Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 90 (8846 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-18-2018 2:17 PM
254 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, JonF, ooh-child, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), ringo (7 members, 247 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: MrTim
Post Volume:
Total: 835,259 Year: 10,082/29,783 Month: 746/1,583 Week: 215/291 Day: 47/34 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123456
7
8Next
Author Topic:   QUESTIONS
mark24
Member (Idle past 3025 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 92 of 113 (6651)
03-12-2002 4:22 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by TrueCreation
03-11-2002 8:36 PM


TC,

It's the model that Joz & I are after, we will then attempt to falsify it. Incidentally, since you are always telling us that it's the evidence thats interpreted wrong, perhaps you could do the same with the flood model. A tall order, I know, but the flood model has a direct impact on the deposition. Before, you had boiling water when it suited you, & cool water when it didn't. Fish died early when it suited you, later when it didn't. So the flood model THAT THE EVIDENCE POINTS TO is a relevant backdrop to this discussion, no need for details, just a bullet point list of events. It's the geological deposition of fossils that we're discussing in detail, we can carry on in the original thread if you want to continue with the flood feasibility.

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by TrueCreation, posted 03-11-2002 8:36 PM TrueCreation has not yet responded

    
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 113 (6653)
03-12-2002 5:07 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by TrueCreation
03-11-2002 6:01 PM


quote:
"I appreciate the insult to my intelligence."
--I wasn't the one that put myself into the position of asserting this:
quote:

wow... that sure was confusing... all i could discern was you mentioning that rats and rabbits are not found as fossils."


this was not an insult to your intelligence- this was a comment on your post.

Your post, on the other hand, was deliberate.

quote:

--Besides it was not put forth as an insult, but as a clarification, but of course, you see there was nothing to be clarified to the degree that 'it sertainly was confusing' and you could descern a single statment that still was discerned incorrectly.

I found the post confusing, need I say more?

quote:

"you need to brush up on your speeling and grammar."
--You really do not wan't me to run your posts through a spell-check, your insults and sarcasm are drastically lowering your credibility.

the speeling thing was not intended, if you’re thinking that…

quote:

"I’m incorrect? Wow! Where are these fossilized humans then? "
--Possibly Erectus, Homo Sapiens, and Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

I think you misunderstood me- where are the modern humans?
A person is buried in the gournd with clothes on, for example. Would we not find traces of the clothes? Would we not find buried cattle? Would we not find buried horses, possibly with saddles?

quote:

"so you’re telling me that if you showed this theory to an unbiased archaeologist/geologist/scientist, they would have no problem? I doubt it…"
--Mabye you should get one in here then, also, if you can't argue the position, don't assert the question as if you can. I will see this as a withdraw unless you can comment with more relevance.

could yo specify ur theory then?

quote:

"so you’re saying that the most scientifically informed people in the world have been convinced by a better marketing campaign? Who’s running that marketing campaign, and why? Scientists are in pursuit of the truth."
--The people running the campaign, Teachers, and University professors, scientists are in persuit for the truth, with a pre-conceived assumption based on their life-long teaching that Evolution is the only explination.

right. So you’re saying that archaeologists will never run across anything in their entire lives that suggests the flood. They will never even notice something out of the ordinary.

quote:

"so tell me- why do all these universities and public schools teach evolution. Could it be because there is more evidence?"
--No, because they wish to dismiss God as a creator.

so what about the teachers and university professors who believe in god? Are they in on it too?

quote:

"ya hit the head of the nail- we dismiss your theories because they cannot be proved"
--Throw evolution out the window then, it has not been 'proven', as neither has the theory of a Heliocentric solar system to any degree of such proof, being truth to a highest degree.

I mistated. We can test the theory of evolution to some extent, but we cannot test for the existence of god…

quote:

"and we have a natural explanation for the origins of life."
--..It needs alot of work, I believe that we need more than a hunch on how it could have happend...

I’m not quite sure I understand…

quote:

"It is your vocal protestant minority that keeps waving this half-assed evidence ein the air that insists that science makes a U-turn and investigate your unsupported theories, and it becomes really sickening."
--We do do science, it is science that it all comes from, its the conclusions made from observations, and experimentations that wich we draw a line for God, the Scientific world want's to give no foot-hold for God in any scientific conclusion. You seriously must calm yourself, I am pushing myself to cooperate with your intimate ignorance and biased mind-set with a massive exaduration of arrogance on your part. You have made a line for yourself in which you should be compaired and not diffrentiated uppon your age, which is a drastic fallacy which lowers your credibility to a level of zero, and it is not at all in the least bit appealing.

ok then- I will resond to everything calmly and politely

quote:

"I am a twelve year-old boy who has only a basic understanding of plate tectonics, geology, and science for that matter."
--See above...

ok…

quote:

"You are an adult that specializes in geology, is reading a biology text book, and a love for disproving science."
--If you consider a 15 year old an adult, and I have yet to tackle any thing to invalidate science, I will send you off to college where you can find out about this alien concept of science if you can do a search through my numerous 860+ posts and find me where I have done so.

ok- you are 15… I did not expect that but ok.

quote:

"Surely you can present something of interest- quote a website- that would suit me."
--It is not all about quoting websites, quicksink, surelly you would have found this to be true.

TC- there is nothing wrong with quoting a website when you need to clarify something or when you need to give an explanation. Now please, find me something that explains the reason dating methods corroborate one another.

quote:

"let me be honest- I have not the slightest clue what you’re talaking about- but perhaps some other more experienced person in this forum could help me out."
--Then lets stear clear from many of these basic biological or geological questions quicksink.

ok- thanks for the insult.

quote:

"Also, I cannot seen to find the original question."
--you are the one that asserted the question:
quote:

"4). Can you provide a good reason, using Creation Science, as to why a bird would be more closely related (genetically) to a snake than a bat?"

"I am not an evilutionist drone, despite your strong belief of the contrary."
--Believe me..it is evident throughout all your posts that you sertainly are.


great.

quote:

"I do know quite a bit more than the avberage child of my age."
--And I know much much more than the average 15 year old, though I rarelly assert questions that I am not ready to argue or do not have the scientific background to do so, and when It does happen, I do in no way act ignorant, sarcastic, or arrogant.

firstly, so you do know much, probably more than me. then I will leave these questions.

quote:

"How many creationists do you know that could explain the theory of relativity?"
--I know many.. They go to my (High)school.

the average creationist knows the theory of relativity?

quote:

"but one could interpret it, and all other evidences, as evidence for evolution."
--Back to what I said which is being commented on:
quote:

Name something that had to be discovered under the influence of Evolution.. Evolution doesn't advance science, neither does Creation, science is advanced by knowledge through experimentation, and observation.

--This again is not an advancement that Evolution had to have brought about, no matter your interperetation.


evolution has been a product of science, and has advenced our understanding in the origins of life and biology.

quote:

"So where is this other mechanism that ordered the strata?"
--I must have quoted myself atleast 12 times in my time of these forums.
quote:

There are many factors, intelligence, agility/menuverability(could it climb treas or have the ability to menuver in the midst of chaos well), shape/structure (fur, density (muscle sinks and fat floats I believe from because of density), lungs and air, etc), environment, habitat (did it live on the bottom of the ocean, middle, top of the ocean, live on ground, could it fly, and if it could fly how long can it stay in the air and when it is on the ground what is its relevance to menuverability (pterosaurs are thought to 'waddle' simmilar to the way bats menuver on ground as is shown by pelvis structure), also how can this animal adapt to quick changing environments, ie ice age or rapid climate changes could have caused virtually all non-insulated animals to die quickly and be subject to quick burrial on the next sediment deposits with little rustling around of the bodies. Hydrologic sorting plays a very small part in the reason they are burried the way they are.
--Note these arent all the factors, just the obvious ones to get discussion started.

--Environmental conditions would also contribute.


now that you mention the flood and depositions, how would it deposit heavier rocks above lighter rocks?

Ie limestone strata overlaid by granite?

Now back to the original- how would this sort from primitive to “advanced”?

quote:

"I see a lot more science that the average 40 year old."
--Grammer, or were you going to finish?

ouch
ps- its grammAr

quote:

"you’re right- let’s leave it to people like stephen hawking and carl sagan"
--Hm... and I thought they were both cosmologists and astrophysicists, well I guess that smarts.

I’m not an idiot- I know they are cosmologists, and I have read their books ie cosmos, pale blue dot, brief history of time. I refer to them because it is these people who I have learned much from.

quote:

"as well as all those highly experienced biologists and geologists who know their field like the back of their hand, but have been convinced by the finer marketing campaign of the evilutionists."
--Now surelly you have something to back up your claim, as you are so confident. What is it that has convinced them, or is it too advanced for us and we just take the scientists word for it.

now hold on- you said that we should drop the original subject, regarding the observation of evolution. Drop it for whom- the scientists who believe the earth is 4 billions years old? You asserted that these things were too advanced for us.
Secondly, the most experienced archaeologists of today believe in the theory of evolution. Give me a few names that have not only believed and found evidence of creationism in the latter century, but have also expanded science’s general knowledge of geology.

quote:

"let’s not try t fill this issue with scientific technicals. We see primitive species deeper in the strata, and more adapted and modern looking ones at the top… "
--Thats right, no argument with that.

thank you

quote:

"Unless I am grossly mistaken, most creationists claim that speciation has never been observed and thus cannot have happened (this is false- search lake victoria- speciation- sand bar)."
--Well then I must say that they then are 'grossly' ill-informed.

Here are a few evolutionist sites that are actually trying to prove the observation of speciation…
http://www.holysmoke.org/cretins/cre.htm
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Creationism/Introduction/Theory.shtml
the above site cites the observation of speciation as evidence of evolution.

quote:

"Speciation is evidence of evolution, is it not."
--Speciation is a process of evolution, per se, nothing that is going to get you a dog from a horse an any time-period though, its basically a 'devolving' process.

devolving?

quote:

"You seem to be swimming against mainstream creation-“science” when you say that speciation could have ordered these fossils, however that’s possible."
--Speciation, ordering the fossils? Speciation did not order the fossils, speciation is a process of diversification and veriety, it isn't a fossil orderation.

well you made it seem that way, so I was a little confused there.

quote:

"Maybe you could elaborate for the sake of the elementary student."
--Emphesis is above.

ok

quote:

"Firstly, how would that be evidence of creationism?"
--your the one trying to argue it, I am not arguing against it. This is basically just as much 'evidence' as the existance of llamas is evidence of creation, its a bit irrelevant.

