Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Soracilla defends the Flood? (mostly a "Joggins Polystrate Fossils" discussion)
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 1 of 190 (80827)
01-26-2004 10:09 AM


This thread is an ofshoot of the "What is the basis for a Creationist argument against Evolution?" thread. In http://EvC Forum: What is the basis for a Creationist argument against Evolution? -->EvC Forum: What is the basis for a Creationist argument against Evolution? I challenged Soracilla to rebut " The idea of a global flood creating any significant portion of the geologic features of the Earth was abandoned by creationist geologists well before Darwin, because it could not be reconciled with the evidence. Many of them went so far as to assert that no global flood happened."
He has not directly addressed thast thesis, but he has made some claims about a global flood, and this seems like the appropriate forum.
Repeating some links:
Problems with a Global Flood (Second Edition): Producing the Geological Record
Why Geology Shows Sedimentation to Be too Slow for a Global Flood
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/...lystrate/polystrate_trees.html
From http://EvC Forum: What is the basis for a Creationist argument against Evolution? -->EvC Forum: What is the basis for a Creationist argument against Evolution? by Soracilla:
quote:
Yes, it's {polystrate trees - JRF} a common attempted rebuttal , but it's sadly lacking. Fossils of any kind passing through strata are pretty rare, and those that have been found do not pass thorugh layers of strata that conventional geology claims deposited at separate times or over long perods of time.
Actually, they are relatively common, even according to evolutionist sources. (See this link, second section.) For a Creationist viewpoint, see this link, and tell me what you think.
"Are you actually claiming that such a flood would leave no traces? No sediment layer? No great channels carved across the landscape?"...
No, I wasn't saying that. I was saying that such a catastrophic event could do who knows what to the earth, and to its strata and so forth. Perhaps, though, I speak out of mere ignorance, and I do apologize if that is so.
So, on to my reply:
Actually, they are relatively common, even according to evolutionist sources. (See this link, second section.)
Well, without numbers one man's "common" is another man's "rare". Since I haven't seen evidence of such things in numbers that are at all comparable to, for example, the number of fossil hominid skeletons, I'll stick with rare. But it's not a major point.
For a Creationist viewpoint, see this link, and tell me what you think
The fact that it starts with a common creationist lie isn't promising:
quote:
Sir Charles Lyell, friend and colleague of Charles Darwin, and principal architect of the principle of geologic uniformity, published his classic book, Principles of Geology, in 1830. In it he proposed that slow and gradual processes, operating on a local scale much as are seen today, had sculptured the earth's surface over vast eons of time. He denied the role of major geologic events, most especially the global Flood of Noah's day, insisting that "the present is the key to the past."
Lyell indeed said "the present is the key to the past" but, since we see catastrophes today and in recorded history, he did not deny the role of catastrophes or "major geologic events". He denied the Flood of Noah for the reasons I've already expounded. This mis-characterizatiopniof uniformitarianism is technically known as a "strawman" and is unfortunately common in creationist screeds.
And, reading on, it is pretty terrible "science". The claim is that "the trees have been moved to this location, washed in during a time of extensive and massive sedimentation". Yet no attempt is made to answer the first and most obvious question: "Why are most of them upright with their roots embedded in the same material?" (see THE FOSSIL CLIFFS OF JOGGINS, heading "Upright Fossil Tree Stumps", and note that your reference says "Some of the fossilized trees are inclined, not directly in vertical growth positions. A few are found upside down." {emphasis added - JRF}). The obvious suspicion is that Dr. Morris cannot answer that question and hopes that you don't notice.
(Apropos of this, that sort of thing is one reason why peer review is so important, and why most of the scientifi community ignores creationists as long as they publish only in their vanity press house organs, reviewed only for compliance with dogma).
And on and on. We get into the reasons for rejecting the uniformitarian hypohteses, and they're just terrible. Picking a few:
"None of the tree root systems are complete; all have been truncated." (your reference) is in direct contradiction to "Short stumps usually have well preserved root systems (Stigmaria) because they were filled in before the weight of accumulating sediment was sufficient to crush them. Tall stumps on the other hand have root systems which are difficult to see because they caved in under the weight of the overlying sediment long before it had accumulated enough to spill over the rim of the trunk and thereby enter the roots (Ferguson, 1988b)" (my reference). Given the quality of scholarship already demonstrated in your reference,and the fact that my reference has examined the site personally, I tend to beleive my reference (although I'd listen to further argument).
"A dead, hollow, and submerged stump could not persist for the long period of time necessitated for a second forest to grow and collect as peat." Why the h**l not, given the fact that they have survived to the present day?
"Segments of roots are often found inside the once-hollow trunks, while other fossil roots are normally detached and buried in the surrounding soil. This seems to be a very unlikely scenario for any growth in situ hypothesis." Say what? Why is it unlikely for any growth in situ hypothesis? Roots inside a hollow stump are evidence that something grew inside that hollow stump; that has absolutely nothing to do with the growth in situ hypothesis.
"The marine tubeworm, Spirorbis, frequently found in fossilized association with the fossil trees, implies that all were exposed to seawater." Well, duh but so what? Above he said "Two schools of thought exist within uniformitarian geologists, who variously interpret these beds as: (1) a flood plain in which a river occasionally overflowed its banks, burying the surrounding marsh in mud; and as (2) a coastal plain occasionally inundated by rising oceans." Marine tubeworms are certainly compatible with the second hypothesis and might be compatible with the first.
'Leaves seldom remain on a forest or swamp floor for long periods without decay, yet well preserved fossil leaves are abundant, thus indicating rapid burial." Ok, so freakin' what? The uniformitarian hypotheses he listed allow, in fact demand, rapid burial. Leaves seem to indicate to me that trees grew there, a point against the article's hypothesis.
I'm sick of this, the remainder is left as an exercise for the student. As far as I can see, it boils down to nothing at all.
No, I wasn't saying that. I was saying that such a catastrophic event could do who knows what to the earth, and to its strata and so forth. Perhaps, though, I speak out of mere ignorance, and I do apologize if that is so.
OK, then since you are claiming there was a flood, what geologic evidence do you propose for such a flood? Heck, I won't restrict you to geology, what non-Biblical evidence do you propose?
I suggest that you read my previously posted links before replying, and be prepared to defend your position. It's really boring to rebut the same old tired arguments over and over again.
{Topic title modified on 3/10/05. I added the "(mostly a "Joggins Polystrate Fossils" discussion)" part. - Adminnemooseus}
This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-10-2005 13:33 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Soracilla, posted 01-26-2004 10:25 PM JonF has not replied
 Message 7 by Bill Birkeland, posted 02-01-2004 10:25 AM JonF has replied
 Message 10 by Soracilla, posted 02-06-2004 5:27 PM JonF has replied
 Message 13 by RandyB, posted 10-22-2004 12:14 PM JonF has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 9 of 190 (81972)
02-01-2004 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Bill Birkeland
02-01-2004 10:25 AM


