|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Which animals would populate the earth if the ark was real? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 197 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
And the ice-caps of Pangea were far more vast than Antartica which contributes towards your point. Good thinking there. I would assume that the warm marine water would contribute towards the melting of the ice caps, but its possible that the hot air and warm volcanic rainfalls did most of the job. Most terrestrial and marine sedimentation across the planet show a clay layer with signs of volcanic dust, and so the Siberian Traps had a vast effect on the planet at that time. I agree the scenario isn't simple. Nevertheless I don't see a mechanism that would deposit significant marine fossils into the inner regions of Pangea when generally the flow is outward towards the Panthalassic Ocean. Show us the numbers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2689 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
This is a flimsy excuse and a blatant device for you to demand evidence from others whilst not providing any evidence of your own I am participating on this thread because of blatant exaggerations that I saw on the first page, that were going largely unchallenged. I have since questioned other sweeping claims made. That's the terms of reference.
Evidence? No, of course not. It's hard to find evidence for things that you make up as you go along.
Insects dominated the lower latitudes.
Totally false. I admit I haven't got evidence for birds in the paleozoic, I anticipate they will be found in a high latitude high altitude biome. (the Siberian plateau). Regarding insects, I meant that insects dominated the environmental niche currently filled by birds. They were the large flying creatures of the main regions of the paleozoic.
Well then, you managed to misrepresent it without trying. You cited a study that tentatively suggested that there might have been angiosperms in the late Permian. You went on to claim that this was evidence of "modern biomes". It is not. Even if these ancient angiosperms are real, it does nothing for your case. You still need to show completely modern flowering and fruiting trees going back to the earliest life. You cannot show that. It certainly helps my case that there is supporting evidence for angiosperms (eg flowers and fruit trees) in the paleozoic. I agree it proves nothing.
And I showed you the multitude of mines and boreholes that penetrate that basalt. The idea that it presents some kind of impassible barrier is your fantasy. If you are having trouble distinguishing your fever dreams from reality, you may wish to consult this helpful diagram; Its possible to find cities by digging a mine, but its not a likely scenario. Looking at the bible's indication of the pre-flood period (~2000 years) and pre-flood population growth rate the world's population wasn't that great at the time of the flood. To find a deeply buried city or even a skeleton in the vastness of Siberia is not an easy task solved by digging a number of mines.
If you can't show us where the pre-Flood humans are then you have no business suggesting that they existed. Scientific conclusions follow evidence. You have no evidence of humans before, during or after the PTB, not for 250 million years. The honest thing for you to do would be to either find that evidence or keep your fantasies to yourself. I admit that from a scientific perspective, my speculation that there is an ancient civilization locked away under the Siberian basalt does not contribute much, but is consistent with my stance that a pre-flood civilization is not currently disproven. You may apply skepticism however I freely admit my view is faith-based, and cannot at this stage be scientifically proved (or disproved).
Utter rubbish. The Bible has humans around from day 6. Do you really believe that they were hiding under the Siberian traps for all that time? It's ludicrous. Can really you not see how tissue-thin an excuse this is? I never said they were hiding under the Traps I believe the volcanic activity caused their destruction and buried them under kilometers of lava. This northern latitude ancient civilization is consistent with ancient Indian stories on the origin of man.