Then give me evidence of creationism.

quote:

"Secondly, you have not mentioned one dating method that goes against the old earth."
--How can I! You have such a long time-scale!

ok- coral cores. Show me that coral cores stop around 10000 years ago.

quote:

"Thirdly, ancient geneology, tree-ring dating, coral core dating"
--Mabye you should emphesise or give reference in details, as I can assert that 1000 year old cow droppings proves a young earth but it isn't really going to mean anything untill I can explain why it is.

ancient geneology- http://www.nyu.edu/classes/wright/spring97/chron.htm
tree-ring dating- used to date many cultures.
Coral core dating- coral cores are used similarly to tree-rings- to detect climate anomalies, storms, temperature rises, etc. they date back very long-
http://cns-web.bu.edu/pub/dorman/relig.html
go to edit, find on this page, and then type coral.

quote:

"(dates back 40000 years, etcs, all verify beliefs regarding the age of the egyptians, chinese, and other ancient cultures. Radiometric dating, when used side-by-side with the above dating methods, works surprisingly well, considering the earth is only 10000 years old."
--See above.

see above

quote:

"the flood would have deposited sediment layers and large boulders across the face of the planet… ar am I just stupid?"
--They are, allover the planet.. Any Geological concept whether young earth or old earth requires this, especially with an ice age, but we wouldn't be aware of that now would we?

and these boulders are so random and frequent that they could have only been deposited by a world flood?

quote:

"c14 dating works well with all other natural and unnatural methods of dating. But you address that issue later.
And are you implying that if the theory of evolution crumbled, creation would be correct? Wow…"
--Hm... Nope, I've read over my response bout 3 times and still havent found where I made that assertion.

then again- could you give me solid and very credible evidence of creationism?

quote:

"how would these records survive the flood?"
--Because they were post-flood, your not going to get records of a flood written before the flood happens...

my god… what was I thinking- let me restate the question
if every human being bar noah’s family died from the flood, who would be around to record the flood immediately after it occurred.
Sorry for the confusion there- it was late.

quote:

"I love this typical delaying tactic- pretend to be interested in something that completely demolishes your argument- but since you asked…"
--You should try it some-time, or mabye I'm using Joz's 'lure them in and open up with the big guns' tactic, it shows that I am not narrow-minded.

here is another link to another site regarding eclipses and dating of ancient civilizations:
http://www.nyu.edu/classes/wright/spring97/chron.htm

"I love this typical delaying tactic- pretend to be interested in something that completely demolishes your argument- but since you asked…
http://www.skepticfiles.org/evolut/answered.htm
an excellent site that addresses this and many other issues. Do a search on google as well.
http://www.moses-egypt.net/STAR-MAP_s2-FAQ.asp
there’s another that does not touch the issue of creationism versus evolution"
--The first one was unable to load, it seems the link is wrong, though the second I can comment on. It does not have any dispute and is evident by its own words that it does not conflict with the date of the flood in any of these quotes where it mentions a date:
quote:

and even for a fair dating to one of the oldest Chinese records of an eclipse (1050 BC). Stephenson’s "Historical Eclipses" is one of the best recent publications in this field, but still it must be borne in mind that the Senmut star map is 500-800 years further back in times.

--Looks like I have no problem with the Chinese records as of yet either.
quote:

Furthermore, one of the oldest known Egyptian presentations of a planetary position, places Jupiter close to the decan (celestial sector of 10-degrees) of Sirius. This dates back some 4200 years, and is recorded on a fragment of a starclock-diagram depicted inside a coffin-lid - (a traditional method of recording).

quote:

A thousand years before the time of Senmut, the astronomer-priests were developing such skills by constant observation of the firmament, which necessitated the keeping of accurate records, especially with regard to calculating celestial positions and cyclic phenomena.

quote:

The observation that the Senmut-map presents a concrete celestial conjunction 1534 BC seems to be supported by the subsequent maps in the following centuries demonstrating that these conditions are reflected here, too.

quote:

Concerning the above mentioned tms n hntt on the Senmut star map - cf. the treatise’s paragraph 3 - the following note may be added: The early existence of several variants of this expression is well known, e.g. tms n hnt and tms n hnty etc., several of which go back to the star clock diagrams belonging to the early coffin groups (c. 2200 BC). However, the precise combination in our case, tms n hntt , seems to be found on the Senmut star map for the first time.

quote:

Given that there is no safe way of extrapolating so far back in time, it would of course be risky to give the exact hour of an eclipse 3500 years ago, as has been done in the paper under discussion. (It was merely intended to serve as an additional illustration of how precise the information of the Senmut map would be). As stated above, it is of no significance for the basic dating of this star map. In any case, the general positions in the sky for the Sun, Moon, and all the planets are correct and unambiguous.

--Nothing in this paper challenges the date of the flood, but actually, as I said earlier, was an interesting read and was informative, not to mention appealing to the dating of the Flood. [/quote]

y’know what- I was wrong… I was misinformed. Sorry.

quote:

"I have, and I do not understand how this could support the flood model…"
--See my quote on this in this post. If you have any comments or think that there is anything that exists in the record you can challenge it. It is a perfect supportation of the Flood model.

please elaborate.

quote:

"absolutel. But when you have two theories side-by-side, the one that explains the facts the most consistently using the least amount of unnatural phenomena and speculation wins the battle for the hearts of the scientist."
--(Creationism it is!)

so creationism most effectively explains all dating methods, evidence that starlight is millions or billions of years old, etc? wow…
please address the starlight issue.

quote:

"Well, the Bible states that God stopped THE SUN FROM ORBITING THE EARTH (“So the sun stood still in the midst of the heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day” -Joshua 10:13b) Assuming that the Bible really meant that the earth stopped orbiting around the sun, we can assume that it would take god to completely defy the laws of nature. So clever, were these creationists, that they discovered the missing day in space. This is of course an urban legend. Oh well- god still did it."
--I am aware of the myth of NASA discovering a missing day. Also, where did you ever come to the conclusion that the bible says that God stopped the Earth from orbiting around the sun, this is contrary to what it says. Some creationists do go for the maraculous event that God sopped the earth from orbiting or stopped the earth from spinning. Though I take a different approach. It may have been a wobble in the axis of the Earths tilt, caused by an astroid impact, or a fly-by of a large body.

ok- so we have found no records or evidence of this asteroid, and no culture that recorded the fly-by… do you have any evidence to back up your theory?
And if god inspired an guided the writing of the bible, is it unreasonable to suppose that he would have told the writers that joshua’s long day was due to a natural event?
And finally, the bible tells us that god himself made the sun stand still, as the quoted biblical passage indicates.

quote:

"tree-ring dating, c14 dating, and ancient geneology dating all come to the same conclusion- the Egyptians are older than the flood."
--You need to re-work your assertion, provide more evidence, as your cosmological impications are wrong.

ok- the egyptians noted floods in their records (often on the Nile). Scientists look through trees to find evidence of this flood. When they find this, they know when and even how the flood occurred.
C14 dating, as you know, dates artifacts and tomb walls, yes, the same tomb walls that have ancient dates and recordings of floods.
Furthermore, do you have any evidence that not only to challenges dating methods, but suggests that the Egyptians came into being after the flood?
And on the subject of c14 dating, why is it that it always dates primitve fossils older than fossils of more advanced species?
Finally, are there any dating methods out there that work? (meaning they show the creationist model to be correct?

quote:

"Coral cores, varves, and etc all prove that the earth is far older than the creationist model."
--No actually it doesn't, tell me why it is, and I would like a detailed explination on the Coral cores implication as well.

Coral Cores are much like trees. They build up layers once every year or so. There are often 1000s of these layers.
I’m sure you know all about varves.
I remember you mentioning that no tree rings pass the supposed date of the flood, yet you have a post out there claiming that tree-ring dating is very inaccurate.

quote:

"But there is a reason for this, I;m sure. In fact, I bet all these methods really indicate that the planet is as old as the creationist model suggests it is…"
--I sure have found so.

ok- now tell me about it… what are the archaeologists missing?

quote:

"OK- I’ll say I and Stephen Hawking, the late Carl Sagan, all archaeologists, geologists, scientists, teachers, etc. Now, correct us all, will you. I’m dying to know where these dating methods are…"
--I hope you are ready to explain what I asked for you 2 questions back. After you have done so, I will give you a more appropriate response.

I have.

quote:

"I gave you the precious links, and possibly you could do some research of your own, if you are indeed so interested in this."
--I gave you my response on your cosmological inference, your postulate was wrong, its probably a good Idea to read the link before it is given also. Furthermore, I have about 11 references in my favorites on this, not a one describes the reason for their dates, neither have I gotten it out of any other person.

on what- and possibly I can give an answer.

quote:

"coral cores date back 40000 years, for some reason."
--I found some 40billion year old shrubs in my back yard, I guess that invalidates the big bang idea. (please, detail, or reference)

I have given you the reference to the coral cores, and I’m sure you can find many more on the internet.

quote:

"you haven’t addressed any of the other dating methods."
--Neither has yourself given any detail, accept in assertion seemingly based on what somebody told you most likely.

now I have- care to comment?

quote:

"And please elaborate on the tree-ring c14 issue…"
--If I might quote:
AiG - http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/tree_ring.asp
quote:

Claimed older tree ring chronologies depend on the cross-matching of tree ring patterns of pieces of dead wood found near living trees. This procedure depends on temporal placement of fragments of wood using carbon-14 (14C) dating, assuming straight-line extrapolation backwards of the carbon dating. Having placed the fragment of wood approximately using the 14C data, a matching tree-ring pattern is sought with wood that has a part with overlapping 14C age and that also extends to a younger age. A tree ring pattern that matches is found close to where the carbon ‘dates’ are the same. And so the tree-ring sequence is extended from the living trees backwards.

"
but that didn’t even seem to address the issue. The best you can present is doubt over the dating methods."
--If I did not place doubt on them, you shouldn't place doubt on my cow feces or my 40 billion year old shrubs, because thats just as much information as you have given me.


you said that we have never found a tree pre-dating the flood. And now you say that tree-ring dating is inaccurate (despite the fact that it has been corroborated with geneologic and geologic evidence of the floods and fires it records)

quote:

"But no evidence that the methods point to the creationist models, like they should.
Your arguments are just chsing evolution, but not strengthening creationism."
--Ehem, neither has yourself.

I am here to disprove creationism, and not to prove evolution. If I have made it appear differently, please elaborate.
I think I need an attitude changem and I’m sorry if I insulted you or anyone else.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by TrueCreation, posted 03-11-2002 6:01 PM TrueCreation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by TrueCreation, posted 03-13-2002 9:35 PM quicksink has not yet responded

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 113 (6763)
03-13-2002 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by quicksink
03-12-2002 5:07 AM


"this was not an insult to your intelligence- this was a comment on your post."
--Sorry, the phrase seemed to give a direct resort to sarcasm, as you do the same in this post later on.

"Your post, on the other hand, was deliberate."
--Yes, basically my frustration was at a point of fracture.

"I found the post confusing, need I say more?"
--What I have said is very relevant, is there clerification that I need to make, specifics please?

"I think you misunderstood me- where are the modern humans?"
--Yes, modern humans, I guess that someone today with pegets disease or something of the like is not a modern human though.

"A person is buried in the gournd with clothes on, for example. Would we not find traces of the clothes?"
--Out of the very few humans found that are burried, no, you wouldn't find them with cloths on, as you do not find a dinosaur with its skin.

"Would we not find buried cattle?"
--We don't find burried cattle?

"Would we not find buried horses, possibly with saddles?"
--No, no saddles.

"could yo specify ur theory then?"
--You comment on it latter on in the post.

"right."
--I think I can rest my case.

"So you’re saying that archaeologists will never run across anything in their entire lives that suggests the flood. They will never even notice something out of the ordinary."
--They allready have, mind you, something deposted by the flood is not something that an old earth with billions of years cannot cope with.

"so what about the teachers and university professors who believe in god? Are they in on it too?"
--They arent allowed to teach anything of the like, in many cases, they are not allowed to even mention it.

"I mistated. We can test the theory of evolution to some extent, but we cannot test for the existence of god…"
--Ofcourse we cannot test for the existance of God, that is why it is put in the catagory of faith, the degree of this faith is opinionated.

