C14 AND EARLY MAN

by uncle_onion 8 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  uncle_onion

  Dear All

  In my quest to find an inner peace I have done a lot of research on Early man and how his story fits in with the Bible. This research has also gone into C14 carbon dating.

  I asked the website www.bibleanswers.com a question on this and have posted the replys below. I would appreciate you having a look at the links especially the audio links and posting your replys on what you agree and disagree with.

  Thanks a lot.

  UO

  >>>>>>>>>>>>

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Tom Henderson To: 'uncle_onion'
  Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 7:57 PM
  Subject: Neanderthal man

  > From: uncle_onion
  > Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 6:38 PM
  UO: Hi
  > I have a question for you.How would you explain the neanderthal race?we
  know
  > that they existed as we have the evidence but they lived a long time
  before
  > Adam so how could Adam have been the first man?

  > uncle onion
  ............................................
  --
  > ----------
  >
  >BA: Thanks for your question, Uncle onion
  >
  > Carbon 14 dating is unreliable, particularly after about 3000 years. The
  > old dates for Neanderthal generally come from this method. Neanderthals
  > were among first people that migrated from Babel and settled in Europe
  while
  > life spans were still great after the Genesis Flood (Genesis 10).
  >
  > > Exciting book "Buried Alive" detailing this written by Dr. Jack Cuozzo,
  an
  > orthodontist. He showed the teeth/jaw reconstructions were WRONG -
  > artificially repositioned forward out-of-socket to look more apelike. The
  > distinctive appearance of Neanderthal skulls is also due to their great
  ages
  > (HUNDREDS of years). Skull growing and aging computer study by Cuozzo
  > predicts if we lived hundreds of years today, our skulls would resemble
  the
  > Neanderthals.
  >
  http://www.icr.org/store/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=001&Product_Code
  > =BBUAL1
  > http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/j_cuozzo.asp
  >
  > http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4140.asp
  > 2 part Real-Audio interview with Dr. Cuozzo "Truths That Transform" host
  > D.James Kennedy
  > This is really worth listening to (each 26 min)
  >
  > Cave men including Neanderthals resulted from the scattering of
  civilization
  > at the tower of Babel, almost 2000 years after Adam and Eve. Genesis 11
  > gives the story and Genesis 10 shows who went where. Genetic isolation
  > resulted in rapid developemnt of different races. The cave men were
  simply
  > those who found caves as homes. These were good places to live during the
  > ice age which followed the Flood by 500-700 years or so.
  >
  > There has even been a Neanderthal skeleton found in a Europen tomb dressed
  > in a "coat of mail".
  >
  >
  > "Neanderthal Skulls and Longevity" by Dave & Mary Jo Nutting
  > Abstract - Neanderthals are characterized by massive features, heavy brow
  > ridges, and somewhat larger skulls than is common in mankind today.
  > Consequently, many evolutionists believe they were primitive men with
  > ape-like characteristics. However, other evolutionists and most
  > creationists see evidence that these people suffered from rickets and
  > arthritis. They say they were entirely human and would go unnoticed if
  > dressed in modern clothing. .....
  >
  >
  > Other links on Neanderthals
  > http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-323.htm
  > Neanderthals Are Still Human! by Dave Phillips* 5/2000
  >
  > http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-059.htm
  > IMPACT No. 59 - BONE DISEASE SIMULATING ANCIENT AGE IN "PRE-HUMAN" FOSSILS
  > (But Cuozzo thinks Neanderthals mostly suffered from arthritis)
  >
  > http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-105b.htm
  > BTG No. 105b - Is Neanderthal In Our Family Tree? by John D. Morris, Ph.D.
  >
  >
  > Tom Henderson > Creation SuperLibrary Coordinator
  > http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/
  >
  .............................................................
  -----Original Message-----
  >From: uncle_onion
  Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 5:10 AM
  UO: Dear Tom
  ....
  1. You said C14 dating is unrelaible.On whose evidence are you quoting? I
  have read a lot about this and can find no evidence of this?<

  BA: Bottom line answer - The assumptions of these dating methods are flawed!
  References:
  See Chapter 4 of the Resived & Expanded Answers Book for radioisotope
  dating - The 20 most-asked questions about Creation, Evolution, and the Book
  of Genesis, Answered!
  http://www.christiananswers.net/cgi-bin/html_web_store.cgi?page=answers-b.ht
  ml&cart_id=3369826.11356