What a lot of waffle. Your theory demands that all life be wiped out at the PTB. This is not what the geological record shows. An honest enquirer would, at this point, shrug and say "Oh well, I guess I was wrong!". But not you. You continue to make up silly excuses for why you are right and reality is wrong. It really is a pathetic spectacle. Its your strawman that requires all life be destroyed. The actual wording of the bible merely requires terrestrial life be completely destroyed, and does not restrict its recovery to the ark. Its possible some life recovered from coastal marine bottom feeders that survived the flooding by swimming (lystrosaurus) , and its possible that plants survived from surviving seeds. The rest survived from the Middle Eastern ark.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2689 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
Show us the numbers. No idea of the numbers. Maybe you can use numbers to disprove the ark. Care to try?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 197 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
No idea of the numbers. So you lied when you claimed:
Are you seriously claiming to have done this kind of study already? Can you honestly do any kind of dating beyond historical references without making some assumption about the rate of some process. I have looked into it. You compare the amount of sedimentation currently going into the gulf of Mexico with the amount of sediment that exists along the entire valley and you can come up with some interesting figures which make the slow process of evolutionary assumptions impossible. And you admit that you are making shit up without a clue of whether or not it's possible:
And the ice-caps of Pangea were far more vast than Antartica which contributes towards your point. Good thinking there. I would assume that the warm marine water would contribute towards the melting of the ice caps, but its possible that the hot air and warm volcanic rainfalls did most of the job. Most terrestrial and marine sedimentation across the planet show a clay layer with signs of volcanic dust, and so the Siberian Traps had a vast effect on the planet at that time. I agree the scenario isn't simple. Nevertheless I don't see a mechanism that would deposit significant marine fossils into the inner regions of Pangea when generally the flow is outward towards the Panthalassic Ocean.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8
|
I am participating on this thread because of blatant exaggerations that I saw on the first page, that were going largely unchallenged. I have since questioned other sweeping claims made. That's the terms of reference. Then I have to accuse you of a paucity of ambition. The Flood, if true, should be easy to prove, There should be solid, positive evidence. If the best you can do is say "I can make up a story and you can't prove me wrong", then you have no business posting to a science thread. In science any new theory has to explain all of the available evidence and do a better job of explaining it than the existing theory. You can't do that. All you have is make believe. Anyway, as it happens, the Flood has been disproved. At no point has there ever been a 100% marine incursion. Case closed.
I admit I haven't got evidence for birds in the paleozoic, I anticipate they will be found in a high latitude high altitude biome. (the Siberian plateau). Why? There is no reason to suggest that any species was confined to the Siberian Plateu. You claim that rising temperatures forced living things northwards, as they could not survive at lower latitudes. This is wrong for several reasons;
I could go on. The fact is that the only reason that you chose to fantasise about humans and birds living under the Siberian Traps is because you think that's a good way to explain away your lack of evidence. You're attracted to this idea not because there is evidence in favour of it, but because you (wrongly) imagine that the lava presents a way of burying the evidence. It's not a hypothesis, it's an excuse and a poor one at that.
Regarding insects, I meant that insects dominated the environmental niche currently filled by birds. They were the large flying creatures of the main regions of the paleozoic. That's because there were no birds to compete with them. Want to disagree? Then show me the fossils.
It certainly helps my case that there is supporting evidence for angiosperms (eg flowers and fruit trees) in the paleozoic. I agree it proves nothing. Correct, it proves nothing. It is not enough for you to come up with an internally consistent story. As it goes, your story is certainly not consistent, but even if it were, this would amount to precisely nothing. A story is not enough. To be taken seriously in a scientific context, your story needs corroborating evidence. Without that, it's just a story, of no consequence and no value.
Its possible to find cities by digging a mine, but its not a likely scenario. Looking at the bible's indication of the pre-flood period (~2000 years) and pre-flood population growth rate the world's population wasn't that great at the time of the flood. To find a deeply buried city or even a skeleton in the vastness of Siberia is not an easy task solved by digging a number of mines. Again, you're making excuses. You're dreaming up ways to excuse your total lack of supporting evidence. It's just not enough. You need positive evidence to be taken seriously.
I admit that from a scientific perspective, my speculation that there is an ancient civilization locked away under the Siberian basalt does not contribute much, but is consistent with my stance that a pre-flood civilization is not currently disproven. You may apply skepticism however I freely admit my view is faith-based, and cannot at this stage be scientifically proved (or disproved). It certainly has been disproved. But even if I were to agree with you that the Flood had not been disproved, that would still amount to nothing. In the scientific arena, it's positive evidence or GTFO. Your faith-based musings are worth less than nothing.
