Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Which animals would populate the earth if the ark was real?
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2660 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 361 of 991 (705991)
09-05-2013 3:31 AM
Reply to: Message 351 by Dr Adequate
09-04-2013 11:52 AM


Re: But the Biblical Flood myths have been totally refuted.
Well, yes. The evidence for transgressions involves finding the high water mark (as in the construction of the Hallam curve) and so finding out how far the transgressions transgressed.
This makes perfect sense. If you can find that high water mark at the P-T bounday, then you will have disproved that was the biblical flood. Of course it would have to be undeniable evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 351 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-04-2013 11:52 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 402 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-05-2013 10:05 PM mindspawn has replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 362 of 991 (705992)
09-05-2013 3:33 AM
Reply to: Message 357 by mindspawn
09-05-2013 3:01 AM


Re: Another brief off topic note
Nope.
From the original study http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.0205
Sturrock et al writes:
Analysis of Gamma Radiation from a Radon Source: Indications of a Solar
Abstract: This article presents an analysis of about 29,000 measurements of gamma radiation associated with the decay of radon in a sealed container at the Geological Survey of Israel (GSI) Laboratory in Jerusalem between 28 January 2007 and 10 May 2010. These measurements exhibit strong variations in time of year and time of day, which may be due in part to environmental influences. However, time-series analysis reveals a number of periodicities, including two at approximately 11.2 year$^{-1}$ and 12.5 year$^{-1}$. We have previously found these oscillations in nuclear-decay data acquired at the Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) and at the Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB), and we have suggested that these oscillations are attributable to some form of solar radiation that has its origin in the deep solar interior. A curious property of the GSI data is that the annual oscillation is much stronger in daytime data than in nighttime data, but the opposite is true for all other oscillations. This may be a systematic effect but, if it is not, this property should help narrow the theoretical options for the mechanism responsible for decay-rate variability.
My bold.
They base their studies on data obtained between January 2007 and May 2010. More than 3 years of data. The study was published in 2012.
Needs to be repeated by independent labs before anything is accepted.
Hope you do realise that 'variations in time of year and time of day' strongly suggests that it is the equipment they used to measure those 'fluctuations' which show variations and not the decay rate varying.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 357 by mindspawn, posted 09-05-2013 3:01 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 365 by mindspawn, posted 09-05-2013 5:27 AM Pressie has replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(3)
Message 363 of 991 (705993)
09-05-2013 4:16 AM
Reply to: Message 359 by mindspawn
09-05-2013 3:19 AM


Re: But the Biblical Flood myths have been totally refuted.
mindspawn writes:
This thread started with evolutionists having weak arguments that the flood is impossible
Nope. This thread started with a question.
It read:
quote:
Which animals would populate the earth if the ark was real?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 359 by mindspawn, posted 09-05-2013 3:19 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2660 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 364 of 991 (705994)
09-05-2013 5:15 AM
Reply to: Message 346 by Coyote
09-04-2013 11:02 AM


