[noguru]

Originally Posted by DFT_Dave

The Dating of Skull 1470

The dating of Skull 1470 at 2.9 m.y.a. was, at the time, legitimate.

Dating of the African finds has been done by three methods. In one, a sample of volcanic debris or other material associated with the find is analyzed to determine the extent to which a radioactive form of potassium has decayed into argon gas. This indicates the time since the material erupted at high temperature.

Another method measures how long a specimen containing uranium has been in existence through the number of tracks left in it by the radioactive decay of that uranium.


The third technique uses the known timetable of reversals in the earth's magnetic field over the last few million years as a time scale. When lava cools, after eruption, it becomes imprinted with the direction of the earth's magnetism at the time of cooling. Under favorable circumstances determination of the magnetism in a specimen can be fitted to the timetable of field reversals to obtain the age of a lava flow associated with human remains.

Specimens from the African rift valleys have been dated with particular confidence because volcanic activity there has been frequent, burying the specimens in layers that could be dated by one or all three of these methods.

The New York Times, November 1972

The website Skeptics

This 2.6 million year old date was verified by many different testing methods.

1. Based on other fossils that were very similar. Vertebrate faunas -- Elephant, Suid (pig), Australopithicus, and tools (Maglio, 1972; Nature 239:379-85, Leaky, 1967-69, etc.)

2. On K-Ar and Ar40-Ar39 dating. Potassium-Argon dating -- selected crystals (K-Ar and Ar40-Ar39) (Fitch & Miller '70, Nature 226:226-8 and see 251:214)

3. Paleomagnetism. Paleomagnetism -- polarity data, based on 247 samples below KBS tuff (Brock & Isaac, 1974, Nature 247:344-48)

4. Fission Track Dating. Fission Track Dating -- involving uranium, noting possible reanealing (Hurford, 1974, Nature 249:236; '76, 263:738)

http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/qu...ossil-record-a

This site goes on to affirm the changing of the dating of 1470 to 1.8 m.y.a. But a huge problem becomes a lack of confidence in the dating methods and the daters motives.

The specimen was originally thought to be around 2.9 myr old, due to an inaccurate dating of 2.6 myr for the KBS volcanic tuff located above it. This inaccuracy was caused by contamination of older material, and the tuff is now know to be much younger.

It's one thing to say the tuff was contaminated but its another thing to prove that there was contamination. Can anyone explain how this, so called, contamination occured and how it was validated?

--Dave

Dave did you actually read the article in your link?

If you did you would have seen that your highlighted comments here are inaccurate.

From the article:

White et al wrote of Aramis: "All hominid specimens were surface finds ..." This does not mean that they were rolled in from elsewhere; in fact, their condition indicates otherwise (there is a whole field called Taphonomy which is devoted to the study of how fossils got to be where they are). The date was also, at one point, queried by Kappelman and Fleagle (1995, Nature, 376:558-559), and satisfactorily answered by Wolde Gabriel et al. in the same edition of Nature.

This is an account of the history of the growth of understanding of the dating of the deposits; it is not some kind of admission of circular reasoning, of making the 40Ar/39Ar dates fit. They then go on to explain in some detail why Kappelman et al. misunderstood the argument about the dates.

Again, this Taphonomy is a delicate science that may require decades to fully understand how something happened. And initial mistakes are remembered, while the correct answer seems to go ignored. Of course, this is nothing new from creationists.

One other problem that many people ignorant of human evolution fail to understand is that it's not a linear path. As a previous link mentions, several hominid species co-existed. Some became extinct, and some didn't. This is where Leaky actually made a great new discovery. Again, it's all part of the self correcting mechanism of science. Something was off, and at first they didn't know. Further investigation and scientific methodologies actually gave them clues, and then they had to revise what they thought they knew. This is the accepted scientific method, not blindly accepting the first thought that may come to one's mind. A paper that details a better understanding of the family tree was published by Bernard Wood (one of the men that help assemble the skull with Leaky:



http://i.stack.imgur.com/OpjQt.jpg

[noguru]

duplicate

[Yorzhik]

Originally Posted by The Barbarian

Use "common descent" for common descent. Use "evolution" for evolution. Otherwise, you'll get called out on it again for equivocation.