Re: Morris's Impact Article No. 316 On Joggins Polystrate Fossils
Thank you very much. A much more complete, professional, and scholarly discussion than my brief and amateur analysis.
I would love to see this in the T.O. archive ... will you give your permission?
[This message has been edited by JonF, 02-01-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Bill Birkeland, posted 02-01-2004 10:25 AM Bill Birkeland has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 11 of 190 (84044)
02-06-2004 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Soracilla
02-06-2004 5:27 PM


the polystrate tree rebuttals were mostly composed of saying that Evolutionists in our current age do not believe in uniformitarianism.
Actually, most of us do believe in uniformitarianism; but we do not believe in the straw-man caricature of uniformitarianism that creationsist attack.
But the polystrate tree rebuttals cannot realistically be said to consist of "saying that Evolutionists in our current age do not believe in uniformitarianism". They consisted of detailed analyses of the observed evidecne and how that evidence came to be as it is, pointing out how superficial and error-riddled the creationist "analyses" were, and examples of such things forming today over relatively brief perios of time.
But one thing bothers me: if such a quick movement of the land happened and the tree was fossilized in that, it still does not account for the different layers the tree goes through. For if the layers are divided because they are marks of millions of years before, why would a fossilized tree be polystrate if it fossilized in the same layer of earth that covered it?
Because those particular layers are not "divided because they are marks of millions of years before". Polystrate trees are found only where there is evidence of relatively fast deposition separated by tens or hundreds, perhaps sometimes thousands, of years.
the trees go through layers that represent millions of years
No, they don't. Read the references already provided.
Also I'd like to say that I was never trying to prove that the Flood happened by appealing to polystrate trees, just that they show that the layers cannot represent ages millions of years long.
OK, polystrate trees don't prove that the flood happened, and the layers they penetrate don't represent millions of years. We agree.
What does prove that the flood happened.?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Soracilla, posted 02-06-2004 5:27 PM Soracilla has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 106 of 190 (191283)
03-13-2005 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by RandyB
03-13-2005 3:13 AM