  Also see The Young Earth
  http://www.christiananswers.net/cgi-bin/html_web_store.cgi?page=yeb.html&car
  t_id=3369826.11356

  From one of my talks, here are some notes, mostly from the Young Earth, page
  referenced
  Radioisotope Dating methods - Measuring a process, NOT an age.
  Chapter5p53 How to Date a System or Object
  1. Observe present state (science)
  2. Measure present rate of process (science) (measuring a process not an
  age)
  3. 4 Assumptions about past history 1) Constancy of process rate p.52
  2) Degree of isolation from the environment p.53
  No gain or loss of parent, daughter, or intermediates?
  Gases can escape, isotopes can migrate
  This problem is often used to fudge date to that desired.
  [Example: dating human fossils in book "Bones of Contention"]
  http://www.creationonline.org/booksonline/rslt_DetailBook.asp?ProductId=35&i
  tem=Books&mbackUrl=book_main.asp&backUrl=rslt_Search.asp&n_cur=1&n_next=1
  3) Initial conditions - amounts of daughter present at start p54-56
  4) Earth is old enough for process to work p.57
  4. Calculate age (interpretation based on assumptions)

  p5-56 Known dates of lava flows don't give correct age.
  Sunset crater eruption of 1065 AD (tree-rings) dated 200K+ by K-Ar
  ("excess Ar")
  Mt. Rangiototo, New Zealand eruption of <300y dated 485K by K-Ar
  ("excess Ar")
  Vulcan's Throne, Grand Canyon eruption <few thousand y dated 10K K-Ar
  (close)
  Vulcan's throne olivine K-Ar = 117MY (Pod w excess Argon - clock not
  reset)
  Kaupelehu flow, Hualalai volcano, Hawaii 1800AD had lots of Ar & He
  140M -> 3BY
  Salt Lake Crater, Oahu: <1MY ONE date 400K + 16 others 2.6M->3.3BY
  Mt. St. Helens volcano in Oregon - recent lavas gave 2.4 BY age
  - each mineral dated gave a different age [cite ICR RATE Project source]

  "In each of these volcanic events on land, daughter material was present at
  the start, giving anomalously old 'ages', even though the daughter gases
  could have easily escaped into the atmosphere." [page?] The technique
  DOESN'T GIVE GOOD RESULTS!
  So what justification can be given to use the process on rocks of unknown
  age?

  An intensive study on Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth by a team of 6
  Creationists was begun about 3 years ago. It is termed RATE. The RATE
  group have just published a 667 page book describing in detail the tough
  questions, evidences to be studied and results to date. A second book is
  scheduled to report findings in 2005.
  http://www.creationonline.org/booksonline/rslt_DetailBook.asp?ProductId=382&;
  item=Books&mbackUrl=book_main.asp&backUrl=rslt_Search.asp&n_cur=1&n_next=1

  p59 Cardenas Basalts vs. Basalts on Grand Canyon Rim p57-60
  Rim basalts contained Indian artifacts and date in thousands of years, but
  radiometric dating generally dated older than the Precambrian Cardenas
  basalts deep in the canyon.

  Age of Meteorites/Earth - Allende, Mexico meteorite fall 1969 p5-60-62
  http://www.meteorlab.com/allende.htm visual 10/2000
  data: Pb-207/Pb-206 = 4.50 BY
  Pb-207/U-235 = 5.57 BY
  Pb-206/U-238 = 8.82 BY
  Pb-208/T-232 = 10.4 BY
  Sr-87/Sr-86 = 4.48 BY
  p61 "dates are accepted or rejected based on their agreement with an
  unprovable view of" how and when solar system formed, so 4.56 BY age was
  accepted

  Uranium to Lead decay - 8 alpha particles are ejected. Each of these helium
  nuclei may damage the crystal structure of the rock. Eventually they rise
  to the surface and into the atmosphere.

  5p63 Radio halos p5-62-64 [data on coalified wood from Gentry's book]
  Alpha particle decay damages the crystal structure producing rings.
  U halos in coalified wood give extremely high U/Pb ratios & dates under 1 MY
  Jurassic - Colorado, Utah, New Mexico
  Triassic - Utah
  Devonian 400 MY shale in Tennessee

  5p64 Carbon 14 Dating p5-64-67 p67 backup
  [ N14 hit by cosmic ray -> C14 beta decay -> N14 5700y t1/2
  30,000y to equilibrium from no C14 EQUILIBRIUM DOES NOT EXIST C14 still
  building up. Hence a calibration curve is used. ]
  http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html - How accurate is
  Carbon-14 dating?