Sure. Evolution means any change what-so-ever. CD from the is the idea that all the life we have today came from a ultimate common ancestor. Got it.

We'll just note that you declined to offer any evidence for your theory that species have some kind of limit beyond which they can't evolve any more.

Except for the evidence I offered. But you edited that out. It's just the kind of person you are.

Yeah. No data. Just assertions. More projection.

Both are required. Remember, mutation and natural selection. And that has been tested and verified.

Although mutation and natural selection occurs, it cannot be the main driver of CD.

Huxley mentioned that the fossil record supported rapid change. So did Mayr. And of course Eldredge and Gould formulated the theory explaining it.

What they claim is not data.

2. There must have been dinosaurs with feathers at one time.

Again, evolutionary theory predicted it, while creationists denied it could be. One more point for science.

3. There must have been whales with functional legs at one time.

Ambulocetids. You lose.

Transitionals are the point. We have them. No point in denying it.

As you learned, genetics, biochemistry anatomy, and embryology show evidence for the evolution of whales from land ungulates and birds from dinosaurs. No point in denying that you were shown this evidence.

As you should know, it has features found only in whales. And we have a long line of transitionals, showing how they evolved. Be honest with yourself, at least.

So far, all you've done to claim that Ambulocetids is a whale is looks. You have no other evidence.

As you learned, your "stepping stone" problem is just a creationist fairytale, with no evidence to support it. And of course, the evidence for the evolution of birds from reptiles is overwhelming. Would you like me to show it to you again?

The stepping stone problem is only a fairytale if DNA isn't the primary blueprint for the construction of an organism.

Since you were never able to find one that didn't involve steps of more than 1, your fairytale is dead. Unless, of course you can show us one. As you learned, the evolution of a new enzyme system in bacteria occured in steps of one mutation at a time, each of them favorable, and better than the previous one.

You don't understand the problem. The challenge is not to find more than one step to a novel feature, but to show that all novel features require close to one step any time they or their forbearers are selectable.

4. Bacteria will eventually evolve resistance to antibiotics.

There is no "devolve." Just a fairy tale creationists tell each other. After this prediction came true, creationists shouted, "me too." Too late.

5. Insects will eventually evolve resistance to pesticides.

It's well-documented. The data from Kimura's research indicates that neutral mutations can, over a long time, have a detrimental effect on the genome. His data shows that one favorable mutation in 100-200 generations will obviate that effect. And as you know, most populations have many more favorable mutations than that.

Kimura's research does not show that mutational load can be overturned by one favorable mutation in 100-200 generations. And your entire argument rests on that.

7. There must have been a chromosome fusion a long time ago in the human population.

(suggests supernatural effects)

Barbarian observes:
Chromosome fairies, probably. Or magic. Or something else. But the key is evidence. Seems unlikely any designer would put the remains of telemers in the chromosome right where the fusion would have happened. Sounds pretty stupid, doesn't it?

Your only evidence rests on "Seems unlikely any designer would put the remains of telemers in the chromosome right where the fusion would have happened." That is the kind of weak argument that reasonable people can use to realize that CD has a lot of big holes in it.

And typically, when those big holes are pointed out the evolutionary theorists don't answer, as we've seen in your posts.

As you learned, the cause has been identified.

The cause has been identified tentatively. We still don't know enough about the process to be sure. No doubt though, in your mind it's sure enough that you can call God a fairy without a wincing.

8. There will be fossil transitionals between groups that anatomical data show to be evolutionarily related, but never one between groups that are not so shown to be related.

I asked you pick your own two groups and you cut and ran. So you can understand why no one takes your excuse very seriously. Why do you think we only find transitionals where they were predicted, and never where the theory doesn't predict them?