Re: Another brief off topic note
Your claim that humans were kicking around 250 million years ago is one example. As is the claim that a sea level rise equates to a global flood. And to support your dates, you have to claim that almost all of science is wrong.
Your insistence that the P-T boundary occurred 250 million years ago is a topic for the dating forum, this forum is about geology.
A sea level rise does equate to a global flood (flooding on every coastline on the planet.)
A major sea level rise as proven at the P-T boundary was so dramatic that it flooded large portions of the interior of the huge continent of Pangea. I posted evidence for this already in this thread:
http://studentresearch.wcp.muohio.edu/...inctionsealevel.pdf
The culmination of the long-term sea-level rise occurred in the Griesbachian when several seaways flooded into the interior of Pangea e.g., in eastern Greenland, western Australia and Madagscar . This inundation was short lived and marine deposition in these areas ceased in the Dienerian
I hope this link works, in China this late Permian transgression shows the transformation of coastal swamps (forms paralic coal) into marine environement (marine carbonate):
http://work.geobiology.cn/...IASSIC%20IN%20SOUTH%20CHINA.pdf
The paralic coal forming environment in Nanjing, Nanchang, Shaoguan, and both sides of the Yunkai Oldland was changed into the marine carbonate facies or silicate depositional environment."
In the USA the rising sea levels left behind an inland sea of ocean water:
PNW Geology Lecture 10
"Late in the Permian period the sea transgressed and deepened over parts of Idaho and adjoining Rocky Mountain states, forming a closed basin of deep, stagnant ocean water. In this basin layers of mud rich in organic debris were deposited, along with layers rich in phosphorous."
Middle East: (Arabian Platform)
Lyell Collection
Deposition during the Permian to Campanian occurred during five main sedimentary cycles. In the Late Permian (Murghabian), a widespread marine transgression covered the edge of Gondwana in a tensional setting. The ‘Fusulinid Sea’ transgression was followed by the deposition, lasting until the Triassic, of a thick regressive sequence, the Akhdar Group, which was terminated by emergence and weathering in a continental environment.
So far I have shown flooding in these areas of Pangea:
USA, Australia, Greenland, Madagascar, China, Middle East
I have excluded South America, Africa mainland, Antarctica and Europe because I'm at work, will attend to them maybe tomorrow. There are a number of studies that relate these areas to a major marine transgression during the late Permian/early Triassic.
Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 346 by Coyote, posted 09-04-2013 11:02 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 370 by JonF, posted 09-05-2013 6:48 AM mindspawn has replied
 Message 389 by Coyote, posted 09-05-2013 10:26 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2660 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 365 of 991 (705995)
09-05-2013 5:27 AM
Reply to: Message 362 by Pressie
09-05-2013 3:33 AM


Re: Another brief off topic note
My bold.
They base their studies on data obtained between January 2007 and May 2010. More than 3 years of data. The study was published in 2012.
Needs to be repeated by independent labs before anything is accepted.
Hope you do realise that 'variations in time of year and time of day' strongly suggests that it is the equipment they used to measure those 'fluctuations' which show variations and not the decay rate varying.....
Really? Faulty equipment at two respectable institutions? The very article you quoted did not even hint at faulty equipment, but suggest that the variations are caused by:
" may be due in part to environmental influences"
"we have suggested that these oscillations are attributable to some form of solar radiation that has its origin in the deep solar interior"
I would recommend you stick to the suggestions of your own link, rather than trying to discredit the equipment. If radioactive dating can be affected by mere daily "environmental influences" this makes one think how those rates would have behaved during periods of completely different environmental influences in the past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by Pressie, posted 09-05-2013 3:33 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 368 by Pressie, posted 09-05-2013 6:30 AM mindspawn has replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 366 of 991 (705996)
09-05-2013 5:39 AM
Reply to: Message 359 by mindspawn
09-05-2013 3:19 AM