Re: Polystrate Fossils of Joggins
Lordy me, you actually believe that's evidence for a young Earth? And that's your lead link? Nothing but long-debunked claims like moon recession, oil pressure, and sun shrinkage; interspersed with items that have no connection ot the age of the Earth like the San Andreas Fault, Naigara Falls, and minerals in the oceans? And the old population growth chestnut, fer Chrissake!
I thought you were actually trying to practice science. Obviously I was wrong. You need to spend some time reading An Index to Creationist Claims and kent-hovind.com -.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by RandyB, posted 03-13-2005 3:13 AM RandyB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by RandyB, posted 03-14-2005 7:15 PM JonF has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 121 of 190 (191880)
03-16-2005 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by NosyNed
03-16-2005 12:26 AM


Re: Old earth based on Coal - does it matter?
How could this rough estimate technique possibly be "central" to the debate more than half a century after it was completly obsoleted?
Understatement. It's exactly a century since Ernest Rutherford realized that radioactivity could be used to date rocks. From "The Age of the Earth", G. Brent Dalrymple, Stanford University Press, 1991, pg. 71:
quote:
In March of 1905 Ernest Rutherford, then the Macdonald Professor of Physics at McGill University, delivered the Silliman Lectures at Yale University. In them, he (1906: 18792) offered the possibility of using radioactivity as a geological timekeeper:
The helium observed in the radioactive minerals is almost certainly due to its production from the radium and other radioactive substances contained therein. If the rate of production of helium from known weights of the different radioelements were experimentally known, it should thus be possible to determine the interval required for the production of the amount of helium observed in radioactive minerals, or, in other words, to determine the age of the mineral (Rutherford, 1906: 187-88).

Rutherford offered two examples of the proposed radioactive method of calculating ages. The first was a sample of the mineral fergusonite, an oxide of the elements yttrium and niobium that contains 7% U and 1.81 cm3 of He per gram of the mineral. From a production rate of 5.2 x 10-8 cm3 of He per year for each gram of U and its associated Ra, the age of the mineral was
1.81/(0.07 * 5.2 * 10-8) = 497 Ma
This age, cautioned Rutherford, was a minimum, for some of the He had probably escaped. A calculation for a second mineral, a uraninite from Glastonbury, Connecticut, also yielded a minimum UHe age of about 500 Ma.
--------------------
Rutherford, E., 1906. Radioactive Transformations, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
{fixed typo}
This message has been edited by JonF, 03-16-2005 08:15 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by NosyNed, posted 03-16-2005 12:26 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by RandyB, posted 03-19-2005 6:45 AM JonF has replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 126 of 190 (192453)
03-19-2005 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by RandyB
03-19-2005 6:33 AM


Re: Austin
Also, it is a FACT that there is NO WAY that life could (somehow -- other than in the minds of men and Fairy tales) spontaneously assemble itself and cause itself come alive -- at least not in the world of empirical (i.e. observed) science
This is getting way off topic.
Your "fact" is no such thing; it's just an expressionmof your incredulity.
Therefore, Darwins most basic foundation -- that there is No Creator involved with the Creation -- is a Lie.
The TOE is not founded on any such thing. The TOE works even if there were a creator involved in the creation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by RandyB, posted 03-19-2005 6:33 AM RandyB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by RandyB, posted 03-19-2005 10:26 PM JonF has replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 127 of 190 (192462)
03-19-2005 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by RandyB
03-19-2005 6:45 AM