I never said they were hiding under the Traps That is the essence of your position. Where are the ancient humans? Hidden under lava. The ancient birds? Hidden. Ancient cattle? Hidden. Ancient whales? Hidden again. Ancient angiosperms? Also hidden. It's as though the evidence were playing some game of hide and seek. This is the hallmark of ad hoc excuse making. It is the hallmark of a bad theory. I have a simpler explanation, one that explains all your problems at a stroke; you're wrong, there was no PTB Flood. Simple.
Its your strawman that requires all life be destroyed. The actual wording of the bible merely requires terrestrial life be completely destroyed, and does not restrict its recovery to the ark. Not really.
quote: Mutate and Survive Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given. Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given. Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given. Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8
|
True. The bible mentions the hills/mountains of Ararat or the hills of Armenia. Both of which were unavailable. That makes your theory incompatible with the Biblical account.
True Ararat did not exist at the time the ark landed, however it did exist when the bible was written, and this is why they could use that huge mountain as an easy reference point for where the ark had landed. YES! The authors used Ararat because it was familiar to them and their audience. However, if that is the case, you are saying that the bible is wrong and that you are right. Which is it? Should I believe you or the Bible? It can't be both.
By the act of admitting to it I was ironically not cherry picking. I'm sorry, but you were cherry-picking. You were looking for a translation that could be made to fit your pet theory. You were not engaged in an honest pursuit of the truth, only looking for what was expedient. that is textbook cherry-picking. When you thought that Ararat was the landing site, you were keen to talk about the Arabian Plate and the Levant. As soon as you realised that wasn't going to fly, you switched to pushing the "Armenia" translation. Each time, you were more interested in how the text could serve your argument, not in an unbiased reading of the text itself. This is cherry-picking. It's the same thing you've been doing with the studies you've cited.
Ancient Armenia was more vast than modern Armenia, and its centre point was south west of Ararat, much of Armenia overlapped the Arabian plate at that time. All of which was under the sea at the PTB.
I am not accusing you of deliberate cherry picking, but if you research this further you will see that many maps show most of the Arabian Plate above water during the cretaceous. File:100 global.png - Wikipedia The eastern portions were sometimes submerged judging by the source of cretaceous oil. I think we need further discussion on the source for your information and map. History does show widespread flooding across Sumerian cities which could reveal a transgression in the area, although the flooding is currently attributed to rivers. That map has no dates on it so I can't really see what I'm looking at. The fact remains that the Arabian Plate contains a great quantity of marine limestone. It cannot possibly have been occupied during that time. Mutate and Survive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
so those cites were dated using evolutionary assumption Which assumptions were used? You are just confirming my point that you are assigning dates ad hoc and not based on dating scheme X being off by factor y. Do you consider simple denial to be holding up your end of the discussion?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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Do you consider simple denial to be holding up your end of the discussion? Don't forget obfuscation, misdirection, misrepresentation, cherry-picking, and flat out making things 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 197 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
That map has no dates on it so I can't really see what I'm looking at. It's a colored version of Figure 2.1C on the page numbered 16 in Tectonic and Metamorphic Evolution of the Central Himalayan Domain in Southeast Zanskar (Kashmir, India) showing the Earth 100Ma; about halfway through the Cretaceous.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 197 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