"I’m not quite sure I understand…"
--Abiogenesis is a Guess, and for the people that readilly attack me at times for showing something is plausable, they should take a glance at abiogenesis.

"ok then- I will resond to everything calmly and politely"
--Thank you, this is very much appreciative.

"ok- you are 15… I did not expect that but ok."
--I'll take this as a complement

"TC- there is nothing wrong with quoting a website when you need to clarify something or when you need to give an explanation. Now please, find me something that explains the reason dating methods corroborate one another."
--I think you mean 'do not corroborate each other", and as I said earlier it is alot more than just quoting a few websites, because of the fact that you must be able to argue the point. For instance, your corals, you will see what is missing, though you have given reference, the same for the astronomical dating of ancient cultures. For this reason, I will not put myself into the position to critique radioisotopes and the age of the earth.

"ok- thanks for the insult."
--It was not an insult quicksink, I was emphesizing on the point that we must 'stear clear' from what we cannot argue, I wish not to spend my time critiquing such fields when I will get a response showing that there is not the qualified knowledge for an understanding.

"firstly, so you do know much, probably more than me. then I will leave these questions."
--I'm glad we can.

"the average creationist knows the theory of relativity?"
--Key words, 'I know many', your taking it out of context. It isn't a median of the relative quantity of creationists out there, but I know many that are creationists that do.

"evolution has been a product of science, and has advenced our understanding in the origins of life and biology."
--Biology has not needed an old earth for it to have been a studied subject, and the origins of life is a concept of 'the origins'.

"now that you mention the flood and depositions, how would it deposit heavier rocks above lighter rocks?"
--There was more than just one deposition.

"Now back to the original- how would this sort from primitive to “advanced”?"
--'Primitive' creatures are not going to have the same abilities as 'advanced' ones are going to, according to the factors I have listed.

"I’m not an idiot- I know they are cosmologists, and I have read their books ie cosmos, pale blue dot, brief history of time. I refer to them because it is these people who I have learned much from."
--The point is that they wouldn't be your reference for a biological inference.

"now hold on- you said that we should drop the original subject, regarding the observation of evolution. Drop it for whom- the scientists who believe the earth is 4 billions years old? You asserted that these things were too advanced for us."
--No, actually you were the one that asserted this, and I am not here to attempt to make a mockery of anyone because they may not be able to debate a sertain topic.

"Secondly, the most experienced archaeologists of today believe in the theory of evolution. Give me a few names that have not only believed and found evidence of creationism in the latter century, but have also expanded science’s general knowledge of geology."
--I am not going to get into this, one being because I have allready shown that it is expected that old earthers and Evolutionary believers to be more abundant in the scientific field, but also because it is absolutelly irrelevant.

"Here are a few evolutionist sites that are actually trying to prove the observation of speciation…"
--I haven't the slightest clue why, it is observed with almost every replication in a population of prokaryotes, along with viruses.

"the above site cites the observation of speciation as evidence of evolution."
--I surelly should hope that you would not illude toward this site as a reliable reference, when they take regard to speciation they make a very fatal mistake, in which I am quite flabergasted as how they could deliberatelly miss such a factor.

quote:

"Each according to their kind" creationism. This theory accepts that Genesis cannot be taken literally, but it makes a curious exception for the "each according to their kind" statement. Even if we disregard this obvious hypocrisy, this theory is easy to disprove since it is based on the notion that evolutionary speciation is impossible. Since evolutionary speciation has already been observed in nature, this theory is just as worthless as Biblical "young Earth" creationism.

--They make the point that 'each according to their kind' is wrong because it is disproved because speciation is observed. The problem is that 'each according to their kind' is exactly what infers speciation, because 'kind' is not a specific or species. 'Each according to their kind' points out that there will be diversity, but there will also be a barrier.

"devolving?"
--To make it simple avoiding the biological reference so there is no confusion as much as spossible. Speciation is a process by which a population becomes diverse (population genetics). It is synonemous to 'specialization', which is what happens when a population goes through speciation, it is specialized. There are many different types of bears for instance, though only some kinds have adapted to a sertain diet. Same with just about every organism on the planet. Specialization is thus a 'devolving' process as a more accurate depiction.

"Then give me evidence of creationism."
--What part of creationism do you wan't evidence for?

"ok- coral cores. Show me that coral cores stop around 10000 years ago."
--No problem, also, see this as an answer to your thread on corals.
--Some coral cores actually are thought to need 100-200,000 years of growth to become the size they are today. The great barrier reef is the largest, though not the thickest. Eniwetok Atoll in the Marshall Islands is a very nice start.

AiG - http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1224.asp

quote:

This is a living reef resting on an extinct volcano cone which comes up about three kilometres (two miles) from the ocean floor. Drilling revealed about 1,400 metres (4,600 feet) of reef material. At least two writers have attacked the young age position using the argument that this coral atoll must have taken a very long time to form (1), (2) -- they estimate 138,000 and 176,000 years respectively as the minimum age for Eniwetok.

Areil Roth of the Geoscience Research Institute has commented on the fact that estimates of net reef growth rates vary from 0.8 millimetres per year to 80 millimetres per year, whereas actual measurements based on soundings at depth are many times these estimates.(3) Roth suggests a number of reasons for this difference.

The main one is that measurements made at the surface will show lower rates of growth because of exposure to air at low tides and intense ultraviolet light. Lack of light will of course kill a reef -- no live coral growth takes place below about 50 metres under the surface. Hence thick atolls such as Eniwetok require the ocean floor to sink as the coral builds. As the coral is lowered, faster growth is possible than that which we measure at the surface.

There are complex factors which both add to the growth of a reef end take away from it. For instance, attack by certain organisms, and wave destruction will contribute to a decline in reef size. On the other hand, a growing reef can trap sediments as they are moved along by currents, thus adding to its thickness. Storms can dramatically add to the thickness of a reef by bringing in coral from other areas.

For example, in 1972, Cyclone Bebe "constructed' a rampart of coral rubble 3.5 metres high, 37 metres wide and 18 kilometres long in a few hours.(4)

Given all the above, it seems reasonable to rely on the actual figures reported from depth-sounding measurements for coral reef growth rates, rather than calculations trying to take all these other factors into account. Such reef growth rates have been reported as high as 414 millimetres per year in the Celebes.(5) At such a rate, the entire thickness of the Eniwetok Atoll could have been formed in less than 3,500 years.

In addition, actual experiments indicate that the rate of coral growth can be nearly doubled by increasing the temperature five degrees Celsius (remember that Eniwetok sits on a now-extinct volcano), or increasing the carbonate content of sea water.(6)


"ancient geneology- http://www.nyu.edu/classes/wright/spring97/chron.htm

quote:

Absolute dates are derived through scientific analysis of artifacts themselves, providing the age of the object. The most common type of absolute dating in Mesopotamia and Egypt is radiocarbon or carbon 14 dating. In this type of dating, the amount of radioactive carbon in an object is measured. As an object ages, the amount of radioactive carbon decreases at a known rate. Therefore, the amount of carbon 14 remaining can be used to determine the age of an object. This age is subtracted from the present date yielding an absolute date for the object and those closely associated with it. However, radiocarbon dates are only exact within a range of years. For example, if an artifact is 2500 years old, the date for that artifact is about 500 BC +/- 100 years.

--Radioisotopic dating.

quote:

Historic documents can also provide dates. Documents from Mesopotamia and Egypt contain a list of kings, the lengths of their reigns, and various other datable information. The date of the reign of certain kings has been determined by dating artifacts associated with documents from their reign.

--C-14 again.

quote:

If documents from the reign of a king date to 2300 BC, then the other kings on the list can be dated roughly as well by adding and subtracting the lengths of their reigns.

--A perfect analogous postulate that is with dendrochronology.

quote:

In addition, kings in Mesopotamia and pharoahs in Egypt often named years after a celestial event. For example, the year could be called "the year of the solar eclipse that occurred in harvest season." Astromers can determine when solar eclipses and other celestial events took place in the past thereby allowing historians to figure out the year in which a document (and associated artifacts) was created.

--I previously showed that there is no conflict in the dates given by this relative.

quote:

Documents can also provide dates based on the study of the characteristics of the writing they contain. Writing style and the use of words change over time and are different in various places. If you have ever looked at your grandmother's handwriting, listened to how your father talks, noticed how a person from Europe writes numbers, or seen the Chinese alphabet, you can see how these differences still exist today. Scholars of ancient writing systems can study documents and tell how they relate to a collection of documents and thus tell when and where a document comes from. For example, the figure below traces the evolution over time of the symbol for the word 'beer' in Sumerian and Akkadian script. If a document contained the word for beer written as it is in box 'B' , it could be assigned to the time period in which that form of the symbol was in use.

--After a thought you see that this as well is analogous to the above method (the above quote).

quote:

Historic documents do not always reflect events accurately--the Mesopotamian king list gives some reigns as lasting hundreds of years

--This answers a question I used to ask, I'm glad to have found the answer. I think I will keep this link, it is very good and answers much of what I have been looking for, and not to mention it is appealing.

quote:

In short, the dates within a chronology should not be thought of as perfect and scholars often do not agree on chronological dates.

--Makes you think doesn't it.

quote:

One way to do this is through obtaining radiocarbon and other absolute dates, but it is not possible to date every single object in this way.

--Something tells me that it all depends on the validity of radiocarbon.
--Cronology PartII requires a password, So unfortunatelly I cannot comment on that.

"tree-ring dating- used to date many cultures."
--Requiring the validity of C-14 as well.

"Coral core dating- coral cores are used similarly to tree-rings- to detect climate anomalies, storms, temperature rises, etc. they date back very long-
http://cns-web.bu.edu/pub/dorman/relig.html
go to edit, find on this page, and then type coral."
--See where I respond to corals above.

"and these boulders are so random and frequent that they could have only been deposited by a world flood?"
--No they couldn't have 'only been', but that is my view, and there is no confliction.

"then again- could you give me solid and very credible evidence of creationism?"
--What part of creationism would you like evidence for? A young earth, a Godly creation, a Flood, or something else that creationism refers to.

"if every human being bar noah’s family died from the flood, who would be around to record the flood immediately after it occurred."
--Noah would, or one of his kids.

"here is another link to another site regarding eclipses and dating of ancient civilizations:
http://www.nyu.edu/classes/wright/spring97/chron.htm
--Same as my response before as you see in the next response, and it hasn't detail to comment on.

"y’know what- I was wrong… I was misinformed. Sorry."
--Appreciated, this is not seen much around these forums, usually the tactic is avoidance, though I realize that even myself has missed continuing discussions, so I would not come to a conclusion like that on anyone.

"please elaborate."
--See where I elaborate in the last post, it has my description on the factors of flood deposition.

"so creationism most effectively explains all dating methods, evidence that starlight is millions or billions of years old, etc? wow…
please address the starlight issue."
--This requires much cosmological background, as is evident by the problem. Light travels at a soso speed, and stars are billions of light years away, this required deep thought, as is analogous to radioisotopes. I am positive you could not argue this if we got into such detail, in which I cannot either.

"ok- so we have found no records or evidence of this asteroid, and no culture that recorded the fly-by… do you have any evidence to back up your theory?"
--Actually there have been many astroids that have hit the earth in recent times:

quote:

Over 1000 fragments from 150 meteorites that fell during the last 20,000 years have been recovered. One large iron meteorite, called the Mundrabilla meteorite, weighed more than 11 tons.