  C14 is building up 30% faster than it is decaying. The discoverer of this
  process, Dr. Libby, ignored this 30% difference. He knew that it would only
  take thousands of years for equilibrium to occur. He assumed the world was
  much older than that.

  Method not trusted by archaeologists.
  C14 used when it can be verified by historical dating method. Tree-ring
  dating can calibrate C14. "Calibration curve" Oldest tree 4500y 9000y of
  tree rings is subjective.
  Aardsma C14 shows Flood 12,000 BC max.
  ......................................................................
  UO:Dear Tom
  Thank you for your reply.Let me tell you where I am coming from.<

  I have been a Jehovahs witness for 27 years and am now doing something that
  I should have done a long time ago and reexamine my beliefs.<

  > One of my beliefs is ...Is the Bible the word of God? So your answers to my questions are of the upmost importance to me so please do not be offended if I sound like I am being picky. This is necessary to my faith. I have a few questions on the info you provided:<

  1. You said C14 dating is unrelaible.On whose evidence are you quoting? I
  have read a lot about this and can find no evidence of this?

  >2. You wrote "The truth about Neanderthal man has been BURIED ALIVE by
  evolutionists attempting to show Neanderthal as an evolutionary link
  between apes and man."If you read the latest research on DNA you will see
  that this is not the latest thoughts. N DNA is totally different to ours and
  so they are now not believed to be our ancestors?<

  BA:You are probably referring to mitochrondrial DNA results. On the basis of
  those one might conclude Neanderthals died out. Others say Neanderthals
  intermarried with Cro Magnon and became today's Western Europeans.

  UO:> 3. You wrote ". Genetic isolation resulted in rapid developemnt of
  different races. "Again what are your sources?<

  BA:Source is Genesis 10-11 and writings of other Creationists such as the links
  below. At the tower of Babel languages were confused and people scattered
  in frustration. It is reasonable to assume that each small group who could
  understand each other left together. These small groups each had a limited
  genetic pool which resulted in distinctive racial characteristics developing
  in each. Some groups developed into nations we have today such as China,
  India.

  http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/race-definition.html
  Where did the human races come from?

  http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/race-skincolor.html
  How did different skin colors come about?

  UO:>4. You wrote "These were good places to live during the ice age which
  followed the Flood by 500-700 years or so." What Ice age 500-700 years
  after? The flood is dated to 2370 BCE according to the Bible?
  Thank you for your help.
  Uncle onion

  BA:Creationists believe there was only ONE ice age which occurred after the
  Genesis Flood and as an aftermath of it. Bible dating of the Flood is based
  on genealogies recorded in the Bible. But Hebrew genealogies can skip
  generations. So the Flood could have been earlier than 2370 BC.

  http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-168.htm
  IMPACT No. 168 The Ice Age And The Genesis Flood by Michael J. Oard, M.S.
  http://www.icr.org/book/cat-ye.htm#aiacbtgf
  An Ice Age Caused by the Genesis Flood
• 

  terraly

  Where to begin?

  We've just been studying all sorts of radioactive decay here at school- so I'm sick and tired of thinking about that, so I won't. Sometimes, let me just say that I wish the creationists had the slightest idea what they were talking about- then I might not have to do anything more with radioactive decay.

  How about here:
  [quote]UO:> 3. You wrote ". Genetic isolation resulted in rapid developemnt of different races. "Again what are your sources?<

  BA:Source is Genesis 10-11 and writings of other Creationists such as the links below. At the tower of Babel languages were confused and people scattered in frustration. It is reasonable to assume that each small group who could understand each other left together. These small groups each had a limited genetic pool which resulted in distinctive racial characteristics developing in each. Some groups developed into nations we have today such as China, India.

  http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/race-definition.html
  Where did the human races come from?

  http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/race-skincolor.html
  How did different skin colors come about?
  [\quote]

  That Christian answers site is scary. Reminds me of watchtower.org actually...

  It's highly amusing, their "disclaimer" at the end, about how no new genetic material has been added, we've just been shuffling it around, so it's ok. Yet within the article they assume all the fundamental tenants of evolutionary theory- comparative advantage, even seperate development of isolate groups. The only thing, in their minds, which prevents them from presenting an evolutionary argument (which clearly they dislike), is that they haven't cosidered mutations. Yet this is crazy, for mutations are observed all the time in nature.