I get those dates from the list of sites for early humans that I quoted earlier in this thread from Wikipedia. These sites have been dated to 130 000 ya and younger, and show the first signs of humans around the Arabia/Levant/Egypt/Ethiopia area. This is earlier than reliable carbon dating, and not early enough for radiometric dating ... You are showing your ignorance again. Yes, that sort of range is beyond the reach of 14C dating. No, it is well within the reach of several radiometric and non-radiometric methods. K-Ar dating is good for 20,000 Ya and up (Potassium-Argon Dating or "K-Ar" dating). Ar-Ar dating can do anythiing K-Ar can and has been successfully applied to material less than 2,000 Ya (40Ar/39Ar Dating into the Historical Realm: Calibration Against Pliny the Younger). Thermoluminescense covers 50 Ya to 1,000,000 Ya (Luminescence Dating). Optically Stimulated Luminescence covers about 300 Ya to 100,000 Ya (Wikipedia). Electron Spin resonance covers from a few thousand Ya to 300,000 Ya (Electron spin resonance dating in paleoanthropology). Fission Track Dating covers from about 20,000 Ya to acouple of billion Ya (New Fangled Methods). Amino Acid Racemization does between 5,000 and 100,000 Ya (ibid). U-Th disequilibrium dating is good for near-zero to about 1,000,000 Ya (Uranium Thorium dating) and has been applied to the Siloam tunnel in Jerusalem (Radio-dating backs up biblical text). That's not an exhaustive list. Edited by JonF, : Remove extra quote
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
I have looked into it. You compare the amount of sedimentation currently going into the gulf of Mexico with the amount of sediment that exists along the entire valley and you can come up with some interesting figures which make the slow process of evolutionary assumptions impossible. I doubt you can do what you claim. Do you really believe that the a current fast rate of deposition makes a past slower rate of deposition under different conditions impossible? Which is more likely to be constant over time, a rate of deposition of sediment anywhere in the world in various conditions of water flow and geography, or the decay rate of potassium 40?[1] [1] Rhetorical Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Thanks Jon!
That date explains the difference between the two maps then; mine is set a little while later, at 94mya. I know that the mid-Cretaceous had very high sea levels. The rise must have taken place between those dates. Mutate and Survive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8
|
Okay, back to the Xuanwei discussion.
This is the only good point you made. Gee thanks.
The rest of your post is denial of the transgression (marine incursion) that occurred in that entire region during that period, I posted the evidence of this already and wont bother to post my links again, they are on record for all to see. I'll save you the bother. Here is the only thing you've found to back up that particular mistaken belief;
quote: This quote simply does not say that any transgression covered the whole of South China. It mentions a transgression in the late Permian (Changxiangian), followed by a a regression (Changxiangian again), then another transgression at the PTB, then another regression in the Triassic. In none of these examples does it mention the extent of any of these events. You have no basis upon which to suppose that any of these events represents a total flood, any more than you can suppose that the regressions mentioned left all the land exposed. The thing you seem to have picked up on is the word "correlated". You seem to think that this word means that the authors are saying that Chahe had a marine incursion. That's not right. They're just saying that all of their observations of the geology in this area can be correlated into an overall picture of events. They're not saying that all those events were marine incursions. You have simply misunderstood this extract, taking it out of context. Your stubbornness about this is unfortunate.
Just to clarify my position, I believe the flood included late Permian and early Triassic layers, and in the Xuanwei region the flood is mainly reflected in the Kayitou layer that lies above the Xuanwei Formation, although the highest Xuanwei layer could also be a reflection of flooding due to the increased fluvial deposition (higher rates of sedimentation). The Flood can't include much in the way of Permian layers if you're going to insist upon calling the Siberian Traps event the "fountains of the deep". That has to happen at the beginning of the flood to remain in accord with the Bible story. Further, the Kayitou formation does have marine layers, but at the earliest Triassic it is non-marine, so that is just as bad for your argument as the Xuanwei.
Due to the magnetic reversal during the boundary, the one year flood period covers a mainstream period of a few million years traversing the PT boundary. I would love to hear your detailed analysis of the mechanism behind this. How does a magnetic reversal affect the dating exactly? Besides, your timing is out. If the Flood is 4500 years ago, with an apparent age of 252 000 000 years ago, then we get a measure of about 56 000 apparent geological years per mindspawn year. The longest your Flood can cover in the geological record is about 56 000 years.