--Keep in mind the dating, it is based on sediment deposition on a uniformitarian scale, and a 10-20,000 year old ice age.

And Ancient civilizations did have knowledge on meteor impacts:

Epic of Gilgamesh - http://www.san.beck.org/EC3-Sumer.html

quote:

Meanwhile a dream came to Gilgamesh of a star falling from heaven leaving a meteor so heavy he could not lift it, and his mother Ninsun explains that this was a strong friend he would meet. In another dream Gilgamesh found in Uruk an ax he loved like a woman, and Ninsun interprets that this brave man would rescue him.

I am wondering what 'Myth of the Meteor' is about in a book called 'Ancient Travelers to the Americas'.
http://www.ancientamerican.com/backissuetxt.htm

Columbus even wrote of Meteors: http://www.greatdreams.com/bermuda.htm

quote:

As for the lights, Columbus wrote of seeing "a great flame of fire" that crashed into the ocean -- probably a meteor. He saw lights in the sky again on October 11, which, of course, was the day before his famous landing. The lights, brief flashes near the horizon, were spotted in the area where dry land turned out to be.

I found this interesting: http://wbenjamin.org/nc/sep21.html

quote:

Mircea Eliade, The Forge and the Crucible:

19: "It was inevitable that meteorites should inspire awe. They came from some remote region high up in the heavens and possessed a sacred quality enjoyed only by things celestial. In certain cultures there was a time when men thought the sky was made of stone, and even today the Australian aborigines believe the vault of heaven to be made of rock crystal and the throne of the heavenly deity of quartz."

19: Stones of light quote

20 - 21: Meteorites and thunderstones: "But the heavenly...union between heaven and earth."

21: Primitive people worked with meteoric iron...This was how the Greenland Eskimos made their knives out of meteoric iron."

22: "The peoples of the ancient Orient...a Caucasian origin."


And lastly: http://www.users.qwest.net/~mcochrane/Thundergods/thundergods.html

quote:

It is doubtless in keeping with these widespread traditions identifying thunderbolts with meteorites that thundergods everywhere are described by epithets signifying "stone thrower." The Yoruba thundergod Shango, to take but one of countless examples, was also known as Jakuta, "the stone thrower." So, too, is Indra's thunderbolt compared to a rock hurled from heaven. Here Gonda observes: "Although Indra's weapon is usually explicitly designated by the term vajra, and vajra is generally described as metallic (ayasa), it is incidentally spoken of as a rock (parvata) or 'stone of, or: from, the heavens' (divo asmanam)." No ordinary rock, Indra's thunderbolt is described as "whirling down from the misty realm of the sun (Surya)."

"And if god inspired an guided the writing of the bible, is it unreasonable to suppose that he would have told the writers that joshua’s long day was due to a natural event?"
--It was both, it was a supernatural origin, that was controled by a natural event, for instance, if it were an impact, God obviously somehow created the universe so that that impactor was on such a collision coarse for instance.

"And finally, the bible tells us that god himself made the sun stand still, as the quoted biblical passage indicates."
--He made the sun 'appear' to stand still, as is evident by what it does say. It stood still in its place in the sky, its by appearence. See above.

"ok- the egyptians noted floods in their records (often on the Nile). Scientists look through trees to find evidence of this flood. When they find this, they know when and even how the flood occurred."
--Ok.

"C14 dating, as you know, dates artifacts and tomb walls, yes, the same tomb walls that have ancient dates and recordings of floods."
--I sure hope were not dating tomb walls, let alone artifacts, as with C-14 it would appear as an older date, by human condamination along with disruption in the sample dated. Any split or mingle with the artifact is going to increase decay rate.

"Furthermore, do you have any evidence that not only to challenges dating methods, but suggests that the Egyptians came into being after the flood?"
--I have challenged the relative dating methods, as for the latter, evidence is that no written record is found till these post-flood times.

"And on the subject of c14 dating, why is it that it always dates primitve fossils older than fossils of more advanced species?"
--Who knows, (atleast I have not come to a conclusion) It could be because they are old, it could be because they were subject to a reaction, it could be because of a change in ration of C14 vs. C12.

"Finally, are there any dating methods out there that work? (meaning they show the creationist model to be correct?"
--Not unless you can find something that is a constant besides radioisotopes. I for one would love one such thing, though I have yet to find one.

"Coral Cores are much like trees. They build up layers once every year or so. There are often 1000s of these layers."
--See my previous explination.

"I’m sure you know all about varves."
--Yes I do, so what about them?

"I remember you mentioning that no tree rings pass the supposed date of the flood, yet you have a post out there claiming that tree-ring dating is very inaccurate."
--Not neccessarelly, it isn't 'very inaccurate', that is, if your using a single tree that is alive, it may as well be accurate. Though the problem is as I explained in that post is the method that they use to get such old dates:

quote:

Claimed older tree ring chronologies are dependent on the cross-matching of tree ring patterns of pieces of dead wood found near living trees. This procedure depends on temporal placement of fragments of wood using carbon14 dating, assuming straight-line extrapolation backwards of the carbon dating. Having placed the fragment of wood approximately using the 14C data, a matching tree-ring pattern is sought with wood that has a part with overlapping 14C age and that also extends to a younger age. A tree ring pattern that matches is found close to where the carbon ‘dates’ are the same. And so the tree-ring sequence is extended from the living trees backwards.

"ok- now tell me about it… what are the archaeologists missing?"
--See above.

"on what- and possibly I can give an answer. "
--The link you gave explained just about everything, and I loved it, thanx much for it.

"you said that we have never found a tree pre-dating the flood. And now you say that tree-ring dating is inaccurate"
--Please reread the quote, I have given it again about 3 of my responses back in this post. It shows how this is dependent on C-14 and in this way it is inaccurate, overlapping tree rings.

"(despite the fact that it has been corroborated with geneologic and geologic evidence of the floods and fires it records)"
--Theres been alot of floods and fires since 'The' Flood.

"I am here to disprove creationism, and not to prove evolution. If I have made it appear differently, please elaborate."
--What is it that must be shown to you that would change your views on Creationism.

------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by quicksink, posted 03-12-2002 5:07 AM quicksink has not yet responded

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 113 (6873)
03-14-2002 11:24 PM


Its not everyday I get to do one of these. *BUMP*

Quicksink?

------------------


Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by quicksink, posted 03-14-2002 11:27 PM TrueCreation has not yet responded
 Message 97 by Cobra_snake, posted 03-14-2002 11:31 PM TrueCreation has not yet responded

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 113 (6874)
03-14-2002 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by TrueCreation
03-14-2002 11:24 PM


i am in word right now writing a response.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by TrueCreation, posted 03-14-2002 11:24 PM TrueCreation has not yet responded

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 97 of 113 (6876)
03-14-2002 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by TrueCreation
03-14-2002 11:24 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
Its not everyday I get to do one of these. *BUMP*

Quicksink?


Hehe, I know what you mean TrueCreation!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by TrueCreation, posted 03-14-2002 11:24 PM TrueCreation has not yet responded

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 113 (6877)
03-14-2002 11:43 PM


can someone please tell me how I can see new posts- I've cleared my history, refreshed the pages, and nothing- if it continus I'm gonna leave the forum!
  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 99 of 113 (6881)
03-15-2002 1:56 AM


quote:

"I think you misunderstood me- where are the modern humans?"
--Yes, modern humans, I guess that someone today with pegets disease or something of the like is not a modern human though.

So we have deetermined that these fossils are of humans, indicating rapid, miraculously rapid, fossilization, or has c14 dating put them at a very old age, and these dates were then manipulated.

I seriously doubt that these moderen humans you talk of are as young as you think- but maybe I’m wrong.

quote:

"A person is buried in the gournd with clothes on, for example. Would we not find traces of the clothes?"
--Out of the very few humans found that are burried, no, you wouldn't find them with cloths on, as you do not find a dinosaur with its skin.

Ok then- but let me pose another question- how many modern animals have you found fossilized?
And I think we should find some indication of rapid fossilization in modern humans. For example, if soldiers, dead, were buried in a massive pit sometime ago, we would find their fossils in one area, indicating a deliberate burial. Unless you know something about this that I don’t, then I would assume that this has never happened.

quote:

"Would we not find buried cattle?"
--We don't find burried cattle?

And this cattle has been aged, somehow, to the creationist model, shattering the belief that fossilization takes, many many, years to occur?
How did you come to the conclusion that these cattles were modern- or is it an assumption?

quote:

"Would we not find buried horses, possibly with saddles?"
--No, no saddles.

why not? They would certainly leave an imprint in the mud…

quote:

"So you’re saying that archaeologists will never run across anything in their entire lives that suggests the flood. They will never even notice something out of the ordinary."
--They allready have, mind you, something deposted by the flood is not something that an old earth with billions of years cannot cope with.

well then I give up because this is completely ridiculous. An archaeologist is gonna start to notice something wrong when he’s assuming the earth is billions of times older than it really is.
Don’t you think they’d start to notice something? Maybe they would start to see fossilized koalas in Afghanistan, making their way back to the flood. Maybe an experienced geologist would start to realize that continental drift occurred over a period of a few years. Or maybe they’re just drones.

quote:

"so what about the teachers and university professors who believe in god? Are they in on it too?"
--They arent allowed to teach anything of the like, in many cases, they are not allowed to even mention it.

Not in my experiences- my teacher even discussed what creationists thought of C14 dating yesterday. I knew she was a Christian, and I asked her after class whether she was a firm believer in evolution
“Absolutely”
I’m sure she was just being threatened by that evil org, though.

quote:

"I mistated. We can test the theory of evolution to some extent, but we cannot test for the existence of god…"
--Ofcourse we cannot test for the existance of God, that is why it is put in the catagory of faith, the degree of this faith is opinionated.

I think it takes an awful lot of faith to believe that starlight has either
a) slowed down
b) been created by god, the way it is now (despite the fact we can measure the age of starlight, but this is probably flawed too)

quote:

"ok then- I will resond to everything calmly and politely"
--Thank you, this is very much appreciative.

ok

quote:

"the average creationist knows the theory of relativity?"
--Key words, 'I know many', your taking it out of context. It isn't a median of the relative quantity of creationists out there, but I know many that are creationists that do.

You seem to be fond of using science to explain things such as th Great Flood, Joshua’s Long Day, etc. you are th first crationist of this kind, and so I would assume that you are in the minority.

quote:

"now that you mention the flood and depositions, how would it deposit heavier rocks above lighter rocks?"
--There was more than just one deposition.

So you are saying that there was another mechanism, previous to the flood, that layed this sediment. I come to doubt this- where is the evidence of this other deposition?

quote:

"Now back to the original- how would this sort from primitive to “advanced”?"
--'Primitive' creatures are not going to have the same abilities as 'advanced' ones are going to, according to the factors I have listed.

There are some major flaws with this assertion. The velociraptor was certainly more maneuverable than many creatures of today. The sloth can be compared to only a few dinosaurs, and would have been buried in th very first moments of the flood. The delug would have certainly swept away most marsupials, marsupials that were living, strangely enough, along side with some of the most ferocious carnivores on a single super-continent.
Furthermore, the assumption that this could organize the strata perfectly is ridiculous. We find th fossils of eggs, nests, and raindrops.
In addition, sleeping animals, animals in caves, animals in burrows (which happen to have been fossilized in this flood), tiny juveniles (juveniles of, perhaps the bald eagle), sick animals (ever see a document on Jane Goodall- and the apes paralyzed from the waist down with polio?), dying animals, carcasses, stranded animals, etc., etc. Certainly we would expect to see at least ONE exception in the strata.

quote:

"now hold on- you said that we should drop the original subject, regarding the observation of evolution. Drop it for whom- the scientists who believe the earth is 4 billions years old? You asserted that these things were too advanced for us."
--No, actually you were the one that asserted this, and I am not here to attempt to make a mockery of anyone because they may not be able to debate a sertain topic.

