Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

Oh and one more thing Hollie, this is not ,I repeat, not fabricated evidence. These were modern day humans found in the same strata as dinosaurs.

Oh, and one more thing. Pathological liars behave as you do. They neither recognize or understand that they're lying.

We can attribute your behavior to a pathology.

You are to stupid to take serious.

 

[t_polkow]

yep! still drooling and yammering nonsense.

I bet that idiot lives in a trailer house somewhere in the south and didn't get beyond basic elementary school science

Careful you're about to be made to look foolish again.

The Ice Age in the Bible
Bad Science, Creationism, Kooks, Liars for Jesus by PZ Myers
Every time I despair at the dreadful nonsense from the Discovery Institute, I can reliably turn to Answers in Genesis and despair harder. They've just announced that “after two centuries of research”, they've finally determined the dates of the Ice Age. They've even announced that they’re going to have a chat on their facebook page at 2pm ET today if you really want to learn more. They have figured out the dates of the Ice Age (singular) from reading their Bibles closely.
You might quibble and say that the Bible doesn't say anything about glaciers or ice sheets or changes in climate, so how could they possibly determine anything about Ice Age(s) from that book? Easy. They make shit up.
First step: build everything around a chronology derived from the catalog of patriarchs in Genesis.
The Bible gives us an inerrant chronology for marking historical events. It tells exactly how many human generations passed from the Flood to Abraham’s birth: eight.1 God’s judgment occurred at Babel sometime during the days of Peleg, who was the fourth generation after the Flood.
Second: reject all of the science that says the Ice Ages occurred between roughly 3 million and 10 thousand years ago.
Though this range is clearly not accurate because it lies outside the Bible’s total timeline of 6,000 years, several lines of evidence support the choice of the Pleistocene layers for the Ice Age.
Pay attention to that last line. They’re accepting that the Ice Ages and the Pleistocene occurred concurrently. But the third step is a devious one: reject the dates set by the radiometric and other data, and simply compress and shift the entirety of the Pleistocene into a Biblical window: it started in 2250BCE, and instead of lasting 2½ million years, it was only 250 years long. They’re only off by four orders of magnitude.
Wait. That puts the Pleistocene smack in the middle of the Bronze Age. How can they do that? Fourth: by ignoring the actual dates and making sweeping, simplified claims about human technology.
Knowing these things, how can we use the human history described in the Bible to shed light on the Ice Age’s beginning? Well, for one thing, no human tools or fossils appear anywhere on the earth until found in deposits from the beginning of the Ice Age.8 (God appears to have wiped away all remains of pre-Flood man; see Genesis 6:7.) Since their earliest remains suddenly appear throughout the Old World (Asia, Africa, and Europe), it appears that these are the people who scattered from Babel.
It’s not true: the earliest stone tools are found in the late Pliocene. But setting that aside, it’s a cunning game they’re playing. They can say that they accept the science, that modern humans appeared in the Pleistocene and that they built stone tools, and make the case that they accept the evidence real scientists have uncovered. It’s just that they've redefined the Pleistocene to be a brief sliver of time in a window that occurred only about 4,000 years ago.
It’s a bit like saying I believe the historians when they say Charlemagne existed, and I think the primary documents and accounts they have are just nifty, but they read the dates wrong, because I had a burger with him at White Castle last week. Only worse.
Fifth: that old reliable standby, the argument from incredulity. They point to stone tools, and say it’s absurd that human beings would use such crude and ugly things for millions of years. We’re smarter than that! Doesn't it make much more sense that the Stone Age only lasted for a few decades?


These bozos are anti-science, anti-history, and anti-knowledge, all because they've decided that their holy book is the only arbiter of truth. But they are serenely confident in their ignorance

The Ice Age in the Bible » Pharyngula

 

[Hollie]

I guess we need to stoop to your level and bring out the many hoaxes from the scientific community. Thank God there are some still in the science community that has integrity and exposes the frauds.

I thought you would perform your usual tactic of avoidance and make every effort to avoid addressing the really sleazy tactics employed by the creationist cabal.

They’re all dishonest to the core and your promotion of such dishonesty is similarly sleazy.

No the dishonest would assume these people were accidentally entombed that deep in a mine lol.

Yes. It would be realistic to understand that you lie without even being aware that you're lying.

It's a syndrome shared by those with such a pathology.