End of story? There is no reason to believe any marine life would have survived the inland travel during the temporary marine incursion. Could you describe what marine life you feel would have survived that process please? Bivalves, brachiopods, conodonts, forams; you know, marine life, such as is found at other marine incursion sites. If you want to fantasise that this marine incursion would have had no marine life, you need to explain why it differs from every other marine incursion. This is another example of you making sad little excuses for missing evidence.
Please also take into account the massive marine temperature changes and salinity changes that actually did kill off a lot of marine life during the PT boundary. Not all of them though. There are still plenty of PTB sequences with marine fossils. There's no reason to imagine that any PTB marine section would be devoid of life. Vimesy also makes an excellent point; if you think that these events killed off a lot of the existing life, then we should see their fossils. We don't.
Read my links again, its the geologists that associate the lacustrine environments with the marine transgression. They do not exclude saline waters from their recognition that conditions have change from fluvial (river systems) to lacustrine (large areas of relatively still water) You just keep digging don't you. It doesn't matter whether the lakes in question were freshwater or saline, they were still lakes. Lakes are not found under the sea. A lake under the sea would not be a lake. It would just be more sea. Similarly, we do find rivers at the bottom of the sea. A river at the bottom of the sea would just be more sea. As it happens, we know that the lakes in question (those in the Xuanwei formation) were freshwater because they are full of freshwater plants. Ferns don't grow in salt water. Rivers and lakes are terrestrial features. Your repeated refusal to face this reality is making look like a fool.
You seem to misunderstand the geological term "lacustrine" as you also seem to misunderstand the geological word "transgression". Well, I know that "lacustrine" is not a synonym for "marine". And I know that simply saying "Look! A transgression!" does nothing to tell us the extent of the transgression.
Your swearing invites me to swear back. I refrain. It would promote better discussion if you refrain from rudeness, it really is unnecessary. Since when is "pillock" a swear word? Frankly, "pillock" is the most flattering term I could find for someone who repeatedly insists that a lacustrine environment represents a marine incursion. To be any more complimentary about such incredible foolishness would seem perverse. For the record, any time you see a PTB sequence described as lacustrine or fluvial, that means that it was not under the sea. That leaves your Flood theory high and dry. Mutate and Survive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2689 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
I doubt you can do what you claim. Do you really believe that the a current fast rate of deposition makes a past slower rate of deposition under different conditions impossible? Which is more likely to be constant over time, a rate of deposition of sediment anywhere in the world in various conditions of water flow and geography, or the decay rate of potassium 40? Sedimentation should not change by a factor of thousands. Sedimentation would have to be about 50 000 times slower during the Mesozoic to explain fossilisation along the Mississippi. The Mississippi deposits about 200 billion kgs of sediment annually. I hope the links do work:A model of the effects of sedimentation rate on the stability of Mississippi Delta sediments | SpringerLink A model of the effects of sedimentation rate on the stability of Mississippi Delta sediments | SpringerLink This amounts to more than 15cm per year over the entire Mississippi marine delta region. (200 000 km2?) This is enough sedimentation to produce the entire Mesozoic and Cenozoic fossil record along the Mississippi river in 4500 years. I have a Muon theory. Muons produce many neutrons, neutrons slow down decay. Muons are vulnerable to the magnetic field and during periods of a strong magnetic field radiometric decay would have been faster. I believe there could be more chance of major fluctuations in the decay rate of Potassium than in the rate of sedimentation. Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
I have a Muon theory. Muons produce many neutrons, neutrons slow down decay. Well you theory is wrong. Muons decay in to neutrinos not neutrons specificity 2 neutrinos and one electron. About 65 billion neutrinos pass trough every square centimetre of the earth every SECOND. Damm its a wonder we even get our nuclear reactors running if they slow down the decay rate. O yes, they don't. Oh and we use NEUTRONS to start nuclear decay in reactors we fire them at uranium -235 that causes that particular atom to decay and release more neutrons that hit other atoms cause them to decay and release more neutrons ...... Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024