Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Potential Evidence for a Global Flood
pandion
Member (Idle past 3000 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


(1)
Message 31 of 320 (565145)
06-15-2010 1:24 AM


This information will not be new to many of you, but here it goes.
I studied physics at one time but, as a biologist, it was just to become familiar with general principles of the universe. Thus, I understood and accepted the radioactive decay of certain isotopes as presented in the books I read and not from personal experience.
However, things were different in the case of my son. He actually studied nuclear physics. As part of one course the students were required to independently determine the half-life of several radioactive isotopes. When the measurements and the math were done correctly, the student results were the same as those stated in tables of isotopes of the elements. As part of this course, the students were also asked to try to alter rates of radioactive decay of several isotopes by any means that they could devise. In no case was any student able to do so.
These results agree with nuclear theory and experimental physics. Most methods of radioactive decay are not effected by changes in the environment. The isotopes used for radiometric dating are among those that do not vary. As G. Brent Dalrymple states in his book, The Age Of The Earth, "These radioactive parent isotopes decay to stable daughter isotopes at rates that can be measured experimentally and are effectively constant over time regardless of physical or chemical conditions." The half life of all isotopes used for radiometric dating are constant.
The half-life of C-14 is also constant under all conditions even though the measurement of C-14 is not a measure of parent to daughter ratio. For C-14 the measure is the ration of C-14 to C-12. And yes, the amount of carbon in the air has varied over time. But C-14 dating has been calibrated using dendrochronology, ice cores from Greenland and the Antarctic, and varves from Lake Suigetsu, which has resulted in the calibration of C-14 dating for the useful range of C-14 dating.
As I understand it, there are a few radio-isotopes that can be effected by physical conditions. These are some of those that decay by electron capture. Under conditions of extreme pressure (that do not exist naturally on earth, and never have) these may increase in decay rate. None of these isotopes are used in radiometric dating.

Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


(1)
Message 32 of 320 (565160)
06-15-2010 5:19 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Jzyehoshua
06-14-2010 1:09 PM


JUC says:
Bear in mind, though, that in ancient times people would have had no knowledge of the whole world (in fact, little knowledge of anything more than a few miles from where they lived), so what might have appeared to be a major flood to them, would have been insignificant on a global scale.
Jzyehoshua says:
A list of flood legends that might get brought up can be seen here. As seen from my post 321, I focus a lot on Native American flood legends and primary creation myths as found at firstpeople.us. I'd begun mentioning some, and was only up to the B's.
Again, I ask you to explain how you think anyone in ancient times was in any position to determine that there had been a global flood. Furthermore, if Noah was the only one to survive the flood, and he lived somewhere around the Near East, how did Native Americans either survive or know about that?
Jzyehoshua says:
At any rate, microevolution would mean far fewer animals needed on the ark, since after all Genesis merely said '2 of each kind' (which by Darwinian terms would be called 'parent species').
Even if for a moment we accept that there was a global flood and an ark, and that Noah saved some space by not taking 2 of every species, and that the species he did take have since microevolved into all the species we have today, NONE of that provides any evidence at all against macroevolution.
Jzyehoshua says
...not only were there a number of prodigious mistakes or outright falsifications of missing links...
Firstly, "missing links" is not a term used by respectable evolutionary biologists these days, because we usually can't know for certain which specific sub-species evolved as part of what was to become a continuous chain to species that are around today, and which were part of a chain that became completely exinct.
Secondly, there have historically been a tiny handful of falsified or over-hyped fossils, compared to thousands and thousands which are considered genuine.
Jzyehoshua says:
...but recently newly proclaimed missing links like Homo Floresiensis...
Home Floresiensis was never proclaimed as a "missing link". It was assumed from the moment it was found that if it is a genuine "dwarf" species, then it clearly became extinct.
Your other comments about Homo Erectus, Homo Habilis and Lucy being disqualified "missing links" is again "missing the point". The current theory of evolution includes the understanding that there can exist a number of sub-species and that some of them survive or evolve into species that exist today, and some die out altogether.
Jzyehoshua says:
As for genetics, I question whether it shows a lineage to parent species or a single species.
Well it's my understanding (from reading books by genetic biologists - you know, people who have actually studied this and are experts) that each species' genome is entirely consistent with it being related to all other species, and in a tree that is entirely consistent with the theory of common descent.
Jzyehoshua says:
Thus, a breakup of the 'fountains of the deep' (and possible volcanic activity) as described in Genesis could presumably lead to the kind of tear on such crust that might simultaneously erode the foundations of the continents.
Again, I ask you, how could anyone in ancient times have been able to view forces of such a scale that they might "erode the foundations of the continents".
Jzyehoshua says:
While we may not be talking about drift pertaining to the above-crust water bodies, what about below the crust?
I thought the flood was supposed to be above the crust, hence the need for a boat. Not sure what you mean here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-14-2010 1:09 PM Jzyehoshua has not replied

Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 3641 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


(1)
Message 33 of 320 (565164)
06-15-2010 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Jzyehoshua
06-14-2010 5:19 PM


Re: Back to the basics
Hi Jzyehoshua
I try to reason things through for myself, and not merely accept the word of a pastor or archaeologist or politician. Qualifications are nice, but ultimately it comes down to the reasoning for me, where does the logic lead?
How does one reason without a base level knowledge to get you off the starting block?
When you say things like the following:
If there are worldwide catastrophes wreaking havoc on the environment, is it possible they could affect atmospheric levels of carbon? Or even affect the decay rate itself? Furthermore, we know the erosive effects of water and lava. If you have a global flood with volcanic activity, what effect might that have on decay rate of matter and carbon 14If there are worldwide catastrophes wreaking havoc on the environment, is it possible they could affect atmospheric levels of carbon? Or even affect the decay rate itself? If there are worldwide catastrophes wreaking havoc on the environment, is it possible they could affect atmospheric levels of carbon? Or even affect the decay rate itself? Furthermore, we know the erosive effects of water and lava. If you have a global flood with volcanic activity, what effect might that have on decay rate of matter and carbon 14?
...all you demonstrate is appalling lack of basic scientific knowledge. If you seriously have no idea why radioactive decay must be constant - it's one of the 4 fundamental forces of matter - then you have nothing to reason out things about.
Here's a quick test for you: Can you here and now, without looking up in any way name the other 3 fundamental forces of matter? If you can't then really you shouldn't be talking about such things. And how you can try to 'reason things out' without the basics to get you going beats the hell out of me!!
You're right in something though: Pastors and politicians won't educate you in subjects that are investigated properly and thoroughly by the province of science. I suggest you read up some proper scientific papers done by those in the field who have toiled by study and field work for decades - then you'll appreciate why 'armchair reasoning' is worth what it is...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-14-2010 5:19 PM Jzyehoshua has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by roxrkool, posted 06-16-2010 9:47 AM Drosophilla has seen this message but not replied

Woodsy
Member (Idle past 3374 days)
Posts: 301
From: Burlington, Canada
Joined: 08-30-2006


Message 34 of 320 (565192)
06-15-2010 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Coyote
06-14-2010 5:20 PM


Re: Back to the basics
Here is another bit of evidence for you to deny: A partial skeleton was found in a cave in Southern Alaska. mtDNA was extracted from a tooth. It was also dated to 10,300 years. The mtDNA turned out to be of the haplotype D4h3. Something like 46 living individuals stretching along the west coasts of North and South America have the same haplotype. If there was a global flood, in the intervening time those individuals would have the same haplotype as individuals in the Middle East and Mediterranean. They don't. There is continuity of this mtDNA type in the Americans during the time the global flood would have resulted in a discontinuity.
That is a very interesting piece of evidence. I agree that it is a show-stopper for a global flood in that time period.
If creationists cannot deal with this type of evidence, they cannot honestly continue to accept any global flood. (I suppose they will continue to do so. They will just be dishonest in doing so.)
I am curious: what is the longest human continuity you know of, including all types of physical evidence, such as those you have mentioned in these forums?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Coyote, posted 06-14-2010 5:20 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Coyote, posted 06-15-2010 1:02 PM Woodsy has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 35 of 320 (565196)
06-15-2010 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Woodsy
06-15-2010 12:48 PM


Re: Back to the basics
I'm not sure what the longest is. Presumably a number of early humans have been sequenced, in part at least, as they have sequenced Neanderthal fossils going back 30,000 years and more.
I remember reading about one from east Asia a while back that didn't match any of the known haplogroups. It was close to 50,000 years if I remember correctly.
I have one from my own research that spans 5,300 years. That is enough to disprove the global flood at 4,350 years.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Woodsy, posted 06-15-2010 12:48 PM Woodsy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by RAZD, posted 06-15-2010 9:45 PM Coyote has replied
 Message 38 by Woodsy, posted 06-16-2010 7:06 AM Coyote has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 36 of 320 (565294)
06-15-2010 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Coyote
06-15-2010 1:02 PM