 

[Hollie]

Oh and one more thing Hollie, this is not ,I repeat, not fabricated evidence. These were modern day humans found in the same strata as dinosaurs.

Oh, and one more thing. Pathological liars behave as you do. They neither recognize or understand that they're lying.

We can attribute your behavior to a pathology.

You are to stupid to take serious.

Such is the tactic of liars, cheaters and charlatans who have been exposed as such.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Oh, and one more thing. Pathological liars behave as you do. They neither recognize or understand that they're lying.

We can attribute your behavior to a pathology.

You are to stupid to take serious.

Such is the tactic of liars, cheaters and charlatans who have been exposed as such.

What did I lie about ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

I bet that idiot lives in a trailer house somewhere in the south and didn't get beyond basic elementary school science

Careful you're about to be made to look foolish again.

The Ice Age in the Bible
Bad Science, Creationism, Kooks, Liars for Jesus by PZ Myers
Every time I despair at the dreadful nonsense from the Discovery Institute, I can reliably turn to Answers in Genesis and despair harder. They've just announced that “after two centuries of research”, they've finally determined the dates of the Ice Age. They've even announced that they’re going to have a chat on their facebook page at 2pm ET today if you really want to learn more. They have figured out the dates of the Ice Age (singular) from reading their Bibles closely.
You might quibble and say that the Bible doesn't say anything about glaciers or ice sheets or changes in climate, so how could they possibly determine anything about Ice Age(s) from that book? Easy. They make shit up.
First step: build everything around a chronology derived from the catalog of patriarchs in Genesis.
The Bible gives us an inerrant chronology for marking historical events. It tells exactly how many human generations passed from the Flood to Abraham’s birth: eight.1 God’s judgment occurred at Babel sometime during the days of Peleg, who was the fourth generation after the Flood.
Second: reject all of the science that says the Ice Ages occurred between roughly 3 million and 10 thousand years ago.
Though this range is clearly not accurate because it lies outside the Bible’s total timeline of 6,000 years, several lines of evidence support the choice of the Pleistocene layers for the Ice Age.
Pay attention to that last line. They’re accepting that the Ice Ages and the Pleistocene occurred concurrently. But the third step is a devious one: reject the dates set by the radiometric and other data, and simply compress and shift the entirety of the Pleistocene into a Biblical window: it started in 2250BCE, and instead of lasting 2½ million years, it was only 250 years long. They’re only off by four orders of magnitude.
Wait. That puts the Pleistocene smack in the middle of the Bronze Age. How can they do that? Fourth: by ignoring the actual dates and making sweeping, simplified claims about human technology.
Knowing these things, how can we use the human history described in the Bible to shed light on the Ice Age’s beginning? Well, for one thing, no human tools or fossils appear anywhere on the earth until found in deposits from the beginning of the Ice Age.8 (God appears to have wiped away all remains of pre-Flood man; see Genesis 6:7.) Since their earliest remains suddenly appear throughout the Old World (Asia, Africa, and Europe), it appears that these are the people who scattered from Babel.
It’s not true: the earliest stone tools are found in the late Pliocene. But setting that aside, it’s a cunning game they’re playing. They can say that they accept the science, that modern humans appeared in the Pleistocene and that they built stone tools, and make the case that they accept the evidence real scientists have uncovered. It’s just that they've redefined the Pleistocene to be a brief sliver of time in a window that occurred only about 4,000 years ago.
It’s a bit like saying I believe the historians when they say Charlemagne existed, and I think the primary documents and accounts they have are just nifty, but they read the dates wrong, because I had a burger with him at White Castle last week. Only worse.
Fifth: that old reliable standby, the argument from incredulity. They point to stone tools, and say it’s absurd that human beings would use such crude and ugly things for millions of years. We’re smarter than that! Doesn't it make much more sense that the Stone Age only lasted for a few decades?


These bozos are anti-science, anti-history, and anti-knowledge, all because they've decided that their holy book is the only arbiter of truth. But they are serenely confident in their ignorance

The Ice Age in the Bible » Pharyngula

Roughly between 10,000 and 3,000,000 years boy that us narrowing it down lol. That is code for we don't have a clue when it happened.

 

[daws101]

*I have produced evidence and I will produce more. You still have not named the theory you believe in.

Like I said, I read fifty of your over five hundred posts and you never presented any evidence of anything.

Would you mind pointing out a few of them?


