Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 60 (9057 total)
39 online now:
dwise1, nwr, PaulK, Tangle (4 members, 35 visitors)
Newest Member: drlove
Post Volume: Total: 889,662 Year: 774/6,534 Month: 774/682 Week: 9/445 Day: 9/14 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Which animals would populate the earth if the ark was real?
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 331 of 991 (705931)
09-04-2013 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 319 by mindspawn
09-04-2013 4:50 AM


Re: The flood story (getting pretty off the topic core)
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.


I pointed out that you are wrong many times, and provided evidence to support my claim. Do you need me to post the link again? If you want me to post the link again you must promise to address the facts contained in it.

Ignoring all the evidence that another person posts is not conducive to understanding another's point of view, so you are hardly one to talk.

I jumped to no conclusion. I pointed out exactly why you were wrong at least four times, and was ignored. I concluded that you are lying.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 319 by mindspawn, posted 09-04-2013 4:50 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2099
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 332 of 991 (705932)
09-04-2013 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 330 by JonF
09-04-2013 8:19 AM


Re: The flood story (getting pretty off the topic core)
Yes, JonF. They tell untruths. As always. That's all they have. Mainstream science certainly does not assume constant decay rates.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by JonF, posted 09-04-2013 8:19 AM JonF has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17071
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 333 of 991 (705933)
09-04-2013 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 303 by mindspawn
09-03-2013 10:56 AM


Re: The flood story (getting pretty off the topic core)
quote:

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.

If humans were wiped out by massive volcanic eruptions, what was the point of the Flood? And why doesn't the story mention the volcanoes at all?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by mindspawn, posted 09-03-2013 10:56 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 334 of 991 (705934)
09-04-2013 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 321 by mindspawn
09-04-2013 5:22 AM


Re: Another brief off topic note
There is a definite seasonal pattern to radiometric decay:
http://wavewatching.net/...ible-experimental-physics-edition

That result has been questioned, and the faint effect they saw has not been conclusively tied to variation in decay rates (see Evidence against correlations between nuclear decay rates and Earth–Sun distance).

They have not yet discovered the cause/effect of this pattern and yet brush off the changes as negligible.

And they are absolutely correct.

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.

Boy boh boy, I'm looking forward to that tap-dancing! There's very solid evidence that anything you could call "weather" does not affect decay rates.

Known causes of changed decay rates in heavy elements are neutron bombardment and heat.
Heat is an unlikely cause of inaccurate dating

Read "impossible" Any heat sufficient to affect decay rates resets the clock.

but neutrons do occur in nature. I will also deal with this in the dating forum in future.

Looking forward to it. Don't forget that you'd need a lot of neutrons bombarding. I hope you bring up Melvin Cook's claims from the early 50's, I'm somewhat of an expert on the errors in that one.

And remember CONSILIENCE. If you can't explain the observed consilience, you have nothing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 321 by mindspawn, posted 09-04-2013 5:22 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 335 of 991 (705935)
09-04-2013 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 322 by mindspawn
09-04-2013 5:34 AM


Re: Another brief off topic note
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.


Then stop making claims about radiometric decay.

It's true that the majority of dating studies are done with U and Th, but close behind is Ar-Ar. Potassium (and Rubidium) and are not heavy isotopes, for example.

The remaining methods are not calibrated against the U and Th methods. (Well, occasionally they are, but it's rare and frowned on). See Call for an improved set of decay constants for geochronological use; I can send you a PDF if you PM me an email address).

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.

You didn't even look at it, did you?

Essentially none of them were "evolutionists", most of the work was done before Darwin published and some was done before he was born. And there's no reason to suspect Kelvin of being an "evolutionist", unless you can come up with some evidence. He was just investigating the age of the Earth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by mindspawn, posted 09-04-2013 5:34 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 336 by Pressie, posted 09-04-2013 8:55 AM JonF has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2099
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 336 of 991 (705936)
09-04-2013 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 335 by JonF
09-04-2013 8:48 AM


Re: Another brief off topic note
JonF writes:

Essentially none of them were "evolutionists", most of the work was done before Darwin published and some was done before he was born. And there's no reason to suspect Kelvin of being an "evolutionist", unless you can come up with some evidence. He was just investigating the age of the Earth.

I don't know whether he looked at it or not, but it is very obvious that he told untruths about it. For example, Lord Kelvin was not 'an evolutionist' at all. I think that mindspawn is not telling the truth here...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 335 by JonF, posted 09-04-2013 8:48 AM JonF has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33630
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 337 of 991 (705937)
09-04-2013 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 320 by mindspawn
09-04-2013 5:11 AM


Re: The flood story (getting pretty off the topic core)
You really don't understand the basics do you?

If even one mammal, one bird, one reptile, one insect, one plant does NOT show a bottleneck at 4500 years ago, the Biblical Flood myths are refuted.

There is no need to show that there are no 4500 year ago bottlenecks; if any of the Biblical Flood myths were true the bottleneck would show up in EVERY living animal and plant today. I must be seen in every human, every cow, every elephant, every chimp, every oak, every blade of grass, every butterfly, every skink, every frog, even in Biblical Christians.

But it doesn't.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 320 by mindspawn, posted 09-04-2013 5:11 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33630
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 338 of 991 (705938)
09-04-2013 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 328 by mindspawn
09-04-2013 6:58 AM


Re: But the Biblical Flood myths have been totally refuted.
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?

Sorry Charlie:

Wide spread flooding is irrelevant. The Biblical Flood myths claim universal flooding.

But it still don't matter because reality is that there were no humans around at the PT boundary.

And even that is irrelevant because humans do not show a bottleneck even 4500 years ago. Neither do Oak trees.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 328 by mindspawn, posted 09-04-2013 6:58 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 340 by mindspawn, posted 09-04-2013 10:16 AM jar has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1214 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 339 of 991 (705941)
09-04-2013 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 322 by mindspawn
09-04-2013 5:34 AM


Re: Another brief off topic note
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.

Absolute nonsense.

Is your faith so weak that you just have to make stuff up to prop it up?


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

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by mindspawn, posted 09-04-2013 5:34 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 344 by mindspawn, posted 09-04-2013 10:51 AM Coyote has responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 1768 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 340 of 991 (705942)
09-04-2013 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 338 by jar
09-04-2013 9:01 AM


Re: But the Biblical Flood myths have been totally refuted.
Sorry Charlie:

Wide spread flooding is irrelevant. The Biblical Flood myths claim universal flooding.

So you are admitting to widespread flooding? My goal has been achieved. Can you disprove it covered the Permian highlands? Up until now I have been regularly told that the flood has been disproven. Can you disprove it now that I've pinpointed a time when there was widepsread flooding?

But it still don't matter because reality is that there were no humans around at the PT boundary.

The only likely habitable region during the Permian was the northern latitudes. I posted links in this thread about that. This entire area was covered by volcanic flood basalt. If there are any humans they would most logically be under the flood basalt of northern Siberia.

And even that is irrelevant because humans do not show a bottleneck even 4500 years ago. Neither do Oak trees.

Kindly provide evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 338 by jar, posted 09-04-2013 9:01 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 342 by jar, posted 09-04-2013 10:24 AM mindspawn has responded
 Message 351 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-04-2013 11:52 AM mindspawn has responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 1768 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 341 of 991 (705944)
09-04-2013 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 329 by Pressie
09-04-2013 7:06 AM


Re: The flood story (getting pretty off the topic core)
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.

If I quote someone who misinterprets facts, this does not make me dishonest. You seem to be trying to discredit me, when I have been posting more scientific links and backup for my comments than anyone else on this thread. Sorry but that is poor and childish debating.