Re: Old earth based on Coal - does it matter?
But for more on how the (highly speculative age of the) Earth came to be 4.5 "Billion" years: See http://www.unmaskingevolution.com/6-earthage.htm
This belongs in "dates and dating".
The criticism of the Pb-Pb isochron is lying by omission, e.g. by omitting Murthy & Patterson, "Primary isochron of zero age for meteorites and the Earth", J. Geophys. Res., v67 pp 1161-67, which expands on the analysis critized in your reference and answers many of the criticisms. See "The Age of the Earth", G. Brent Dalrymple, Stanford University Press, 1991.
The criticism of the 4.3 billion year old zircons betrays a severe misunderstanding of concordia-discordia methods. It also lies by ommission, omitting mention of Wilde, S.A, Valley J.W., Peck, W.H., Graham, C.M, 2001, Evidence from detrital zircons for the existence of continental crust and oceans on the Earth 4.4 Gyr ago, Nature 2001 Jan 11; 409:175-8, available online at Evidence from detrital zircons for the existence of continental crust and oceans on the Earth 4.4 Gyr ago; Peck, W.H., Valley, J.W., Wilde, S.A, Graham, C.M., 2001, Oxygen isotope ratios and rare earth elements in 3.3 to 4.4 Ga zircons: Ion microprobe evidence for high δ18O continental crust and oceans in the Early Archean, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 65: 22: 4215-4229, available online at Oxygen isotope ratios and rare earth elements in 3.3 to 4.4 Ga zircons: Ion microprobe evidence for high δ18O continental crust and oceans in the Early Archean; and Bowring, S A. & Williams, I. S., 1999. Priscoan (4.00-4.03 Ga) orthogneisses from northwestern Canada, Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. v134 #1 pp 3-16 (not avaialble onlinbe, but here's one of their Tera-Wasserburg diagrams):

{Image rescaled to "100%" to restore page width to normal. - Adminnemooseus}
Full Scale Version
The section on diamonds is just crap. Of course they would have accepted the result if it had fitted with the thousands of other results, and of course they questioned and reinvestigated the result when it didn't fit with the thosands of other results. That's how science works. And nobody has shown K-Ar dating to be completely eroneous; some have demonstrated occasional errors, and many have demonstrated that such errors are rare. See Radiometeric Dating Does Work!; the results of studying historic lava flows to which he refers are available at Radiometric Dating. And, of course, the claim that "The majority of [other] authors simply said that they used a particular isotope dating method and reported their final results. All the data 'massaging' is hidden. And the world is no wiser" is a lie of commission; it's common to publish the raw data and raw data is just about always available on request. See, e.g. the papers on Jack Hills zircons linked to above.
{As noted in message 129, this message is very off-topic here - Adminnemooseus}
This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-19-2005 01:16 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by RandyB, posted 03-19-2005 6:45 AM RandyB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by AdminNosy, posted 03-19-2005 9:54 AM JonF has not replied
 Message 133 by RandyB, posted 03-19-2005 10:29 PM JonF has replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 137 of 190 (192757)
03-20-2005 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by RandyB
03-19-2005 10:26 PM


Re: Austin
Jon Said: The TOE (i.e. Theory of Evolution) is not founded on any such thing. The TOE works even if there were a creator involved in the creation.
Randy: That is not the way it is taught in public Schools.
Reference to a lesson plan or textbook, please?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by RandyB, posted 03-19-2005 10:26 PM RandyB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by RandyB, posted 03-20-2005 2:01 PM JonF has replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 138 of 190 (192759)
03-20-2005 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by RandyB
03-19-2005 10:29 PM


Re: Old earth based on Coal - does it matter?
Here is why I think Radiometric Dating is highly questionable -- if not a total fabrication that is riddled with error.
Earth Age – The Truth About Earth's Age
What happened to your first reference?
Of course, your second reference is just as erroneous.
As Edge wrote, put up or shut up. Discuss this at Message 123, start a new thread to discuss it, or stop making your ridiculous claims.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by RandyB, posted 03-19-2005 10:29 PM RandyB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by RandyB, posted 03-20-2005 2:11 PM JonF has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 144 of 190 (192830)
03-20-2005 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by RandyB
03-20-2005 2:01 PM


Re: Austin
But since I don't have a reference on this, Why don't you provide a reference that says I am lying.
That's not the way it works. You either support your claims, or your claims are worthless and meaningless. Since you admit you have no reference, it immediately follows that you voiced an opinion and claimed it as a fact. OK, you can hold that opinion, but it you want others to believe you, you'll hve to come up with more than you have.
I don't know if you're lying; you might just be wrong. As evinced by your links to so-called "proofs", you are very gullible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by RandyB, posted 03-20-2005 2:01 PM RandyB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by RandyB, posted 03-20-2005 10:17 PM JonF has replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 151 of 190 (193000)
03-21-2005 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by NosyNed
03-21-2005 12:48 AM