All of these have been verified after the prediction.

I'll do it again. Name any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if there's a transitional. Will you actually do it, this time?

What, and you get to pick bogus transitionals like Ambulocetids? You made the mistake of tipping your hand. And you don't even have a pair.

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Use "common descent" for common descent. Use "evolution" for evolution. Otherwise, you'll get called out on it again for equivocation.

Yorzhik equivocates:

Sure. Evolution means any change what-so-ever.

Nice try. "Change in allele frequency in a population."

CD from the is the idea that all the life we have today came from a ultimate common ancestor.

One out of two is a new high for you. Keep trying.

Barbarian observes:
We'll just note that you declined to offer any evidence for your theory that species have some kind of limit beyond which they can't evolve any more.

The data suggests that mutation has a much smaller roll in quick changes than adaptation.

Show us that data.

And creationists have been saying that for a long time. So what data are you talking about that "made it clear" things can change rapidly in new environments?

Insects in Hawaii, for example. Few insects made it there, because it would take such a long time, and it would be so unusual to float or blow in over such a distance. But the few that did rapidly evolved into all sorts of things.

The evidence of organisms marooned on offshore islands. Dwarfism in various species of elephants, for example. The rapid divergence of Darwin's finches from a single South American species.

Observed genetic diversity in things like sticklebacks and frogs in North America after the retreat of the glaciers.

Barbarian observes:
A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."
Wikipedia

Among the predictions of evolutionary theory:
1. Organisms introduced to a new environment will exhibit much change at first, and later as it becomes more fit, will exhibit stasis by stabilizing selection.

In fact, Darwin wrote about stasis for well-fitted populations. And Huxley, in Darwin's time, predicted rapid change (he called it "saltation" or "jumping")

In particular, where Darwin had seen evolution and a slow, gradual, continuous process, Huxley thought that an evolving lineage might make rapid jumps, or saltations. As he wrote to Darwin just before publication of the Origin of Species, "You have loaded yourself with an unnecessary difficulty in adopting Natura non facit saltum [Nature does not make leaps] so unreservedly."
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/thuxley.html

Yeah. No data.

See above. Huxley was right. And he called it long before any creationist jumped on the bandwagon.

Barbarian observes:
Both are required. Remember, mutation and natural selection. And that has been tested and verified.

Although mutation and natural selection occurs, it cannot be the main driver of CD.

I know you want us to believe that, but without any evidence, you're not going to be very successful with that idea.

Barbarian observes:
Huxley mentioned that the fossil record supported rapid change. So did Mayr. And of course Eldredge and Gould formulated the theory explaining it.

What they claim is not data.

More precisely, the data support their explanations.

2. There must have been dinosaurs with feathers at one time.

Again, evolutionary theory predicted it, while creationists denied it could be. One more point for science.

3. There must have been whales with functional legs at one time.

Ambulocetids. You lose.

Transitionals are the point. We have them. No point in denying it.

As you learned, genetics, biochemistry anatomy, and embryology show evidence for the evolution of whales from land ungulates and birds from dinosaurs. No point in denying that you were shown this evidence.

As you should know, it has features found only in whales. And we have a long line of transitionals, showing how they evolved. Be honest with yourself, at least.

So far, all you've done to claim that Ambulocetids is a whale is looks.

It's pretty dumb to argue that anatomical features found only in whales are just "looks." And of course, the transitionals linking primitive whales like Ambulocetus to modern whales are more than just "looks." Do you honestly think anyone buys that story?

And of course, genetics and things like the anatomy of the digestive tract show that whales evolved from ungulates. No point in denying it.

Barbarian observes:
As you learned, your "stepping stone" problem is just a creationist fairytale, with no evidence to support it. And of course, the evidence for the evolution of birds from reptiles is overwhelming. Would you like me to show it to you again?

The stepping stone problem is only a fairytale if DNA isn't the primary blueprint for the construction of an organism.

Stamping your foot and insisting won't help. As you learned there is no such problem.

