The earth is only 6000 years old (II)

[grannymh]

That bit may be hazy in relation to the Catholic faith. As of now, all we really have to go on is Pius XII’s and JPII’s encyclicals, which of course aren’t dogma.

If I may suggest – we do have the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church which is very clear about dogmas concerning the two first parents of the human species.

Humani Generis 37 references the dogma of monogenism and is very clear that polygenism is opposed to the dogmas regarding Adam and humanity.

The official Catholic teaching regarding Adam and Eve is found in the
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, ISBN: 1-57455-109-4
Paragraphs 355-421. One can also put Adam, etc. in the Catechism’s search bar in link www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Blessings,
granny

aka a descendent of Adam and Eve

 

[StAnastasia]

Do we have humans running around without original sin?

No.

 

[StAnastasia]

That bit may be hazy in relation to the Catholic faith. As of now, all we really have to go on is Pius XII’s and JPII’s encyclicals, which of course aren’t dogma.

It’s not hazy at all. “Adam” and “Eve” were part of the human species at the time, which numbered in the thousands. We are descended from most of those thousands, including “Adam” and “Eve.” The number of living representatives of Homo sapiens did fluctuate over 100,000 years but never fell to a single happily naked pair living in some mythical garden.

“The Toba supereruption occurred between 69,000 and 77,000 years ago at Lake Toba (Sumatra, Indonesia), and it is recognized as one of Earth’s largest known eruptions. The related catastrophe theory holds that this supervolcanic event plunged the planet into a 6 to 10 year volcanic winter, which resulted in the world’s human population being reduced to 10,000 or even a mere 1,000 breeding pairs, creating a bottleneck in human evolution. Some researchers argue that the Toba eruption produced not only a catastrophic volcanic winter but also an additional 1,000 year cooling episode.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory

 

[The_Geographer]

]:compcoff:

 

[Philipp]

How come we are missing an opposable thumb?

We are missing a tail also but Ah! We have a tail bone where one once was. Right? Such is proof of evolution; I guess you might call our tail bone a vestigal??? All you evo guys must have a web site answer for that. What happened to our tail? How did we diverge and lose it?

And you still have not disproved that our church fathers were dead wrong. It’s up to you show that our church fathers were abolutely wrong about their support for a recent creation. The arguments by Ian Jube and others for the validity of the Delk footprint and the many other fossil human ichnites from the Cretaceous limestone negates anything you have come up with regards an old earth. You can’t claim descent from common ancestor(s) over long periods of time if those long ages are in dispute and humans lived at the same time as dinosaurs.

http://ianjube.org/delk/

Here are some rebuttals from Ian Jube’s web site that answer some of the challenges by a previous detractor.

“Look how unnatural that human footprint is” ianjuby.org/delk/

This is where it gets quite comical; because if it was a perfect track, the skeptics would say “it’s too perfect, it’s obviously a carving.” I know this because that’s what they’ve argued before with other human tracks from the Paluxy!

Human footprints take on a remarkable and strange variety of shapes and forms. If you don’t believe me, head down to the beach and examine footprints in sand, mud, clay, etc… You will be surprised. That footprint is completely human, there is no other creature that makes a footprint like a human. Even apes have, essentially, four “hands” - they don’t have “feet.”
In this case, it appears that the big toe got hooked during forward locomotion. Why would a carver carve a track in an “unnatural” position? It would be far more convincing if it were a “perfect” track, so why the imperfection? It makes more sense that it is a legitimate, albeit strange, track.

“That’s not an Acrocanthosaurus track”

First of all, dinosaur track identification is tenuous at best. We were not there when the tracks were made, therefore dinosaur track identification is never anything more than a best guess - no matter who’s doing the guessing. You’re quite welcome to place your guess!

Originally the Delk dinosaur track was identified by Dr. Baugh as a Trachodon, specifically because there was no claw impressions. However, after comparing it side by side to other, actual fossil Acrocanthosaurus tracks in the museum, he concluded it was an Acrocanthosaurus track which simply had not pressed deep enough to leave claw marks.
There is the distinct possibility it could be the track from another dinosaur - I personally don’t care which one, because it’s a dinosaur track. Evidence of dinosaurs and humans living together completely destroys the concept of evolution, as leading evolutionary scholars have admitted.

