|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Which animals would populate the earth if the ark was real? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2689 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
Why so shy all of a sudden? If God started the the process it was a miracle.If he didn't, it's either a natural flood or it's not true. Which is it The bible does not give enough detail. God often used nature to carry out his will. And so I really don't know the answer. Why the interest?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2689 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws. Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source] I know that, but radiometric dating is based on a modern rate of decay that is assumed to be constant. The assumption does not have a strong basis, due to the fact that there are a few known and also unknown ways in which it can be affected. So its application to previous environments is a shaky foundation on which the entire theory of evolution rests.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2689 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
That's really tough. Too bad it's irrelevant. If any of the Biblical floods myths happened then EVERY living critter, every single living critter would show the same bottleneck and at the same time. If it doesn't show up in even one critter then the flood myths are kaput along with the Garden of Eden, Conquest of Canaan and Exodus. And it doesn't show up. Evidence please!!! I've never seen a DNA sequence or any genetic evidence that contradicts a creation 6500 years ago or a flood 4500 years ago. Bluegenes and I are in a discussion about this topic, and the problem is more for evolutionists than creationists. The rate of germline mutations is way to slow to reflect the genetic diversity we see today. It fits in better with biblical timelines.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2689 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
But that does not agree with what the bible says and is also freaking ludicrous. Its only ridiculous if you are indoctrinated into evolutionary timeframes. Without radiometric dating you have nothing. And how does it contradict the bible? Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2689 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
This is a lie. You throw around this accusation too freely, its not a practical way to create "understanding through discussion", which is the purpose of this website. If the moderators don't mind this, its a reflection on them.
You know for a fact that there are other methods of geological dating. You've been discussing them in the Age of Mankind thread, so you are quite aware that other methods exist. Feel free to dispute those methods if you wish, but please don't waste our time by pretending that they don't exist. Yes but those deal with recent ages (0-60000 years). For the really long ages all you have is radiometric dating and the assumption of slow processes.
Until you can provide evidence for this, there is no reason to think that this is anything other than wishful thinking on your part. You can't expect anyone to take you seriously without evidence for your claims, not just "Might-have-been", or "Could-have-been", but good, solid evidence that your ideas are actually true. I need to see solid evidence that you're not just making things up. If you want to claim that there were humans in the Permian, you need to provide us with Permian human fossils. Nothing else is sufficient They are not that easy to find. I already provided evidence that the nature of Pangea during the Permian made the lower latitudes less habitable. The entire habitable region was covered by a thick layer of basalt. Its the only logical place for humans to live during the Permian, and those areas have disappeared under a thick layer of rock. So you are asking for miracles when I have provided logical reasons why those fossils have not been found. Look at the following list of anomalies, please notice that many of these anomalies are from Russia, here's just a few: Anomalously Occurring Fossils Spores Tertiary Pleistocene North Caspia, USSRPollen Tertiary Pleistocene Yenisei, USSR Coccoliths Cretaceous Tertiary Crimea, USSR 214 Spores Cretaceous Tertiary Kazan, USSR Pollen Cretaceous Tertiary Ural Mts., USSR 217 Pollen Cretaceous Tertiary West Siberia, USSR Spores Jurassic Triassic Northeast Siberia, USSR 218 Pollen Jurassic Pleistocene Yenisei, USSR 168 Spores "Mesozoic" Pleistocene North Caspia, USSR 166 Spores Jurassic Permian Northeast Siberia, USSR 218 Spores Jurassic Cambrian Northeast Siberia, USSR Pollen Carboniferous Triassic Donets Basin, USSR 84 Pollen Carboniferous Jurassic Donets Basin, USSR Algae Precambrian Cambrian or Ordovician Verkhoyansk, USSR 205 Spores Precambrian Devonian Saratov, USSR
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2689 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
This has to be the craziest thing I've heard you say - despite heavy competition. haha, well I just said the bible doesn't provide detail. If you think that's crazy..... The actual Hebrew just says "I will rain or "I rain" so its very vague. Does this mean "I will allow rain". Or I foretell rain? I will use the rain? I will create rain? Who knows. Maybe he set tectonic movements in place thousands of years earlier, that eventually resulted in volcanic induced rainfall? I really don't know. I can give no better answer.