Re: Old earth based on Coal - reference
Since you have already translated it could you just quote the relevant passages. Then you can explain why this reference is about a century after the debate got going.
Actually, more like 1.5-2 centuries, and about 75 years after the fact that the Earth was incredibly old (compared to human history) was established. I mean, as I quoted in another thread, Rutherford demonstrated a minimum age of about 500 million years in 1906!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by NosyNed, posted 03-21-2005 12:48 AM NosyNed has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 152 of 190 (193004)
03-21-2005 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by RandyB
03-20-2005 10:17 PM


Way OT: foundations of the TOE
It is a fact that many (if not most) science textbooks today state that they either have "no proof" of a Creator, or that most scientists today believe, or accept that we "evolved" from lower life-forms -- and that they further believe that we somehow began from one-celled organisms -- that somehow began from chemicals, or bubbles, or an asteroid impact, or a comet impact, or from space aliens -- anything but God.
Well, that's an overstatement, but not far from true; the US Constitution and the Supreme Court have established that religious explanations do not belong in science classes. We do have no scientific proof of a creator, many (and probably most) scientists today do believe that we evolved from simple replicators formed by naturalistic means, and teaching otherwise would be lying. But it also has nothing to do with your orginal statement for which I requested a reference. Your original statement was:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Therefore, Darwins most basic foundation -- that there is No Creator involved with the Creation -- is a Lie.
Jon Said: The TOE (i.e. Theory of Evolution) is not founded on any such thing. The TOE works even if there were a creator involved in the creation.
Randy: That is not the way it is taught in public Schools.
So what you need to defend is the claim that public shoolchildren are taught that the most basic foundation of the theory of evolution is that there was no Creator involved, the the TOE would not work if a Creator originally created life. They are, of course, not taught that there was a Creator involved, because there is no scientific evidence for such a thing; but they are not taught that the theory of evolution is founded on such a supposition, because that would be a lie. For example, theistic evolutionists believe in Divine creation of life and evolution thereafter, and that's no problem for the theory of evolution. Darwin's theory and the modern theory of evolution do not require or make any presumption of how life came to be.
Your original claim is flat-out wrong, and you can't come up with a lesson plan or textbook that supports it because there is no such thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by RandyB, posted 03-20-2005 10:17 PM RandyB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by RandyB, posted 03-22-2005 10:47 AM JonF has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 165 of 190 (193519)
03-22-2005 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by RandyB
03-22-2005 6:41 PM


Re: Old earth based on Coal - reference
You can believe it if you want to, but the evidence is definitely overwhelmingly clear that the earth is not even a "million" years old, much less "billions.
Put up or shut up, Randy. You've made claims like this on several occasions, and the only support you've offered is a bunch of old-chestnut fraudulent links.
Perhaps you would like to present this overhwhelming evidence for a young Earth? Of course, you won't be just rehashing the old creationist "criticisms" of radioisiotope dating, you'll be presenting the positive evidence, and you will present and discuss this evidence instead of just posting links.
Yeah, right.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by RandyB, posted 03-22-2005 6:41 PM RandyB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by NosyNed, posted 03-22-2005 7:42 PM JonF has not replied
 Message 167 by RandyB, posted 03-23-2005 12:26 AM JonF has replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 169 of 190 (193653)
03-23-2005 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by RandyB
03-23-2005 12:26 AM


