Young Earth Stuff

[juantoo3]

Juan23 - why don't you think the earth might only be 6,000 - 10,000 years old? It seems to me that many of your same arguments can be used by the true "Young Earthers" to support their biblical timeline, so what solid evidence do you have that the earth is over 10,000 years old?

Lasceaux, Chauvet-Pont-d'Arc, Lion's Cave, Altamira, Niaux, Brno, Vestonice, Willendorf, Cosquer and many, many others.

http://www.interfaith.org/forum/members/juantoo3-albums-cave-paintings-and-artifacts-2.html

http://www.interfaith.org/forum/members/juantoo3-albums-cave-paintings.html

And then there is the child of Lapedo, Portugal, that sheds a bit of doubt not only on Young Earth timeline, but also on the accepted and given track of evolutionary development of humans.

If, as you said earlier, "the timescale is little more than an educated guess", then why is your educated guess of 1,000,000,000 years any better than 10,000 years?

The 1 billion year figure I threw out there was an arbitrary figure, not a calculated guess.

 

[radarmark]

J23. There was trade between Polynesia and the world, and Africe and the world, and the Americas and the world. I presonally like RB Fuller's "Oceanic Hyporthesis". My problem with Heyerdahl is not his data, but his thesis: that the poor ignorant savages of the Americas could not have created pyramids and culture on their own. IMO he is but a step removed from Calvin Coons (races became homo sapiens at different times) and Erik von Daniken (publish unprovable theories as fact).

Again, we really have no difference here. Science is about hypothesis, refutation, and refinement based on facts. One cannot pick and choose the facts. One can (and I would say should) pick and choose the interpretation thereof. Of course Heyerdahl documented a lot of facts the scientific community did not like (so did Schliemann and Bonnichsen). Even Coons and von Daniken have facts in their works.

The issue in science, as in philosophy, is to "make it all fit consistently". I cannot construct a consistent theory of sequential evolution of homo sapiens (Coons' schtick to prove Caucasians were evolutionarily superior to other races). Nor can I construct a consistent theory of cultural development in the Hopi-Olmec-Maya-Toltec-Aztec millieux as continuously borrowed (Heyerdahl's premise of Anglo cultural superiority).

We now know (unlike in Heyedahl's hey day) that the history of culture in the Americas is over 10,000 years, we know there are genetic and linguistic markers of mixed ethic groups, we know that there were Chinese and early European (Red Earth Peoples) visitations. The same is true (except for Red Earth Proples) in Oceania.

So the factual content (which was considered near heresy at the time) of Heyerdahl's work is to a large extent verified. The hypotheses he made to string these facts together is highly questionable. This does not say anything bad about him, he was a product of his times and prejudices. Einstein made a lot of theoretical mistakes as well... does that make him any less of a scientist? No, but it pretty much falsifies his notions of locality and objective reality (EPR thesis).

Panta Rhei!
(Everything Flows!)

 

[juantoo3]

Let me point out that Ceolcath was in one of my initial replys.

Indeed it was, the novel information I brought forward is the glaring discrepency in the fossil record. If Ceolacanths have been with us all along, why are they not found in stata dating after the 65mya mass extinction?

The idea for the Khmer relics did not have to originate in Cambodia. Ditto for the releics in Mesoptania (Samos, Tilos ands other Aegean islands were famous for entire "in situ" skeletons see Herodotus).

Samos gets specific mention in the brief by Mayer posted by Seattlegal that I read, and specifically she points to Herodotus and Greek mythology...that of Mastodon bones being taken mythically for a Giant Human or a Cyclops...not a dino, and not anatomically accurate.

Finally, note that limestone is the primary stone for deposits. The skeletons need not be "in situ" quarries run across them all the time, and there is no readon to believe they did not in ancient times.

Potentially, with the primary presumption being that a particular society has taken to quarrying stone. What I suggested earlier, and for the most part still hold to regarding AmerIndians, is that quarrying stone (with the glaring exception of MesoAmericans and arguably Peruvian Inca), is a luxury not readily available.

No, there is sufficient reason to believe that plenty of fossilized remains were existent in situ--maybe quarried in early China, Mesopotania, and Kampuchea.

Opportunity, I can go along with. But you are attributing a great deal of anatomically accurate translation of the finds to these people when there is scant, or even any, evidence to back your claim up, and considerable evidence to demonstrate that these finds were translated in mythic manners, I might even say anthropomorphic manners.