May I quote:

quote:

"Evolution requires the obsservation of macroevolution- we see that..."
--Example. Also, I would highly doubt that you and even I have the knowledge to argue this point, as it branches off into many very detailed biological concepts in the molecular and celluar field.

It seems your quote has come back to bite you in the hind-quarters. If you and I are not in the position to debate or even dicuss this, who is? Is it the scientist?

quote:

"Secondly, the most experienced archaeologists of today believe in the theory of evolution. Give me a few names that have not only believed and found evidence of creationism in the latter century, but have also expanded science’s general knowledge of geology."
--I am not going to get into this, one being because I have allready shown that it is expected that old earthers and Evolutionary believers to be more abundant in the scientific field, but also because it is absolutelly irrelevant.

It is completely relevant. Experienced geologists find things of interest that drive forward the study of science. Is there any creationist geologist out there that has acutally found something, with his brains, that has interested the scientific community? Or is he participating in creation-science?
If creationism is the truth, then we should see many geologists who have changed their mind, but have continued to conduct research in the field, working under the light of the creationist model.
And why is it that the oil companies pay the evolutionist geologists to find them their oil?

quote:

"Here are a few evolutionist sites that are actually trying to prove the observation of speciation…"
--I haven't the slightest clue why, it is observed with almost every replication in a population of prokaryotes, along with viruses.

Well then perhaps there are creationists who have no reason to believe it?

quote:

"devolving?"
--To make it simple avoiding the biological reference so there is no confusion as much as spossible. Speciation is a process by which a population becomes diverse (population genetics). It is synonemous to 'specialization', which is what happens when a population goes through speciation, it is specialized. There are many different types of bears for instance, though only some kinds have adapted to a sertain diet. Same with just about every organism on the planet. Specialization is thus a 'devolving' process as a more accurate depiction.

OK then- thanks for the clarification

quote:

"Then give me evidence of creationism."
--What part of creationism do you wan't evidence for?

Perhaps the flood- independent evidence that those geologists have missed.
"ok- coral cores. Show me that coral cores stop around 10000 years ago."
--No problem, also, see this as an answer to your thread on corals.
--Some coral cores actually are thought to need 100-200,000 years of growth to become the size they are today. The great barrier reef is the largest, though not the thickest. Eniwetok Atoll in the Marshall Islands is a very nice start.
AiG - http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1224.asp
[/quote]

May I use a reference of my own- this one refers directly to your article, and the papers that it asserts in its position.
What I find interesting is that the papers of Roth are not accepted by the scientific community, in what is clearly evolutionist bullying (yup)
http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/reef.htm
The problem with your cited article is simple: It does not take into account bleaching, destruction by storms, etc.
I recently returned from the Maldives (south of India- I was getting my advanced course in SCUBA and special course in cave and wreck). I had been there before the bleaching of 1998, and at that time the coral was beyond words. But I was horrified to find all coral dead at my arrival, with not the slightest sign of regrowth. Only a handful of reefs had been spared.
And all this due to a 1 degree rise in water temperature, owing to El Nino. Although the incident was particularly extreme, incidents like it have certainly taken place in the past, eradicating polyps and destroying underwater ecosystems.
But read the article, and it will go into more of the technicals.

quote:

"ancient geneology- http://www.nyu.edu/classes/wright/spring97/chron.htm
quote:

Absolute dates are derived through scientific analysis of artifacts themselves, providing the age of the object. The most common type of absolute dating in Mesopotamia and Egypt is radiocarbon or carbon 14 dating. In this type of dating, the amount of radioactive carbon in an object is measured. As an object ages, the amount of radioactive carbon decreases at a known rate. Therefore, the amount of carbon 14 remaining can be used to determine the age of an object. This age is subtracted from the present date yielding an absolute date for the object and those closely associated with it. However, radiocarbon dates are only exact within a range of years. For example, if an artifact is 2500 years old, the date for that artifact is about 500 BC +/- 100 years.


Challenging radioisotopic dating requires dismantling another dating method, geneology, which you so keenly use with the Bible.

The bible gives no absolute dates, and does not even possess a dating method to back it up, yet you rely on it for all arguments.

On the other hand, geneology is compatible with that lively thing, radioisotopic dating, and fits perfectly with the history of other cultures and the presumed degvelopment of the planet.

quote:

--Radioisotopic dating.
quote:

Historic documents can also provide dates. Documents from Mesopotamia and Egypt contain a list of kings, the lengths of their reigns, and various other datable information. The date of the reign of certain kings has been determined by dating artifacts associated with documents from their reign.

--C-14 again.


If carbon dating is not reliable, it should give wrong results.

Let’s say a king rules America for 2 years. An explorer from the future stumbles upon some date on an artifact, as well as the records of such things as terrorist attacks, floods, etc. He dates these records with C14 and determines that these artifacts, records of such incidents, occurred during the reign of this particular king, and he alse dtermines that this reign came in the year 2002. Now he goes and corroborates this with tree-ring dating- he sees the record of the flood in the geneology of this culture, and he wants to see how this stands to the trees. He cuts down a dead tree, measures its age with c14, and finds that there is a gap around the time of this flood.

Now he sees the record of another king after the former one. He goes through the same process, and finds that this king does indeed cmoe before the former, and that there were floods that occurred at the same time that the records say.

I would call that pretty accurate, and it happens all the time in geology. How do you explain this flawless corroboration? Any scientific explanation?

quote:

quote:

If documents from the reign of a king date to 2300 BC, then the other kings on the list can be dated roughly as well by adding and subtracting the lengths of their reigns.

--A perfect analogous postulate that is with dendrochronology.
quote:

In addition, kings in Mesopotamia and pharoahs in Egypt often named years after a celestial event. For example, the year could be called "the year of the solar eclipse that occurred in harvest season." Astromers can determine when solar eclipses and other celestial events took place in the past thereby allowing historians to figure out the year in which a document (and associated artifacts) was created.

--I previously showed that there is no conflict in the dates given by this relative.
quote:

Documents can also provide dates based on the study of the characteristics of the writing they contain. Writing style and the use of words change over time and are different in various places. If you have ever looked at your grandmother's handwriting, listened to how your father talks, noticed how a person from Europe writes numbers, or seen the Chinese alphabet, you can see how these differences still exist today. Scholars of ancient writing systems can study documents and tell how they relate to a collection of documents and thus tell when and where a document comes from. For example, the figure below traces the evolution over time of the symbol for the word 'beer' in Sumerian and Akkadian script. If a document contained the word for beer written as it is in box 'B' , it could be assigned to the time period in which that form of the symbol was in use.

--After a thought you see that this as well is analogous to the above method (the above quote).
quote:

Historic documents do not always reflect events accurately--the Mesopotamian king list gives some reigns as lasting hundreds of years

--This answers a question I used to ask, I'm glad to have found the answer. I think I will keep this link, it is very good and answers much of what I have been looking for, and not to mention it is appealing.


How you would find corroboration appealing is a mystery to me. I also smell some hypocrasy- you are the one claiming that the Biblical figures were capable of living for hundreds of years. Assuming this is true, these kings could have reigned for hundreds of years.

quote:

quote:

In short, the dates within a chronology should not be thought of as perfect and scholars often do not agree on chronological dates.

--Makes you think doesn't it.


It makes me think why so many dating methods corroborate one another, and do not collapse under the flawed method of C14- you have not made me challenge my beliefs at all.

The dates that ancient cultures have put forward have, strangely, been corroborated with radio carbon and tree-ring dating, not to mention the recordings of natural phenomenas (and if the egyptians got these recordings right, would it not be safe to assume that the rest of their geneology is roughly correct?) Creationists seem keen to ignore all this corroboration.

quote:

quote:

One way to do this is through obtaining radiocarbon and other absolute dates, but it is not possible to date every single object in this way.

--Something tells me that it all depends on the validity of radiocarbon.


Absolutely- but the question is why it has so flawlessly corroborated dates and ancient geneology.

quote:

"tree-ring dating- used to date many cultures."
--Requiring the validity of C-14 as well.

See above, or take a look at your very strange and frankly surprising answer a little below.

quote:

"Coral core dating- coral cores are used similarly to tree-rings- to detect climate anomalies, storms, temperature rises, etc. they date back very long-
http://cns-web.bu.edu/pub/dorman/relig.html
go to edit, find on this page, and then type coral."
--See where I respond to corals above.

I have given my response.

quote:

"and these boulders are so random and frequent that they could have only been deposited by a world flood?"
--No they couldn't have 'only been', but that is my view, and there is no confliction.

Well, a world-wide flood would leave indisputable marks on this planet. I do not see any of these indications.

quote:

"then again- could you give me solid and very credible evidence of creationism?"
--What part of creationism would you like evidence for? A young earth, a Godly creation, a Flood, or something else that creationism refers to.

Perhaps a dating method that puts the age of the earth at ten thousand years.

quote:

"if every human being bar noah’s family died from the flood, who would be around to record the flood immediately after it occurred."
--Noah would, or one of his kids.

Really? You said previously that many cultures had recorded the flood. I am unaware that a single human being qualified as a fully developed culture. These records, where were they found? To the extent of my knowledge, I know that the cultures would have existed before the flood, and made records immediately after the flood (I have the claim of aboriginal flood legends), all this assuming that they existed before the flood and survived the flood, living in a barren wasteland.
It seems that all these theories are getting too messy to handle.

quote:

"y’know what- I was wrong… I was misinformed. Sorry."
--Appreciated, this is not seen much around these forums, usually the tactic is avoidance, though I realize that even myself has missed continuing discussions, so I would not come to a conclusion like that on anyone.

I may be a jerk, but I will admit defeat, no matter what.
However, I think I should make a note of something- the dating mentioned above has been corroborated to events, I will admit, before the flood. These events were recorded by the Egyptians, and these recordings were dated by C14- and I think you can fit that altogether.
You’re going to have to challenge the calidity of this dating method, as it walks hand-in-hand with your arch enemy, C14

quote:

"so creationism most effectively explains all dating methods, evidence that starlight is millions or billions of years old, etc? wow…
please address the starlight issue."
--This requires much cosmological background, as is evident by the problem. Light travels at a soso speed, and stars are billions of light years away, this required deep thought, as is analogous to radioisotopes. I am positive you could not argue this if we got into such detail, in which I cannot either.

Beautiful- stunning- magnificent. Now we have to leave the debating up to whom- the men and women who understand this stuff much better than you and I and still believe in it? Once again, you are strengthening my point that the more scientifcally informed you are, the more likely you are to be an old earther.

quote:

Light travels at a soso speed

You say this with an air of certainty- but you do realize that this soso speed would violate the theory of relativity, which quite clearly states that the speed of light is constant.
The only people who challenge the speed of light are creationists, like you, who admit that they do not have the experience to argue it.
Leave it to those who completely agree with a constant speed of light, shall we?
Or perhaps you have evidence of a decaying speed of light that all cosmologists and scientists have missed in their centuries of researach and experimentation?

quote:

"ok- so we have found no records or evidence of this asteroid, and no culture that recorded the fly-by… do you have any evidence to back up your theory?"
--Actually there have been many astroids that have hit the earth in recent times:
quote:

Over 1000 fragments from 150 meteorites that fell during the last 20,000 years have been recovered. One large iron meteorite, called the Mundrabilla meteorite, weighed more than 11 tons.