Can you therefore explain to me what other 'detail' you need an/or what other possible explanation are there other than: 1. It never happened2. It was a natural disaster, God had nothing to do with it. Note that both 1 & 2 require you to admit that the biblical story of the flood is wrong. I believe it was a natural disaster that God used to carry out his will. God could have triggered off that natural disaster, I don't know. So I believe its 3 & 43. It was a natural disaster , God used it. 4. It could have been triggered by supernatural intervention, maybe not
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2689 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
I'l be there. I seriously suggest you do some research on the basics of radiometric dating: Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective is sound. And the evidence for the constancy of decay rates: The Constancy of Constants and The Constancy of Constants, Part 2, both by a renowned physicist, are a good place to start. Be aware that if you bring up the "three assumptions underlying radiometric dating" you will immediately brand yourself as an ignoramus. Thanks for the tips. I have delved into this before, as usual I do not take the standard creationist line.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2689 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
You claimed "You have only the debatable theory of radiometric dating to support your long periods of time.". You know that's not true. If you don't want me making false accusations, then you should perhaps more precise in what you write, rather than making loose and inaccurate claims. If I am not precise enough in my explanations, you should rather point out that I am wrong, than jump to the conclusion that I'm a liar. Your approach is not conducive to understanding another's point of view.
Yes and we have already talked about biostratigraphy, which is not limited to recent times. I would be interested to know what dating methods you do accept. I agree with biostratigraphy for relative dating. In itself , biostratigraphy does not point to millions of years. Egyptian chronology is a good method of dating, except it should be adjusted according to Rohl's new chronology.
I don't think that's true. You say this as though this basalt were some sort of impassible barrier. It's not. There are plenty of exposed Permian rocks available, all over the world. This is a naive portrayal of how geology works. There are plenty of forces that expose underlying geology, the break-up of Pangea being a single pertinent example. This is no excuse for not finding the fossils. Thanks for not calling me a liar this time. This is the greatest layer of basalt known to man. It is pretty impassable. Some rivers flow through the area, I'm not too sure of the extent of their penetration through the basalt. Siberian Traps - WikipediaMore evidence for mass extinction | Nature
http://studentresearch.wcp.muohio.edu/...inctionsealevel.pdf" Low latitude faunas from carbonate environments were particularly hard hit by the first event; many fusulinids, echinoderms, brachiopods and bryozoans were amongst the victims Jin et al., 1994a There is, as yet, little evidence that the crisis spread to higher latitudes Hallam and Wignall, 1997" So if there were humans in the Permian, their cities were most likely underneath that basalt.
Perhaps if you had some real positive evidence to show a P-T Flood, a few weaknesses in your supporting evidence could be excused. Instead, it seems as though every piece of potential supporting evidence is missing and all you can do is provide us with excuses for why it's not there. It's just not convincing. It is certainly much less convincing than the mainstream geological model. I proved a dramatic rise in sea level, all transgressions cause coastal flooding, i proved this was a particularly dramatic transgression. It also involved flooding into the interior of Pangea that is now discovered across 3 continents. And you still deny flooding at the P-T bounday? C'mon you can do better than that.
Those are mostly spores and pollen. Some algae. The Flood myth doesn't really mention algae. It does mention humans though, so if you want to place the Flood at the P-T, you have a human fossil problem. I only pointed out those anomalies to show you that Russia is a hotspot for the discovery of organisms that should be recent, but are discovered in ancient layers. contradicting traditional evolutionary theory). More research needs to be done on exposed layers in northern Siberia. Pre-boundary pollen has been unexpectedly found, and I agree with you that I need pre-boundary human skeletons to be found there to add strength to my case.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2689 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
I gave you the evidence several times and it does not depend on rates of mutation or dating or anything except the Bible stories themselves. Anyone today who is still claiming the Biblical Flood ever happened is just wrong. It really is that simple. Here it is yet again. Message 96 General comments are not evidence. Sure cheetahs showed recent bottlenecks (during the last couple of hundred years).How does this disprove bottlenecks 4500 years ago? I need actual evidence that there are no 4500 yo genetic bottlenecks among large terrestrial animals. So far you have just given me unsubstantiated claims.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2689 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
But... how do you know that? Mutate and Survive There is a definite seasonal pattern to radiometric decay:From the Annals of the Impossible (Experimental Physics) | Observations on Quantum Computing & Physics They have not yet discovered the cause/effect of this pattern and yet brush off the changes as negligible. I agree that the currently recorded changes are negligible, but unless we can discover the actual cause we do not know if the changes would be significant under past weather conditions which were vastly different through the ages. I will deal with possible cause and effect in the dating forum when I have time, and how rates could be vastly affected. Known causes of changed decay rates in heavy elements are neutron bombardment and heat.Heat is an unlikely cause of inaccurate dating, but neutrons do occur in nature. I will also deal with this in the dating forum in future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2689 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
There is no evidence of unknown ways of affecting decay rates, that's why they would be unknown if indeed they do exist. Scientists deal with the evidence we have, not the evidence that doesn't exist except in your mind. Radioactive decay is well understood. Scientist have attempted to affect decay rates in many different ways. No decay rate used in geochronology has been affected by any significant amount in any experiment other than 87Rb, and the decay rate was only affected significantly when the temperature was high enough to vaporize the Earth many times over. Again, the consilience that you ignore is key. There are three major and very different modes of decay, and there are many variations on each mode. If you want to invoke accelerated nuclear decay, you need to explain by what mechanism it was accelerated and how all the very different modes were accelerated by exactly the amount needed to have different dating methods show the observed consilience. And where did the heat and radiation go to (your comments are welcome and on-topic in Heat and radiation destroy claims of accelerated nuclear decay). The consilience is due to most methods measuring specifically the decay of heavy isotopes. The remaining methods are calibrated against those methods. Please see my previous post, this isn't the forum to discuss radiometric decay.
