off-topic comments and threads to go to for further discussion
Hi Jzyehoshua, and welcome to the fray.
You've made some assertions that have little to do with the topic of the thread, and newcomers generally don't understand the protocol here of sticking to the topic for each thread: if you want to discuss some other topic, then start a new thread.
Additionally, there is the mere act of fossilization, which requires covering something so fast bacteria can't destroy it. Sinking down gradually into swamps doesn't allow for this.
If you want to start a new thread on this, then we can discuss it in more detail. Otherwise you will need to accept the fact that peat bogs have perfectly preserved the remains of many people from over 1000 years ago with no bacterial damage, that "Ötzi the Iceman" is a mumified corpse of a man buried in ice, complete with leather shoes, and that natural mummies have been found in the deserts of china and peru.
In all three of these cases the environment did not allow bacterial decay, thus the bodies were preserved.
quote:There are of course bog bodies that are exceptions in that they do not date to the Iron Age. The oldest known bog body is that of the Koelbjerg Woman who was found in Denmark, and has been dated to around 8000 BCE, during the Stone Age.
quote:Ötzi the Iceman (pronounced De-Oetzi-pronunciation.ogg [ˈœtsi] (help·info)), Similaun Man, and Man from Hauslabjoch are modern names of a well-preserved natural mummy of a man who lived about 5300 years ago. The mummy was found in September 1991 in the Schnalstal glacier in the Ötztal Alps, near Hauslabjoch on the border between Austria and Italy.
quote:Mummification of bodies was originally a natural process in Egypt and elsewhere, where the dryness of the sand in which the body was buried, the heat or coldness of the climate, or the absence of air in the burial helped to produce unintentional or "natural" mummies. These processes have produced mummies not only in Egypt, but in South America, Mexico, the Alps, Central Asia, the Canary Islands, the Aleutian Islands and Alaska.
In a nutshell your claim is shown to be false from this evidence alone. Interestingly, this means that Josh McDowell and Don Stewart are not good sources for valid information on reality.
Message 329: At any rate, my point is that we assume many of the factors on which dating methodologies, and thus the age of the earth, are based on, to be the way they are because of Uniformitarianism. Why has Carbon 14 decayed at the same rate? Because that's what it does now. We assume the concept of Uniformitarianism to be true, aka 'the present is the key to the past', and assume that such huge catastrophes - which not only fly in the face of Uniformitarianism but we've now been forced to recognize did actually occur - did not affect carbon levels and the atmosphere. Because if they did, then the dating methodologies would be thrown off.
We have often heard that such dating methodologies are unreliable past 10,000 or 100,000 years. And yet, still they are used to reach these exorbitant dates.
Note that any YECs that fail to answer the issues on Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 yet claims that the earth is young are only fooling themselves: a young earth does not produce evidence of extreme age, and the existence of this evidence invalidates the claims of a young earth.
Message 330: They just fit the evidence to whatever works for their evolutionary theory worldviews, the exact same way they complain Creationists are doing. 40,000 years would not work for evolutionary theory, so it takes another team to get the result they want. Early life was too complex, so we need to take on another 40 million years to its start time.
Curiously, the argument from ignorance and incredulity does not affect reality. You are welcome to your opinion, but having an opinion doesn't mean that it is true - you need to look at the evidence, all the evidence.
Re: off-topic comments and threads to go to for further discussion
quote:You've made some assertions that have little to do with the topic of the thread, and newcomers generally don't understand the protocol here of sticking to the topic for each thread: if you want to discuss some other topic, then start a new thread.
Isn't the thread topic, as seen from the title, 'Geology and the Flood'? About the closest I came to deviating from that subject was mention of flood legends (which is still somewhat related, since it bears on geology based on ancient witness), so I'm not sure in what way I am violating protocol.
quote:Otherwise you will need to accept the fact that peat bogs have perfectly preserved the remains of many people from over 1000 years ago with no bacterial damage, that "Ötzi the Iceman" is a mumified corpse of a man buried in ice, complete with leather shoes, and that natural mummies have been found in the deserts of china and peru.
