|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: QUESTIONS | |||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
quicksink Inactive Member |
quote: this was not an insult to your intelligence- this was a comment on your post. Your post, on the other hand, was deliberate.
quote: I found the post confusing, need I say more?
quote: the speeling thing was not intended, if you’re thinking that
quote: 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: could yo specify ur theory then?
quote: 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 what about the teachers and university professors who believe in god? Are they in on it too?
quote: I mistated. We can test the theory of evolution to some extent, but we cannot test for the existence of god
quote: I’m not quite sure I understand
quote: ok then- I will resond to everything calmly and politely
quote: ok
quote: ok- you are 15 I did not expect that but ok.
quote: 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: ok- thanks for the insult.
quote: great.
quote: firstly, so you do know much, probably more than me. then I will leave these questions.
quote: the average creationist knows the theory of relativity?
quote: evolution has been a product of science, and has advenced our understanding in the origins of life and biology.
quote: 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: ouchps- its grammAr quote: 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: 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: thank you
quote: 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: devolving?
quote: well you made it seem that way, so I was a little confused there.
quote: ok
quote: Then give me evidence of creationism.
quote: ok- coral cores. Show me that coral cores stop around 10000 years ago.
quote: ancient geneology- http://www.nyu.edu/classes/wright/spring97/chron.htmtree-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: see above
quote: and these boulders are so random and frequent that they could have only been deposited by a world flood?
quote: then again- could you give me solid and very credible evidence of creationism?
quote: my god what was I thinking- let me restate the questionif 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: 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: please elaborate.
quote: so creationism most effectively explains all dating methods, evidence that starlight is millions or billions of years old, etc? wowplease address the starlight issue. 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?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: 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 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: ok- now tell me about it what are the archaeologists missing?
quote: I have.
quote: on what- and possibly I can give an answer.
quote: I have given you the reference to the coral cores, and I’m sure you can find many more on the internet.
quote: now I have- care to comment?
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"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: --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: "ancient geneology- http://www.nyu.edu/classes/wright/spring97/chron.htm quote: --Radioisotopic dating.
quote: --C-14 again.
quote: --A perfect analogous postulate that is with dendrochronology.
quote: --I previously showed that there is no conflict in the dates given by this relative.
quote: --After a thought you see that this as well is analogous to the above method (the above quote).
quote: --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: --Makes you think doesn't it.
quote: --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? wowplease 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: --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: 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.htmquote: I found this interesting: http://wbenjamin.org/nc/sep21.html quote: And lastly: http://www.users.qwest.net/~mcochrane/Thundergods/thundergods.html quote: "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: "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. ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
Its not everyday I get to do one of these. *BUMP*
Quicksink? ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
quicksink Inactive Member |
i am in word right now writing a response.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Cobra_snake Inactive Member |
quote: Hehe, I know what you mean TrueCreation!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
quicksink Inactive Member |
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 |
quote: 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: 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: 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: why not? They would certainly leave an imprint in the mud
quote: 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: 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 evolutionAbsolutely I’m sure she was just being threatened by that evil org, though. quote: I think it takes an awful lot of faith to believe that starlight has eithera) 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
quote: 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: 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: 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: May I quote:
quote: 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: 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: Well then perhaps there are creationists who have no reason to believe it?
quote: OK then- thanks for the clarification
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Absolutely- but the question is why it has so flawlessly corroborated dates and ancient geneology.
quote: See above, or take a look at your very strange and frankly surprising answer a little below.
quote: I have given my response.
quote: Well, a world-wide flood would leave indisputable marks on this planet. I do not see any of these indications.
quote: Perhaps a dating method that puts the age of the earth at ten thousand years.
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: SO everything works in favor of the Old Earth, and they’re all wrong. Not very reasonable.
quote: 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: If only they could have the privilege of meeting you.
quote: Well I’m glad that you now understand that carbon dating corroborates to other methods.
quote: oh god
quote: At first glance, yes. But once I went back and did the reasearch, I found that there’s a truth for every flaw
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
quicksink Inactive Member |
calling TC?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
quicksink Inactive Member |
push
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"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 evolutionAbsolutely 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 eithera) 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: 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: "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: --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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3823 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
[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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"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. ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"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. -------------------
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024