Barbarian chuckles:
Since you were never able to find one that didn't involve steps of more than 1, your fairytale is dead. Unless, of course you can show us one. As you learned, the evolution of a new enzyme system in bacteria occured in steps of one mutation at a time, each of them favorable, and better than the previous one.

You don't understand the problem.

I understand your problem. The facts don't fit your new religion, so you're adding still more doctrines to try to work around the data and make Scripture fit you beliefs. It won't work.

The challenge is not to find more than one step to a novel feature, but to show that all novel features require close to one step any time they or their forbearers are selectable.

Since it's your theory, you'll have to find one that couldn't go a step at a time. So far, all the ones we've looked at were step-by-step.

Barbarian observes:
4. Bacteria will eventually evolve resistance to antibiotics.

There is no "devolve." Just a fairy tale creationists tell each other. After this prediction came true, creationists shouted, "me too." Too late.

5. Insects will eventually evolve resistance to pesticides.

It's well-documented. The data from Kimura's research indicates that neutral mutations can, over a long time, have a detrimental effect on the genome. His data shows that one favorable mutation in 100-200 generations will obviate that effect. And as you know, most populations have many more favorable mutations than that.

Kimura's research does not show that mutational load can be overturned by one favorable mutation in 100-200 generations. And your entire argument rests on that.

Under the present model, effectively neutral, but, in fact, very slightly deleterious mutants accumulate continuously in every species. The selective disadvantage of such mutants (in terms of an individual’s survival and reproduction – i.e. in Darwinian fitness) is likely to be of the order of 10-5 or less, but with 104 loci per genome coding for various proteins and each accumulating the mutants at the rate of 10-6 per generation, the rate of loss of fitness per generation may amount of 10-7 per generation. Whether such a small rate of deterioration in fitness constitutes a threat to the survival and welfare of the species (not to the individual) is a moot point, but this can easily be taken care of by adaptive gene substitutions that must occur from time to time, say once every few hundred generations.
Motoo Kimura The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution pg. 248 Cambridge University Press 1983

Quote:
7. There must have been a chromosome fusion a long time ago in the human population.

(suggests supernatural effects)

Barbarian observes:
Chromosome fairies, probably. Or magic. Or something else. But the key is evidence. Seems unlikely any designer would put the remains of telemers in the chromosome right where the fusion would have happened. Sounds pretty stupid, doesn't it?

Your only evidence rests on "Seems unlikely any designer would put the remains of telemers in the chromosome right where the fusion would have happened."

Seems unlikely to a Christian, since that would amount to deception on the part of God. Why not just let go, and accept what God is showing you here?

Barbarian observes:
As you learned, the cause has been identified.

The cause has been identified tentatively. We still don't know enough about the process to be sure.

Why not just accept the evidence? Let God be God.

No doubt though, in your mind it's sure enough that you can call God a fairy without a wincing.

If you feel your case requires lying about what I said, isn't that an important clue for you? Shame on you.


8. There will be fossil transitionals between groups that anatomical data show to be evolutionarily related, but never one between groups that are not so shown to be related.

I asked you pick your own two groups and you cut and ran. So you can understand why no one takes your excuse very seriously. Why do you think we only find transitionals where they were predicted, and never where the theory doesn't predict them?

(Yorzhik again declines)

I'll do it again. Name any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if there's a transitional. Will you actually do it, this time?

What, and you get to pick bogus transitionals like Ambulocetids?

You're welcome to try to show that they aren't transitionals, but since there's a definition that doesn't depend on assuming evolution, that won't help you much. Because Ambulocetus has apomorphic features of two separate groups, it's a transitional.

You're problem is explaining why they only show up between major groups that show other evidence of evolutionary connection and never between groups that don't. I can see you've already figured out what that indicates, so you're running away from the question.

[DFT_Dave]

Originally Posted by noguru

Dave did you actually read the article in your link?

If you did you would have seen that your highlighted comments here are inaccurate.