  But that's an aside. I take issue with the Tower of Babel story. I encourage you to do a little linguistics research. You will find a great deal of evidence for slow evoluation of languages over the years, without any evidence of a Bable-like event. That might be a promising place for you to start looking actually. Creationists have created an enormous amount of nonesense about evolution, and we tend to have some emotional baggage about this issue (are we really descended from single-celled animals).

  The Tower of Babel on the other hand? It's a "Just-so" story. So transparently a mythical retalling of an observed feature (humans speak different languages), and so obviously false from a linguistics point of view.

  It is interesting that the christiananswers site has one page about "archeological evidence for the Tower" and one page about a Sumerian epic that- surprise, surprise, tries to provide an account of the same observation. I think I prefer the Sumerian account personally. Is there a study of the record of the languages? No, because it won't agree with their beliefs.
• 

  AlanF

  Wow, Uncle, you certainly have a lot of research to do. Having done this myself, I highly recommend that you beg, borrow or steal as much of the basic researchy material as you can manage.

  I can't give you an in-depth answer to everything presented by the creationist camp, but you can find an awful lot of stuff on the Net that already deals with it. After awhile you'll get to know certain key phrases to stick into search engines. Of course, one of the best resources is talk.origins.org.

  Probably the best method of debunking young-earth creationist (YEC) claims is to actually get hold of a lot of their books and then compare what these claim to what scientists publish. You always find substantial differences, and you almost always find that YEC publications simply ignore everything they can't figure out an answer for. I'll give examples below.

  The Carbon-14 dating method is one of the YEC camp's favorite straw men. Their basic argument is that because there are certain problems with C14 dating, the method is completely unreliable for all measurements over a few thousand years ago. What they fail to do is to explain why the method corresponds so well with completely independent forms of dating. They also fail to deal with problems that completely destroy their overall notions such as a recent global flood that layed down virtually all of the earth's sedimentary rocks. In fact, their own writings are far more inconsistent than the minor problems they love to point out in the far more voluminous writings of good scientists.

  For example, they fail to explain why C14 dates, corrected by tree ring methods, correspond extremely well with dates for major geological events shown in the record of ice cores from Greenland. For example, in the late 1970s a pair of Indian sandals were found in a cave in Oregon underneath a thick layer of ash from the huge explosion of ancient Mount Mazama, which is now the famous Crater Lake in Oregon. The sandals were made of tree bark, and were C14 dated to about 7000 B.C.E. In the 1980s some ice cores were taken from Greenland, and they contained many layers of ash in the annual accumulation layers. Many historical eruptions were found in the cores, going back some 4000 years. The ice core dating was generally fairly close to the historical dating, and generally not more than a couple of hundred years different. The ice cores contained layers countable year by year back to about 8-10 thousand years ago (I don't recall the exact figure). The cores contained ash from the Crater Lake eruption (this was verified by the unique chemical signature of the ash) and the annual layer count indicated about 6500 B.C.E., which is pretty close to the figure of 7000 B.C.E. from the C14 dating. In any event, that's about 5000 years too early for YEC dating. I have yet to see any YEC comments on this particular discovery, or even on anything like it. They focus on one thing at a time and fail to deal with correlated, independent evidence.

  Here's another good example: YECs like to claim that the frozen carcasses of large animals found in Siberia and Alaska were somehow formed by the action of Noah's Flood. This theme should be familiar to you as a JW. They claim that in some manner, huge numbers of mammoths and other large animals were "quick-frozen" and then buried by the Flood. They fail to explain how the liquid water of the Flood could "quick freeze" an animal and then keep it frozen for thousands of years. Worse, they fail to explain the presence of predators that clearly fed on some of the "quick-frozen" animals before the beasts were buried.

  A perfect example of this is the partial carcass of an extinct bison species found in Alaska in the late 1970s. This was eventually named "Blue Babe" because of the blue mineral crystals that formed on the frozen hide. To make a long story short, this bison was killed and partially eaten by lions in Alaska, then buried and frozen for some 30,000 years. The key bits of information are that this supposedly "quick frozen" specimen was largely eaten by something before it died, and that something was lions, which according to standard YEC/JW teaching did not eat meat before the Flood, and certainly would not and could not kill and devour a bison during such a cataclysmic event as Noah's Flood. That the bison was killed by predators is shown by the fact that the carcass bore all the usual marks of predation by large cats, such as puncture wounds in the bison's snout. It is known that lions ate the bison because one lion broke off a piece of molar, which remained stuck in the frozen flesh until it was found by the scientists. This one carcass alone destroys all of JW claims about "frozen animals in the Arctic" and pretty much all YEC claims about similar things.

