Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Flood Geology: A Thread For Portillo
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2659 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 451 of 503 (687659)
01-15-2013 7:12 AM
Reply to: Message 427 by PaulK
11-21-2012 4:18 AM


PaulK, as I said in the post above we do not know which animals were unclean before the flood, we do know which were unclean >1000 years later. The rules changed at the flood, then changed at the introduction of the law, and then changed again at the crucifixion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 427 by PaulK, posted 11-21-2012 4:18 AM PaulK has not replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2659 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 452 of 503 (687660)
01-15-2013 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 430 by Percy
11-21-2012 10:20 AM


Re: dating accuracy issues
Percy, the Acatlan complex was re-dated. They revised their opinions on how and when the Acatlan complex was formed.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2006/11/061117123212.htm
Age data, newly unearthed fossils and chemical analysis of the rocks show that the complex is much younger than previously thought. It records a pivotal part of the Appalachian story not preserved elsewhere.
(ps please help with quotes again)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 430 by Percy, posted 11-21-2012 10:20 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 454 by NoNukes, posted 01-15-2013 7:51 AM mindspawn has replied
 Message 459 by Percy, posted 01-15-2013 9:10 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2659 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 453 of 503 (687661)
01-15-2013 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 447 by Granny Magda
11-22-2012 1:40 PM


Re: Bones and the flood
Granny Magda, I like the concept of parsimony. This is why I get very frustrated when talking to evolutionists because of the apparent inability to think outside the "box" of evolution and look at what the facts actually say. Layering of fossils is the most logical reflection of a series of proliferations (population explosions) according to changing conditions. This is the observable process, more so than evolution. Thus when you have a change from a cool anoxic ocean to a warm anoxic ocean, you would have a change from cool anoxic ocean creatures to warm anoxic marine fauna. Then with a gradual change cooling to more oxygenated conditions you would have gradual changes to marine fauna reaching today's levels.
Regarding specifically the whales, I was incorrect to term them warm water, the logic is that they would have been in a cool water oxygenated inland sea, spreading to arctic regions during the flood. They would not have survived the warm water anoxic conditions of the Triassic and so would not be found fossilised there. Their later appearance would be associated with their movement away from arctic regions as oceans oxygenised and cooled over time. (not that they need the oxygen, but they feed on fish and plankton which need oxygen)
Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.
Edited by mindspawn, : Explaining whales

This message is a reply to:
 Message 447 by Granny Magda, posted 11-22-2012 1:40 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 458 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-15-2013 8:59 AM mindspawn has not replied
 Message 461 by Granny Magda, posted 01-15-2013 1:25 PM mindspawn has replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2659 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 455 of 503 (687663)
01-15-2013 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 454 by NoNukes
01-15-2013 7:51 AM


Re: dating accuracy issues
They seem to have found new fossils that validate the later dates. The new fossils, and the new origins (Appalachian origins) invalidates the earlier dates for those mountains.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 454 by NoNukes, posted 01-15-2013 7:51 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 457 by NoNukes, posted 01-15-2013 8:55 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2659 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 463 of 503 (687740)
01-16-2013 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 456 by Dr Adequate
01-15-2013 8:53 AM


Re: Bones and the flood
Dr Adequate, this is not obvious. It should be, but in practice the assumption of the truth of the phylogenetic tree is used as proof of the phylogentic tree. So far this is the only argument put forward for dating those particular fossils, and so the whole argument is falling short through lack of evidence presented. I do not doubt the possibility there is evidence, I would just like to see it before assuming the statements presented are facts, fair enough?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 456 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-15-2013 8:53 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2659 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 464 of 503 (687741)
01-16-2013 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 461 by Granny Magda
01-15-2013 1:25 PM


Re: Bones and the flood
quote:
Except that during the Triassic, the poles were quite temperate. The "anoxic" conditions you keep talking about are entirely your own invention. The average temperature during that period was only three degrees Celcius higher than today; nowhere near hot enough to make the oceans anoxic, nor to preclude whales. .
It is well known that Triassic oceans were anoxic.
eonsepochsetc.com has expired
quote:
Sediment deposition from the Early Triassic tells us that marine conditions were grim at best. Black shales are frequent in the Early Triassic rock strata indicating that both shallow and deep water regions were either completely devoid of oxygen (anoxic) or the oxygen levels were critically low (dysoxic). It is fairly clear that the anoxic conditions in the shallow coastal areas were caused by the severe global warming at the Permo-Triassic boundary since water’s ability to hold oxygen molecules in solution declines as temperatures rise; therefore, the warmer the temperatures, the less oxygen there is available to sustain life. This is true today: cool and vibrant streams when exposed to long-term sunlight and heat become empty of life.
quote:
Back in the real world, whales emerged in the Eocene and that epoch was, at times, even warmer than the Triassic. Whales survive just fine in tropical conditions
That's true whales do survivein the tropics, but they need fish or plankton to eat, and fish and plankton are not found in the anoxic conditions of the Triassic. Whales would therefore be confined to oxygenated waters, most likely found in arctic conditions.
Edited by Admin, : Fix quotes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 461 by Granny Magda, posted 01-15-2013 1:25 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 465 by Admin, posted 01-16-2013 9:39 AM mindspawn has not replied
 Message 466 by Granny Magda, posted 01-16-2013 10:49 AM mindspawn has replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2659 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 468 of 503 (687769)
01-16-2013 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 466 by Granny Magda
01-16-2013 10:49 AM


