Q What do creationists make of fossils of other extinct hominid species such as Homo Neanderthals and others?
https://www.quora.com/What-do-creationists-make-of-fossils-of-other-extinct-hominid-species-such-as-Homo-Neanderthals-and-others/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Blog : "http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com". Debating evolutionists for 15 years +.
- 6 years ago
- “First, when it comes to Homo Neanderthals they claim that he was just a slightly different human being with a odd shape head and jaw.”
Dixit Kimball.
I found that good enough till I heard of the work of Pääbo (Svante).
Since then, I hold Neanderthals are a pre-Flood race and use the carbon date gap between last Neanderthals (not just charcoals in their cave in Gibraltar) and first modern population of Europe as carbon date for Flood.
Thanks for asking … wait, there was one more part …
… such as Neanderthals and others …
The others (Antecessor, Heidelbergensis, Rudolfensis probably, Solo Man and a few more), being fully human, are however not carbon dated since presumed too old for that, since dated by K-Ar - a worthless method, as verified on recent volcanic eruptions. Unverifiable, if you look at half life and how long a period you would need to get a detactable part of a half life.
100,000 years "This date is too large and beyond the limits of present accuracy (55000 to 60000 years)" "OK" carbon left 0.001 % (if original content were 100 % modern carbon or 100 pmc)
What is that to the half life? 100000 / 5730 = 17.45
So, after 17.45 halflives (Culloden is a good mnemonic) you have 0.001 % of original content left.
Now, I am not going after 17.45 halflives of K-Ar, I am going for the other end.
100 - 0.001 = 99.999 %
Years 0, +/- 5
99.9 %
Years 10, +/-5
10 / 5730 = 0.0017452006980803
Hmmmm 0.001745 (Culloden rule, again, in a way).
What is the half life of K-Ar method?
“40K decays with a half-life of 1.248×10^9 years to 40Ca and 40Ar.”[1]
So we get: 1,248,000,000 * 0.001745 = 2,177,760.
What corresponds to 10 years with carbon dating (clearly verifiable with history for back quite a while) is 2,177,760 years (clearly not so). The dating method is not verifiable.
Footnotes
[1] K–Ar dating - Wikipedia
- Following comment
- was only made after my account had been discontinued. I discovered it today.
- Joel Henry Hinrichs
- 4 years ago
- Dating methods that are “not verifiable” are in fact prone to provide data you wish not to accept.
- 18.VII.2024
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Sounds like some kind of psychoanalysis.
What do you do about my argument:
“Unverifiable, if you look at half life and how long a period you would need to get a detactable part of a half life.”
For Carbon 14, I consider the halflife as nearly totally verified, and I also show a way in which increasing levels of it in the atmosphere between Flood and Fall of Troy involve real Biblical chronology systematically misdated by carbon 14 (prior to fall of Troy).
Why do I consider it as verified? Because you can take a substantial section of the halflife and verify the method against known artefacts from the period. Half a halflife lands you back in the times of Assyria, a quarter of a halflife in the Early Middle Ages.
Deal with my argument before you try to explain WHY I reason for a point!
- Joel Henry Hinrichs
- “Unverifiable, if you look at half life and how long a period you would need to get a detactable part of a half life.”
Word salad - half lives are easy to determine, based on just one prem,ise - that the universe has held to the same rules (quarks, cosmic rays, and so on) since the universe began.
For Carbon 14, I consider the halflife as nearly totally verified, and I also show a way in which increasing levels of it in the atmosphere between Flood and Fall of Troy involve real Biblical chronology systematically misdated by carbon 14 (prior to fall of Troy).
There was no Flood. (sigh - Genesis literalists are way out in the wind here. Verses 1 and 3 declare that God instantiated time space matter light and light. Day Four put the rest of the visible universe beneath the forever supply of rain put above the vault of the sky on Day Two, yet Earth orbits the nearest Star.
Day Three elevates Earth from beneath the vast waters of creation, yet Earth is a ball with a thin crust of continents surrounded by wispy films of water (seas). Genesis is theology. To “describe” how the earth formed, and how plants and animals arrived, you need to start with the origin of the universe, then spend 8.8 billion years to reach the part where the sun forms, plus another 460 million years for the planets to coalesce, THEN another 3/4 of a billion years for first life to bloom, THEN another two-ish billion years for eukaryote life to appear (look it up) THEN another 1.5-is billion years for eukaryotes to become truly able to form multicellular life forms - am boring you?
Why do I consider it as verified? Because you can take a substantial section of the halflife and verify the method against known artefacts from the period. Half a halflife lands you back in the times of Assyria, a quarter of a halflife in the Early Middle Ages.
Half-lives occur in many elements which have radioactive isotopes. C14 is one of many. Where is your homework on this?
Deal with my argument before you try to explain WHY I reason for a point!
What argument?
- Was answered twice
- A and B
- A
- 19.VII.2024
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- 19.VII.2024
- “half lives are easy to determine, based on just one prem,ise - that the universe has held to the same rules (quarks, cosmic rays, and so on) since the universe began.”
They aren’t. It’s not just a question of there being a halflife, but of the halflife being known to us through verifiable methods.
“There was no Flood.”
- You are a heretic.
- You are contradicting the mass of human history outside the Bible as well.
- You have no argument for it even.
“am boring you?”
Yes, you are. You are copying Hugh Ross, plus forgetting the Flood is not in Genesis 1 but in Genesis 6–9.
“Half-lives occur in many elements which have radioactive isotopes. C14 is one of many.”
A halflife occurring is one thing. A halflife both occurring and being verified and being useful for dating purposes is different.
“What argument?”
The one you tried unsuccessfully to deal with.
- B
- 19.VII.2024
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- 19.VII.2024
- Two minor points in the perspective of your answer.
- You presume that I don’t know what eucaryotes are (says sth about your prejudice against YEC)
- You presume I agree that Earth orbits the Sun. I actually disagree.
No comments:
Post a Comment