“It hasn’t been published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal”

Ah yes, this is quite a humerous argument too. No “reputable, peer-reviewed journal” dares to publish evidence like this which destroys evolution. Entire books have been written on this subject, not to mention the recent movie “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.” There are peer-reviewed creation journals out there, and this track will be included in our upcoming article on the Paluxy track research. However, evolutionists will simply reject such an article out of hand anyway, because it’s not an evolutionary journal.

Go figure - evolutionary journals won’t publish anything that knocks evolution, therefore because evidence like this won’t be published in evolutionary journals, it is rejected by evolutionists.

I’m not even going to waste much time with this very silly argument that has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the tracks are authentic.

If there are some scientists who wish to legitimately examine it, I’m sure that can be arranged - but only under very strict control of CEM. Why? Because some evidence like this has been destroyed before. See Don Patton’s website for more details on this episode.

If there’s going to be a symposium / forum for interested investigators, I’ll post details here later.
Continued>>>>>

 

[grannymh]

It’s not hazy at all. “Adam” and “Eve” were part of the human species at the time, which numbered in the thousands. We are descended from most of those thousands, including “Adam” and “Eve.” The number of living representatives of Homo sapiens did fluctuate over 100,000 years but never fell to a single happily naked pair living in some mythical garden.

Catholic teaching is that Adam and Eve are the founders of the human species. This point is essential to belief in Jesus Christ.

 

[StAnastasia]

Humani Generis 37 references the dogma of monogenism and is very clear that polygenism is opposed to the dogmas regarding Adam and humanity.

Granny, Humani generis is interesting but no more relevant to human genetics than Pope Urban VIII’s proclamation was to astronomy:

“The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith.”

 

[StAnastasia]

The above is not the teaching of the Catholic Church.

You will have to convince Pope Benedict and Archbishop Zycinski.

 

[grannymh]

Granny, Humani generis is interesting but no more relevant to human genetics than Pope Urban VIII’s proclamation was to astronomy:
."

And how does human genetics get one to heaven? Because of the reality of Adam and Eve, humans have an intellect and will. You can make an informed choice.

I agree that the age of the earth is not relative to getting one’s bones to heaven. But how people choose to live on this earth is relative to ultimately being in true happiness with God. Losing sight of the purpose of Jesus Christ is not a good way to stay on the less traveled road.

 

[itinerant1]

Unless you can provide credible texts from astronomical publications or web sites, I don’t think your information is credible. There are redshift anomalies out there. The one everyone agrees on is the Sun. It is redshifted as well, which calls into question the whole idea. And yes, it is related to distance. I think the distances are wrong based on scientific data.

God bless,
Ed

The information is credible. Get used to it.

Solar redshift is not an anomaly by any means and it certainly does not call into question the main ideas about redshift (except for YECs).

All too briefly, a phenomenon that is red-shifted is increased in electromagnetic wavelength, which amounts to being lower in both frequency and photon energy.

Redshift manifests three different physical effects. The Doppler effect is one, examples of which are apparent changes in the pitches of a siren on a fast moving vehicle. This finds its explanation in the effects of gravity; also a celestial body such as a star whose path is moving away from the observer is red-shifted.

The second effect depends on distance rather than motion in a particular direction; the general expansion of the universe, and the more distant galaxies and stars are red-shifted in accordance with the rate of increase of their distance from us (objects further away move away faster than closer objects).

The third effect involves gravitational redshifts, which are seen in electromagnetic radiation from luminous material in extremely high gravitational fields. Accordingly, the sun is red-shifted, and red-shift can be used to measure the rotation of the planets.

So, there are distance related red-shifts (Doppler effect involving reduction in energy) and gravity related red-shifts. And special relativistic gravitational red-shifts are not true red-shifts.

 

[Philipp]

Like Ian Juby implied. Such research will never see the light of day. I was amazed that the Italians got away with even writing a book. You saw the protests from the Academics when the book got published under the radar of their top guns. Ian juby continues>>>>>
ALL THE WAY TO THE BOTTOM

"He’s not ‘Dr.’ Baugh - he faked his credentials"
Haha! First of all, I’m quite tired of this slanderous lie that’s been promulgated around the internet. I looked into it the whole matter myself - unlike the skeptics who just regurgitate a rumour they heard on talk.organs. Doctor Baugh worked very hard to earn his degree, and this has absolutely nothing to do with the authenticity of the Delk track… does it?