It's like this. 100,000 years ago we did not know much. And what we did know was oral in nature. If what we knew was a sphere, it would have had a real small radius, hence a small surface area (indicating what we did not know). With the advent of writing, this sphere grew arithmetically. With the advent of philosophy and science it grew geometrically. With the revolutions in physics in the XXth Centry it began a hyper-inflation. We know so very, very dang much more, so the radius and the surface area are many many times bigger. Oh, its almost ecstatic!

Wonderful, we know a lot now! Glory to G-d for that knowledge. But we also get ourselves into trouble with that knowledge. And we also know less than we credit ourselves with. We still can't build a pyramid on the scale, scope and quality that the Egyptians did. We can't perform brain surgery with crude tools as the Inca did. We can't transplant teeth, as the Egyptians did. We don't understand time. We don't understand gravity. We don't understand why a flag waves in a constant wind. There are many mysteries left, that laymen glibly dismiss, presuming that such things are already accounted for. Another issue I have with so-called knowledge, is that "we" is a collective effort..."we" found such and such dinosaur...no "we" didn't, a specific person or group of persons did, studied their find and presented their findings. "We" don't know how to build a nuclear reactor to generate electricity, some person(s) somewhere did all the hard engineering work, other person(s) did all the design and construction, still other person(s) operate that equipment after it is constructed, and *we* simply pay the bills and enjoy the fruit of their labor. Point being "we" as a culture cannot *all* build a nuke plant, hell, 99.9% of us can't even build a proper fire with flint and steel.

 

[radarmark]

"Wonderful, we know a lot now! Glory to G-d for that knowledge. But we also get ourselves into trouble with that knowledge. And we also know less than we credit ourselves with. We still can't build a pyramid on the scale, scope and quality that the Egyptians did. We can't perform brain surgery with crude tools as the Inca did. We can't transplant teeth, as the Egyptians did."

A little overboard here. The Acropolis was rebuilt recently and the details of its constuction were even more abstract than the pyramids. No, I believe we could reconstruct the pyramids as well. I find nothing on tooth transplantation in Egypt--implants in Egypt and Mesoamerica yes.

"We don't understand time. We don't understand gravity. We don't understand why a flag waves in a constant wind."

Depends on what you mean by "understand". Do we have some consensus, no more than we have for the existance of G!d. However, all three of these are pretty well understood, that is nothing new will revolutionize the concepts (except maybe time). Are they final and absolute explanations? No, but neither is much of enything else interesting.

"There are many mysteries left, that laymen glibly dismiss, presuming that such things are already accounted for. Another issue I have with so-called knowledge, is that "we" is a collective effort..."we" found such and such dinosaur...no "we" didn't, a specific person or group of persons did, studied their find and presented their findings. "We" don't know how to build a nuclear reactor to generate electricity, some person(s) somewhere did all the hard engineering work, other person(s) did all the design and construction, still other person(s) operate that equipment after it is constructed, and *we* simply pay the bills and enjoy the fruit of their labor. Point being "we" as a culture cannot *all* build a nuke plant, hell, 99.9% of us can't even build a proper fire with flint and steel."

Well, the role of the individual is, IMHO, very much over-stated. Let me approach this two ways. First, we now have the published archeology and nuclear engineering... so "we" the rest of society, have access to that knowledge. I could design and build, but that was one of my majors (nuke engineering). However, I assure you that once the idea was developed and the measurements accurate (what doomed the Nazi effort), the rest is a matter of technology. Second, with some very rare exceptions (in the XXth century, I vote for only Godel, who really, really was unique) progress is made by the community. Poincare and Lorentz and de Sitter and Thirring would have developed a Relativity Theory (Whitehead did). Someone besides Bohr would have applied the principle of action (Planck's constant, and someone would have found it, eventually).

Newton had it right, we stand on the shoulders of giants. And Leibnitz knew there were plenty of giant-killers in the wings.

I do admit we all have our intllectual, physical, emotional, and spiritual limitations. Not everyone could have replaced these giants or build that power plant or even excavate and discuss the fossils. But many of us could.


Panta Rhei!
(Everything Flows!)

 

[juantoo3]

Juan23 - why don't you think the earth might only be 6,000 - 10,000 years old? It seems to me that many of your same arguments can be used by the true "Young Earthers" to support their biblical timeline, so what solid evidence do you have that the earth is over 10,000 years old?

Here's another in my list:

NOVA | Alien From Earth