--Keep in mind the dating, it is based on sediment deposition on a uniformitarian scale, and a 10-20,000 year old ice age.
And Ancient civilizations did have knowledge on meteor impacts:
Epic of Gilgamesh - http://www.san.beck.org/EC3-Sumer.html
quote:

Meanwhile a dream came to Gilgamesh of a star falling from heaven leaving a meteor so heavy he could not lift it, and his mother Ninsun explains that this was a strong friend he would meet. In another dream Gilgamesh found in Uruk an ax he loved like a woman, and Ninsun interprets that this brave man would rescue him.

I am wondering what 'Myth of the Meteor' is about in a book called 'Ancient Travelers to the Americas'.
http://www.ancientamerican.com/backissuetxt.htm
Columbus even wrote of Meteors: http://www.greatdreams.com/bermuda.htm
quote:

As for the lights, Columbus wrote of seeing "a great flame of fire" that crashed into the ocean -- probably a meteor. He saw lights in the sky again on October 11, which, of course, was the day before his famous landing. The lights, brief flashes near the horizon, were spotted in the area where dry land turned out to be.

I found this interesting: http://wbenjamin.org/nc/sep21.html
quote:

Mircea Eliade, The Forge and the Crucible:
19: "It was inevitable that meteorites should inspire awe. They came from some remote region high up in the heavens and possessed a sacred quality enjoyed only by things celestial. In certain cultures there was a time when men thought the sky was made of stone, and even today the Australian aborigines believe the vault of heaven to be made of rock crystal and the throne of the heavenly deity of quartz."
19: Stones of light quote
20 - 21: Meteorites and thunderstones: "But the heavenly...union between heaven and earth."
21: Primitive people worked with meteoric iron...This was how the Greenland Eskimos made their knives out of meteoric iron."
22: "The peoples of the ancient Orient...a Caucasian origin."

And lastly: http://www.users.qwest.net/~mcochrane/Thundergods/thundergods.html
quote:

It is doubtless in keeping with these widespread traditions identifying thunderbolts with meteorites that thundergods everywhere are described by epithets signifying "stone thrower." The Yoruba thundergod Shango, to take but one of countless examples, was also known as Jakuta, "the stone thrower." So, too, is Indra's thunderbolt compared to a rock hurled from heaven. Here Gonda observes: "Although Indra's weapon is usually explicitly designated by the term vajra, and vajra is generally described as metallic (ayasa), it is incidentally spoken of as a rock (parvata) or 'stone of, or: from, the heavens' (divo asmanam)." No ordinary rock, Indra's thunderbolt is described as "whirling down from the misty realm of the sun (Surya)."

"And if god inspired an guided the writing of the bible, is it unreasonable to suppose that he would have told the writers that joshua’s long day was due to a natural event?"
--It was both, it was a supernatural origin, that was controled by a natural event, for instance, if it were an impact, God obviously somehow created the universe so that that impactor was on such a collision coarse for instance.


So what are you saying precisely? Is it that a meteor, predestined to slam into the earth, made it appear on earth that there was an extra-day?
Your theory is in direct contradiction of the Bible. As I have reiterated so many times, the Bible tells us that god stopped the sun orbiting the earth, or, if you interpret it differently, the earth orbiting the sun.
Why would the Bible not say that a brilliant fireball, summoned by Him, allowed the Israelites an extra day to in their battle?

quote:

"And finally, the bible tells us that god himself made the sun stand still, as the quoted biblical passage indicates."
--He made the sun 'appear' to stand still, as is evident by what it does say. It stood still in its place in the sky, its by appearence. See above.

Or one could argue that the writers of the Bible, who believed that all heavenly bodies orbitted the earth, created the origins of the “setting sun”, be stating that the sun stood still.

quote:

"ok- the egyptians noted floods in their records (often on the Nile). Scientists look through trees to find evidence of this flood. When they find this, they know when and even how the flood occurred."
--Ok.

What exactly does OK mean? If you are following me, which I know you are, you’d see that C14 has corroborated an event recorded by the Egyptians.

quote:

"C14 dating, as you know, dates artifacts and tomb walls, yes, the same tomb walls that have ancient dates and recordings of floods."
--I sure hope were not dating tomb walls, let alone artifacts, as with C-14 it would appear as an older date, by human condamination along with disruption in the sample dated. Any split or mingle with the artifact is going to increase decay rate.

Uh- What dates the artifacts then? I believe it is C14, but maybe my illiteracy in the scientific field is shining here.
If I am mistaken, and there is another method of dating, why would it corroborate?

quote:

"Furthermore, do you have any evidence that not only to challenges dating methods, but suggests that the Egyptians came into being after the flood?"
--I have challenged the relative dating methods, as for the latter, evidence is that no written record is found till these post-flood times.

Really? Not one record until post-flood? Pretty bold claim. Do you have a reference to that, as I have never seen that asserted, ever.

quote:

"And on the subject of c14 dating, why is it that it always dates primitve fossils older than fossils of more advanced species?"
--Who knows, (atleast I have not come to a conclusion) It could be because they are old, it could be because they were subject to a reaction, it could be because of a change in ration of C14 vs. C12.

on the subject of old- All fossils were created during the flood, remember?
The other answers which you present, predictably, I cannot address. Yet your answers cannot explain the flawless dating of fossils and/or artifacts.

quote:

"Finally, are there any dating methods out there that work? (meaning they show the creationist model to be correct?"
--Not unless you can find something that is a constant besides radioisotopes. I for one would love one such thing, though I have yet to find one.

SO everything works in favor of the Old Earth, and they’re all wrong. Not very reasonable.

quote:

"I remember you mentioning that no tree rings pass the supposed date of the flood, yet you have a post out there claiming that tree-ring dating is very inaccurate."
--Not neccessarelly, it isn't 'very inaccurate', that is, if your using a single tree that is alive, it may as well be accurate. Though the problem is as I explained in that post is the method that they use to get such old dates:

Not “very accurate”, when they’re based on a dating method so faulty that it expands the date of fossils and rocks by billions of times? If you ask me, tree-ring daing should be thrown out altogether.

quote:

"ok- now tell me about it… what are the archaeologists missing?"
--See above.

If only they could have the privilege of meeting you.

quote:

"on what- and possibly I can give an answer. "
--The link you gave explained just about everything, and I loved it, thanx much for it.

Well I’m glad that you now understand that carbon dating corroborates to other methods.

quote:

"(despite the fact that it has been corroborated with geneologic and geologic evidence of the floods and fires it records)"
--Theres been alot of floods and fires since 'The' Flood.

oh god…

quote:

"I am here to disprove creationism, and not to prove evolution. If I have made it appear differently, please elaborate."
--What is it that must be shown to you that would change your views on Creationism.

At first glance, yes. But once I went back and did the reasearch, I found that there’s a truth for every flaw
I have enjoyed is so far.


Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by TrueCreation, posted 03-19-2002 8:11 PM quicksink has not yet responded

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 100 of 113 (7195)
03-18-2002 4:23 AM


calling TC?
  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 101 of 113 (7278)
03-18-2002 11:17 PM


push
  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 113 (7357)
03-19-2002 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by quicksink
03-15-2002 1:56 AM


"So we have deetermined that these fossils are of humans, indicating rapid, miraculously rapid, fossilization, or has c14 dating put them at a very old age, and these dates were then manipulated."
--Whew, I'm glad this wasn't my assertion, any evolutionist would scream at me if I mentioned c14 nuclei ratio's as applied to a hominid, I would not doubt in the least that you would find it contains traces of C14, possibly a large quantity, though they are supposedly 1.2 million+ years old. They fossilized like all the rest, ground water and abating water precipitation of organic structures and replacing them with minerals. Of course I do not claim that all supposed hominids are human.

"I seriously doubt that these moderen humans you talk of are as young as you think- but maybe I’m wrong."
--Yes, mabye you are.

"Ok then- but let me pose another question- how many modern animals have you found fossilized?"
--A great abundance, why do you think there is such a conflict with transitionals? Because they are all relatively the same form as they are today. The non-existance of transitionals has leaded evolutionists to resort to punctuated equillibria.

"And I think we should find some indication of rapid fossilization in modern humans. For example, if soldiers, dead, were buried in a massive pit sometime ago, we would find their fossils in one area, indicating a deliberate burial. Unless you know something about this that I don’t, then I would assume that this has never happened."
--If they were to do such a thing, sure they would still be there most likely. Petrification is the precipitation of organic compounds with the replacement of minerals as described above. You can do this rather quickly in a lab with the right environment and direct flow of mineral-rich water.

"And this cattle has been aged, somehow, to the creationist model, shattering the belief that fossilization takes, many many, years to occur?
How did you come to the conclusion that these cattles were modern- or is it an assumption?"
I'm not exactly sure what you are saying for the former, though for the latter, there are many species in the family Bovidae that are so closely related to true cattle that they can still interbreed include the anoa, bison, gaur, Indian and African buffalo, and yak. This shows that there has been much diversity and variation. So what your going to find in strata is going to be simmilar to them, it doesn't have to be a direct zebu, or Brahman cattle. Again, the concept of speciation that I must emphesize.

"why not? They would certainly leave an imprint in the mud…"
--I don't think that saddles were invented at the time.

"well then I give up because this is completely ridiculous. An archaeologist is gonna start to notice something wrong when he’s assuming the earth is billions of times older than it really is."
--No, you missunderstand me, when most archeologists do thier work, they are working under the assumption that the earth is infact billions of years old, so they have billions of years to work with, such an assumption makes interperetation extreamly flexable. Because you see, if you were to find something that says oh well this only took so and so years to be made, that does not invalidate something older than that age, not to mention a billion year old earth.

"Don’t you think they’d start to notice something? Maybe they would start to see fossilized koalas in Afghanistan, making their way back to the flood."
--No, they wouldn't, even if they did, that says nothing on the age of the earth, nor evolution.

"Maybe an experienced geologist would start to realize that continental drift occurred over a period of a few years. Or maybe they’re just drones."
--your going to have a great modification, but as another evolutionist once said in this forum 'the theory would still not be invalidated, look at all the other evidence in support of Evolution'.

"Not in my experiences- my teacher even discussed what creationists thought of C14 dating yesterday. I knew she was a Christian, and I asked her after class whether she was a firm believer in evolution
“Absolutely”
I’m sure she was just being threatened by that evil org, though."
--They are not allowed to 'teach' it, they can make fun of it, or say that a Flood could not have possibly layed something down all they wish, this is infact a very frequent occurance in schools, there is a vast difference.

"I think it takes an awful lot of faith to believe that starlight has either
a) slowed down
b) been created by god, the way it is now (despite the fact we can measure the age of starlight, but this is probably flawed too)"
--So your a cosmologist? You might wan't to take a note that there are physics principals that are beyond your comprehension, this is no more a valid question than there being multiple universes, or quantum fluctuations and mechanics. I do believe that in a principle of quantum mechanics, you can have one event happening at one point in time, and have a mirror image of itself on the other side of the universe. You should expand your horizon, not everything is as it seems sometimes.