UPDATE: I found one, "land bridges". That is one in 51 counted.

How bout Amino acids bonding in just the right sequence and they are left handed amino acids no right handed amino acids. How bout molecular machines that take care of Dna transcription.

How bout the take that evolutionists believe mutations are the mechanism that drives evolution but beneficial mutations are so rare and yet we have over 6,000 genetic disorders and counting. We also have a mechanism repairing most mutations. seems far fetched to believe these are just random processes. Looks like design to me.


Do I need to continue ? or maybe you should move back a little earlier in the thread I have been here since the start of the thread. I can't give you a complete summary of the thread because it has hit all over like most evolution vs creation threads.

what part of never presented anything do you not understand.?

 

[Hollie]

You are to stupid to take serious.

Such is the tactic of liars, cheaters and charlatans who have been exposed as such.

What did I lie about ?

Such is the pathology shared by Christian creationists.

 

[daws101]

Here twit I will give you something to chew on. I know your sides explanation for this but it just does not add up.

Malachite man or in other words Moab man. 10 modern day humans fossils found in the same strata as dinosaurs what ?!

All those reckless comments by the evolutionists why are humans fossils not found with dinosaur fossils uh oh.

I can't wait for your next copy and paste. If you believe in naturalism you have to believe in one of those theories

more creationist bullshit based on the false premise of humans and dinosaurs living at the same time.

In the late 1980's some of the bones were dated by a UCLA lab, yielding an age of 210 +/- 70 years (Berger and Protsch, 1989). Shortly thereafter Arthur Strahler (1989) published his book Science and Earth History, a chapter of which recounted the Moab Man saga. Later carbon dating tests on more recent excavations from the mine in the early 1990's yielded dates of 1450 +/- 90, with a calibrated one-sigma date range of AD 540 to AD 670, suggesting that the mine had been used by native Americans for at least several hundred years. (Coulam and Schroedl, 1995). However, the dates are consistent with intrusive burials, and contradict claims that the bones were part of the Mesozoic, Dakota Sandstone host rock, dated at approximately 100 million years by mainstream geology. Further corroboration of Marwitt's analysis is found in a draft of a book by researchers Eckert and Eckert (1979), who were dismayed by the failure of Burdick and other creationists to depict the Moab Man evidence fairly and accurately. For several years afterward the case seemed to be largely abandoned by most creationists.


Conclusions:

The Moab Man/Malachite Man bones represent a number of intrusive burials in the Dakota Sandstone, and are not integral parts of the host formation. The bones evidently represent intentional or accidental entombments of native Americans in a mining environment. As reported by a number of conventional workers and even some creationist authors, the bones are largely unfossilized and of essentially modern appearance, except for the greenish stain. There is no foundation for the claims of a few creationists that the bones contradict mainstream geology or support dinosaur/human cohabitation.
Moab Man and Malachite Man

thanks for the after lunch story time.

I was waiting for your copy and paste on this issue. Let's see if you can be rational. What would a mother and her infant be doing that deep in a mine lol ?

I would not call anything bullshit you have demonstrated you lack the grey matter to speak for yourself.

another fine example of ywc lack of basic history .
listen up slapdick did you not understand the term native Americans it was common practice for the group or tribe to take their kids with them everywhere.
to keep them safe.
you've watched too many john Wayne movies..
so like every thing you post it's bullshit.
I speak for myself rather succinctly and well.

 

[daws101]

To be ignorant of one's own ignorance is the malady of the ignorant.

FUNNY coming from the man who doesn't even know what he does not know.

How old are you really ?

another ask and answered question.

 

[daws101]

Oh and one more thing Hollie, this is not ,I repeat, not fabricated evidence. These were modern day humans found in the same strata as dinosaurs.

that a half truth and it even worse the your usual lies
guess the term intrusive burial and mine are not important.
talk about cherry picking.
ok slap dick explain why the human remains were not fossilized if they were buried with dinosaurs? btw no fossils of any kind were found at that site.

 

[daws101]

I guess we need to stoop to your level and bring out the many hoaxes from the scientific community. Thank God there are some still in the science community that has integrity and exposes the frauds.

I thought you would perform your usual tactic of avoidance and make every effort to avoid addressing the really sleazy tactics employed by the creationist cabal.

They’re all dishonest to the core and your promotion of such dishonesty is similarly sleazy.