Re: Old earth based on Coal - reference
Well, I'll give you some credit for trying ... but you forgot the part where you discuss the claims, the evidence for them, and provide references. And almost none of the claims that you posted is evidence for a young Earth or even relevant to the age of the Earth!
Unfossilized Dinosaur Bones, Organic Collagen, and protein fragments -- including Heme (along with little Red round things that looked Just like red blood cells that were found inside of a Dinosaur Bone).
This is possibly evidence about how recently dinosaurs lived, not the age of the Earth. Sorry, what you claim is just not so. What was found was very probably (not certainly) degraded hemoglobin fragments and structures that may represent altered blood remnants. The bone was incompletely fossilized and, while it is certainly unusual that such compounds should have survived for millions of years, it's not impossible. See Claim CC371.
Descriptions of two different Very Dinosaur-like creatures in the Old Testament Book of Job.
The Year of the Dragon, from the Chinese.
Legends of Dinosaur / Dragons from just about every nation on earth.
Any connection from the Biblical account and the legends you mention to dinosaurs is very tenuous at best (very few scholars think that the beasts from Job were dinosaurs or anything similar) ... and is again irrelevant to the age of the Earth. At best it's about how recently dinosaurs lived.
The remarkable similarity of such dragons with what we now know about dinosaurs.
You're kidding, right? Common features of dragon legends are breathing fire, and of large animals flying on ridiculously tiny wings. Do you think that dinosaurs breathed fire, or that any of the flying dinosaurs looked anything like the descriptions and depictions of dragon legends? (and, to be pedantic, most of what people think of as flying dinosaurs [such as pterodactyls and pteranadons] were not dinosuars, they were reptiles).
The fact that, according to "Legend" there were Swimming, Walking, and Flying dragons vs our current knowledge that there were at one time (in the not too distant past) similar Swimming, Walking and Flying dinosaurs.
Now I know you're pulling my leg. BUt what does this have to do with the age of teh Earth?
(Oh, and there were no swimming dinosaurs. Aquatic reptiles, all of 'em.)
Carbon Dating of Dinosaur Bones ...
You're really into dinosaurs, aren't you? I thought we were supposed to be talking about the age of the Earth? You are probably referring to the CSREF episode. The procedure was improperly applied, and they were told that by the laboratory. From Feedback for May 1997:
quote:
... CSREF's claims have been answered by Brad Lepper (1992). ... Carbon dating is fairly reliable when applied carefully and properly. Unfortunately, CSREF did not do so. In fact, prior to an actual date being computed, the U. of Arizona lab told them that: (1) the fossil bone contained no collagen (meaning that all of the original bone material had been replaced and any resulting date could not possibly represent the time of death of the animal that the bone came from); and (2) it was loaded with shellac "and other contaminants" (meaning that it was known in advance that the resulting date would not be valid). CSREF told the laboratory to go ahead and perform the date anyway. Obviously CSREF wasn't interested in an honest test of carbon dating; they misrepresented the source of the material and ignored checks which indicated its unsuitability for dating. As Brad Lepper said:
quote:
"Such deliberate disregard of the warnings from both the Carnegie and Arizona suggests not mere ignorance of the limitations of radiocarbon dating nor even simple incompetence, but a premeditated intent to deceive. CSREF researchers must have known the radiocarbon dates on the Carnegie speciments would be hopelessly compromised by the contaminants. They knew the "dates" would be meaningless, but they also knew they would appear recent."
1992, p. 8

Reference:
Lepper, Bradley T., 1992. "Radiocarbon Dates for Dinosaur Bones? A Critical Look at Recent Creationist Claims" in Creation/Evolution 30 pp. 1-10. (Available from NCSE)
... and unfossilized wood from supposedly very "Old" (i.e. "mythions of years") strata.
Now, this might actually be relevant to the age of the Earth. But the dating of "unfossilized wood from supposedly very old strata" is nothing of the kind; it's not wood. See Andrew Snelling and the Iron Concretion?. Snelling's come up with another supposed sample of wood in basalt, but the samples are not available for others to view, the details have not been published in a form that others can evaluate, and as of now is just another unsubstatiated claim.
Niagara Falls
Not evidence for a young Earth. All we can say is that the Earth is older than Niagara Falls. It says nothing about a maximum age for the Earth.
The Non-existence of Dark Matter
Irrelevant to the age of the Earth, and an unsubstantiated claim to boot.
The fact that Metamorphosis could not have evolved, but rather had to have been programmed into the DNA of every creature that undergoes such (spontaneous) total transformation.
Irrelevant to the age of the Earth, and another unsupported assertion. This one is technically known as "begging the question" or "assuming the consequent"; you assume that what your are trying to prove is true and, voila, you've proved it!
The presence of organic ligaments on (supposedly) 165 "million year old" Ammonites.
This has been rumored, and reported in the creationist press as fact; but the truth is that nobody has come up with a sample that can be independently tested. Another unsupported assertion. Irrelevant to the age of the Earth.
Supposedly 45-60 million year old (totally) unfossilized Logs, and pine cones, and pine needles and leaf-litter found on Axel Heiberg and Ellesmere Islands.
There are indeed some remarkably preserved items there. Irrelevant to the age of the Earth.
The fact that Frozen mammoths display no more proteins, or DNA fragments than do unfossilized dinosaur bones.
Huh? Frozen mammoths retain most of their protein, and the very few unfossilized dinosaur bones that have been found have very little if any proteins or DNA fragments. Still irrelevant to the age of the Earth.
Organic woody matter present in (supposedly) 300 m.y.o. fossilized trees from Nova Scotia.
You're not referring to Joggins, are you? If not, what are you referring to? Still not evidence for a young Earth.
The San Andreas Fault
As for Niagara Falls above, all this proves is that the Earth is older than the San Andreas Fault. It says nothing about a maximum age for the Earth.
The fact that no fossil trees on earth were older than about 1600 years -- as displayed by their tree rings.
So what? Even assuming for the sake of argument that you are correct, that says nothing about how old the trees themselves are; why couldn't a 100,000,000 year old tree have lived for only 1,600 years?
The fact that the Oldest trees on earth are only about 5,000 years old (max) and still getting older.
As for Niagara Falls above, all this proves is that the Earth is older than those trees. It says nothing about a maximum age for the Earth.
By the way, the oldest living things are much older than 5,000 years. See Oldest Living Organism.
This message has been edited by JonF, 03-23-2005 09:27 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by RandyB, posted 03-23-2005 12:26 AM RandyB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by edge, posted 03-23-2005 10:19 PM JonF has not replied
 Message 173 by RandyB, posted 03-24-2005 12:08 AM JonF has replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 175 of 190 (193999)
03-24-2005 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by RandyB
03-24-2005 12:08 AM