Re: Back to the basics
Hi Coyote,
I'm not sure what the longest is. Presumably a number of early humans have been sequenced, in part at least, as they have sequenced Neanderthal fossils going back 30,000 years and more.
IIRC some cro-magnon sequences were run similar to the neanders, and from about the same time.
It would be interesting to see how they nest with Mediterranean DNA. I would think the probability is high that they would, so they might not provide the same argument as your Pacfic NW.
What about those south american fossils that are pushing the time frame for people in the americas?
Enjoy.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Coyote, posted 06-15-2010 1:02 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Coyote, posted 06-15-2010 10:04 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 37 of 320 (565298)
06-15-2010 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by RAZD
06-15-2010 9:45 PM


Re: Back to the basics
I don't know of any DNA studies on the ancient SA specimens. I haven't studied that area.
Wouldn't surprise me though. The mtDNA studies are really starting to take off now. We are getting interesting results from a lot of new studies.
I'm waiting for one on the full mitochondrial genome of Haplogroup A1 that might be out this summer.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by RAZD, posted 06-15-2010 9:45 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Woodsy
Member (Idle past 3374 days)
Posts: 301
From: Burlington, Canada
Joined: 08-30-2006


Message 38 of 320 (565333)
06-16-2010 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Coyote
06-15-2010 1:02 PM


Re: Back to the basics
Your genetic info is interesting. Those studies will bear watching as they develop, as you point out..
I wonder if there are any sites that show physical evidence of continuous occupation into the remote past. That is, hearths, middens etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Coyote, posted 06-15-2010 1:02 PM Coyote has not replied

roxrkool
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 39 of 320 (565348)
06-16-2010 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Drosophilla
06-15-2010 8:16 AM


Re: Back to the basics
How does one reason without a base level knowledge to get you off the starting block?
I think this is one of the most difficult issues to understand and overcome for the Creationist laity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Drosophilla, posted 06-15-2010 8:16 AM Drosophilla has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 06-16-2010 11:08 AM roxrkool has not replied

Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


(1)
Message 40 of 320 (565361)
06-16-2010 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by roxrkool
06-16-2010 9:47 AM


Re: Back to the basics
Drosophilla says:
How does one reason without a base level knowledge to get you off the starting block?
roxrkool says:
I think this is one of the most difficult issues to understand and overcome for the Creationist laity.
This is an interesting subject. I don't necessarily agree that you have to have more than the most basic school education in science to grasp a lot of the principles raised in these discussions.
As a member of the non-Creationist laity, I hope that it is of value for the likes of myself to contribute to some of these dicussions, to show that even if you don't have an in-depth knowledge of science and specific data, you can still understand the principles and logic that make the scientific case so strong and reliable.
I'd be interested to know if scientists on this site appreciate contributions from the likes of myself on these topics, arguing mainly out of reason and common sense (I hope) - or do you prefer it if we steer well clear?!!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by roxrkool, posted 06-16-2010 9:47 AM roxrkool has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Coyote, posted 06-16-2010 11:15 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not replied
 Message 42 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-16-2010 12:55 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not replied
 Message 44 by Drosophilla, posted 06-16-2010 4:32 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 41 of 320 (565364)
06-16-2010 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
06-16-2010 11:08 AM


Re: Back to the basics
I'd be interested to know if scientists on this site appreciate contributions from the likes of myself on these topics, arguing mainly out of reason and common sense (I hope) - or do you prefer it if we steer well clear?!!!
Reason and common sense are great, but these discussions require a knowledge base as well.
But the real problem is not lack of knowledge--we all suffer from that in most areas. It is creationism: Creationism becomes frustrating for scientists because it picks and chooses the facts it wants to use, and ignores, denies, or misrepresents the ones that contradict it.
Creationism generally sees "divine" revelation and scripture as the highest forms of knowledge.
In this it is anti-science and anti-knowledge.
How else can one argue for a global flood about 4,350 years ago, when the overwhelming body of evidence shows there was no such flood?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 06-16-2010 11:08 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by ICANT, posted 06-16-2010 4:07 PM Coyote has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 320 (565378)
06-16-2010 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
06-16-2010 11:08 AM


Re: Back to the basics
As a member of the non-Creationist laity, I hope that it is of value for the likes of myself to contribute to some of these dicussions, to show that even if you don't have an in-depth knowledge of science and specific data, you can still understand the principles and logic that make the scientific case so strong and reliable.
Yes and no... Generally, sure, you don't need a lot of in-depth knowledge.
But this guy was talking about atmosphereic levels and decay rate changes of carbon 14. It going to take some in-depth knowledge to get it with that one, its not something your just gonna hash out for yourself with reason and common sense.
I'd be interested to know if scientists on this site appreciate contributions from the likes of myself on these topics, arguing mainly out of reason and common sense (I hope)...
Yes! The more the merrier!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 06-16-2010 11:08 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 43 of 320 (565405)
06-16-2010 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Coyote
06-16-2010 11:15 AM