  For references and more detailed descriptions of the above, see my writeup "The Flood" at this URL:
  http://www.geocities.com/osarsif/index2.htm

  : I asked the website www.bibleanswers.com a question on this and have posted the replys below. I would appreciate you having a look at the links especially the audio links and posting your replys on what you agree and disagree with.

  Ok. I'll strip out a lot of stuff and comment only on what I'm able to at this time.

  AlanF

  >>>>>>>>>>>>

  ----- Original Message -----

  > From: uncle_onion
  > Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 6:38 PM
  ............................................
  --
  > ----------
  >
  >BA: Thanks for your question, Uncle onion
  >
  > Carbon 14 dating is unreliable, particularly after about 3000 years. The
  > old dates for Neanderthal generally come from this method.

  A typical YEC misrepresentation. The dates come not only from C14 dating, but from a variety of other methods that are usually pretty consistent with C14 dating. They don't mention that.

  > Neanderthals
  > were among first people that migrated from Babel and settled in Europe
  while
  > life spans were still great after the Genesis Flood (Genesis 10).

  Pure YEC speculation.

  > > Exciting book "Buried Alive" detailing this written by Dr. Jack Cuozzo,
  an
  > orthodontist. He showed the teeth/jaw reconstructions were WRONG -
  > artificially repositioned forward out-of-socket to look more apelike.

  I have this book. You can order it from the ICR and form your own opinion. Cuozzo's writing, to be perfectly frank, borders on infantile. He fails to deal with a huge amount of information in the scientific literature and focuses mainly on one thing -- his story of his inability to examine most of the Neanderthal fossils he wanted to. The very few he was able to examine over a long period of time supposedly support his theories -- of course! But his claims contradict those of many solid scientists. Frankly, given the gross dishonesty I've personally witnessed by YECS and JWs, I wouldn't trust their judgment about anything that contradicted their beliefs, whether it be YECism or JWism.

  > The
  > distinctive appearance of Neanderthal skulls is also due to their great
  ages
  > (HUNDREDS of years).

  Pure speculation based on the assumption that their overall notion of "flood geology" is correct.

  > Skull growing and aging computer study by Cuozzo
  > predicts if we lived hundreds of years today, our skulls would resemble
  the
  > Neanderthals.

  Would you trust computer modeling done by a YEC orthodontist? You really have to read the book to get an idea of how infantile this guy is.

  http://www.icr.org/store/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=001&Product_Code
  > =BBUAL1
  > http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/j_cuozzo.asp
  >
  > http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4140.asp
  > 2 part Real-Audio interview with Dr. Cuozzo "Truths That Transform" host
  > D.James Kennedy
  > This is really worth listening to (each 26 min)

  I listened to about 15 minutes of the latter. It says pretty much what the book does. Cuozzo's basic notion is that Neandertal skulls are really the skulls of regular modern humans that lived to ages of many hundreds of years, and that the unusual skull features are the result of "normal" aging processes that result in the lengthening of the face and jaw, and a gradual transformation of very old people towards the Neantertal norm. This notion is easily debunked: How many old people do you see today who have distinctly Neandertalish features? Not many. End of story. The Neandertals were a distinct race, as has been recently proved by DNA testing.

  > Cave men including Neanderthals resulted from the scattering of
  civilization
  > at the tower of Babel, almost 2000 years after Adam and Eve.

  Pure speculation.

  > Genesis 11
  > gives the story and Genesis 10 shows who went where. Genetic isolation
  > resulted in rapid developemnt of different races.

  Nonsense. There are many extant and recent examples of very isolated humans, such as tribes way back in the forests of the Amazon and New Guinea. They're far closer to the modern norm than Neandertals are. If Neandertals evolved so rapidly, why are these more modern humans, who have been largely isolated for much longer than Cuozzo's supposed Neandertals were, so much closer to the average?

  > The cave men were simply
  > those who found caves as homes. These were good places to live during the
  > ice age which followed the Flood by 500-700 years or so.