Re: Old earth based on Coal - reference
These "degraded hemoglobin fragments" produces immune responses in rats.
Yes, that's how they knew that the degraded fragments came from hemoglobin. They are still degraded fragements. See the reference I provided earlier.
The bones also contained collagen
That has not been confirmed. But, even if it's there, the conditions under which the bone was preserved are so unusual that fragments of collagen could have survived for millions of years.
and in my opinion are (almost certainly) NOT "mythions of years" old, but rather only a few thousand
So, the first item of overwhelming evidence is your opinion.
-- just like the Mammoth bones found today in the actic regions.
You mis-spelled "totally unlike the unfossilized mammoth bones found today in the Arctic regions, which contain significant quantities of hemoglobin and collagen and other proteins" ... unless, of course, you want to post a detailed comparison of the two types of bones demonstrating why they are "just like" each other.
But these descriptions, by the way, do not fit those of any known creatures that are living today.
So what? Who made the rule that all descriptions of these creatures had to fit known creatures of any time? We have lots of mythical descriptions of creatures that obviously never existed, such as the Fachen: "It is covered by with feathers, having a tuft of them which grew like a comb on a cock's head. It has one mangled hand that grows from the center of its chest, and one leg that grows out of its body at an angle. It also has one eye set in the middle of its forehead." (from Encyclopedia of Monsters, etc..)
For example, Behemoth was almost certainly some type of Apatasaurus (formerly Brontasaurus) since he had Bones like Bronze, lived among the swamps and river banks, and could swing his tail "like a Cedar" tree. Have you ever seen a Cedar Tree? They are, by the way, VERY LARGE trees.
Yes, and the author was probably making the point the Behemoth had a huge penis. Many scholars think that "tail" is a euphemism introduced the the KJV translators. (I realize that you aren't interested in what scholars think, only your opinion counts, but others don't share that high opinion of your sholarship). Or it could be the trunk of an elephant.
Even if "tail" meant tail, still an extremely tenuous connection. This is supposed to be overwhelming evidence?
My reasons for accepting the "Fire-breating" Dragon scenario are as follows
Which "boil down to" your interpretation of the Bible, speculation about air chambers, and the introduction of the Bombardier beetle .. the latter is irrelevant and the former is strained. Dinosaurs did not breathe fire.
This is supposed to be "overwhelming evidence" for a young age? The time at which the dinosaurs went extinct is not very closely connected to the age of the Earth.
{Niagara falls} What it tells us is that our own (North American) Continent is very likely less than 10,000 years old (max).
No, what it tells us is that Niagara Falls is very likely approximately 10,000 years old, and that the North American continent is therefore as old as or older than 10,000 years, which still is irrelevant to a young Earth (althouugh it is one of many pieces of evidence that the Earth is not 6,000 years old). You keep confusing "minimum age" with "probable actual age"; that's a serious logical error. Please stop doing it.
{dark matter} Quite relevant and quite "substantiated." Here is a link for those who wish to see for themselves.
Er, your opinions and quote mines are not impressive substantiation. However, still irrelevant. Remember, you wrote "overwhelming evidence for a young Earth". This is supposed to be about evidence for a young Earth, not just speculation about what might be.
{The "fact" that Metamorphosis could not have evolved} Quite Relevant, and it also means that there VERY LIKELY never were Mythions of years of evolution
Perhaps somewhat connected, but your "fact" is no such thing. It's just your personal incredulity. When it is establshed that metamorphosis could not have evolved, we'll talk.
{organic ligaments on (supposedly) 165 "million year old" Ammonites} And quite well documented as well ... A 165 Million Year Surprise | Answers in Genesis
Please, gentle readers, do go check out that link. Lots of references to peer-reviewed scientific papers ... and the only reference for the claim of organic ligaments is a newspaper report. Hardly well-documented scientific evidence. No mention of it in Science magazine (very short, and may require free registration) Jurassic Squid. At Evolution is a Lie, and you Skeptics KNOW it! Part 4 I find the claim that:
quote:
But this article in the New Scientist says, "Neville Hollingworth of the Natural Environment Research Council in Swindon has found a fossil of Sigaloceras calloviense whose outer shell has dissolved away to reveal the outline of adductor muscles and tentacles in the honey-coloured calcite inside." That doesn't describe unfossilized organic ligaments!
I don't have access to verify whether or not that claim is accurate; but it's clear that the documentation for your claim is sadly lacking.
{Added by edit: I find the same quote at the creationist site Creation Research, with a cite to New Scientist, 4 September 1999, page 25. More indication that the quote is probably accurate.}
{The fact that Frozen mammoths display no more proteins, or DNA fragments than do unfossilized dinosaur bones.} That is so fragmented that it can't be used for cloning.
Your use of the phrase "no more" means quantity, not quality. So your original claim is wrong (there's lots more organic matter in those mammoth bones than in that dinosaur bone); you probably meant "no better" or something like that, instead of "no more". But "so fragmented that it can't be used for cloning" is only a qualitative measure; if you want to establish "no better" you need to come up with a quantitive measure. Even that wouldn't be convincing without some evidence that "same quality of protein remnants" means "same age".
{Joggins organic woody matter} In addition to the above, Scott et al. report that the organic cell walls of some trees are still intact. 89 Dawson also reported finding similar organic material in fossil trees at Wallace Harbor. 90 With regard to this Dawson noted that after the calcareous mineral matter (filling the pores) was dissolved with hydrochloric acid, what was left was a piece of wood retaining the same size and shape as the original--only now it could be bent or burned in a fire just like ordinary wood.
OK, I'll accept the existence of such matter, now you need to establish that this is incompatible with the supposed age of the samples. "Rare" is not "impossible".
{The San Andreas Fault} Here's the Link:
www.earthage.org/continentaldrft/...
{Shortened display form of URL. - Adminnemooseus}
My, my, so many errors. First, of course, you've once again confused "minimum age" with "probably actual age". Second, you've assumed equal motion all along the fault. Third, you've ignored any possible factors that erase any offset produced by motion. Fourth, the map you show is obviously schematic. You never responded to Roxrkool's detailed criticism at Message 1; I'll leave detailed discussion ot that thread, after you respond there.
{no fossil trees on earth were older than about 1600 years} All it suggests is that the Biblical Time line -- of about 1600 years from the time of Creation until the Time of the Flood -- is probably correct.
It suggests nothing at all beyond coincidence. Your interpretation of a particular religion's holy text (which interpretation is questioned by many) comes up with a number that is equal to the approximate age at which some trees died is not impressive ... especially in light of the fact that we have lots of evidence that those trees did not die at anywhere near the same time.
So, this is the "overwhelming evidence for a young Earth"? The only numbers you've come up with are a couple of minimum ages ("most probable age" and "maximum age" are different kettles of fish), and one of your numbers is suspect. You've come up with a few unusual examples of organic matter surviving for what mainstream science thinks is a long time, and one of those is suspect. You've put forth a tenuous correlation between dinosaurs and legends, which legends may or may not be (and probably aren't) based on fact.
Now, thousands of studies using different and independent methods, cross-correlated and triple-checked, all pointing a complex and long but coherent and consistent history of the Earth ... that's overwhelming evidence. You haven't even got intriguing rumors.
This message has been edited by JonF, 03-24-2005 10:32 AM
This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-27-2005 02:38 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by RandyB, posted 03-24-2005 12:08 AM RandyB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by RandyB, posted 03-24-2005 8:10 PM JonF 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