Re: Back to the basics
Hi Coyote,
Coyote writes:
How else can one argue for a global flood about 4,350 years ago, when the overwhelming body of evidence shows there was no such flood?
You have made this statement many times in many threads.
I would like to know what kind of global flood you are talking about as you have never made that clear.
Could you please outline what you believe the flood presented in Genesis would look like.
Now don't confuse what is written in Genesis with what you have argued against here on EvC that YEC'S have presented.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Coyote, posted 06-16-2010 11:15 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Coyote, posted 06-16-2010 4:37 PM ICANT has replied

Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 3641 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


Message 44 of 320 (565411)
06-16-2010 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
06-16-2010 11:08 AM


Re: Back to the basics
Hi JUC
As a member of the non-Creationist laity, I hope that it is of value for the likes of myself to contribute to some of these discussions, to show that even if you don't have an in-depth knowledge of science and specific data, you can still understand the principles and logic that make the scientific case so strong and reliable.
I'd be interested to know if scientists on this site appreciate contributions from the likes of myself on these topics, arguing mainly out of reason and common sense (I hope) - or do you prefer it if we steer well clear?!!!
I'm no expert myself I have to say. Got the three sciences at ‘A’ level and a degree in Botany and Zoology back in 1983 but since then haven't worked at all in science.
There's no issue with presenting opinions or arguments from reason and common sense - that's what these debate boards are about.....
The problem for me is that when guys who have studied these subjects as professionals for years (Coyote in archaeology, Cavediver in theoretical physics, Wounded King in genetics etc) take the time and trouble to initiate laypeople into their worlds it is often thrown back at them in ignorance....crap from creationist websites peddled and endlessly regurgitated - some of it so old that Darwin himself refuted it successfully (development of the human eye via natural selection)
These characters wouldn't argue with the formula for the latest rocket launch to Saturn, or with a doctor about what invasive entry technique to make in a difficult operation. Why is that? Is it because they realise they are dealing with professionals in their field? Why the hell don't they realise people like Coyote, Cavediver, Wounded King et al are in that same professional league? And why the hell do these 'armchair scientists' pontificate about things they really know zilch about?
Frankly I find it embarrassing to read the arguments often put over on this (and other) forums. Sometimes the level of basic factual knowledge is so low that my daughters in primary school (5 years ago since they were there though) knew more than they did! I often wonder if some of them ever have done even basic science....certainly a lot of them show total contempt for the subject....
Back to the subject matter here.....no problem in bringing ideas to the table - but if you are an amateur you must be prepared to listen and learn from the guys who have worked decades in the field ....or it's just a waste of everyone's time.
One last thought for those that disagree....you all have skills in the work area you are engaged in. What would you say if I argued from a total amateur in your work areas, getting every fact wrong or twisted and refused to listen to what you were trying to tell me? Would you think I was a tosser......you'd have every right to think so!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 06-16-2010 11:08 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Coyote, posted 06-16-2010 4:41 PM Drosophilla has replied
 Message 48 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 06-18-2010 6:03 AM Drosophilla has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 45 of 320 (565413)
06-16-2010 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by ICANT
06-16-2010 4:07 PM


Re: Back to the basics
Coyote writes:
How else can one argue for a global flood about 4,350 years ago, when the overwhelming body of evidence shows there was no such flood?
You have made this statement many times in many threads.
I would like to know what kind of global flood you are talking about as you have never made that clear.
Could you please outline what you believe the flood presented in Genesis would look like.
Now don't confuse what is written in Genesis with what you have argued against here on EvC that YEC'S have presented.
I'm just going by what you folks keep claiming: water covering the earth, different critters running up mountains resulting in sorting of fossil remains, volcanoes, and all sorts of other goings on.
And the implication I take from this is that I should find evidence for that flood in the archaeological sites which I test and which span the 4,350 year date established by biblical scholars for that flood. That evidence should be everywhere archaeologists excavate.
That evidence should include: depositional and erosional features in the soils at about that date; extinction of local fauna and flora; extinction of local human populations and cultures; and termination of previous North American mtDNA haplotypes. The fauna and flora, human populations and cultures, and mtDNA haplotypes should all be replaced with Near Eastern varieties after the flood.
The problem is that we don't find that evidence. It simply is not there.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by ICANT, posted 06-16-2010 4:07 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by ICANT, posted 06-18-2010 1:01 PM Coyote 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