No the dishonest would assume these people were accidentally entombed that deep in a mine lol.

so mining accidents never happen?
anThe Moab Man/Malachite Man bones represent a number of intrusive burials in the Dakota Sandstone, and are not integral parts of the host formation. The bones evidently represent intentional or accidental entombments of native Americans in a mining environment. As reported by a number of conventional workers and even some creationist authors, the bones are largely unfossilized and of essentially modern appearance, except for the greenish stain. There is no foundation for the claims of a few creationists that the bones contradict mainstream geology or support dinosaur/human cohabitation.
Moab Man and Malachite Man
any rational person would have come to the conclusion that mines 1000 or 500 years would have more cave in then modern ones for obvious reasons..

 

[Youwerecreated]

more creationist bullshit based on the false premise of humans and dinosaurs living at the same time.

In the late 1980's some of the bones were dated by a UCLA lab, yielding an age of 210 +/- 70 years (Berger and Protsch, 1989). Shortly thereafter Arthur Strahler (1989) published his book Science and Earth History, a chapter of which recounted the Moab Man saga. Later carbon dating tests on more recent excavations from the mine in the early 1990's yielded dates of 1450 +/- 90, with a calibrated one-sigma date range of AD 540 to AD 670, suggesting that the mine had been used by native Americans for at least several hundred years. (Coulam and Schroedl, 1995). However, the dates are consistent with intrusive burials, and contradict claims that the bones were part of the Mesozoic, Dakota Sandstone host rock, dated at approximately 100 million years by mainstream geology. Further corroboration of Marwitt's analysis is found in a draft of a book by researchers Eckert and Eckert (1979), who were dismayed by the failure of Burdick and other creationists to depict the Moab Man evidence fairly and accurately. For several years afterward the case seemed to be largely abandoned by most creationists.


Conclusions:

The Moab Man/Malachite Man bones represent a number of intrusive burials in the Dakota Sandstone, and are not integral parts of the host formation. The bones evidently represent intentional or accidental entombments of native Americans in a mining environment. As reported by a number of conventional workers and even some creationist authors, the bones are largely unfossilized and of essentially modern appearance, except for the greenish stain. There is no foundation for the claims of a few creationists that the bones contradict mainstream geology or support dinosaur/human cohabitation.
Moab Man and Malachite Man

thanks for the after lunch story time.

I was waiting for your copy and paste on this issue. Let's see if you can be rational. What would a mother and her infant be doing that deep in a mine lol ?

I would not call anything bullshit you have demonstrated you lack the grey matter to speak for yourself.

another fine example of ywc lack of basic history .
listen up slapdick did you not understand the term native Americans it was common practice for the group or tribe to take their kids with them everywhere.
to keep them safe.
you've watched too many john Wayne movies..
so like every thing you post it's bullshit.
I speak for myself rather succinctly and well.

Ok what you're talking about is the two bodies found in 1971 they are automatically suggesting the finds in 1971 were related to the 1990 finds. What your side is not sharing with you are the differences.

You're speaking to a Native American dipshit and you don't have a clue concerning their practices. Anything to embellish the bulkshit.

Really ? Indians that mine lol.

Now let's look at the truth.

Malachite man was found in Cretaceous sandstone (Talk.Origins)








Talkorigins.jpg


Response Article
This article (Malachite man was found in Cretaceous sandstone (Talk.Origins)) is a response to a rebuttal of a creationist claim published by Talk.Origins Archive under the title Index to Creationist Claims.
Index




Claim CC111:
Ten modern human skeletons have been excavated from 58 feet deep in the Lower Cretaceous Dakota Sandstone, which is dated as 140 million years old and is known for the same dinosaurs as in Dinosaur National Monument.
Source: Patton, Don, n.d. Official world site Malachite Man.


CreationWiki response:

(Talk.Origins quotes in blue)


Talk origins 1. The skeletons are the same bones as the discredited Moab man bones, apparently with skeletons from eight nearby Indian burials added. [Kuban 1998]


Both sides seem to be making the same mistake. They are both associating the two skeletons found in 1971 with the eight found in 1990. The two sites are about 100 feet apart so it is not unreasonable that they may be unrelated.

Talk Origins2. All details given in the account are apparently false. The bones were found 15 feet deep in soft, unconsolidated sand.

The top of the hill seems to drop by about 40 feet as can bee seen in an image of the site. The result is that the 1971 Moab man site is 15 feet deep and the 1990 Malachite Man site is about 58 feet deep.

