Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8973 total)
178 online now:
GDR, jar, kjsimons, PaulK, PsychMJC, PurpleYouko (6 members, 172 visitors)
Newest Member: dad
Post Volume: Total: 875,560 Year: 7,308/23,288 Month: 1,214/1,214 Week: 226/303 Day: 23/43 Hour: 6/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Was there a worldwide flood?
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2700 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 346 of 372 (511306)
06-09-2009 5:52 AM
Reply to: Message 345 by pandion
06-09-2009 1:47 AM


Re: Genetics and Pigs
What do you mean by type? Species, sub-species? Type is not a biological classification.

Edited by bluescat48, : typo


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 345 by pandion, posted 06-09-2009 1:47 AM pandion has not yet responded

JonF
Member
Posts: 6078
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 347 of 372 (511311)
06-09-2009 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 345 by pandion
06-09-2009 1:47 AM


Re: Genetics and Pigs
In fact, the dating of the KBS tuff was rejected because the pig fossils were not the same type.

I think it's more accurate to say the the original dating of the KBS Tuff was questioned because of pig fossils, and ultimately rejected because scientists figured out what went wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 345 by pandion, posted 06-09-2009 1:47 AM pandion has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 348 by pandion, posted 06-09-2009 11:14 AM JonF has not yet responded

pandion
Member (Idle past 1511 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 348 of 372 (511326)
06-09-2009 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 347 by JonF
06-09-2009 7:40 AM


Re: Genetics and Pigs
I think it's more accurate to say the the original dating of the KBS Tuff was questioned because of pig fossils, and ultimately rejected because scientists figured out what went wrong.

OK. I can accept that. In fact, in a previous post I stated it more that way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 347 by JonF, posted 06-09-2009 7:40 AM JonF has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16111
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 349 of 372 (511345)
06-09-2009 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 345 by pandion
06-09-2009 1:47 AM


Re: Genetics and Pigs
That would be really nice if that were how you presented the argument. In fact, you challenged Peg's assertion that pig fossils are, in fact, quite useful as index fossils over vast areas in east Africa.

That is not, in fact, what Peg asserted. Indeed, part of the YEC dogma is to deny that index fossils are useful in any way whatsoever.

If you can get Peg to assert that any fossils are useful as index fossils, I shall award you the Dr Adequate Prize For Talking Sense Into Creationists.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 345 by pandion, posted 06-09-2009 1:47 AM pandion has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 351 by pandion, posted 06-09-2009 6:28 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 1208 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 350 of 372 (511369)
06-09-2009 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 345 by pandion
06-09-2009 1:47 AM


I'm Sorry
Hi, Pandion.

pandion writes:

That would be really nice if that were how you presented the argument.

Admittedly, there were alternatives that would have been clearer.

I'm sorry that it offends you so much that I chose not to use them.

-----

I did not challenge Peg's argument about the usefulness of index fossils: I challenged his presentation of the argument. What is the difference between the statement, "They found two types of pigs in one region" and the statement, "I found fifty types of spiders in one field"?

I did not know what Peg was talking about. I tried a few Google searches on "Omo Valley pig fossils" and what-not, but I couldn't find anything informative within the reasonable timeframe of my lunch break.

Does it not upset you when somebody posts something and forces you to do all the work to figure out what they're talking about?

I'm sorry that I let my annoyance dictate the tenor of my response to Peg.

Edited by Bluejay, : I hid the entire message! (I swear I fixed this right after I wrote it... odd)

Edited by Bluejay, : I finally put it in the right place!

Edited by Bluejay, : Hidden content no longer needed: no one needs to remember the silly fight between Pandion and I.

Edited by Bluejay, : Deleted other mean stuff, too: it was embarrassing to read, anyway. Sorry, Pandion


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 345 by pandion, posted 06-09-2009 1:47 AM pandion has not yet responded

pandion
Member (Idle past 1511 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 351 of 372 (511439)
06-09-2009 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 349 by Dr Adequate
06-09-2009 12:57 PM


Re: Genetics and Pigs
Dr Adequate writes:

That is not, in fact, what Peg asserted. Indeed, part of the YEC dogma is to deny that index fossils are useful in any way whatsoever.

If you can get Peg to assert that any fossils are useful as index fossils, I shall award you the Dr Adequate Prize For Talking Sense Into Creationists.


You're right. I stand corrected. I was working from the quote cited by Bluejay. I assumed (probably incorrectly) that Peg understood the importance of the pig fossils. So I was probably a bit harsh. Nevertheless, the spider analogy is still bad. It was a comparison of the vertebrate fossils, especially the pigs, at Koobi Fora and Omo that caused researchers to doubt the original date of the KBS Tuff. That is because similar fossils are found in strata of like age over a wide area in east Africa.

Edited by pandion, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 349 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-09-2009 12:57 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 352 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-09-2009 7:19 PM pandion has responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16111
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 352 of 372 (511449)
06-09-2009 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 351 by pandion
06-09-2009 6:28 PM


Re: Genetics and Pigs
Nevertheless, the spider analogy is still bad.

No, not really. Peg's sole point, if it can be dignified with that name, was that the existence of different pigs in different places at the same time somehow invalidates geology.

So the observation that different species in the same taxon do, right now, live in different places at the same time, is indeed sufficient to refute her argument.

If she had a more subtle point in mind (which she didn't) then she has relinquished her chance to make it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 351 by pandion, posted 06-09-2009 6:28 PM pandion has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 353 by pandion, posted 06-10-2009 12:36 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded
 Message 354 by Peg, posted 06-10-2009 4:47 AM Dr Adequate has responded

pandion
Member (Idle past 1511 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 353 of 372 (511482)
06-10-2009 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 352 by Dr Adequate
06-09-2009 7:19 PM


Re: Genetics and Pigs
Dr Adequate writes:

No, not really. Peg's sole point, if it can be dignified with that name, was that the existence of different pigs in different places at the same time somehow invalidates geology.

So the observation that different species in the same taxon do, right now, live in different places at the same time, is indeed sufficient to refute her argument.

If she had a more subtle point in mind (which she didn't) then she has relinquished her chance to make it.


Well then, I must owe Bluejay an apology, which I now offer. I sincerely hope that I caused no offense.

I mistakenly believed that Peg was discussing the problems with the dating of the KBS Tuff and how the fossil suites found at the various sites first indicated that the KBS Tuff had been misdated. I realize that I was wrong, i.e., that was not what Peg was saying. I have reviewed the entire discussion rather than the single quote upon which I based my remarks. From that discussion it is clear that Peg does not actually understand the whole point about pig fossils and the KBS Tuff.

That's what I get for commenting without reading the history.

Again, sorry, Bluejay.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 352 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-09-2009 7:19 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Peg
Member (Idle past 3440 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 354 of 372 (511520)
06-10-2009 4:47 AM
Reply to: Message 352 by Dr Adequate
06-09-2009 7:19 PM


Re: Genetics and Pigs
Dr Adequate writes:

No, not really. Peg's sole point, if it can be dignified with that name, was that the existence of different pigs in different places at the same time somehow invalidates geology.

Actually, that was not my point.

Coyote said that "Sediment layers are not interrupted at that time over continental areas by a discontinuity."

I questioned using the sediment layers as a marker because as is seen in the layers of sediment from the Omo and Lake Rudolf areas, they are not always consistent with each other. In the example i gave, the pigs are in the same sediment layer, are dated to the same time but are a different types of pig.

I was not calling into question geology as a whole....even though the geologic column IS a hypothetical structure.

But to Pandion, as usual my clumsy remarks have caused a ruckus and i apologize for that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 352 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-09-2009 7:19 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 355 by JonF, posted 06-10-2009 7:33 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 356 by Nuggin, posted 06-10-2009 11:09 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 357 by pandion, posted 06-10-2009 11:38 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 358 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-10-2009 11:59 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 360 by RAZD, posted 06-11-2009 7:16 PM Peg has responded

JonF
Member
Posts: 6078
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 355 of 372 (511529)
06-10-2009 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 354 by Peg
06-10-2009 4:47 AM


Re: Genetics and Pigs
. In the example i gave, the pigs are in the same sediment layer, are dated to the same time but are a different types of pig.

You haven't given any example. You've made a vague reference to something without sufficient detail. We've presumed that you are talking about the KBS Tuff story.

If our presumption is correct, your claim of inconsistency is wrong. The apparent inconsistency in KBS Tuff dating was resolved by finding errors in the original dating.

If our presumption is wrong, you need to provide the details of your story and the references from which we can avaluate the data.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 354 by Peg, posted 06-10-2009 4:47 AM Peg has not yet responded

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 1003 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 356 of 372 (511545)
06-10-2009 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 354 by Peg
06-10-2009 4:47 AM


Re: Genetics and Pigs
I questioned using the sediment layers as a marker because as is seen in the layers of sediment from the Omo and Lake Rudolf areas, they are not always consistent with each other. In the example i gave, the pigs are in the same sediment layer, are dated to the same time but are a different types of pig.

Do you understand that there can be multiple types of an animal alive at the same time? For example, there are probably more than 100 breeds of dog.