Re: But the Biblical Flood myths have been totally refuted.
mindspawn writes:
The only evidence presented is the 250 million year timeframe which is for the dating forum. No on topic geological evidence has been presented showing that the P-T boundary flood is impossible.
Sure can provide those.
The Beaufort Group straddles the P-T boundary.
Keyser, A.W. and Smit, R.M.H., 1977-1978. Vertebrate bionization of the Beaufort Group with special reference to western Karoo Basin: Ann. Geol. Surv. S. Afr. , 12, p. 1 -35.
In it, on page 5, a table , Numbered Table 2.1- FORMATION NAMES IN THE AREA NORTH OF GRAHAMSTOWN.
Stratigraphy from top to bottom:
1. Molteno Formation- Glittering sandstone, grit and conglomerate with grey and black shale and mudstone.
2. Burgersdorp Formation, Tarkastad Subgroup, Beaufort Group- Red and bluish-grey mudstone; subordinate sandstone and siltstone
3. Katberg Formation, Tarkastad Subgroup, Beaufort Group- Sandstone; subordinate red siltstone and mudstone.
4. Balfour Formation, Adelaide Subgroup, Beaufort Group- Grey, bluish- and greenish-grey mudstone; subordinate sandstone.
5. Middleton Formation, Adelaide Subgroup, Beaufort Group- Red, bluish-grey and greenish-grey mudstone and siltstone; subordinate sandstone.
6. Koonap Formation, Adelaide Subgroup, Beaufort Group- Greenish, bluis-grey and greenish-grey mudstone and siltstone; subordinate mottled sandstone.
7. Waterford Formation, Ecca Group- Dark laminated mudrock with abundant ripple-marks; numerous sandstone beds.
No sign of a global flood.
You should see those Biozones in this reference. No sign of a global flood there, either.
Another scientific reference to look at, disproving a global flood at the P-T boundary, is Handbook 8 of the Geological Survey of South Africa, by the South African Committee for Stratigraphy, compiled by L.E. Kent in 1980. You should see those biozones in the Beaufort Group (straddling the P-T boundary) listed there. The table on page 564 is excellent to describe those biozones in the Beaufort Group, with ranges, which don't co-incide with the stratigraphy.
From there:
Kannemeyeria-Diademon
Lystrosaurus-Thrinaxodon
Diccynodon lacerticepts-Whaitsia
Aulacephalodon-Cistecephalus
Tropidostoma-Endothiodon
Pristerognathus-Diictodon
Dinocephalian
Global flood around the P-T boundary disproved with biozones in the Beaufort Group.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 359 by mindspawn, posted 09-05-2013 3:19 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 405 by mindspawn, posted 09-06-2013 4:10 AM Pressie has replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2660 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 367 of 991 (705998)
09-05-2013 6:19 AM
Reply to: Message 353 by ringo
09-04-2013 12:31 PM


Re: But the Biblical Flood myths have been totally refuted.
So if somebody claims to be an honest fool instead of a smart crook, I tend to take him at his word - but it really is hard to tell whether you're a liar or a fool.
I thought this was against forum rules to call people liars and fools?
Science is based on facts, instead of calling me a fool, why don't you enlighten me on the truth in an educational manner? Maybe your facts are so overwhelming in favor of evolution I will convert? This would entail decent discussion.
Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 353 by ringo, posted 09-04-2013 12:31 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 395 by ringo, posted 09-05-2013 11:56 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 368 of 991 (706000)
09-05-2013 6:30 AM
Reply to: Message 365 by mindspawn
09-05-2013 5:27 AM


Re: Another brief off topic note
mindspawn writes:
Really? Faulty equipment at two respectable institutions?
Please don't tell untruths about what I wrote. I didn't say that at all. Their instruments were not faulty at all.
Anyone who's ever been in a lab would know that external influences, such as variations in temperature, humidity, pressure, etc., would influence the readings obtained from any equipment.
There's a reason why they try to keep temperatures and humidity in labs constant with air-conditioning and humidifyers.
Nothing faulty about that equipment. Just facts such as that temperature variances influence readings as the equipment is subjected to those environmental variances.
mindspawn writes:
The very article you quoted did not even hint at faulty equipment, but suggest that the variations are caused by:" may be due in part to environmental influences....."
Nope. Not faulty equipment. They say their readings may be influenced by environmental influences. Temperature, pressure, etc.
mindspawn writes:
"....we have suggested that these oscillations are attributable to some form of solar radiation that has its origin in the deep solar interior"
Exactly. That's what they suggested. Please remember that it's not a seasonal. They said it themselves.
mindspawn writes:
"I would recommend you stick to the suggestions of your own link, .....
I didn't provide a link; you provided the original link which contained a link to the original research.
mindspawn writes:
"...rather than trying to discredit the equipment.
I recommend that you start providing accurate renditions of my viewpoint, instead of writing what you think I wrote.
I'm not discrediting equipment at all. It is a basic fact that equipment get influenced by external, environmental factors such as temperature, pressure, etc.
mindspawn writes:
"... If radioactive dating can be affected by mere daily "environmental influences"....
It's not the decay getting influenced, it's the technology measuring it getting influenced by environmental factors.
mindspawn writes:
"... this makes one think how those rates would have behaved during periods of completely different environmental influences in the past.
Luckily we can measure rates from the past. Hope you do know that radioactive decay rates have been in measured in Supernovas, hundreds of thousands of light years away? Hundreds of thousands of years in the past? That light is reaching us now. And the radioactive decay rates are the same as we have on earth, now? Did you know that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 365 by mindspawn, posted 09-05-2013 5:27 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 372 by mindspawn, posted 09-05-2013 7:00 AM Pressie has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 369 of 991 (706001)
09-05-2013 6:46 AM
Reply to: Message 357 by mindspawn
09-05-2013 3:01 AM


Re: Another brief off topic note
The seasonal pattern is not related to sun-distance, they are correct. So they still have to determine what actually caused the seasonal variations in radioactive decay, now that they have eliminated sun-distance. Makes sense?
Close, but no quite. They have to determine what caused the seasonal patterns; changes in decay rates, instrumentation problems, ... all sorts of possibilities. The patterns have not been established to be changes in decay rates.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 357 by mindspawn, posted 09-05-2013 3:01 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(2)
Message 370 of 991 (706002)
09-05-2013 6:48 AM
Reply to: Message 364 by mindspawn
09-05-2013 5:15 AM


Re: Another brief off topic note
quote:
A sea level rise does equate to a global flood (flooding on every coastline on the planet.)
The alleged Biblical flood was not "flooding on every coastline on the planet", it was complete flooding of all the land on the planet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 364 by mindspawn, posted 09-05-2013 5:15 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 374 by mindspawn, posted 09-05-2013 8:03 AM JonF has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 371 of 991 (706003)
09-05-2013 6:49 AM
Reply to: Message 358 by mindspawn
09-05-2013 3:07 AM


Re: But the Biblical Flood myths have been totally refuted.
mindspawn writes:
We go into more depth than just choosing two translations and assuming the 2 translations that we cherry picked support our view.
I've filled a whole basket with cherries below.
There are many more trees to be found here,
Genesis 7 AKJV - And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou - Bible Gateway
perhaps you can find a passage that that doesn't say that God/The Lord/YWHY caused the flood?
Good luck with that.
Genesis 7
New International Version (NIV)
4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made.
Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.
21st Century King James Version (KJ21)
4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights, and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.
American Standard Version (ASV)
4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living thing that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the ground.
Contemporary English Version (CEV)
4 Seven days from now I will send rain that will last for forty days and nights, and I will destroy all other living creatures I have made.
Good News Translation (GNT)
4 Seven days from now I am going to send rain that will fall for forty days and nights, in order to destroy all the living beings that I have made.
Orthodox Jewish Bible (OJB)
4 For shivah yamim from now, and I will cause it to rain upon ha’aretz arba’im yom and arba’im lailah; and every living creature that I have made will I wipe out from off the p’nei ha’adamah.
Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)
4 For in seven days I will send rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living thing that I have made I will blot out from the face of the ground.
Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
4 for after other seven days I am sending rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and have wiped away all the substance that I have made from off the face of the ground.'
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
4 For yet a while, and after seven days, I will rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and I will destroy every substance that I have made, from the face of the earth.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 358 by mindspawn, posted 09-05-2013 3:07 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 373 by mindspawn, posted 09-05-2013 7:38 AM Tangle has replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2660 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 372 of 991 (706004)
09-05-2013 7:00 AM
Reply to: Message 368 by Pressie
09-05-2013 6:30 AM