Talk Origins* They were clearly intrusive (i.e., buried there long after the sediments were laid down).

This seems to be based on the idea that the Moab man find and the 1990 Malachite Man are related. There are reasons to question this conclusion.

The bones found in 1990 do not appear to have been carbon 14 dated. If you look at the large images, it is clear that these bones are in solid rock. Even if the bones were in soft material, the layers of rock above them were hard. It was the hardness of the rock that forced the closure of the copper mine that lead to their discovery. 58 feet is really too deep to be intrusive burials, particularly given the rock that would had to have been carved through to dig a grave. It is not clear from the two in situ images if these bones are fossilized or not, but the images of those bones that were removed including a femur and a jaw do seem to be fossilized.

The conclusion is that while the two finds are in the same area, they are separate finds. The two 1971 skeletons are recent, but the 1990 find is probably as old as the rock.

* The Dakota Formation is approximately 90-115 million years old, straddling the Early and Late Cretaceous. Dinosaur National Monument is in the Morrison Formation, which is Jurassic. [Kuban 1998]

Evolutionists date this rock at about 100 million years, but creationists would date it to the flood about 5,000 years ago.

Talk Origins 3. The people making claims about Malachite Man have not been cooperative in supplying information which might be used to verify their claim. This would be surprising if they thought their claims could actually be verified.

Maybe they just don't trust those are making the request like Talk Origins. By the way when was the last time evolutionists made a major fossil find available to creationists so that their claims could be verified.

http://creationwiki.org/Malachite_man_was_found_in_Cretaceous_sandstone_(Talk.Origins)

Emphasis mine,Do evolutionist have something to hide ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Oh and one more thing Hollie, this is not ,I repeat, not fabricated evidence. These were modern day humans found in the same strata as dinosaurs.

that a half truth and it even worse the your usual lies
guess the term intrusive burial and mine are not important.
talk about cherry picking.
ok slap dick explain why the human remains were not fossilized if they were buried with dinosaurs? btw no fossils of any kind were found at that site.

Because the 1971 skeletons were probably from a burial. The ones in 1990 were fossilized.

They were found in the same sandstone as dinosaurs got it ? that sandstone is strata now do you understand ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Like I said, I read fifty of your over five hundred posts and you never presented any evidence of anything.

Would you mind pointing out a few of them?


UPDATE: I found one, "land bridges". That is one in 51 counted.

How bout Amino acids bonding in just the right sequence and they are left handed amino acids no right handed amino acids. How bout molecular machines that take care of Dna transcription.

How bout the take that evolutionists believe mutations are the mechanism that drives evolution but beneficial mutations are so rare and yet we have over 6,000 genetic disorders and counting. We also have a mechanism repairing most mutations. seems far fetched to believe these are just random processes. Looks like design to me.


Do I need to continue ? or maybe you should move back a little earlier in the thread I have been here since the start of the thread. I can't give you a complete summary of the thread because it has hit all over like most evolution vs creation threads.

what part of never presented anything do you not understand.?

I can't help it you have a problem detecting design in nature.

 

[Hollie]

more creationist bullshit based on the false premise of humans and dinosaurs living at the same time.

In the late 1980's some of the bones were dated by a UCLA lab, yielding an age of 210 +/- 70 years (Berger and Protsch, 1989). Shortly thereafter Arthur Strahler (1989) published his book Science and Earth History, a chapter of which recounted the Moab Man saga. Later carbon dating tests on more recent excavations from the mine in the early 1990's yielded dates of 1450 +/- 90, with a calibrated one-sigma date range of AD 540 to AD 670, suggesting that the mine had been used by native Americans for at least several hundred years. (Coulam and Schroedl, 1995). However, the dates are consistent with intrusive burials, and contradict claims that the bones were part of the Mesozoic, Dakota Sandstone host rock, dated at approximately 100 million years by mainstream geology. Further corroboration of Marwitt's analysis is found in a draft of a book by researchers Eckert and Eckert (1979), who were dismayed by the failure of Burdick and other creationists to depict the Moab Man evidence fairly and accurately. For several years afterward the case seemed to be largely abandoned by most creationists.