Yes, such mummification via peat bogs can occur. But how prevalent is it? Simply looking at this picture, it appears relatively easy to distinguish a peat bog produced fossil, as opposed to a different kind of fossil. To my knowledge, scientists don't claim most fossils to be the result of peat bogs. And the subject McDowell and Stewart focus most on, fossilized fish, probably did not die, in most cases, from mummification in peat bogs. Furthermore, as stated here, isn't it true that "natural mummification is rare"?
After all, simply proving that natural mummification CAN happen would not support the natural fossilization of all fossils through slow depositional rates. You would then have to prove prevalence. It would also not explain fossilized footprints:
quote: When a person walks across the sand on a beach, or when he walks across a muddy field, he obviously will leave footprints. Immediately following the laying down of the tracks, erosive forces -wind, rain, etc.-begin to destroy the footprints. How long can these tracks remain intact? On a sandy beach, or desert sand dune, the wind quickly erases the evidence that anyone had traversed the area. If one walks on a beach in a zone where the waves can cover the tracks, they will be gone after the passage of the first wave. Obviously, tracks are rather ephemeral phenomena.
Because of the fragility of the original tracks, it is obvious that they must be covered quickly or their existence will cease. The only way to keep the tracks long enough for them to be preserved is to cover them with a different kind of material until the sand or mud they are in turns to stone. One does not preserve a footprint in sand by covering the footprint with sand.
Now, how does one go about covering a footprint in sand with mud or vice versa? Normal explanations of the fossil record suppose that the whole area sank gradually into the ocean where more sediment was then piled on top of the footprints which turned to stone. However, it is unlikely the footprints could be preserved while sinking because the waves of the ocean would erode them.
Other explanations of preserved footprints suppose that the sand or mud hardened before it sank through the zone of waves. This view ignores the fact that waves easily erode solid rock; how much easier incompletely lithified sand or mud?
Figure 461 of the Text Book of Geology by Pirrson and Schuchert, shows a preservation in a block of sandstone which would be hard to explain. They say,
"Figure 461 - Slab of Triassic sandstone 6 x 3.5 feet, pitted by rain. A large dinosaur (Steopoides diversus) walked over the muddy ground before the storm, and a much smaller one (Argoides minimus) afterwards."
One will notice that raindrops have been mentioned in both of the last examples. The next layer of rock had to be deposited on top of these tracks before the raindrop imprints were erased. How long can you see them in the dirt after a rainstorm in your backyard?
Whatever the precise means by which these fossils are preserved, one thing is certain. They must be quickly protected from the erosive forces of the earth or they would not exist. This usually means that the sedimentary layer on top of the tracks had to have been deposited only shortly after the tracks themselves.
One more example will be cited, the Coconino footprints. The Permian Coconino sandstone covers parts of northern Arizona. Certain features in the sandstone indicate it was a dune deposit. Derek Ager reports,
"An intriguing feature of the Coconino footprints is that they almost always run uphill on the steeply inclined bedding planes of this dune sandstone."
Why are the animals all running uphill? Why do they not go down? They certainly weren't running from a forest fire in the middle of the desert. Could they have been trying to escape rising flood waters?
"Reasons Skeptics Should Consider Christianity", Josh McDowell and Don Stewart (1981). "Are footprints evidence of the flood?", Section 3, pp. 208-210.
quote:In a nutshell your claim is shown to be false from this evidence alone. Interestingly, this means that Josh McDowell and Don Stewart are not good sources for valid information on reality.
I did not claim that natural mummification cannot occur, neither to my knowledge did McDowell and Stewart. Rather, the implication was that the large mass of fossils are not explained in this fashion, and that typical explanations involve sinking down gradually into swamps - which seems to be distinguishable from mummification in peat bogs.
For example, dinosaur mummies have been found as a result of such mummification, and it's resulted in obviously distinguishable results. As stated from this Creationist article,
quote: What is remarkable about this find is the incredible state of preservation, for a creature that has been fossilized and dead for (so says Murphy) some 77 million years. You can view the great photos of the dinosaur fossil at http://www.montanadinosaurdigs.com/brachleo.htm. Murphy, who is rather a unique character himself, told the audience about the unique features of the fossil. First, it was unique because it appears that the entire dinosaur is preserved, not just its bones. There are patterns of scales and skin, which are partially fossilized, but the patterns remain nonetheless. This means, says Murphy, that it may be able to determine the color pattern of the dinosaur.
