It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Creationist Myth - 500,000-Year-Old Stone Tools, Butchered Elephant Bones Found in Israel

page: 4
21
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: eisegesis
I just like to mention it in threads like this because it seems so many are unaware of its teachings. If more people were aware of it I think there would be less antagonism between those devotees of science and religion. I believe more answers can be achieved if these two camps worked together.




posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Sorry to be nit-picky here but I have to point out that 14c was definitely not used to ascertain the dates of this site. 14c is actually quite accurate despite what some ,may want to say however because of the half-life of 14c it is only effective to around 40,000 years or so. Some will claim it is accurate as far back as 60KYA but personally I get sketchy with anything that comes back once it nears in on 50KYA or older. 40KYA and younger though, I will stand by the validity and accuracy of it. The down side of this argument is that the vast majority of nay sayers somehow believe that 14c is the ONLY method used or the first or rather the go to method, used to ascertain dates which just isn't the case. You can usually get a ball park figure based on stratigraphy and then from that point you go over the various options available to you.

To avoid redundancy, I would point you towards the excellent post by Phantom423 on page 3 of this thread.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 11:54 AM
link   
Young Earthers may be creationists, but not all creationists (far from it) are Young Earthers.


Just How Many Young Earth Creationists are there in the US?



In short, then, the hard core of young-earth creationists represents at most one in ten Americans—maybe about 31 million people—with another quarter favoring creationism but not necessarily committed to a young earth.


I am of the group that believes the earth and civilization are far older than modern science believes and have been through many cycles of development and devastation. 500 thousand year old tools only support that.
edit on 22-3-2015 by Halfswede because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 12:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Autorico
a reply to: babybunnies

Strangely enough, there are Christians/creationists on ATS that do believe we could have been created through evolution. I can't recall who it was. and the entire thread that it was a part of was taken down.


Yes me.


Im a chrtistian but I agree with evolution and reject young earth creationism.


Im a biologist.

I cant be that and a young earther.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 12:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

I believe in science, thats a strawman argument and the patronising attitude is an ad hominem.


Believe/belief has no place in science, you either accept it or you do not.

You chose what to accept based on your chosen superstitions and whether or not they conflict with science.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 02:06 PM
link   
I hope the young earth "scientists" can back this up...

The Last Dinosaur Died In 1927: The Fossil Record According To Creationism


In the mid-1700s—about a century before the birth of geology and the first scientific attempts to determine Earth's age—an archbishop of the Church of Ireland named James Ussher mapped out the genealogies and chronologies of Biblical characters all the way back to Adam and Eve, and concluded that the world was created in the year 4004 B.C.


The point is, anyone who still clings to this theory is a loon.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 02:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Char-Lee
a reply to: eisegesis

www.adherents.com...


I agree, except for their views on creation. While I don't claim to have the answer, I do know they are wrong.

You BELIEVE they are wrong, you don't KNOW anything.
Your not God




No, we know they are wrong. The earth is not 6,000 years old. Life was not created in its present form.
edit on 22-3-2015 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: eisegesis
I hope the young earth "scientists" can back this up...

The Last Dinosaur Died In 1927: The Fossil Record According To Creationism


In the mid-1700s—about a century before the birth of geology and the first scientific attempts to determine Earth's age—an archbishop of the Church of Ireland named James Ussher mapped out the genealogies and chronologies of Biblical characters all the way back to Adam and Eve, and concluded that the world was created in the year 4004 B.C.


The point is, anyone who still clings to this theory is a loon.




Really people believe that?


Honestly any one that thinks that should do the world a favor and go out said and shot themselves as your stupidly is a crime against humanity.
edit on 22-3-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 03:06 PM
link   
Adam (eth ha adam) may have been created 6000 years ago but he was not the first of mankind (ha adam) he was the first of an ethnic group. And the bible does not say when the earth was created. other than line one the creation narrative isn't even about the creation.