Conclusions:

The Moab Man/Malachite Man bones represent a number of intrusive burials in the Dakota Sandstone, and are not integral parts of the host formation. The bones evidently represent intentional or accidental entombments of native Americans in a mining environment. As reported by a number of conventional workers and even some creationist authors, the bones are largely unfossilized and of essentially modern appearance, except for the greenish stain. There is no foundation for the claims of a few creationists that the bones contradict mainstream geology or support dinosaur/human cohabitation.
Moab Man and Malachite Man

thanks for the after lunch story time.

I was waiting for your copy and paste on this issue. Let's see if you can be rational. What would a mother and her infant be doing that deep in a mine lol ?

I would not call anything bullshit you have demonstrated you lack the grey matter to speak for yourself.

another fine example of ywc lack of basic history .
listen up slapdick did you not understand the term native Americans it was common practice for the group or tribe to take their kids with them everywhere.
to keep them safe.
you've watched too many john Wayne movies..
so like every thing you post it's bullshit.
I speak for myself rather succinctly and well.

Pretty typical (clueless) response from ywc. Creationist whackjobs fabricate / invent data or don't understand the data in front of them but use their sheer ignorance as a means to attack science.

 

[Hollie]

I was waiting for your copy and paste on this issue. Let's see if you can be rational. What would a mother and her infant be doing that deep in a mine lol ?

I would not call anything bullshit you have demonstrated you lack the grey matter to speak for yourself.

another fine example of ywc lack of basic history .
listen up slapdick did you not understand the term native Americans it was common practice for the group or tribe to take their kids with them everywhere.
to keep them safe.
you've watched too many john Wayne movies..
so like every thing you post it's bullshit.
I speak for myself rather succinctly and well.

Ok what you're talking about is the two bodies found in 1971 they are automatically suggesting the finds in 1971 were related to the 1990 finds. What your side is not sharing with you are the differences.

You're speaking to a Native American dipshit and you don't have a clue concerning their practices. Anything to embellish the bulkshit.

Really ? Indians that mine lol.

Now let's look at the truth.

Malachite man was found in Cretaceous sandstone (Talk.Origins)








Talkorigins.jpg


Response Article
This article (Malachite man was found in Cretaceous sandstone (Talk.Origins)) is a response to a rebuttal of a creationist claim published by Talk.Origins Archive under the title Index to Creationist Claims.
Index




Claim CC111:
Ten modern human skeletons have been excavated from 58 feet deep in the Lower Cretaceous Dakota Sandstone, which is dated as 140 million years old and is known for the same dinosaurs as in Dinosaur National Monument.
Source: Patton, Don, n.d. Official world site Malachite Man.


CreationWiki response:

(Talk.Origins quotes in blue)


Talk origins 1. The skeletons are the same bones as the discredited Moab man bones, apparently with skeletons from eight nearby Indian burials added. [Kuban 1998]


Both sides seem to be making the same mistake. They are both associating the two skeletons found in 1971 with the eight found in 1990. The two sites are about 100 feet apart so it is not unreasonable that they may be unrelated.

Talk Origins2. All details given in the account are apparently false. The bones were found 15 feet deep in soft, unconsolidated sand.

The top of the hill seems to drop by about 40 feet as can bee seen in an image of the site. The result is that the 1971 Moab man site is 15 feet deep and the 1990 Malachite Man site is about 58 feet deep.

Talk Origins* They were clearly intrusive (i.e., buried there long after the sediments were laid down).

This seems to be based on the idea that the Moab man find and the 1990 Malachite Man are related. There are reasons to question this conclusion.

The bones found in 1990 do not appear to have been carbon 14 dated. If you look at the large images, it is clear that these bones are in solid rock. Even if the bones were in soft material, the layers of rock above them were hard. It was the hardness of the rock that forced the closure of the copper mine that lead to their discovery. 58 feet is really too deep to be intrusive burials, particularly given the rock that would had to have been carved through to dig a grave. It is not clear from the two in situ images if these bones are fossilized or not, but the images of those bones that were removed including a femur and a jaw do seem to be fossilized.

The conclusion is that while the two finds are in the same area, they are separate finds. The two 1971 skeletons are recent, but the 1990 find is probably as old as the rock.

* The Dakota Formation is approximately 90-115 million years old, straddling the Early and Late Cretaceous. Dinosaur National Monument is in the Morrison Formation, which is Jurassic. [Kuban 1998]

Evolutionists date this rock at about 100 million years, but creationists would date it to the flood about 5,000 years ago.

