|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,481 Year: 3,738/9,624 Month: 609/974 Week: 222/276 Day: 62/34 Hour: 1/4 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Which animals would populate the earth if the ark was real? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2682 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9504 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
mindspawn writes: 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. What a pile of equivocating cobblers. You're just trolling. This is the mechanical translation of the Hebrew: כִׁי לְּיָּמִׁים עוֹד שִׁבְּעָּה אָנֹכִׁי מַמְּטִׁיר עַל הָּאָרֶץ אַרְּבָּעִׁים יוֹם 7:4וְּאַרְּבָּעִׁים לָּיְּלָּה וּמָּחִׁיתִׁי אֶת כָּל הַיְּקוּם אֲשֶר עָּשִׁׂיתִׁי מֵעַל פְּנֵי הָּאֲדָּמָּה Given.that to~ Day~ s Yet.again SevenI make~ Precipitate~ ing(ms) Upon the~ Land Four~ s Day and~ Four~ s Night and~ i~ did~ Wipe.away At All the~ Substance Which i~ did~ Do from~ Upon Face~ s the~ Ground Which is: given that for yet again seven days Iwill 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, It couldn't possibly be clearer - God did it. Why are you trying to wriggle away from it? Do you not believe the bible mindspawn? http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/bookstore/e-books/mtg.pdfLife, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
mindspawn, I checked the reference provided here:
mindspawn writes: 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’). 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 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. AJ writes: My bold. Recently Dr. M. Cooper (South African Museum) has collected arch-aeocyathids in glacial erratics embedded in Dwyka tillite of South Africa. The samples were sent to one of the authors (F. Debrenne) for studies. Preliminary observations of the surfaces (without help of thin sections until now) give us first results, the evidence of forms closed to Thalamocyathus , Zonacyatus, Syringocnema, and Pycnoidocyatus. If clear affinities are established with the faunas of Antartica and possibly Australia the Archeocyatha would be used not only for distant correlations but also as a clue for continental drift and recognition of Gondwana in Cambrian time. Then from the Glossary of Geology:GARY, M., MACAFEE R (JR), and WOLF, C. L. (eds), 1977. Glossary of Geology. American Geological Institute. Glossary of Geology writes: Tillite: A consolidated or indurated sedimentary rock formed by lithification of glacial till, esp. pre-Pleistocene till (such as the Late Carboniferous tillites in South Africa and India).Glossary of Geology writes:
Nothing anomalous about finding Cambrian fossils in Cambrian clay, sand, gravel and boulders deposited as Permian tillite. Till [glac geol]: Unsorted and unstratified drift, generally unconsolidated, deposited directly by and underneath a glacier without subsequent reworking by water from the glacier, and consisting of a heterogeneous mixture of clay, sand, gravel, and boulders varying widely in size and shape. Seems as if the creationist was trying to mislead people again. He wrote an untruth. Why do creationists always have to tell untruths about everything? It seems as if it’s all they have. I won’t even bother to check the rest. Edited by Pressie, : Spelling
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2682 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 2682 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 2682 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 2682 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 2682 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 2682 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 2682 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? Why don't you give me an in depth analysis on the specific Hebrew word for "make" in that sentence? That would help your case. Or you could just continue with your strawman argument. That will not help your case.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2682 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9504 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
mindspawn writes: Are you giving me Hebrew lessons? Yes, it seems I have to. Also logic lessons. And biology and physics and geology. It seems that your intellectual cupboard is bare. You are wriggling and squirming your way all around a very simple issue but one that is absolutely at the core of whatever weird argument you are trying to make. Obfuscation and evasion seems to be your methodology. It's just making you look ridiculous. If you can't even say that God caused the flood, given the text and the entire Christian and Jewish interpretation of it, there's no point discussing anything at all with you. You are indeed a troll.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2682 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
Yes, it seems I have to. Also logic lessons. And biology and physics and geology. It seems that your intellectual cupboard is bare. Aah so you want me to interpret the bible your way, without actually showing me that your way is correct? And you want to make points about my "intellectual cupboard"? That's funny. Really funny. What is seriously amazing to me is that I have given evidence of a major rise in sea levels that also flooded vast portions of the interior of Pangea, and not one person has admitted to widespread flooding at the P-T boundary. Say what? Is there not even one person on this site that could admit, yes the P-T boundary does show widespread flooding? And not one person has posted a study proving that land that has been covered by salt water for 5 months, cannot grow vegetation 5 months later. Of course it can, even if its just plants that handle high salinity. I've answered every one of the objections related to the impossibility of the flood, and also gone further to show that in fact there was a widespread flood, not just localized.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
mindspawn wites
quote: Trying to wiggle your way out of the fact that your source didn't tell the truth? Jan Peczkis has been shown to have told untruths before. Lots of them. He's an untruth-teller of note. Yet you referred to him. Seems as if you are just as dishonest as that source you referred to. Been shown here on this thread already. Accept the fact which has been demonstrated: you are just as dishonest as the sources you referred to. Edited by Pressie, : Spelling Edited by Pressie, : No reason given. Edited by Pressie, : Changed sentence. It doesn't get fixed in the post, though. Last sentence should read 'Seems as if you are just as dishonest as that source you referred to. Been shown here on this thread already.'
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 190 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
as usual I do not take the standard creationist line.
"Mainstream science assumes constant decay rates" is part of the standard creationist line, and is found nowhere else.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024