"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
(Genesis 1:1 KJV)


God created it in the beginning. period. no problem here.




“And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”


There is a problem here. as is commonly translated this contradicts:




For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.
(Isaiah 45:18 KJV)


The words for translated as "vain" here is toho vav vaho is the same used in genesis 1:2 and it means a ruin or disarray. Genesis seems to say the earth was created a ruin but Isaiah and others contradicts this interpretation. it also contradicts the bible in several other places such as jeremiah and others.

however; the greek OT which Jesus and the apostles are known to have used translates this very same verse as:




And the earth became without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.


"became"

There was some sort of catastrophic event between the creation of the earth and what was described after verse 2 that basically ruined the earth. but the earth was not created that way. Therefore verse three onward are not describing the creation of the earth but a regeneration of it after a disaster.

therefore it is impossible to derive a specific creation date for the earth from the bible but it happened in epochal even geological and cosmic time scales as told by people such as Isaiah and Peter.

Therefore the bible does not contradict the present scientific understanding of how or when the earth came to be.




edit on 22-3-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok


There is no higher facepalm.




posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 09:26 PM
link   
a reply to: rockintitz
I like your 'Operation Ivy' avatar



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 11:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: eisegesis
The point is, anyone who still clings to this theory is a loon.


Prove to me the universe was not created last Thursday...



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 11:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Answer


Or they'll use the tired old excuse that carbon dating is completely unreliable because, in their ignorance, they think that carbon dating is the only method used to determine the age of anything ever.



After reading through the thread, I just want to point out this post I made on Pg. 1 and how prophetic and accurate it was.

Young earthers... so predictable.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 11:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: eisegesis
The point is, anyone who still clings to this theory is a loon.


I'm disappointed that you provided some good info but felt the need to take it in the creation direction. I was going to jump on that, but I at times look at the person posting though their other posts and I see that you have a Bucket Head post, so I really don't feel like debating...hehe



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 04:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: vonclod

Here's how it's done:

(Anyone who disagrees with the methodology, please post why it doesn't work - I'll forward it on to the authors for their response)

Uranium series dates from Qesem Cave, Israel, and the end of the Lower Palaeolithic
R. Barkai, A. Gopher, S. E. Lauritzen, A. Frumkin
Abstract
Israel is part of a geographical 'out of Africa' corridor for human dispersals. An important event in these dispersals was the possible arrival of anatomically modern humans in the Levant during the late Middle Pleistocene1, 2, 3. In the Levant the Lower Palaeolithic ends with the Acheulo-Yabrudian complex, characterized by technological developments4, 5, including the introduction of technological innovations such as the systematic production of blades and the disappearance of hand-axes. These reflect new human perceptions and capabilities in lithic technology and tool function6. Qesem Cave, discovered in 2000, has a rich, well-preserved Acheulo-Yabrudian deposit holding great promise for providing new insights into the period. Here we report the dates of this deposit obtained by uranium isotopic series on associated speleothems and their implications. The results shed light on the temporal range of the Acheulo-Yabrudian and the end of the Lower Palaeolithic,

suggesting

a long cultural phase between the Lower Palaeolithic Acheulian and the Middle Palaeolithic Mousterian phases, starting before 382 kyr ago and ending at about 200 kyr ago.

