You wrote:
>GR>Silence, absolutely perfect silence!!!!
>
>OK, I'll take the bait.
>
>I do find it rather interesting that I agree with Glenn on the
>non-evolving nature of our humanness.We have agreed in several other
>areas... imagine that, a creationist agreeing with a TE. I am concerned,
>though, about the sinister characterization of creationists based upon
>their lack of response. Out of fairness, that characterization has no
>place in the secular world, and certainly not among those of faith.
>Beyond the rhetoric lies some fundamental differences that need to be
>explored, but not under that cloud of accusation.
>
I got lots of flack on that post mostly privately. But I am going to make a
confession here. When I was a YEC I also would get very silent when some
piece of data was presented which could not be incorporated into my view.
This is a human reaction. So, if it makes anyone feel better, I have been
known to do it also. But I finally got to the point that there were too many
of those silences. I was tired of always not having an answer to problems
like that.
>The AP reported yesterday that the find under discussion was found
>partly buried in sediments from an ancient sea. I am interested to see
>the methodology utilized to date the art work. Why? Because it cannot
>really tell us when it was carved. We might be able to speculate, may be
>able to estimate based upon some dating assumptions, get a tentative
>range of dates, but if anyone knows of a method that can absolutely tell
>us for a fact when this object was carved I'd be happy to hear it.
>
I doubt this will stay formated in the archives but from the article in
Dallas, here is how you date the drawings.
<pre>
_ Monolith
||
||
||drawings of circles on surface of monolith
||
||
||
||--------------------------present ground level
||
||
||
||-datable object in the ground at this level-above lowest level of circles
||-------------------------lowest level of surface drawings
||
|| object dated to 176,000 years
</pre>
Since the datable object has a date of 75000 years and the layer covers some
of the circles, it is there for logical that the lowest circles were carved
PRIOR to 75,000 years ago. This is a normal way geology and archaeology
works.
According to the Dallas Morning News article there was evidence from this site
that mankind had been in Australia as long ago as 176,000 years ago. The
location of the 176,000 year old datable object is my conjecture, but this is
how it would fit in. You would be unable to say that the art was that old,
although it might be depending upon how high up the monolith they started
carving circles. I will get the article when it comes out in December and see
what it says.
>Why might there be silence on the issue? From my perspective, there
>remains so many questions. What we have to date to respond to is what
>really lacks substance. So, moving beyond this it is appropriate to
>respond to Glenn...
>
>GR>Art work created by anatomically ancient hominids demands some
>GR>type of response from the Christian community and yet silence is our
>response.
>
>Now, wait a minute (sorry... borrowed a line there ;-) ), this is
>presented as fact. There is absolutely no evidence that definitively
>shows that "anatomically ancient humans" created the art work.
Here is the problem. There were no anatomically modern men anywhere in the
neighborhood!
Anatomically modern men first appear in South Africa at 120,000 years ago.
In the Middle east at 90,000 years ago. The first modern human remains in
China post date 68,000 years ago. There is a 68,000 year old skull from
Linjiang, China but most authorities say it is archaic homo sapiens.
The earliest known Homo sapiens sapiens fossil from Southeast Asia (Niah cave
Borneo) is dated to 41,000 years.(see Brian Fagan, The Journey from Eden, p.
122) On the Philipines, the earliest H.sapiens sapiens is from 24,000 years
ago.
The human fossils which were in SE Asia at the time of the Australian rock art
are the Ngandong skull which is Homo erectus and has been dated to
75,000-100,000 years ago. Southeast Asia may have been the last stand of H.
erectus.
This is also consistent with the genetic data of how long australian
aborigines have been separated from se. Asians.
Now, if the nearest anatomically modern peoples were thousands of miles to
the west at the time of the carvings, it is difficult to see how they did it.
>
>One may call the creation response as ignoring the data. Obviously a
>creationist somewhere will have to dedicate their time, money, and
>effort at reviewing this study or to respond to Glenn. This doesn't mean
>that they are somehow helpless to respond or are ignoring the data. They
>may actually agree in some areas but not in others. It is also a poor
>way to boost one's own position. The logic that says one is right
>because the other side fails to respond as quickly as one would like
>proves nothing.
>
Let me make another confesssion. While I was a YEC I refused to buy and read
Kitchner's _Abusing Science_. I KNEW it was a major attack on the YEC
position and I knew the problems in geology and didn't want to have to deal
with the problems in other areas of science. A rhetorical question to any
lurking YEC's: Have you ever read Kitchner's book?
>To avoid any perception of high-mindedness, I will admit that
>creationists have a lot of work to do to be able to some day respond
>adequately to much of the data and evidence. In truthfulness, we must
>all admit that that effort has only recently been undertaken to any
>great extent, by a relatively few, and there will be many years to go
>until broad substantive evidence develops.
It has been 137 years since Darwin published and 166 years since Charles Lyell
published his geology book showing the age of the earth. How many more years
must we wait for "broad substantive evidence"?
>Creationists have a lot of work ahead of them.
Amen!
>For example, we all know that the proposed evolutionary sequence for man
>includes conclusions based on both the presence and ABSENCE of fossil
>and other evidence. Logical conclusions are drawn establishing the
>relative time period for that form walking the earth. There is nothing
>wrong with this, provided that one recognizes the assumptions and
>methodologies and correctly presents the conclusions. Truly honest
>scientists will admit that IT MAY BE ABSOLUTELY WRONG if the methodology
>and assumptions are wrong. To be honest and admit that is good science.
>
The scientifically approved way to disprove a nasty little fact which
contradicts one's preferred view is to examine the details of the fact and
look for alternatives. It is not acceptable to merely make a general
statement that all our knowledge may be wrong. Sure it may turn out that the
Australian find was made by homo sapiens sapiens, but then little green men
may have done it also. Or it might be some extinct lichen species that only
lived on that rock. But different alternatives have varying probabilities of
being true. For the three above based on modern evidence I would rate them
as,
little green men? .0000000000000000001
Lichen .0000001
Archaic hominids .85
Modern man .15
Chance that the dating processes are useless .000000000000000000000000000001
Chance that they give the absolutely to the year date .000000000000000000001
You state that the dating processes might be wrong. Do you want to examine the
evidence for the dating processes which you say may be wrong? What dating
processes do you think are wrong and in what fashion are they wrong?
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm