|
Author
|
Topic: Which animals would populate the earth if the ark was real?
|
JonF
Member (Idle past 189 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: 06-23-2003
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Another brief off topic note
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. Again, the fluctuations have not been demonstrated to be variations in decay rates.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 372 by mindspawn, posted 09-05-2013 7:00 AM | | mindspawn has not replied |
|
JonF
Member (Idle past 189 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: 06-23-2003
|
|
Message 416 of 991 (706112)
09-06-2013 7:59 AM
|
Reply to: Message 415 by Tangle
09-06-2013 7:49 AM
|
|
Re: But the Biblical Flood myths have been totally refuted.
You spelled mountains wrong. Twice.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 415 by Tangle, posted 09-06-2013 7:49 AM | | Tangle has not replied |
|
JonF
Member (Idle past 189 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: 06-23-2003
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: But the Biblical Flood myths have been totally refuted.
Providing there was drainage and not evaporation of the salt water, it seems that this soil can recover rapidly given some rainfall to wash out the salt Reference required.
If you add compost, of which post-flood conditions would have had in huge abundance, there is every reason for the soil to make some form of recovery... Material rotted for a year in salt water is not compost. From wikipedia:
quote:
At the simplest level, the process of composting simply requires making a heap of wetted organic matter (leaves, "green" food waste) and waiting for the materials to break down into humus after a period of weeks or months. Modern, methodical composting is a multi-step, closely monitored process with measured inputs of water, air, and carbon- and nitrogen-rich materials. The decomposition process is aided by shredding the plant matter, adding water and ensuring proper aeration by regularly turning the mixture. Worms and fungi further break up the material. Aerobic bacteria manage the chemical process by converting the inputs into heat, carbon dioxide and ammonium. The ammonium is further converted by bacteria into plant-nourishing nitrites and nitrates through the process of nitrification
{emphasis added}
... in 5 months. The claim was made that these saline soils cannot recover in 5 months. No, the claim was made that these saline soils could not recover in a few days. Of course they couldn't recover in five months either. but that's irrelevant, since Tangle has conclusively established that nowhere near five months was available.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 417 by mindspawn, posted 09-06-2013 8:02 AM | | mindspawn has replied |
|
JonF
Member (Idle past 189 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: 06-23-2003
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 537 of 991 (706467)
09-12-2013 8:50 AM
|
Reply to: Message 536 by NoNukes
09-12-2013 8:38 AM
|
|
Re: If the ARK was real here is what we must see.
You mean there is nothing other than evidence for dating that contradicts the Bible that you cannot ignore or make excuses for.
He's already stated that he can deny or make excuses for the results of radiometric dating. I'd sure like to see him try!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 536 by NoNukes, posted 09-12-2013 8:38 AM | | NoNukes has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 539 by NoNukes, posted 09-12-2013 11:03 AM | | JonF has not replied |
|
JonF
Member (Idle past 189 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: 06-23-2003
|
Re: Brief Comments about the Nature of Evidence
Its only in mountain building tectonic movements that the friction is high. You're the one who thinks that the "mountains" back then were just "hills" because that's what the hebrew word really meant. I'm surprised nobody's challenged his claim that only mountain building has high friction. His plate analogy is obviously not analogous.
|
JonF
Member (Idle past 189 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: 06-23-2003
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Geology is irrelevant; try addressing the topic.
You forgot the stratigraphic time scale.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 822 by mindspawn, posted 10-14-2013 7:50 AM | | mindspawn has replied |
|
JonF
Member (Idle past 189 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: 06-23-2003
|
|
|
Message 843 of 991 (708795)
10-14-2013 11:34 AM
|
|
|
Rohl? Really?
Rohl's chronology is long dead, the most recent of many nails in its coffin is Radiocarbon-based chronology for dynastic Egypt. You'd better be very familiar with that if you are going to try to defend Rohl.
|
JonF
Member (Idle past 189 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: 06-23-2003
|
Re: Geology is irrelevant; try addressing the topic.
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.
Show us the numbers.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 851 by mindspawn, posted 10-17-2013 4:45 AM | | mindspawn has not replied |
|
JonF
Member (Idle past 189 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: 06-23-2003
|
Re: Geology is irrelevant; try addressing the topic.
and regarding archaeology I prefer Rohl's revised dating to mainstream Egyptology. Unless it gets the pyramids built sometime after the flood, revising those dates may help with other parts of genesis, but as far as proving a flood date, Rohl's dates (which don't constitute a dating system) are just rearranging deck chairs on the titanic. They don't help you correct C-14 dating in any significant way. I was referring to various dating methods, not just carbon dating. As we can see above, you were referring to Rohl's revised chronology, not dating methods of any kind.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 851 by mindspawn, posted 10-17-2013 4:45 AM | | mindspawn has not replied |
|
JonF
Member (Idle past 189 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: 06-23-2003
|
Re: If the ARK was real here is what we must see.
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.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 852 by mindspawn, posted 10-17-2013 5:04 AM | | mindspawn has replied |
|
JonF
Member (Idle past 189 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: 06-23-2003
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
Re: If the ARK was real here is what we must see.
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.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 858 by mindspawn, posted 10-17-2013 7:48 AM | | mindspawn has not replied |
|
JonF
Member (Idle past 189 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: 06-23-2003
|
Re: The flood story (getting pretty off the topic core)
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 189 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: 06-23-2003
|
Re: Geology is irrelevant; try addressing the topic.
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
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 851 by mindspawn, posted 10-17-2013 4:45 AM | | mindspawn has not replied |
|
JonF
Member (Idle past 189 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: 06-23-2003
|
Re: Uniformity assumptions...
With specifically heavy isotopes, neutrons can maintain their instability through neutron capture. ie the unstable parent isotope through the capture of neutrons cannot decay into the daughter isotope until the neutron bombardment stops. Reference required. And calculations of the amount of neutron flux and it's effect on all relevant radioactive isotopes. Don't ignore (as you of course have) the fact that radioactive decay is an umbrella term for three very different processes, each of which has variations. Yet the vast majority of radiometric dates based on different isotopes agree. Therefore any effect you propose must affect all relevant radioactive isotopes equally. Think especially of 87Rb which decays by electron capture.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 872 by mindspawn, posted 10-22-2013 7:47 AM | | mindspawn has replied |
|
JonF
Member (Idle past 189 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: 06-23-2003
|
|
|
Message 877 of 991 (709188)
10-22-2013 10:16 AM
|
Reply to: Message 875 by mindspawn
10-22-2013 8:48 AM
|
|
Re: Uniformity assumptions...
I do not know enough about the process to state the extent of the effect. Or the maths behind it. All I have at this stage is a likely mechanism that would logically effect the rate of decay. You have not established it as likely. You have not even established that the effect exists (my bet is that it doesn't), or that it can occur under terrestrial conditions (if it happens, I bet it only happens in stars), or that there is sufficient neutron flux to have a significant effect (hint: no) or how it would affect all relevant decays equally. Regarding Rb, it decays by electron capture. Yet Rb-Sr dates agree with U-Pb dates and Hf-Lu dates SM-Nd and so on. How is electron capture decay affected by neutron flux? Edited by JonF, : No reason given. Edited by JonF, : No reason given. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 875 by mindspawn, posted 10-22-2013 8:48 AM | | mindspawn has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2