  A simpleminded 'explanation' that ignores the realities of hundreds of caves. In many caves, paleontologists have dug down and found layer after layer after layer of accumulated "stuff" that cannot possibly have been accumulated in a few hundred years. For specifics you have to look at the scientific literature.

  > There has even been a Neanderthal skeleton found in a Europen tomb dressed
  > in a "coat of mail".

  Sounds to me like those supposed "mantracks" of Paluxy, Texas.

  > "Neanderthal Skulls and Longevity" by Dave & Mary Jo Nutting
  > Abstract - Neanderthals are characterized by massive features, heavy brow
  > ridges, and somewhat larger skulls than is common in mankind today.
  > Consequently, many evolutionists believe they were primitive men with
  > ape-like characteristics. However, other evolutionists and most
  > creationists see evidence that these people suffered from rickets and
  > arthritis. They say they were entirely human and would go unnoticed if
  > dressed in modern clothing. .....

  A lot of this is outdated information that even appeared in JW literature in the 1960s. Certainly some Neandertals suffered from those diseases. How do these people think the information got into the scientific literature? Scientists put it there. Besides, such diseases don't affect the basic shape of the skull. The Neandertal skull, as well as the rest of the skeleton, has many distinct features that are rarely found in modern humans.

  .............................................................
  -----Original Message-----
  >From: uncle_onion
  >Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 5:10 AM
  >UO: Dear Tom
  >....
  >1. You said C14 dating is unrelaible.On whose evidence are you quoting? I
  >have read a lot about this and can find no evidence of this?<

  >BA: Bottom line answer - The assumptions of these dating methods are flawed!

  Note that the guy is quoting other YECs -- not a good sign.

  >References:
  >See Chapter 4 of the Resived & Expanded Answers Book for radioisotope
  >dating - The 20 most-asked questions about Creation, Evolution, and the Book
  >of Genesis, Answered!

  By all means, get this book and check it out for yourself.

  >Also see The Young Earth

  I have this piece of junk too. It's just another compilation of nonsense that was long ago debunked.

  >p5-56 Known dates of lava flows don't give correct age.
  >Sunset crater eruption of 1065 AD (tree-rings) dated 200K+ by K-Ar
  >("excess Ar")
  >. . .

  This is another standard YEC straw man -- applying a method known to be inaccurate for young dates to young material and then saying, "See! The dates are wrong!" No surprise -- scientists know that K-Ar dating is no good for dates under a million years or so, and don't use it for them. It's like using a clock that has only an hour hand to time 100-yard dashes. It isn't the clock that's wrong -- it's the misuse of it. Since scientists don't do this, it's pretty obvious that the only reason YECs do is to try to discredit the method.

  In practice, when dates under a couple of million years are found by K-Ar methods, other methods are applied in order to check. A lot of times the dates don't check out and so some dates are shelved or thrown out.

  The point here is that geologists and paleontologists are far from the bumbling idiots portrayed by YECs. You have to read a good deal of solid scientific literature to see this.

  >An intensive study on Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth by a team of 6
  >Creationists was begun about 3 years ago. It is termed RATE. The RATE
  >group have just published a 667 page book describing in detail the tough
  >questions, evidences to be studied and results to date.

  Yeah, yeah, yeah. I just bought this book, but haven't read it yet. However, I did read one of the "technical monographs" that came from the same ICR folks. In some 75 pages, it contains about 5 pages of actual relevant content, most of which is just a long-winded exposition on a simple high-school math formula along with a completely unsupported claim that the formula applies to the time period "after Noah's Flood". This is one of the best examples of ICR nonsense yet to appear.

  As for the RATE book, I've kept up with ICR "findings" over the years, including the much-heralded appearance of the RATE book as published in the ICR's pamphlets "Impact" and "Acts and Facts". If the early material is any indication, the RATE book will prove to contain much ado about nothing, and be a sort of contentless agenda for "what might prove to be" but will never pan out. Again, order this stuff yourself and delve into it -- it's the best way to see how dopey these people can be.

  For a solid look at modern dating methods, look at Brent Dalrymple's The Age of the Earth.

  >5p63 Radio halos p5-62-64 [data on coalified wood from Gentry's book]
  >Alpha particle decay damages the crystal structure producing rings.
  >U halos in coalified wood give extremely high U/Pb ratios & dates under 1 MY
  >Jurassic - Colorado, Utah, New Mexico

  Robert Gentry is a charlatan if I ever saw one. He's a 7th-Day Adventist who managed to get a Ph.D. in physics, but mainly to try to learn enough to support his YEC religious beliefs. His writings have been thoroughly debunked by good physicists, but the debunkings are ignored by the YEC community. Gentry's opinions have been surreptitiously used even by the WTS.