It pleases me greatly to see such comments and railings, which are obviously nothing more than a desperate ploy to misdirect people from the evidence.

Look at the evidence people - it’s presented here, and ignore the babblings of those who would desperately try and distract you from it. In fact, you might want to ask yourself why they are so desperately trying to distract you from it! Look at the evidence, judge for yourself, and ask yourself what the ramifications are for you if the bible turns out to be true and evolution false.

"CT scans produce ‘beam hardening’ which accounts the higher density you see on surfaces"
(updated Aug 26, 2008)
Okay, this is going to get a little technical on youse guys (“youse guys” - that’s Canadian for “Y’all”).

After much ado about “beam hardening” artifacts in the CT scans, combined with one comment posted on youtube, I wanted to be sure about a few things. I called the Glen Rose Medical center and spoke with two separate CT technicians on a variety of issues surrounding the slab, including the technician who actually performed the CT scan on the Delk slab. It was very enlightening.

“Beam hardening” is an artifact in CT scan X-rays that appears at surfaces, including the surfaces of cavities. This was a problem in the early days of CT technology, as well as the early days of Gamma Ray CT. Because CT scans are compiled by computer, an algorithm can be incorporated into the analysis to remove beam hardening artifacts. While I’m not an expert on CT, everything I’ve been able to dig up so far shows that beam hardening artifacts never appear to go any deeper than 1-2 scan pixels below the surface.

Beam hardening is especially prominent with irregular surfaces, and the Delk slab would certainly fall under the catergory of “irregular surface.”

Could the higher density be from beam hardening and not from compression of the mud by the feet that made the prints?
In short, it would appear “no way!”
As I had written here before, the high density is not visible around some of the cavities - like the outer toes of the dinosuar track. It is also completely absent from the heels of both tracks. As I argued then (and as the CT technician who performed the scan mentioned without my prompting), this “surficial beam hardening” would be visible on the entire rock, if it were from beam hardening.

Furthermore, the Glen Rose Medical Center’s CT scanner incorporates the anti-beam-hardening algorithms which removes beam hardening artifacts!

Can the very deep, high-density portions be explained by beam hardening or other artifacts?
There was a post on youtube by “ftom” that brought up some very good questions, but made a statement which must be addressed. He claimed that 4cm deep “higher density” in the rock is not uncommon for beam hardening (at least, that was my understanding of what he said). I choked on this big time, but didn’t want to say anything until after I did some investigation, after all, maybe I’m wrong.

But think about it: Would you spend millions of dollars on a piece of equipment that’s supposed to be ultra-accurate if you can get false readings 4 centimeters deep and wide??!!??? I wouldn’t! Such false readings and beam hardening artifacts would complete invalidate the entire CT technology!

When I mentioned this to the CT techs, both of them remarked that this was flatly impossible. The second CT tech (who did not perform the scans) was looking at the scans on file at the time.

Furthermore, I will reiterate the facts which anyone can see by watching the video and looking at the full-resolution scans here and on David Lines’ website:
• the surface hardness is absent from many places in the rock
• the highest density rock is at the junction of the middle dinosaur toe and the human footprint; where both tracks would have compressed the matrix. It is up to 4 centimeters deep and wide at this point (see below). This makes complete sense if the tracks are both authentic - both footprints compressed that area of mud. This makes no sense when trying to explain it as artifacts like beam hardening, as this is the only place where such large-area, high-density is visible.
• there are portions of the tracks which do not have any surficial hardening. Thus, it is clear that the higher density seen elsewhere is quite real. To claim that portions of the tracks show no higher density and thus must have been carved is a ludicrous argument: Did the carver only carve portions of the tracks? What about the portions that do show higher density and are therefore legit? No - the variations in density only add to the authenticity of the density readings. CONTINUED

 

[The_Geographer]

Please! Someone contact the Humane Society. This horse is already dead and they just keep kicking it. Such cruelty…

Ya’ll are having fun with this thread I see. Why is it that I get a feeling that if the Pope walk into the room all of a sudden nobody would really care and would probably call him stupid given the chance? I’ve never seen more arrogance than among people that try to force someone to accept their position on a subject as I have evolutionists and creationists.