From the article:

We cannot cover every point made in everything we read. I will have more to say about the dating process tonight. The point I'm making is the original dating of the tuff where the fossil was found is in dispute among evolutionists, not by creationists.

I don't know what point you are making. The date of 2.9 m.y.a. was changed to 1.8 m.y.a. because the first samples, giving an older date, were contaminated. I going to explore that more. If you want to give other reasons why the tuff was wrongly dated the first time then please explain that. Your quotes, which I did read, are simply statements not proofs.

--Dave

[noguru]

Originally Posted by DFT_Dave

We cannot cover every point made in everything we read. I will have more to say about the dating process tonight. The point I'm making is the original dating of the tuff where the fossil was found is in dispute among evolutionists, not by creationists.

I don't know what point you are making. The date of 2.9 m.y.a. was changed to 1.8 m.y.a. because the first samples, giving an older date, were contaminated. I going to explore that more. If you want to give other reasons why the tuff was wrongly dated the first time then please explain that. Your quotes, which I did read, are simply statements not proofs.

--Dave

1.) This is an area for which I have little expertise, you seem to have even less.

2.) The statements I quoted were made by those with more expertise in this area than either you and I currently have.

3.) The point of their statements is very clear. If you think there conclusions/statements are not accurately based on the evidence then you can always publish your analysis for peer review.

[dave3712]

Originally Posted by chair

There's an idea, that God has written two books. One is the Bible, the other is the universe. By this kind of thinking, trying to understand Nature is a way of reaching out to God. In this sense, Science is a religious undertaking.

Especially so when one remembers that Jesus said, "I am the truth, and the way"...

[DFT_Dave]

Originally Posted by noguru

1.) This is an area for which I have little expertise, you seem to have even less.

2.) The statements I quoted were made by those with more expertise in this area than either you and I currently have.

3.) The point of their statements is very clear. If you think there conclusions/statements are not accurately based on the evidence then you can always publish your analysis for peer review.

There's two sides to this story and we can look at both of them.

--Dave

[noguru]

Originally Posted by DFT_Dave

There's two sides to this story and we can look at both of them.

--Dave

I know.

But what exactly is your side of the story here?

Is this your first time looking at this type of evidence?

Are you actually willing to look at the side you consider to be "the other side"?

[dave3712]

Originally Posted by DFT_Dave

There's two sides to this story and we can look at both of them.

--Dave

This is true, mr dave.

The two sides are that science has a theory which Genesis does not contradict, while you have an interpretation (theory) of Genesis which does contradict the Science.

One of these two theories is wrong or both.

Neither theory can be used to prove the point made on either side.
Theories are just ideas offered up to appeal to our sense of Reason.

Your theory is supported by a vast audience of readers tied to medieval agruments for explaining Genesis, while the present living educated people have only Facts that they believe correspond to what they read in Genesis.


At issue is whether the ancient audience of the chruch does God a service by refusing entrance into the Bible unless educated people accept the ancient explanations for genesis.

Remembe what happen to the Catholiuc Church and all the members who left during the Reformation:


Rev. 3:18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold,... (the golden spiritual insights of the irrepressible idea of psychic Consciousness emerging from scripture) ... tried in the fire... (of time),... that thou mayest be rich... (in continued church leadership); and (re-interpret upon) white (yet unwritten, new pages), raiment,... (of revised books of your evermore obvious misinterpretations), ...that thou mayest be clothed... (and protected in thine thinking with secularly acceptable scriptural confirmations), ...and that the shame... (as visited in Geocentricism, in Creationism, in literal world-wide floods, etc)... of thy nakedness... (of your unsupportable intuitive irrationalities) ...do not appear... (and confront you); ...and anoint thine eyes... (awaken!)... with (the) eyesalve... (of reality!), ...that thou mayest see... (socio-psychologically and rationally).

[dave3712]

Originally Posted by DFT_Dave

www.dynamicfreetheism.com
The only view of ultimate reality that provides rational answers to the questions of human origin, destiny, and dignity.