  ......................................................................
  UO:Dear Tom
  Thank you for your reply.Let me tell you where I am coming from.<

  >I have been a Jehovahs witness for 27 years and am now doing something that
  >I should have done a long time ago and reexamine my beliefs.<
  . . .

  By this time you should be able to see the pattern: Quote creationist "scientists" as if they were mainstream scientists in an attempt to fool the ignorant believers. Forget that the views of creationist "scientists" are entirely determined by their religious beliefs. And on and on.

  >BA:Creationists believe there was only ONE ice age which occurred after the
  Genesis Flood and as an aftermath of it.

  This is fairly new in YEC circles. Until the early 1990s they simply denied that ice ages existed at all. But by then so much evidence had appeared, largely in the form of ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica, that even the ICR couldn't deny it anymore. So they came up with their own explanation of "the ice ages". Again, to get a good idea of the nonsensical, "dog ate my homework" type of explanations offered in ICR material, you have to get hold of this material for yourself:

  >IMPACT No. 168 The Ice Age And The Genesis Flood by Michael J. Oard, M.S.
  >An Ice Age Caused by the Genesis Flood

  I know this is far from comprehensive, Uncle, but I'll try to help out further if I can. Again, to really get to know what's going on, you have no choice but to get hold of lots of technical material. There's no substitute for understanding the nitty gritty details by dint of your own hard research. Don't take anyone's mere word for anything.

  AlanF
• 

  jelly

  Hello Uncle Onion

  I understand your need to search and reconcile your beliefs with scientific facts. Have you ever thought that maybe evolution is not a contradiction to the bible? Really I do not believe that the bible is meant to be taken literally word for word but should be read like a story looking for the main points.

  To answer your questions Neanderthal man existed thousands of years ago and most of the science, if not all, from the YEC camp is flawed at best, dishonest at worst.

  Jelly
• 

  Fredhall

  LOL!!!! Apeman
• 

  JW72

  I personally think that we don't have time to research everything, but if that's what u wanna do, that's cool, but we can't all be expected to do that, can we??
  I certainly haven't got the patience or the academic standard to do that!
  I think the bible is mans effort to try and explain why we are here, but kinda got a bit chinese whispered along the way, a bit blown out of proportion!
  I'm not sure though, one thing stands out in the bible, and that is that men dominate it, and for that, it sounds 'man-made', to me, anyway.
  I also think it's full of good moral guidelines too.
  Well done on the research, anyway.
  I'm glad there's people like you, doing some good work for people like me, I commend u!

  Cheers
  Chris
• 

  ridgerunner57

  Uncle Onion
  Thanks for the thread. This has the most interesting and relevant info I've seen on here. I've got a lot of research to do myself. I grew up selling the Evolution book (circa 1967). After I got through 9th grade biology I began to see the light; that the book was a crock. I have maintained a strong interest in the field. Thanks again for the info and links.
• 

  uncle_onion

  Thanks for the comments so far. I have a lot of reading to do!

  UO
• 

  Amazing

  Hi Uncle: I scanned through some of the posted replies to you, but decided that I will only make these general remarks. I posted on this topic about two months ago, but for some reason the search feature will not permit going back that far:

  Some (mostly untrained novices) say that Carbon 14 dating is unreliable, "particularly after about 3000 years." as one poster replied to you. However, C-14 dating is actually very accurate back to about 60,000 years. After that, the half-life is so drastically reduced that the results are less meaningful.

  One poster stated, "The old dates for Neanderthal generally come from this method."

  Actually, several isotope methods are used, such as Potassium and Argon and others. C-14 is not exclusively used, and is generally cross-verified with other methods.

  The poster continued, " ... life spans were still great after the Genesis Flood (Genesis 10)."

  This is not substanitated via science. This is a commonly held view by some fundamentalists groups, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses. There is no basis to conclude anything about life-spans until modern science and the insurance industry started documenting the data.

  If humanoid type creatures lived hundreds of years as proposed by some, I would think that they would have not become extinct as easily as they did. But, in this area I am not an expert. My specialty is nuclear science. That is one reason I stand by C-14 measurments for organic specimens that lived withing the last 60,000 years.

  Hope this helps the discussion some. - Amazing