 

[Philipp]

THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS REBUTTAL REGARDING THE COEXISTENCE OF MAN AND DINOSAURS CAN NOT BE OVERSTATED THAT IS WHY I’M POSTING IAN JUBY’S REBUTTALS. I AND SOME OF MY IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBERS AND FELLOW SCIENTISTS AND SCIENCE TEACHERS HAVE BEEN ON MANY SUCH EXCAVATIONS AND HAVE WITNESSED THE EXCAVATIONS OF “PRISTINE FOOTPRINTS” AND CAN TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN APE AND A HUMAN FOOTPRINT IMPRESSION LEFT IN A ROCK. CAT-SCANS ONLY CONFIRM WHAT WE HAVE OBSERVED.

Ian Juby continues:

Are the density variations within a reasonable ratio?

There was “fall-out” from this post - click here to read the report.
Nevertheless, ftom made a very pertinent point about the density variations in the CT scans, and asked an excellent question: Are the density variations within reason? i.e., if the highest density was very hard, but the lowest density was that of a jellyfish, then there was a problem. I would agree, so I asked the CT techs to get a better handle on how density is calculated and portrayed on the scans.

As the CT technicians mentioned, they save people’s lives by scanning a tumour and diagnosing whether it is benign or malignant just by analysing the density variations!
It should be noted at this time that the images are also produced to maximize contrast. The X-rays you see have variable grey scales, and thus the pixel colour is not a true representation of the density, merely a guide - i.e., you can’t judge the density of a pixel by its shade.

The density variations are calculated using the Hounsfield numbers, and on the right are several select X-rays images from the CT scans, each of which has density sample sites. The circles are the sample areas, and the readings are in the bottom right corner of the image. For example, in Figure 7e, there are three sample sites, and the reading from sample 1 is listed as follows:
1: m 2768.04, sd 292.37, a 36.30mm2

The only important things here are the first and last numbers. “m” is the hounsfield number, and “a” is the area of the sample circle.

To give you an idea of how to interpret the Hounsfield numbers, the higher the number, the higher the density. Hounsfield numbers have the density of water as their zero point.
The CT tech at GRMC very kindly gave me a smattering of sample numbers, so you have an idea of the density/hounsfield number ratio:
• Air inside a lung: -651 (note this is negative)
• Cortical bone: 172
• Liver: 33
• Rib center: 104
• Rib surface: 754
• Vertebrae: 195
So the lowest density sample in the Delk slab is a Hounsfield number of 487 (Figure 7e, sample 3), and the highest 3048 (Figure 7a, sample 2).

One thing can be said with certainty: the numbers are certainly of sufficient density - the lowest density is greater than that of most bone, except at bone surfaces like a rib, which is very hard, very dense, and very brittle.

The other conclusion which can be reached with certainty is that the density variations are real, and thus it is good evidence of compression of the mud matrix by two footprints, before the mud turned into rock.
continued>>>

 

[itinerant1]

Catholic teaching is that Adam and Eve are the founders of the human species. This point is essential to belief in Jesus Christ.

I wonder what the genetic difference is, even as a percentage guess, between Homo sapiens and Homo sapiens sapiens.

 

[itinerant1]

You will have to convince Pope Benedict and Archbishop Zycinski.

You got quotes?

 

[StAnastasia]

How do you keep current?

I read Science, Nature, and articles from journals of physics, astronomy, geology, biology, and genetics. I also lunch daily with two biologists, a biochemist, a geologist, a geneticist, an anthropologist, and a philosopher. And I attend conferences and other professional meetings, both theological and scientific. So I am exposed to a wide range of perspectives on questions at the interface between religion and the sciences.

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

You got quotes?

“While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens.”

I’ll get you one from Zycinski in a moment.