The only view that proves the existence and explains the nature of God.


--Dave

Since the son-of-god is Truth, the Father must be "the ultimate reality," itself?





God is all there is, ie; Reality itself... the whole external existence beyond our mind is the almighty God to which all life must bow:




...Truth inside our head, i.e.; the Holy Spirit, the image of God, is present inside our mind when our thinking correctly images the TRUTH, or the picture of Reality inside our mind.

[DFT_Dave]

Tests for dating Skull 1470 in favor of 3 m.y.a.

There is a fascinating story that illustrates many of the problems with radiometric dating. It concerns attempts to date a layer of rock in Kenya. Known as the KBS tuff controversy, this episode involved several of the leading authorities on radiometric dating. The scientists involved became antagonistic toward each other, and almost everyone in anthropology during the 1970s took one side or the other. It is, as one Darwinist commentator wrote, a story that demonstrates how very unscientific the process of scientific inquiry sometimes can be.

Anthropologists have long combed through the Lake Turkana (formerly known as Lake Rudolf) area in Kenya, searching for the putative missing links between apes and humans. In 1969, Richard Leakey, son of Louis and Mary Leakey and a leading anthropologist in his own right, had set up camp on the shore of the lake. Kay Behrensmeyer, then a graduate student in paleontology at Harvard and a member of Leake's team, found several primitive stone tools embedded in a layer of a tuff, which is rock formed from volcanic ash. This particular rock layer became known as the KBS (Kay Behrensmeyer Site) tuff.

Leakey supplied samples from the KBS tuff to Jack Miller, a geophysicist at Cambridge University, to determine the feasibility of radiometrically dating it. Jack Miller and his partner Frank Fitch preliminarily dated the rocks at 212 to 230 million years old. In conventional geochronology, those dates correspond to the Triassic (the lower dinosaur strata), but Leakey was working near the boundary of the Tertiary and the Quaternary, which is thought to be only around two million years old. From these results, wrote Fitch and Miller, it was clear that an extraneous argon age discrepancy was present.

Fitch and Miller believed that the tuff, instead of being deposited when ash settled out of the air, had been formed when rivers or streams had washed the ash down from highlands into a floodplain. They hypothesized that during this process the ash had picked up minerals from older deposits. But they did not identify any exposed Triassic rock that could have contributed material to the KBS tuff, which suggests that this was a post hoc rationalization concocted after the initial results missed the anticipated ball park by two orders of magnitude.

Fitch and Miller sent back for more samples from the KBS tuff. They tested these and reported a preliminary age of 2.4 million years. They told Leakey that there were two techniques available to give a more exact radiometric age: 1) the traditional potassium argon technique and 2) a newer, more sophisticated technique called argon-40 argon-39. This latter technique involves converting the radiogenic potassium to the gas argon-39, then simultaneously measuring both types of argon in a machine called a mass spectrometer. This method was about twice as expensive as the older method, but it could work with smaller samples and would yield a much more exact measurement. The newer technique, they told Leakey, would result in the tuff being incontrovertibly dated and with greater accuracy than any other site in Africa or elsewhere. Leakey chose the technique that promised the incontrovertible date. Fitch and Miller ran the tests and reported that the tuff was 2.61 million years old, plus or minus 0.26 million years.

That result was within the ballpark, and thus not very controversial. A few years later, however, it was to become extremely controversial. In 1972, one of Leakey's African associates, Bernard Ngeneo, found a hominid skull below the KBS tuff. This was skull KNM-ER 1470.

The other side, tests for dating Skull 1470 at 1.8 m.y.a.

Garniss Curtis, of the University of California at Berkeley, was called upon to re-date the (already incontrovertibly dated) KBS tuff. He dated samples at 1.6 million years old and 1.8 million years old, about a million years younger than Fitch and Miller's date. Curtis' result was much more in line with the Darwinian assumption that fossil hominid crania should be moving from a more ape-like to a more human-like condition, not the other way around. Had Curtis been diplomatic toward Fitch and Miller, the controversy might have ended there, but, adding insult to injury, Curtis criticized Fitch and Miller's samples, their methodology, and their laboratory techniques. The gauntlet had been thrown down.