Talk Origins 3. The people making claims about Malachite Man have not been cooperative in supplying information which might be used to verify their claim. This would be surprising if they thought their claims could actually be verified.

Maybe they just don't trust those are making the request like Talk Origins. By the way when was the last time evolutionists made a major fossil find available to creationists so that their claims could be verified.

http://creationwiki.org/Malachite_man_was_found_in_Cretaceous_sandstone_(Talk.Origins)

Emphasis mine,Do evolutionist have something to hide ?

Do fundie creationists get anything right?

I always get a chuckle when you copy and paste from "creationwiki". It's like you scream out your ignorance.

 

[Youwerecreated]

another fine example of ywc lack of basic history .
listen up slapdick did you not understand the term native Americans it was common practice for the group or tribe to take their kids with them everywhere.
to keep them safe.
you've watched too many john Wayne movies..
so like every thing you post it's bullshit.
I speak for myself rather succinctly and well.

Ok what you're talking about is the two bodies found in 1971 they are automatically suggesting the finds in 1971 were related to the 1990 finds. What your side is not sharing with you are the differences.

You're speaking to a Native American dipshit and you don't have a clue concerning their practices. Anything to embellish the bulkshit.

Really ? Indians that mine lol.

Now let's look at the truth.

Malachite man was found in Cretaceous sandstone (Talk.Origins)T








Talkorigins.jpg


Response Article
This article (Malachite man was found in Cretaceous sandstone (Talk.Origins)) is a response to a rebuttal of a creationist claim published by Talk.Origins Archive under the title Index to Creationist Claims.
Index




Claim CC111:
Ten modern human skeletons have been excavated from 58 feet deep in the Lower Cretaceous Dakota Sandstone, which is dated as 140 million years old and is known for the same dinosaurs as in Dinosaur National Monument.
Source: Patton, Don, n.d. Official world site Malachite Man.


CreationWiki response:

(Talk.Origins quotes in blue)


Talk origins 1. The skeletons are the same bones as the discredited Moab man bones, apparently with skeletons from eight nearby Indian burials added. [Kuban 1998]


Both sides seem to be making the same mistake. They are both associating the two skeletons found in 1971 with the eight found in 1990. The two sites are about 100 feet apart so it is not unreasonable that they may be unrelated.

Talk Origins2. All details given in the account are apparently false. The bones were found 15 feet deep in soft, unconsolidated sand.

The top of the hill seems to drop by about 40 feet as can bee seen in an image of the site. The result is that the 1971 Moab man site is 15 feet deep and the 1990 Malachite Man site is about 58 feet deep.

Talk Origins* They were clearly intrusive (i.e., buried there long after the sediments were laid down).

This seems to be based on the idea that the Moab man find and the 1990 Malachite Man are related. There are reasons to question this conclusion.

The bones found in 1990 do not appear to have been carbon 14 dated. If you look at the large images, it is clear that these bones are in solid rock. Even if the bones were in soft material, the layers of rock above them were hard. It was the hardness of the rock that forced the closure of the copper mine that lead to their discovery. 58 feet is really too deep to be intrusive burials, particularly given the rock that would had to have been carved through to dig a grave. It is not clear from the two in situ images if these bones are fossilized or not, but the images of those bones that were removed including a femur and a jaw do seem to be fossilized.

The conclusion is that while the two finds are in the same area, they are separate finds. The two 1971 skeletons are recent, but the 1990 find is probably as old as the rock.

* The Dakota Formation is approximately 90-115 million years old, straddling the Early and Late Cretaceous. Dinosaur National Monument is in the Morrison Formation, which is Jurassic. [Kuban 1998]

Evolutionists date this rock at about 100 million years, but creationists would date it to the flood about 5,000 years ago.

Talk Origins 3. The people making claims about Malachite Man have not been cooperative in supplying information which might be used to verify their claim. This would be surprising if they thought their claims could actually be verified.

Maybe they just don't trust those are making the request like Talk Origins. By the way when was the last time evolutionists made a major fossil find available to creationists so that their claims could be verified.

http://creationwiki.org/Malachite_man_was_found_in_Cretaceous_sandstone_(Talk.Origins)

Emphasis mine,Do evolutionist have something to hide ?

Do fundie creationists get anything right?

I always get a chuckle when you copy and paste from "creationwiki". It's like you scream out your ignorance.

That was a debate between creationwiki and your favorite site talk origins. The point is your side were ignorant on the facts.