 

[itinerant1]

THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS REBUTTAL REGARDING THE COEXISTENCE OF MAN AND DINOSAURS CAN NOT BE OVERSTATED THAT IS WHY I’M POSTING IAN JUBY’S REBUTTALS. I AND SOME OF MY IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBERS AND FELLOW SCIENTISTS AND SCIENCE TEACHERS HAVE BEEN ON MANY SUCH EXCAVATIONS AND HAVE WITNESSED THE EXCAVATIONS OF “PRISTINE FOOTPRINTS” AND CAN TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN APE AND A HUMAN FOOTPRINT IMPRESSION LEFT IN A ROCK. CAT-SCANS ONLY CONFIRM WHAT WE HAVE OBSERVED.

So, what time period would you estimate for the existence of the dinosaurs?

 

[itinerant1]

“While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens.”

I’ll get you one from Zycinski in a moment.

I am quite familiar with the above statement and speculations by Catholic philosophers, scientists and theologians as to possible details regarding the origin of Adam from this primal humanoid population. Hence, the statement is not generally interpreted as a denial of primal (truly) human parents.

 

[Philipp]

CONTINUED WITH IAN JUBY’S REBUTTAL TO TECHNICAL AND AD HOMINUM ATTACKS RE: THE DELK HUMAN-DINOSAUR PRINT.

"Dinosaurs don’t make tracks like that"

Um… yes, they do! Honest! Scroll down on Ian Jube’s web site and expand photo]

ianjuby.org/delk/

"You mentioned ‘unintuitive compression’ in the video - what do you mean by this?"

Particularly when Dr. Baugh sectioned dinosaur tracks from the Paluxy a number of years ago, it was noticed that sometimes there was no visible deformation underneath the track. There was no doubt about the authenticity of these tracks, so what was going on? Furthermore, Professor M.E. Clark (University of Illinois at Champaign/Urbana) who is a Paluxy track veteran of a few decades, also noted the lack of visible compression artifacts underneath a dinosaur track that had been broken in half when a ledge on the side of the Paluxy had broken off, revealing the cross-section of the track.

The Loma Linda university research report also sectioned a dinosaur track and a human track, both reported to have come from the Paluxy. They cited the lack of distortion underneath the dinosaur track as evidence it was carved. Sure - maybe it is a carved track - but the lack of distortion of the laminations underneath a track is not definitive of a carving.

However, the presence of laminations distorted by the foot when making the track is obvious evidence of authenticity.

When the Burdic man track was first sectioned across the ball, it showed no apparent distortion of the laminations in the rock - however, sectioning towards the heel and toes revealed incredible and dramatic distortion of the laminations. See Don Patton’s report here to see the distorted laminations yourself.

"There appears to be a thin layer of higher-density rock on all edges of the slab - care to comment?"

There does appear to be higher density patches on the edges of the slab, though it is also absent from patches along the edges as well.

Again, this is probably crystalization over time. We do not know when this rock was ripped up from its host, we don’t know how long it sat in the river, and we don’t know how long it sat on shore. Thus, the idea that it is surface hardening/crystalization over time seems a reasonable explanation.

Please note however, that this does not invalidate the higher density associated with the two tracks in any way:

1. Both tracks have areas (particularly the heels) where there is no higher density rock
2. The density variations associated with the tracks are dramatically deeper and wider than any of the surficial high density - by a factor of up to 3. In particular, the displaced mud at the intersection of the human track and the middle dinosaur toe was first compressed by the human, then displaced by the dinosaur. This high-density area is over 4 centimeters deep and wide, whereas the surficial high-density layer seldom exceeds 1.5 centimeters.

The dramatic variations in the density lend much credence to their authenticity. The variations appear to be quite real, and align well with the ichnofossils being genuine.

"What if someone carved the rock, and then etched it with acid?"

To answer this deep question, one of our researchers, David Lines, took some gen-you-whine Paluxy limestone - the very same stuff the dinosaur and human tracks are found in -and soaked it in muriatic acid. Read his very technical report here.

In short, acid wouldn’t affect the CT scans, although if it did, it would show up as a less dense surface.

COMMENT: If some of the links did not come through please return to ianjuby.org/delk/
Generated August 13, 2008 by Ian Juby, a sometime lecturer on Carl Baugh’s International TBN show entitled, “Science in the 21st Century.”