Fifth, soft tissue was discovered in the dinosaur fossil. Not only did it have scales, but as I said it also had skin. Only parts of Leonardo’s body were fossilized. Some tissue was mummified. While this was not the first dinosaur where soft tissue has been reported (it’s the third), this fossil may yield the greatest amount, and demonstrate clearly that soft tissue has survived from dinosaurs.
Forgive my skepticism, but I find it hard to believe that soft tissue had not deteriorated, dissolved, or fossilized over the presumed 77 million years since this creature died! From the rock formation where Leonardo was discovered and the state of preservation at Leonardo’s death, it appears it was immediately covered in mud which usually solidifies into stone, only leaving bones. It’s one thing to mummify a body in a peat bog for 5,000 years or preserve a deliberately mummified Pharaoh for 3,500 years, but to have a mummified dinosaur body for 77 million years, begs credibility.
Also stated here,
quote: The Fairview Museum of History and Art is a unique small community museum with outstanding exhibits including a life-size replica of a Colombian Mammoth. This mammoth was discovered in the nearby mountains during a construction project in the summer of 1988. The skeletal remains were preserved in a peat bog where it died eleven thousand years ago. The bones were not fossilized, but were so well preserved that scientific testing has uncovered a great deal of information about the mammoth's physical condition, including that its last meal included pine trees.
My key point is that even mummified dinosaurs show different levels of preservation than dinosaurs fossilized in other ways. Is there any evidence to suggest most or even many dinosaurs were preserved as the result of peat bogs or natural mummification? And if so, wouldn't they show signs of more advanced preservation per the mammoth or Leonardo?
According to National Geographic concerning the Leonardo find, "It was an extremely fortuitous find, because the odds of mummification are slim, researchers noted."
The implication then being, that dinosaur fossils occur via other methods...
Re: off-topic comments and threads to go to for further discussion
Isn't the thread topic, as seen from the title, 'Geology and the Flood'?
The forum title is Geology and the great flood. The thread title is That boat don't float,It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds soon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
The extra biblical connotations of a reed ark aside (it supports a mythological explanation for the ark), I noticed something on the TV news that illustrates a point I first made in msg 7. An unpowered vessel will be turned broadside to the waves.
In watching the news about about 16 year old Abby Sunderland and her attempt to sail around the world, I noticed in all pictures of her boat after it had been demasted, it was broadside to the waves. Without any means to maintain headway, a boat, ship, or ark would turn broad side to the waves. This sort of event resulted in the loss of the three destroyers in 1944 (USS Hull, USS Spence, USS Monaghan). Miss Sunderland is very lucky.
Biblically, the ark was made of Gopher Wood, not reeds. As for whether or not it would turn broadside, I have seen articles such as this one examining construction possibilities, based on ships of ancient design (the inference being that ships might inherit the design of the ancient world), and how such features might account for stability.
quote:Greentwiga says the ark was made of reeds, not gopher wood. See Message 196 where Greentwiga says, "A careful reading of the Bible shows that it is a reed boat described."
You say the ark was made of gopher wood, not reeds.
Before continuing the discussion could you and Greentwiga get together and reach some kind of consensus on the construction material for the ark?
Ohhh, that's where that came from. I was wondering where the reed talk came from.
To make a long story short, I have NO idea where Greentwiga is coming from. The word reed isn't even mentioned in the KJV until 1 Kings, and in Genesis 6:14 it mentions clearly the construction material is Gopher Wood.
Maybe Greentwiga is thinking of Moses' basket, or another legend which does say it was a reed ark? I have no idea though, hoping someone else can elaborate.
The oldest tradition of the people of Acoma and Laguna indicates that they lived on some island; that their homes were destroyed by tidal waves, earthquakes, and red-hot stones from the sky. They fled and landed on a low, swampy coast. From here they migrated to the Northwest, and wherever they made a long stay they built a 'White City
Jz, would you mind pointing out the "similarities" between this and the Noah fable? I'm not seeing any beyond "water."