here

Remember, I'm a physicist.

So, in my professional opinion? It's not based on anything ... real.

I know I know this is all a bad dream and we are going to wake up

To funny!

You got a chuckle out of ME.

I tell you, I feel like I'm in a surreal dream sometimes.

Phew - thought it was just me.

Like I said earlier, I had a big revelation overnight, that scientists and Christians just believe in different things.

Science believes in something that is basically right, but needs constant improvement and updating.

Christians believe in something that has already ben perfected.

And with that thought, I will bid you all a fond goodnight.

All the best - have a great rest of your weekend.

N

[spiritman]

1. Radiometric dating has already been proven to be in accurate.

These glib statements do cause a lot of work, don't they?

So (starting where we left off earlier):

The Waters above the firmament prevent C-14 being produced, right?

How far were the waters above the face of the earth. And let's be sensible, here. Yes, in your map of the world, God can do anything, but we've not seen much that can't be explained by science, so again, let's be sensible. How far above the earth was the water above the firmament?

And before you answer the question, you do realize that all of that water, preventing C-14 from being manufactured, would completely block plant life from ultra-violet radiation, right?

Anyway, go for it: how high was the water? 1 mile, 10 miles? 25 miles? Please bear in mind that the highest clouds are noctilucent clouds which 'live' at about 50 miles above the surface of the earth.

1. Remember that this is just a theory and not proven to be fact.

2. if this theory were true, then it would not prevent the c-14 from being produced ( I was not quoted correctly on this point) But my sister probably just misread

3. as I was saying it would not prevent the c-14 from being produced but would slow it down.

4. And if the water were not very thick say 6' or so ultra-violet radiation could pass through it easily

[spiritman]

Hum thanks lurker that's a good ideal, let's see if we can find anything that would occur in nature that would have an effect on Radioactive decay. Oh here you go.

. here are two links for you to read:

click here

click here

Remember, I'm a physicist.

So, in my professional opinion? It's not based on anything ... real.

I know I know this is all a bad dream and we are going to wake up

To funny!

You got a chuckle out of ME.

I tell you, I feel like I'm in a surreal dream sometimes.

Phew - thought it was just me.

Like I said earlier, I had a big revelation overnight, that scientists and Christians just believe in different things.

Science believes in something that is basically right, but needs constant improvement and updating.

Christians believe in something that has already ben perfected.

And with that thought, I will bid you all a fond goodnight.

All the best - have a great rest of your weekend.

N

Thanks conscience, I've enjoyed our discussion, I've learned a few things, and some things came back to me that I'd forgotten. have a good night, and weekend.