"You seem to be fond of using science to explain things such as th Great Flood, Joshua’s Long Day, etc. you are th first crationist of this kind, and so I would assume that you are in the minority."
--No, I am not the 'first of this kind', though I may have a unique perspective. There are many creationists such as some in AiG or ICR and the like, they do what I do, and then they praise God and give him the credit and reference the bible often, this is where the nit-pick comes in.

"So you are saying that there was another mechanism, previous to the flood, that layed this sediment. I come to doubt this- where is the evidence of this other deposition?"
--You missunderstand, I say there was more than just one deposition, just as in the geologic uniformitarianism inference on strata, every stratum represents a period of deposition. Simmilar is the Flood, you come in with a 'dust storm' of sediments and it gets layed down in one area, then comes another one and it gets layed down on top. Such deposits supposedly show mass erosional features in geologic time, though its an overlapping mechenism.

"There are some major flaws with this assertion. The velociraptor was certainly more maneuverable than many creatures of today. The sloth can be compared to only a few dinosaurs, and would have been buried in th very first moments of the flood."
--Not really, sloths at this time were as big as mastadons, sloths were mammals with hair covered bodies, raptors were cold blooded (the theory of warm-blooded dinosaurs follows direct supposition to the gradualistic theory of Evolution and geologic time).

"The delug would have certainly swept away most marsupials, marsupials that were living, strangely enough, along side with some of the most ferocious carnivores on a single super-continent."
--marsupial and placental mammals are very related (within their kind of course, they are not all related) many of them, indistinguishable from placentals untill you find their pouch.

"Furthermore, the assumption that this could organize the strata perfectly is ridiculous. We find th fossils of eggs, nests, and raindrops."
--And? There wasn't any rain during the flood? And you don't want to let anything stop to lay their eggs?

"In addition, sleeping animals, animals in caves, animals in burrows (which happen to have been fossilized in this flood), tiny juveniles (juveniles of, perhaps the bald eagle), sick animals (ever see a document on Jane Goodall- and the apes paralyzed from the waist down with polio?), dying animals, carcasses, stranded animals, etc., etc. Certainly we would expect to see at least ONE exception in the strata."
--1. I'll bet that if you could dig up all of the sedimentary layers globaly, you would find an abundance of anamalies that would require drastic alterations in the theory of gradualism, though we have revealed much much less than a single percent of the earth's strata.
--2. Sleeping animals, I would doubt they would be sleeping too often, and such catastrophic burrials would take place mostly in the ocean and your not going to have too many sleeping animals with the tectonic activity going on. Though ofcourse there would be intermediate periods between quakes in which they would attempt to rest. The most catacalysmic actions are going to take place when this tectonic activity is going on, and at these times, things will be restless.
--3. Animals in caves. Very few caves would have been present, if at all any preceeding the flood, as most were created or given the start for this action. There was no material for a cave to have formed untill the flood, nor was there the tectonic activity to create a cliff or a plate thrust to produce a place for one.
--4. Animals in burrows, yes, they are going to mostly get fossilized, assuming there were many burrowing animals, along with the assumption that the soil were not torn up from tectonic activity.
--5. tiny juveniles. lots of tiny juvenilles were fossilized in oceans, though on land there is a different story. As they would be with the care-taker, with the catacalysmic reations such as tectonic plate shifting and earthquakes, the mother or whatever the caretaker would take them. Also, the burrials of the animals would have been a bit swift, comprizing anywhere from one to 2 weeks. And the method of land burrial would have been a bit catastrophic, so it doesn't exactly matter if you are a little elephant or a big elephant.
--6. sick animals, there would have been very very little in such an atmosphere, also, bacterial and viral disease would have been extreamly minimal because of the lack of variation and a the fact that they had not diversified to be as harmful as they are today.
--7. Dying animals, your not going to have many dying animals, why would they die?
--8. carcasses, see above.
--9. stranded animals, see second part of #5.

"Certainly we would expect to see at least ONE exception in the strata."
--We do, we see millions, animals just don't all of a sudden pop up in the fossil record very often with few exceptions.

"It seems your quote has come back to bite you in the hind-quarters. If you and I are not in the position to debate or even dicuss this, who is? Is it the scientist? "
--No, actually, I was refering to you, as you when I had stated that quote, told me that you did not know what I was talking about with a basic biological question.

"It is completely relevant. Experienced geologists find things of interest that drive forward the study of science. Is there any creationist geologist out there that has acutally found something, with his brains, that has interested the scientific community? Or is he participating in creation-science?"
--Creationists founded most of our scientific fields. And as I stated before, it is absolutely* irrelevant, simply because it is an argument by majority and an argument by athority.

"If creationism is the truth, then we should see many geologists who have changed their mind, but have continued to conduct research in the field, working under the light of the creationist model."
--See above, also, we do, though they are not familiarated, they are in the minority. Please refer to where you refered earlier to the 'conspiracy'.

"And why is it that the oil companies pay the evolutionist geologists to find them their oil?"
--I think your following someone elses argument (sort of like the parrot people accuse creationists of), as it isn't 'evolutionist geologists' its geologists with the degrees.

"Well then perhaps there are creationists who have no reason to believe it?"
--I think I don't know what your trying to say, grammer?

"OK then- thanks for the clarification"
--No problem.

"Perhaps the flood- independent evidence that those geologists have missed."
--we have strata, ok theres one, we have evaporites, ok thats two, we have plate tectonic shifts, ok thats three.

"May I use a reference of my own- this one refers directly to your article, and the papers that it asserts in its position.
What I find interesting is that the papers of Roth are not accepted by the scientific community, in what is clearly evolutionist bullying (yup)"
--Yes, there is quite a censor on creationist papers with scientific journals.

"The problem with your cited article is simple: It does not take into account bleaching, destruction by storms, etc."
--Actually it did make reference.

"I recently returned from the Maldives (south of India- I was getting my advanced course in SCUBA and special course in cave and wreck). I had been there before the bleaching of 1998, and at that time the coral was beyond words. But I was horrified to find all coral dead at my arrival, with not the slightest sign of regrowth. Only a handful of reefs had been spared."
--Thats because of a rapid change in marine climate, your reference does not take into account temperature, as if a coral is adapt to a higher temperature, it will grow at least twice as fast. The seas would have been higher in temperature, roughly 6oC, especially in equitorial regions.

"And all this due to a 1 degree rise in water temperature, owing to El Nino. Although the incident was particularly extreme, incidents like it have certainly taken place in the past, eradicating polyps and destroying underwater ecosystems.
But read the article, and it will go into more of the technicals. "
--The article seems to be missing some fundemental points, one is adapted temperature as sited above. Also, a converse in the effects of storms, as abundances of corals (as there sertainly was in the Hawaiian region) in storms will be destroyed, but they also will pile in an area and grow on another coral, this is not a negative effect.
--Also, a significant factor is that increasing the available quantity of carbonates to build coral will drastically increase the rate of your coral growth. Eniwetok Atoll lies on an extinct volcano, lava flows have large amounts of gas cavities that are rich with calcite (a carbonate).

quote:

...For instance, among gneous rocks, granites hold well-shaped crystals, and lava flows may include gas cavities rimmed with gleaming calcite or agate.

The field Guid to Geology; David Lambert- pg. 220

--A good note is that again it is sitting on top of an extinct volcano, the Hawaiian islands are products of a hot spot, and so, there may have been an abundance of hydrothermal vents at the location, giving constant provision of calcites for rapid growth.

"Challenging radioisotopic dating requires dismantling another dating method, geneology, which you so keenly use with the Bible."
--So we agree that dendrochronology requires the validity of C-14?

"The bible gives no absolute dates, and does not even possess a dating method to back it up, yet you rely on it for all arguments."
--It is hardly a reliance for any of my arguments. The bible gives a very clear geneology up untill the time of Christ in which we know was an event at around 0 B.C. from its abundance in non biblical literature.

"On the other hand, geneology is compatible with that lively thing, radioisotopic dating, and fits perfectly with the history of other cultures and the presumed degvelopment of the planet."
--If you have not noticed, as your link you provided me with earlier, this also as is analogous to dendrochronology is infact 'decided' by C-14 dating, so how is it possible that it would not comply.

"If carbon dating is not reliable, it should give wrong results."
--See above, I can't figure how it would give 'wrong' results when C-14 is used to give the dates, not test other dates.

"Let’s say a king rules America for 2 years. An explorer from the future stumbles upon some date on an artifact, as well as the records of such things as terrorist attacks, floods, etc. He dates these records with C14 and determines that these artifacts, records of such incidents, occurred during the reign of this particular king, and he alse dtermines that this reign came in the year 2002. Now he goes and corroborates this with tree-ring dating- he sees the record of the flood in the geneology of this culture, and he wants to see how this stands to the trees. He cuts down a dead tree, measures its age with c14, and finds that there is a gap around the time of this flood.

Now he sees the record of another king after the former one. He goes through the same process, and finds that this king does indeed cmoe before the former, and that there were floods that occurred at the same time that the records say.

I would call that pretty accurate, and it happens all the time in geology. How do you explain this flawless corroboration? Any scientific explanation?"
--The fact is that this is not the way dates are figured, I would strongly urge you to reread (or read, depending on whether you had read it or not) the article you had given me earlier:
http://www.nyu.edu/classes/wright/spring97/chron.htm

"How you would find corroboration appealing is a mystery to me. I also smell some hypocrasy- you are the one claiming that the Biblical figures were capable of living for hundreds of years. Assuming this is true, these kings could have reigned for hundreds of years."
--YEs they could have, and the reason I find the link appealing is that it answers my postulate that such dating of civilizations is entirely based on the validity of another aspect.

"It makes me think why so many dating methods corroborate one another, and do not collapse under the flawed method of C14- you have not made me challenge my beliefs at all."
--As is explained earlier and the link even touches on this issue, is that the dates are given by C-14, so it is dependent on itself, which is a circular reasoning process.

"The dates that ancient cultures have put forward have, strangely, been corroborated with radio carbon and tree-ring dating, not to mention the recordings of natural phenomenas (and if the egyptians got these recordings right, would it not be safe to assume that the rest of their geneology is roughly correct?) Creationists seem keen to ignore all this corroboration."
--I guess I would be the first to praise it. None of them are balanced on itself, but on top of the leaning tower of Carbon 14.

"Absolutely- but the question is why it has so flawlessly corroborated dates and ancient geneology."
--Because it is all balanced on this validity.

"Well, a world-wide flood would leave indisputable marks on this planet. I do not see any of these indications."
--These marks are massive, in some cases orders of magnitude larger than the grand canyon (not to mention the grand canyon itself), canyons on the continental shelf and ofcourse I am quite sure you are aware of glaciers carving our planet and domes of silt in the gulf and the Mediterranean. (there has even been an absolutely massive canyon shown to exist below the thick mediterranean silt.

"Perhaps a dating method that puts the age of the earth at ten thousand years."
--I know of no constants, to give such an age though now that we got into corals, I think thats a good one, not to mention dendrochronology

"Really? You said previously that many cultures had recorded the flood."
--They didn't 'record it', they knew the story of the Flood and when they split over time they refined it to have more meaning to their developed culture.