Taking up the gauntlet, Fitch and Miller redid their tests, using a new and supposedly more accurate rate of decay, and found that the KBS tuff was 2.42 m.y. old. Most tellingly, Fitch published the fact that Curtis had gotten a scatter of results ranging from 1.5 to 6.9 million years. How had Curtis settled on 1.6 million years when he could have selected 6.9 million years? Obviously, 1.6 million coincided with previous expectations, and 6.9 million did not. Fitch reported that his scatter of results had only ranged from 0.5 to 2.64 million years, implying that his technique was better because his scatter wasn't as large. In understated but deliciously snide language, Fitch wrote of Curtis:

. . . K-Ar apparent ages in the range 1.6-1.8 Myr obtained from the KBS Tuff by other workers are regarded as discrepant, and may have been obtained from samples affected by argon loss.

Fitch's suggestion that Curtis' samples were affected by argon loss illustrates the ease with which the open system excuse is invoked after the fact to explain away unwanted results.

In 1980, Ian McDougall of Australian National University weighed in on the KBS tuff controversy, reporting a date of 1.88 million years. Again, much more interestingly, McDougall revealed that Fitch and Miller had achieved a scatter of 0.52 to 2.64 million years on one set of samples, but on another set, they had gotten a scatter of 8.43 to 17.5 million years! Thus, the total scatter was from half a million years to 17.5 million years, a range of 17 million years (not including the preliminary finding of 230 million years) on a layer of rock supposedly around two million years old. Said Garniss Curtis, of Fitch and Miller's work: Their choice of 2.6+ for the age of the KBS Tuff seemed to be by their reaching into a hat filled with all the numbers they had obtained and coming out with 2.6 m.y.s.

http://www.educatetruth.com/la-sierr...-be-very-tuff/

--Dave

[noguru]

Originally Posted by DFT_Dave

We cannot cover every point made in everything we read. I will have more to say about the dating process tonight. The point I'm making is the original dating of the tuff where the fossil was found is in dispute among evolutionists, not by creationists.

I don't know what point you are making. The date of 2.9 m.y.a. was changed to 1.8 m.y.a. because the first samples, giving an older date, were contaminated. I going to explore that more. If you want to give other reasons why the tuff was wrongly dated the first time then please explain that. Your quotes, which I did read, are simply statements not proofs.

--Dave

The original dating of these fossils has been corrected through the rigorous and comprehensive methodology used in science. You use this as some sort of reason why we should not trust science, but the fact is that is the strength of science. On one hand you want us to trust science for admitting its weaknesses, and on the other hand you use its weakness to dismiss its latest conclusion. You conclusion is illogical. No degree of semantic gyrations or logical acrobatics on your part will change the fact that you have not even arrived at step one in equaling the rigorous analysis and comprehensive consideration science uses in methodological naturalism. You are not to be trusted when it comes to analysis of science. Using the Bible as your shield here will not change that fact.

[DFT_Dave]

Originally Posted by noguru

The original dating of these fossils has been corrected through the rigorous and comprehensive methodology used in science. You use this as some sort of reason why we should not trust science, but the fact is that is the strength of science. On one hand you want us to trust science for admitting its weaknesses, and on the other hand you use its weakness to dismiss its latest conclusion. You conclusion is illogical. No degree of semantic gyrations or logical acrobatics on your part will change the fact that you have not even arrived at step one in equaling the rigorous analysis and comprehensive consideration science uses in methodological naturalism. You are not to be trusted when it comes to analysis of science. Using the Bible as your shield here will not change that fact.

Read my last post and comment on that. #522

--Dave

[noguru]

Originally Posted by DFT_Dave

Read my last post and comment on that. #522

--Dave

Why?

Are you offering a more rigorous analysis and a more comprehensive consideration than you were before?