 

[Hollie]

That was a debate between creationwiki and your favorite site talk origins. The point is your side were ignorant on the facts.

it wasn't actually a debate as creationist wiki is as notoriously pointkess as Harun Yahya

 

[Hollie]

Here twit I will give you something to chew on. I know your sides explanation for this but it just does not add up.

Malachite man or in other words Moab man. 10 modern day humans fossils found in the same strata as dinosaurs what ?!

All those reckless comments by the evolutionists why are humans fossils not found with dinosaur fossils uh oh.

I can't wait for your next copy and paste. If you believe in naturalism you have to believe in one of those theories

more creationist bullshit based on the false premise of humans and dinosaurs living at the same time.

In the late 1980's some of the bones were dated by a UCLA lab, yielding an age of 210 +/- 70 years (Berger and Protsch, 1989). Shortly thereafter Arthur Strahler (1989) published his book Science and Earth History, a chapter of which recounted the Moab Man saga. Later carbon dating tests on more recent excavations from the mine in the early 1990's yielded dates of 1450 +/- 90, with a calibrated one-sigma date range of AD 540 to AD 670, suggesting that the mine had been used by native Americans for at least several hundred years. (Coulam and Schroedl, 1995). However, the dates are consistent with intrusive burials, and contradict claims that the bones were part of the Mesozoic, Dakota Sandstone host rock, dated at approximately 100 million years by mainstream geology. Further corroboration of Marwitt's analysis is found in a draft of a book by researchers Eckert and Eckert (1979), who were dismayed by the failure of Burdick and other creationists to depict the Moab Man evidence fairly and accurately. For several years afterward the case seemed to be largely abandoned by most creationists.


Conclusions:

The Moab Man/Malachite Man bones represent a number of intrusive burials in the Dakota Sandstone, and are not integral parts of the host formation. The bones evidently represent intentional or accidental entombments of native Americans in a mining environment. As reported by a number of conventional workers and even some creationist authors, the bones are largely unfossilized and of essentially modern appearance, except for the greenish stain. There is no foundation for the claims of a few creationists that the bones contradict mainstream geology or support dinosaur/human cohabitation.
Moab Man and Malachite Man

thanks for the after lunch story time.

I saw that daws already exposed the fraud by ywc but this latest fraud is really symptomatic of the lies, deceit and utter nonsense coming from the creationist hoaxsters.

The phrasing and syntax used by ywc was instantly recognizable and easy to find. YWC found the silly Malachite man here:

"Human Fossils In Same Rock Strata As Dinosaur Fossils!"

The site is a front for Christian creationist charlatans. If you scroll down the page, you’ll see that the “discovery” was made by Dr. Don Patton.

So who is “Dr.” Don Patton? He’s a young earth creationist charlatan. And he’s not even a “Dr.”

Suspicious Creationist Credentials


As with every phony link, attempted scam, lie and falsehood spewed by YWC, this is just another attempt to pass off phony creationists and their phony credentials.


Here’s a link to the phony Paluxy "man-tracks" perpetrated by the creationist fraud Carl Baugh.

A Matter of Degree: Carl Baugh's Claimed Credentials


As it turns out, Carl Baugh had some help perpetrating his fraud with some help from another creationist fraudster: Don Patton

Encyclopedia of American Loons: #476: Carl Baugh

Carl Edward Baugh is a young earth creationist who is most infamous for claiming to have “discovered human alongside dinosaur footprints near the Paluxy River in Texas”. Yes, Baugh is the big promoter of the infamous (fake) Paluxy footprints, and he still believes they’re genuine.

Further along in the link:

Don Patton, a close associate of Baugh’s who also leads the Metroplex Institute of Origins Science (MIOS) near Dallas, deserves a brief mention as well as one of the most staggering quote-miners the world has yet seen, including an ellipsis (...) that spans 4 whole chapters of Origin of Species (no direct link to it, but you can access it from here)), and as an ardently delusional PRATT-regurgitator.

I'm sure we're all feeling a bit queasy at the lies, falsehoods and staggering dishonesty perpetrated by creationist charlatans so let's bring it on home with another review of the fraud that is "Dr." Donald Patton

The North Texas Skeptic

I never did see where creationist wiki addressed the false / manufactured credentials of the fundie whackjobs who lie about their silly inventions of falsified data made by creationist hacks and charlatans.