Re: Bones and the flood
But they're not confined to Arctic conditions!
I did not say they were confined to arctic conditions. I said confined to oxygenated regions (most likely arctic).
Utter crap. You need to stop making shit up.
Here is a Triassic fish;
If you want to misunderstand my posts , go for it.
I said fish are not found in the anoxic conditions of the triassic, this is because they are found in the oxygenated regions. I was not saying fish did not exist, that would contradict my whole point about fish actually existing, and whales existing. Fish are not found in anoxic conditions, and anoxic conditions were widespread in the Triassic. They are found in the oxygenated regions. Fish do not survive in anoxic conditions.period.
Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.
Edited by mindspawn, : Adding a point
Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 466 by Granny Magda, posted 01-16-2013 10:49 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 474 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-16-2013 2:57 PM mindspawn has not replied
 Message 477 by Granny Magda, posted 01-16-2013 5:18 PM mindspawn has replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2659 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 470 of 503 (687775)
01-16-2013 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 462 by Percy
01-15-2013 7:42 PM


Re: dating accuracy issues
I wasn't actually claiming any errors in radiometric dating. I was merely noting that a mountain range previously thought to have been formed with has subsequently been found to have been formed with the Appalachians. Scientists make mistakes, that's part of the learning process of science. I was not expecting anyone to make a big issue out of a simple point, that the mountain range of the Acatlan Complex has been re-dated.
The collision created the mountain range:
Evidence collected by Nance and his colleagues from rocks in the Acatln Complex shows that its collision with Laurussia actually occurred about 120 million years later.
I don't see what I'm misunderstanding

This message is a reply to:
 Message 462 by Percy, posted 01-15-2013 7:42 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 472 by NoNukes, posted 01-16-2013 2:03 PM mindspawn has not replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2659 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 475 of 503 (687793)
01-16-2013 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 431 by FliesOnly
11-21-2012 11:11 AM


Not to pile on, you have a lot to deal with already...but are you suggesting the Noah went around a collect genetically diverse organisms for the Ark? Or did he simply pick and choose from the hundreds of each species that showed up...obviously selecting those that were genetically "unique" from each other (i.e. different alleles)? How did he manage to do that, you suppose? What about alleles whose effects were hidden from Noah cuz, well...cuz they were "inside" the organism? What about recessive alleles? Pleiotropy? Co-dominance? Incomplete dominance? The list goes on.
If two animals can breed well, and yet come from vastly different regions, this increases the chances of a wider set of alleles. To Noah, it would just be getting variety into the breeding stock, its possible he did so, rather than taking 14 animals from one population. I'm not saying he understood genetics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 431 by FliesOnly, posted 11-21-2012 11:11 AM FliesOnly has not replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2659 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 478 of 503 (687834)
01-17-2013 2:22 AM
Reply to: Message 477 by Granny Magda
01-16-2013 5:18 PM


Re: Bones and the flood
Stop making excuses. You know perfectly well why we don't find these mythical Triassic whales. It's the same reason we don't find any Permian whales or Jurassic whales; there were no whales! They did not evolve until about two-hundred million years after your P-T Flood. All you are doing by offering up this sorry string of excuses is uncovering more mistakes and more holes in your absurd Flood theory.
Whales just recently appeared. You lack transitionary fossils, I lack fossils of their previous existence, scientists agree that the fossil record does not show evidence of the transitionary fossils that indicate the evolution of the various types of whales.
Applying Occam's razor and assuming their sudden appearance is due to the disappearance of their reptile competitors when oceans got colder after the Mesozoic, why would "rapid evolving" beat "always there in secluded environments" when neither of us has the fossils to prove our position? I believe the expansion out of secluded environments after the Mesozoic (cold waters where their dominant reptile competitors could not survive) and the lack of fossil research below arctic waters is a common sense explanation for a lack of early whale fossils, what is your explanation for your lack of transitionary fossils for most if not all whale species, and their relatively sudden appearance?
Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.
Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 477 by Granny Magda, posted 01-16-2013 5:18 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 480 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-17-2013 5:58 AM mindspawn has replied
 Message 491 by Granny Magda, posted 01-18-2013 11:37 AM mindspawn has replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2659 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 479 of 503 (687835)
01-17-2013 2:49 AM
Reply to: Message 471 by NoNukes
01-16-2013 1:57 PM