Plus, for the third time, the Earth was well-known to be much, much older than a few thousand years long before radioactivity was discovered, and the ToE does not rest upon the validity of radiometric dating. I won't bother to post the link again, you'll just ignore it again. These were mainly evolutionists who required long time frames for their evolution to work. So their "knowledge" of long timeframes was based on assumptions that remain unproven. Radiometric dating was acceptable to science because it compared well with evolutionary theory. If they looked at erosion rates or salination rates they would have seen how little sense there is on these long timeframes and it radiometric dating would not have been accepted. It was unintentional cherry picking based on the presumption that evolutionary theory is the truth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2689 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
Seriously? A few unknown ways in which decay rates can be affected. How did you count them? (Rhetorical question. We both know that at least that part of your statement is total nonsense. You don't know of a few unknown ways to do anything. That would make the ways known. I also believe that your entire claim is nonsense. Name one known and relevant way to change the decay rate of C-14. I expect your answer to be something that could plausibly change the result of C-14 dating. I was referring to radiometric dating as a whole, not specifically C-14. Please see my posts below.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2689 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
And how much water was that? Today the total icecaps and glaciation are about 1.8% of the water in the oceans (How much water is there on, in, and above the Earth?). In the last ice age, there was enough water locked up in glaciers to drop sea level about 400 feet (Ice, Snow, and Glaciers: The Water Cycle). Still obviously not enough to cover mountains. I can't find exact figures. It was far more extensive than today's glaciation. http://www.pesa.com.au/...cations/pesa_news/june_01/abs4.htmhttp://geology.geoscienceworld.org/content/28/3/279.abstract The Permian terrain was vastly different to today. There was a vast shallow ocean, the Tethys, and landmasses had generally flatter terrain. Widespread coastal wetlands dominated the coasts. Tectonic mountain building events mainly occurred later. These conditions made the coasts and even the interior far more conducive to flooding than current conditions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2689 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
given that for yet again seven days I will make a precipitating upon the land forty days and forty nights and I will wipe away all of the substance I made from upon the face of the ground, Are you giving me Hebrew lessons? ![]()
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2689 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
It is from an anti-scientific, fundamentalist religious YEC organisation. The article was written by John Woodmorappe (real name Jan Peczkis, who describes himself as a ‘science teacher’). He has a table with what he calls anomalous fossils. The reference to a South African so-called anomalous fossil in his table drew my eye immediately. Peczkis claims the proper age of Archeocyathids is Cambrian. He said they were found in Permian deposits at Dwyka, South Africa. Well, the word Dwyka rang a bell. The Dwyka Formation is the lowest formation in the Main Karoo Basin, occurring over wide areas of the country. It is a glacial deposit, consisting a mixture of, amongst others gravel and boulders. Obviously that gravel and boulders didn’t appear from thin air, but were obtained from already existing rocks. The gravel and boulders therefore are older than the tillite; not the age of the tillite. Some of that gravel and boulders do contain fossils. Way older than the Permian Dwyka Formation, simply because those boulders in which they occur are way older than the Dwyka Formation. The result is that it’s very possible to find a Cambrian fossil in Permian tillites. I consulted the original article he referenced and it turned out that I was right! Rozanov A. Yu. and F. Debrenne. 1974. Age of Archaeocyathid Assemblages. American Journal of Science, Vol 274, October 2, 833-848. On page 845. Good point, and thank you for taking the time to look at the link. I'm also reluctant to use religious sites for evidence, but felt that the references would speak for themselves. But obviously Peczkis has misinterpreted the data. When I have time I will look through some of the other alleged anomalies to see if there are any decent ones I can use in future discussions.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024