I have shown widespread flooding at the P-T boundary and no-one has yet disproved it could be of biblical proportions. I have explained how vegetation could gain a foothold after the flood when it has been claimed it cant, my job here is done.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 329 by Pressie, posted 09-04-2013 7:06 AM Pressie has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33630
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 342 of 991 (705945)
09-04-2013 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 340 by mindspawn
09-04-2013 10:16 AM


Re: But the Biblical Flood myths have been totally refuted.
So you are admitting to widespread flooding? My goal has been achieved. Can you disprove it covered the Permian highlands? Up until now I have been regularly told that the flood has been disproven. Can you disprove it now that I've pinpointed a time when there was widepsread flooding?

LOL

Of course I can refute that the Biblical Flood happened at ANYTIME when humans existed; you have been given that several times.

Today only liars claim the Biblical Flood happened.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 340 by mindspawn, posted 09-04-2013 10:16 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 343 by mindspawn, posted 09-04-2013 10:47 AM jar has responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 1768 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 343 of 991 (705946)
09-04-2013 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 342 by jar
09-04-2013 10:24 AM


Re: But the Biblical Flood myths have been totally refuted.

Of course I can refute that the Biblical Flood happened at ANYTIME when humans existed; you have been given that several times.

Today only liars claim the Biblical Flood happened.

You calling me a liar? This accusation has been thrown around a few times in this thread.

I am honestly just looking for a civil discussion. I have not even touched on the mountain of evidence for flooding at the P-T boundary, not just on the coastal plains but on every continental plate in the flood plains. You guys are welcome to this biased website, if the moderators were more concerned about the civil exchange of ideas they would have long ago weeded out the less civil among you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 342 by jar, posted 09-04-2013 10:24 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 345 by NoNukes, posted 09-04-2013 10:58 AM mindspawn has responded
 Message 347 by jar, posted 09-04-2013 11:04 AM mindspawn has responded
 Message 353 by ringo, posted 09-04-2013 12:31 PM mindspawn has responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 1768 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 344 of 991 (705947)
09-04-2013 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 339 by Coyote
09-04-2013 9:13 AM


Re: Another brief off topic note
Absolute nonsense.

Is your faith so weak that you just have to make stuff up to prop it up?

You saying I'm making up stuff?

As I said in the previous post, I am honestly just looking for a civil discussion. I have not even touched on the mountain of evidence for flooding at the P-T boundary, not just on the coastal plains but on every continental plate in the flood plains. You guys are welcome to this biased website, if the moderators were more concerned about the civil exchange of ideas they would have long ago weeded out the less civil among you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 339 by Coyote, posted 09-04-2013 9:13 AM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 346 by Coyote, posted 09-04-2013 11:02 AM mindspawn has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 345 of 991 (705948)
09-04-2013 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 343 by mindspawn
09-04-2013 10:47 AM


Re: But the Biblical Flood myths have been totally refuted.
I have not even touched on the mountain of evidence for flooding at the P-T boundary, not just on the coastal plains but on every continental plate in the flood plains.

This despite the fact that you've been asked for evidence multiple times? Why instead do you single out the poster(s) that are rude and avoid actually citing the evidence. (Which would still fall short, but at least it is a start. After all what about Kansas?)

What is needed here is proof of a flood that covered every "high mountain" by at least 15 cubits. I' m sure everyone would accept evidence that extended part way up the tallest "high mountain". But instead all we've seen are preliminaries (e.g. claims "moutains weren't very high back in the day" without citing evidence", arguments that "something got wet so everything was wet").

I agree that calling people liars simply because they claim to believe something the evidence suggests is ridiculous is wrong. I wish it would stop. Past experience is that pointing such things out to the moderators brings the whip down. In an effort to show some good will on my part, I'll make such a complaint right now.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 343 by mindspawn, posted 09-04-2013 10:47 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 348 by mindspawn, posted 09-04-2013 11:16 AM NoNukes has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022