Re: Another brief off topic note
Please don't tell untruths about what I wrote. I didn't say that at all. Their instruments were not faulty at all.
Anyone who's ever been in a lab would know that external influences, such as variations in temperature, humidity, pressure, etc., would influence the readings obtained from any equipment.
Ok , sorry I misunderstood you. You feel the data could be faulty because of external influences on the equipment? I agree that any studies showing daily/seasonal variations should be checked against environmental influences on the equipment. I would assume that institutions like The Geological Survey of Israel, and Purdue University would adjust the data for any such influences.
Nope. Not faulty equipment. They say their readings may be influenced by environmental influences. Temperature, pressure, etc.
Nope. The variations may be influenced by the environment, not the "readings":
"These measurements exhibit strong variations in time of year and time of day, which may be due in part to environmental influences"
Exactly. That's what they suggested. Please remember that it's not a seasonal. They said it themselves.
Call it what you like , the fluctuations occur at the same time every year. They are annual fluctuations:
"We have previously found these oscillations in nuclear-decay data acquired at the Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) and at the Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB), and we have suggested that these oscillations are attributable to some form of solar radiation that has its origin in the deep solar interior. A curious property of the GSI data is that the annual oscillation is much stronger in daytime data than in nighttime data, but the opposite is true for all other oscillations."
Look at the diagram below:
Ok so these rates are "annual" and not "seasonal". See how they always peak in June/July? Very interesting how these decay rates vary annually. The entire theory of ancient rocks is based on constancy, yet something unknown is causing variation.
Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 368 by Pressie, posted 09-05-2013 6:30 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 378 by Pressie, posted 09-05-2013 8:56 AM mindspawn has not replied
 Message 379 by JonF, posted 09-05-2013 8:58 AM mindspawn has not replied
 Message 381 by Pressie, posted 09-05-2013 9:10 AM mindspawn has replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2660 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 373 of 991 (706005)
09-05-2013 7:38 AM
Reply to: Message 371 by Tangle
09-05-2013 6:49 AM


Re: But the Biblical Flood myths have been totally refuted.
I've filled a whole basket with cherries below.
There are many more trees to be found here,
Genesis 7 - The LORD then said to Noah, Go into - Bible Gateway...
perhaps you can find a passage that that doesn't say that God/The Lord/YWHY caused the flood?
Good luck with that.
Thanks for making that effort. Looking at the Hebrew I feel the following two translations are better:
Wycliff Bible (first version):
For yet and after seven days, I shall rain on [the] earth forty days and forty nights
You included this one:
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA):
For yet a while, and after seven days, I will rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and I will destroy every substance that I have made, from the face of the earth.
Like I already said, God could have caused that rainfall through triggering off an earlier event (loss of magnetic field can seed rainfall). Due to the fact that we don't know how He intervened, and if He used natural means to intervene, I prefer to discuss these issues from a scientific perspective than falling back on supernatural causes.
Except for the creation/biogenesis argument, that is always my approach.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 371 by Tangle, posted 09-05-2013 6:49 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 394 by Tangle, posted 09-05-2013 11:55 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2660 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 374 of 991 (706006)
09-05-2013 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 370 by JonF
09-05-2013 6:48 AM


Re: Another brief off topic note
The alleged Biblical flood was not "flooding on every coastline on the planet", it was complete flooding of all the land on the planet.
Exactly, I have been saying all along that I can prove a worldwide flood, but cannot prove it covered every mountain.
The reason for my participation in this thread is to show that a biblical flood has never been disproved.
In post 151 Coyote said there are irreconcilable problems with my claims
In post 166 Catholic scientist said "we know that the entire planet has never been covered in water"
In post 176 Paul K said "the flood story has been investigated and found to be untrue"
Now I have proved vast flooding in various places around the world at the P-T boundary, can anyone back up their statements and provide ANY evidence that the water did not cover the highest peaks then?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 370 by JonF, posted 09-05-2013 6:48 AM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 375 by PaulK, posted 09-05-2013 8:22 AM mindspawn has not replied
 Message 376 by Pressie, posted 09-05-2013 8:27 AM mindspawn has not replied
 Message 377 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-05-2013 8:53 AM mindspawn has not replied
 Message 380 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-05-2013 9:01 AM mindspawn has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 375 of 991 (706009)
09-05-2013 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 374 by mindspawn
09-05-2013 8:03 AM


Re: Another brief off topic note
I submit your posts as evidence. The fact that you can't come up with any plausible defence of the flood story is rather better than anything you've produced.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 374 by mindspawn, posted 09-05-2013 8:03 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024