Re: dating accuracy issues
In many contexts, pointing out to someone that if they are right, all of science is wrong is a useful technique for stimulating introspection. I just don't think that this is one of those contexts.
No, its not one of those contexts. Its not that all of science is wrong, its just that a few categories of science are based on
1) radiometric dating (does have scientific backing, but too many assumptions and also a head in the sand approach)
2) evolution (circular reasoning)
Remove these two assumptions and apply deductive reasoning to the fossil record in an unbiased manner and we get a whole new picture.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 471 by NoNukes, posted 01-16-2013 1:57 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 481 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-17-2013 5:58 AM mindspawn has not replied
 Message 486 by NoNukes, posted 01-17-2013 12:55 PM mindspawn has replied
 Message 487 by RAZD, posted 01-17-2013 2:26 PM mindspawn has replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2659 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 482 of 503 (687842)
01-17-2013 6:11 AM
Reply to: Message 480 by Dr Adequate
01-17-2013 5:58 AM


Re: Bones and the flood
This is, of course, not true.
You may kindly present your evidence for transitionary types of a few species of whale.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 480 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-17-2013 5:58 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 483 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-17-2013 6:25 AM mindspawn has replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2659 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 484 of 503 (687846)
01-17-2013 6:46 AM
Reply to: Message 483 by Dr Adequate
01-17-2013 6:25 AM


Re: Bones and the flood
Now, your turn. Show us evidence for that isolated sea in which all the whales were hiding until the Eocene. Oh, right, you can't, 'cos that's imaginary
C'mon you can do better than that. What are those? Are they mammals, have you got names and links for me to look into this a bit more. Seriously I would like to get into this because the information I had researched said the following:
9.8: On the evolution of whales
"The accepted account of the evolution of whales is poorly documented in terms of fossils. Relatively few marine fossils of any kind are known from the Paleocene, the first epoch of the Cenozoic Era, the so-called Age of Mammals. It isn't surprising, then, that no fossils of whales or whale-like animals are known from the Paleocene. The earliest fossil forms normally classified as whales date from the ensuing epoch, the Eocene (~54—34 mya).1 "
This seems to be the standard view, that each of the current species of whales is lacking in transitionary fossils that reflect the development of that species' uniqueness. (ie a lack of transitional fossils for each modern species)
Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 483 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-17-2013 6:25 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 485 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-17-2013 6:59 AM mindspawn has replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2659 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 488 of 503 (687968)
01-18-2013 6:36 AM
Reply to: Message 486 by NoNukes
01-17-2013 12:55 PM


Re: dating accuracy issues
Sorry about the "hubris", in my defense I do sometimes apologise for making mistakes and also show appreciation for good points, which I do feel is also lacking from other members.
Also regarding lack of knowledge , I feel I have done adequately considering I'm debating with various experts in many fields, and there is just me. Who on earth would be able to be an expert in most scientific fields at once, yet this is expected of me in this thread and I have taken on the various experts and I feel I haven't done too badly considering. I am sure you will disagree , no problem

This message is a reply to:
 Message 486 by NoNukes, posted 01-17-2013 12:55 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2659 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 489 of 503 (687969)
01-18-2013 6:44 AM
Reply to: Message 487 by RAZD
01-17-2013 2:26 PM


Re: dating accuracy issues -- challenged
Curiously, we do not need to use radiometric dating to know that the earth is very old -- much older than any "young earth" concept.
Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1
Not one young earth creationist has explained these correlation in the nine years since it was posted here.
I have deliberately avoided this topic in this thread because of all the side issues it creates, and there have already been too many side issues. But as a general rule, the claims of annual events are not as concrete as claimed. eg you have bi-annual tree rings, you have tidal (daily) sedimentary deposits that can be mistaken as annual, the techniques for overlapping tree ring data are not 100% reliable, ice forms layers with precipitation, not necessarily annual, there could be two or more precipitation seasons etc etc.
What I am saying is that I believe only radiometric dating gives a strong case for old layers, the other logic is negligible in comparison.
PS I am not a YEC, I believe Genesis 1 starts with an earth already in existence, and then we have 6 days of events from the visible perspective from the misty surface of the earth. So I do believe in 6 literal days of creation, but this involves increased visibility in a misty world, and the creation of biological life-forms within the 6 days , occurring less than 7000 years ago.
Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.
Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 487 by RAZD, posted 01-17-2013 2:26 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 490 by Theodoric, posted 01-18-2013 9:21 AM mindspawn has replied
 Message 492 by RAZD, posted 01-18-2013 12:58 PM mindspawn has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024