"I am unaware that a single human being qualified as a fully developed culture. These records, where were they found? To the extent of my knowledge, I know that the cultures would have existed before the flood, and made records immediately after the flood (I have the claim of aboriginal flood legends), all this assuming that they existed before the flood and survived the flood, living in a barren wasteland."
--After the flood, it was Noah and his family, the cultures did not survive the flood.

"It seems that all these theories are getting too messy to handle."
--Theres just one theory, its not too hot to handle.

"I may be a jerk, but I will admit defeat, no matter what.
However, I think I should make a note of something- the dating mentioned above has been corroborated to events, I will admit, before the flood. These events were recorded by the Egyptians, and these recordings were dated by C14- and I think you can fit that altogether.
You’re going to have to challenge the calidity of this dating method, as it walks hand-in-hand with your arch enemy, C14"
--I have the feeling that when I start getting my books to study it, I will turn to adore it, I have a book coming in, 'Radiosotopes and the age of the earth', it is rather lengthy, though it has been delayed a while so I won't be getting it yet, though when I get it I will start arguing radioisotopes on this forum most likely.

"Beautiful- stunning- magnificent. Now we have to leave the debating up to whom- the men and women who understand this stuff much better than you and I and still believe in it?"
--I don't know about the 'and still believe in it' part, but unfortunatelly yes for the former.

"Once again, you are strengthening my point that the more scientifcally informed you are, the more likely you are to be an old earther."
--I think your logic is failing quicksink.

"You say this with an air of certainty- but you do realize that this soso speed would violate the theory of relativity, which quite clearly states that the speed of light is constant."
--And you would also realize that there are two 'theories' of light, and also that light can be warped, slowed, and other properties altered and intensified by gravitational repellant and attractantion, and other properties depending on environment.

"The only people who challenge the speed of light are creationists, like you, who admit that they do not have the experience to argue it."
--No actually I am trying to avoid making you look very insophisticated on this forum.

"Leave it to those who completely agree with a constant speed of light, shall we?
Or perhaps you have evidence of a decaying speed of light that all cosmologists and scientists have missed in their centuries of researach and experimentation?"
--A decaying speed of light is but one theory quicksink, with your confidence I am sure you would know that.

"So what are you saying precisely? Is it that a meteor, predestined to slam into the earth, made it appear on earth that there was an extra-day?"
--There was no 'extra day'.

"Your theory is in direct contradiction of the Bible. As I have reiterated so many times, the Bible tells us that god stopped the sun orbiting the earth, or, if you interpret it differently, the earth orbiting the sun."
--No it is in absolute soundness with scripture, the bible makes no mention whatsoever to an 'orbit', or a 'rotation'.

Joshua 4:

12 On the day the LORD gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the LORD in the presence of Israel: "O sun, stand still over Gibeon, O moon, over the Valley of Aijalon."
13 So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on [2] its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.
--As you can see the writer of the bible was either very lucky on this point, extreamly smart, or inspired by someone. As if he had not pertained to location of the sun it would not have been in the context of appearence.

--Its also nice to note this verse:

Joshua 4:11 And it cometh to pass, in their fleeing from the face of Israel -- they [are] in the descent of Beth-Horon -- and Jehovah hath cast upon them great stones out of the heavens, unto Azekah, and they die; more are they who have died by the hailstones than they whom the sons of Israel have slain by the sword.

"Why would the Bible not say that a brilliant fireball, summoned by Him, allowed the Israelites an extra day to in their battle?"
--See above, it does make mention of what would be seen, meteors (great stones). If they were in the sight vacinity of the impact of the real comet (you an infer it being a coment as other fragments would be expected to fall) they probably would not have been able to live to write down the event.

"Or one could argue that the writers of the Bible, who believed that all heavenly bodies orbitted the earth, created the origins of the “setting sun”, be stating that the sun stood still."
--Again as is depicted from the text, your hypothesis is streching accross the line.

"What exactly does OK mean? If you are following me, which I know you are, you’d see that C14 has corroborated an event recorded by the Egyptians."
--Ok means that either I concur (seldom), I am waiting for your more information out of you as I would be expecting later on in the post, or that it may be irrelevant, or beside the point.
--See higher portions of this post. How can it not be consistant with C-14 when C-14 is the one that gave it the date. Your arguing form an assumed to be valid assertion.

"Uh- What dates the artifacts then? I believe it is C14, but maybe my illiteracy in the scientific field is shining here."
--Mabye it is, you can't date an artifact that has been non-naturally mingled with, as is with virtually any artifact, as it is a split in your initial sample (the tree). And dating any tomb wall is extreamly wrong, as the organic paint (the onlything organic on the wall) has been grealy mingled with and contaminated by the process of becoming paint before it were painted on the walls, not to mention its new form on the tomb wall.

"If I am mistaken, and there is another method of dating, why would it corroborate?"
--Because the dating method is what is giving your date, how is your date not going to comply with the same date?

"Really? Not one record until post-flood? Pretty bold claim. Do you have a reference to that, as I have never seen that asserted, ever."
--Your asking me to prove the non-existant. Thats like me saying to you to prove that dodo birds no longer exist, they are thought to be extinct, but that does not mean they are. You have supplied me with a wealth of information, in which it is all evidence of this claim.

"on the subject of old- All fossils were created during the flood, remember?"
--Applause.

"The other answers which you present, predictably, I cannot address. Yet your answers cannot explain the flawless dating of fossils and/or artifacts."
--Give them another read, you do understand how radioisotopic dating works don't you quicksink..?

"SO everything works in favor of the Old Earth, and they’re all wrong. Not very reasonable."
--Let us not be ignorant, this is a far-cry from what I said. There is no known constant that can be used for such geologic dating methods. The reason being that your 'constant's' always come with an assumption, and that assumption is what mechenism formed it and at what intensity. Uniformitarianism is the assumption used in support for the old earth scenario, catastrophism is in support for the young earth scenario.

"Not “very accurate”, when they’re based on a dating method so faulty that it expands the date of fossils and rocks by billions of times? If you ask me, tree-ring daing should be thrown out altogether."
--Mabye you don't understand how dendrochronology is done, please, I would urge you to please again read the quote I gave:

quote:

Claimed older tree ring chronologies are dependent on the cross-matching of tree ring patterns of pieces of dead wood found near living trees. This procedure depends on temporal placement of fragments of wood using carbon14 dating, assuming straight-line extrapolation backwards of the carbon dating. Having placed the fragment of wood approximately using the 14C data, a matching tree-ring pattern is sought with wood that has a part with overlapping 14C age and that also extends to a younger age. A tree ring pattern that matches is found close to where the carbon ‘dates’ are the same. And so the tree-ring sequence is extended from the living trees backwards.

"If only they could have the privilege of meeting you."
--That would be amusing

"Well I’m glad that you now understand that carbon dating corroborates to other methods."
--Thats because carbon ratio's are what is used to callibrate the other dating methods, oh silly boy

"At first glance, yes. But once I went back and did the reasearch, I found that there’s a truth for every flaw"
--I quote myself:

quote:

What is it that must be shown to you that would change your views on Creationism.

--I sertainly there is nothing that can be shown, otherwize mabye I do have the ability to shout conspiracy conspiracy!

"I have enjoyed is so far."
--Likewize.

------------------


[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 03-19-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by quicksink, posted 03-15-2002 1:56 AM quicksink has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by gene90, posted 03-21-2002 9:23 AM TrueCreation has responded

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 1652 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 103 of 113 (7481)
03-21-2002 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by TrueCreation
03-19-2002 8:11 PM


[QUOTE][b]The non-existance of transitionals has leaded evolutionists to resort to punctuated equillibria.[/QUOTE]

[/b]

We need a consensus on what a transitional is, and how to determine if a fossil was probably a transitional. Maybe you could invent some fictional transitionals and we'll talk about whether we should expect such animals to have existed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by TrueCreation, posted 03-19-2002 8:11 PM TrueCreation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by TrueCreation, posted 03-21-2002 11:46 AM gene90 has not yet responded

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 113 (7494)
03-21-2002 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by gene90
03-21-2002 9:23 AM


"We need a consensus on what a transitional is, and how to determine if a fossil was probably a transitional. Maybe you could invent some fictional transitionals and we'll talk about whether we should expect such animals to have existed."
--The reason that there is a dilemma within the search for 'transitionals', is because there is a suddenness in these transitions. For instance (for the sake of example) according to a theory of common descent for a specific species, your road through geologic time has sudden spurts, you have one type, and it exists for a vast period of time. And then all of a soden (though the time-scale would give it a good couple thousand years for the process) it 'evolves' into something simmilar though apparently different. This is where punctuated equillibria comes in, and where Darwin got it wrong, assuming it was a gradual process (which, if not relying on the fossil record, is much more plausable). So if I am not mistaken, your looking for this smooth transition, and not this rather blocky separation of fossils.

------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by gene90, posted 03-21-2002 9:23 AM gene90 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by joz, posted 03-21-2002 12:12 PM TrueCreation has responded
 Message 107 by joz, posted 03-21-2002 4:15 PM TrueCreation has responded

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 113 (7497)
03-21-2002 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by TrueCreation
03-21-2002 11:46 AM


Um TC you seem to misunderstand Punk Eeek, Punk Eeek IS gradual evolution in an isolated (geographically and genetically) population...

The reason that we see sudden transitions is that once the isolated population overcomes its confinement it has evolved to be different from the parent population hence we see the arrival of a new species...

Oh and for the record it was Darwin that first proposed some sort of Punk Eeek.....

"Charles Darwin wrote in 1859:

Only a small portion of the world has been geologically explored. Only organic beings of certain classes can be preserved in a fossil condition, at least in any great number. Widely ranging species vary most, and varieties are often at first local, -- both causes rendering the discovery of intermediate links less likely. Local varieties will not spread into other and distant regions until they are considerably modified and improved; and when they do spread, if discovered in a geological formation, they will appear as if suddenly created there, and will be simply classed as new species.
The Origin of Species, Chapter 14, p.439"

[This message has been edited by joz, 03-21-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by TrueCreation, posted 03-21-2002 11:46 AM TrueCreation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by TrueCreation, posted 03-21-2002 3:56 PM joz has not yet responded

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 106 of 113 (7512)
03-21-2002 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by joz
03-21-2002 12:12 PM


"Um TC you seem to misunderstand Punk Eeek, Punk Eeek IS gradual evolution in an isolated (geographically and genetically) population...
The reason that we see sudden transitions is that once the isolated population overcomes its confinement it has evolved to be different from the parent population hence we see the arrival of a new species...

Oh and for the record it was Darwin that first proposed some sort of Punk Eeek.....

"Charles Darwin wrote in 1859:

Only a small portion of the world has been geologically explored. Only organic beings of certain classes can be preserved in a fossil condition, at least in any great number. Widely ranging species vary most, and varieties are often at first local, -- both causes rendering the discovery of intermediate links less likely. Local varieties will not spread into other and distant regions until they are considerably modified and improved; and when they do spread, if discovered in a geological formation, they will appear as if suddenly created there, and will be simply classed as new species.
The Origin of Species, Chapter 14, p.439"
--I don't believe I had the misunderstanding on Punctuated equillibrium, though about Darwin, I was mistaken, it was a recall from a Discovery video on Evolution.

-------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by joz, posted 03-21-2002 12:12 PM joz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by allen, posted 08-12-2002 12:20 PM TrueCreation has not yet responded

  
Prev123456
7
8Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018