The chronology of the upper layers of Qesem Cave is based on
speleothems from the eastern section of the cave.
These were
sampled with a cutting disk and their 230Th–234U dates were
measured by thermal ionization mass spectrometry (TIMS) at the
uranium-series laboratory of Bergen University (Table 1). After
conventional chemical preparation, mass abundances of natural U
and Th isotopes were measured against a mixed 236U–233U–229Th spike14
.
Ages were calculated with the aid of the TIMS–Age 4U2U
program15 and corrected
for thorium detrital content, assuming an
initial 230Th/232
The ratio of 1.5 (ref. 16). Field relations indicate that
the ages were in correct stratigraphic order (Fig. 2). We identified
two main stages of speleothem deposition. The first, a massive
(about 25 cm thick) flowstone deposit, is dated by five ages (in kyr):
382 +/- 37, 300 +/- 13, 218 +/- 15, 218 +/- 16 and 207 +/- 12. This flow-stone covers the lower Acheulo-Yabrudian layers. A detached part of the flowstone, dated to 254 +/- 37 kyr ago, was redeposited in an archaeological breccia deposit, indicating that the breccia is
younger. A break in speleothem deposition occurred between
about 207 and 152 kyr ago
. Within this period the latest human
occupation of the cave might have taken place, indicated by thin
archaeological sediment directly above the massive flowstone. A
second, short period of speleothem deposition took place about
152 kyr ago, represented by two ages of a calcite crust a few
millimetres thick, and small stalactites, dated to 152 +/- 3 and
152 +/- 7 kyr ago. The crust and the stalactites were deposited over
the archaeological sediments and can therefore serve as a terminus of human occupation.





I disagree, seems like a lot of assumption.

Its hard to date rocks with TIMS because they have to assume constants and there is no evidence of constants in TIMS, just a big fat fairy fart guess.

My zip about science beats your less than zip about science

I think I should say something like pwned here but its so 90s now



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 04:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Autorico
a reply to: babybunnies

Strangely enough, there are Christians/creationists on ATS that do believe we could have been created through evolution. I can't recall who it was. and the entire thread that it was a part of was taken down.


Yes me.


Im a chrtistian but I agree with evolution and reject young earth creationism.


Im a biologist.

I cant be that and a young earther.



Actually the vast majority of Christians worldwide don't believe in that creationist crap anymore.


It's a typical Evangelical Protestant/American thing.

It's funny how so many people on ATS think all Christians are Evangelical Protestants, while they represent less than 15% of the Christian population. They are the equivalent of Muslim radicals to Christians.


Furthermore, EVEN if you read the Bible literally like Evangelical Protestants are doing, the Bible doesn't say anywhere the earth is 6000 years old. I challenge any young earthist to quote the passage saying 6000 years since creation. There is 0 contradiction for normal Christians (non literalists) between the Bible and the age of the Earth. HTH






edit on 23-3-2015 by Develo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 07:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch
I disagree, seems like a lot of assumption.

of course it does when you take portions entirely out of context and build your biased argument around such misrepresentations.

Its hard to date rocks with TIMS because they have to assume constants and there is no evidence of constants in TIMS, just a big fat fairy fart guess.

And once again, you demonstrate how little you know of the actual methodology.

Independent measurements, using different and independent radiometric techniques, give consistent results (Dalrymple 2000; Lindsay 1999; Meert 2000). Such results cannot be explained either by chance or by a systematic error in decay rate assumptions.


2. Radiometric dates are consistent with several nonradiometric dating methods. For example:

• The Hawaiian archipelago was formed by the Pacific ocean plate moving over a hot spot at a slow but observable rate. Radiometric dates of the islands are consistent with the order and rate of their being positioned over the hot spot (Rubin 2001).


• Radiometric dating is consistent with Milankovitch cycles, which depend only on astronomical factors such as precession of the earth's tilt and orbital eccentricity (Hilgen et al. 1997).


• Radiometric dating is consistent with the luminescence dating method (Thompson n.d.; Thorne et al. 1999).


• Radiometric dating gives results consistent with relative dating methods such as "deeper is older" (Lindsay 2000).

www.tim-thompson.com...

www.asa3.org... 9



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 07:51 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

You'll need to give me your calculation for the constant so that I can compare it to the known data. that's the only way to know if you're right.



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 07:55 AM
link   
a reply to: eisegesis

Nice thread, S&F. More actual science like this please, less primeval Bronze Age nonsense.



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 08:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

Does Buckethead possibly prove the existence of a god?





top topics



 
21
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join