50,000 years from now, analysis will be able to date dog remains to this time period. Are we going to assume some sort of bizarre magical global catastrophe simply because there is a chihuahua buried in one person's backyard and a poodle buried in another person's backyard?

There are (and were in the past) multiple types of pigs. It's no more unusual to find different kinds of pig fossils in the same layer in different locations than it would be to find multiple types of dog fossils in the same layer in different (or even the same!) locations.

Edited by Nuggin, : typos


This message is a reply to:
 Message 354 by Peg, posted 06-10-2009 4:47 AM Peg has not yet responded

pandion
Member (Idle past 1511 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 357 of 372 (511549)
06-10-2009 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 354 by Peg
06-10-2009 4:47 AM


Re: Genetics and Pigs
Peg writes:

I questioned using the sediment layers as a marker because as is seen in the layers of sediment from the Omo and Lake Rudolf areas, they are not always consistent with each other.


But they are. Perhaps your source is just horribly outdated. Another possibility is that your source lied to you. Once the strata were correctly identified they were found to be perfectly consistent.

In the example i gave, the pigs are in the same sediment layer, are dated to the same time but are a different types of pig.

Incorrect. Once the layers were correctly identified it was found that the fossil suites found in various locations were almost identical. In other words, the pig fossils (and others) in any stratum are the same. That means different types of pig = different strata. It's actually a pretty simple idea.

Why don't you get the correct information. Bones of Contention by Roger Lewin has already been mentioned (The University of Chicago Press, 1987. ISBN 0226476510) Perhaps your confusion would be cleared up by a reading of the actual facts.

Edited by pandion, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 354 by Peg, posted 06-10-2009 4:47 AM Peg has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16111
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 358 of 372 (511553)
06-10-2009 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 354 by Peg
06-10-2009 4:47 AM


Re: Genetics and Pigs
I questioned using the sediment layers as a marker because as is seen in the layers of sediment from the Omo and Lake Rudolf areas, they are not always consistent with each other. In the example i gave, the pigs are in the same sediment layer, are dated to the same time but are a different types of pig.

Different pigs live in different places. How does this make geology "inconsistent"?

I was not calling into question geology as a whole....even though the geologic column IS a hypothetical structure.

What do you mean by the phrase "hypothetical structure"? Would this phrase also apply to the Periodic Table?

Might I suggest that if you wish to understand geology, reading creationist crap is not the best place to start?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 354 by Peg, posted 06-10-2009 4:47 AM Peg has not yet responded

roxrkool
Member (Idle past 52 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 359 of 372 (511601)
06-10-2009 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by Peg
06-05-2009 8:24 AM


Re: Worldwide flood -- not
So what im questioning is how sediment layers can be used so affirmatively when they are not always consistent. Would you use a calculator which occasionally produced an incorrect answer?

You are questioning sedimentology and stratigraphy only because you do not understand the subject matter. These processes are predictable, and as was already mentioned, they follow the laws of physics and geology. The fact that you lack the knowledge in how to interpret these deposits is not the fault of Nature, but your own.

As you must be aware, calculators are not the problem -- users are. Same in geology: garbage in, garbage out.

You need to pick up a real geological textbook and start reading.

If the sedimentology and/or stratigraphy do not make sense, it is OUR fault. We need to study the deposits in greater detail to figure out what exactly it is we are missing. Geology is not black and white. It is black and white and a million shades of gray.

Edited by roxrkool, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Peg, posted 06-05-2009 8:24 AM Peg has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 360 of 372 (511769)
06-11-2009 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 354 by Peg
06-10-2009 4:47 AM


hypothesis and validated theory: geological colum and the law of superposition
Hi Peg, still having that denial problem eh?

I was not calling into question geology as a whole....even though the geologic column IS a hypothetical structure.

Actually it is a validated theoretical structure.

In science you move from evidence to hypothesis that explains the evidence to tests of the hypothesis with new evidence or experiments to validation of the tests or to invalidation of the hypothesis from the results of those tests.

One of those tests consists of a simple comparison of existing undisturbed sedimentary layers: if layer A is above layer B in one location, then whenever you can find both layer A and layer B in other locations, A will be above B. Another test is that where layer A is above layer B and layer B is above layer C, then whenever you can find layers A and C - with or without B (it may not extend as far as the other layers) - layer A will be above layer C.

This sequential layering is what forms the "geological column" even though there may be no one place where all the layers exist. An example of this kind of layering is shown here:

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/correlation.html

quote:

Click to enlarge

These sections are typical of the ones geologists prepare when studying the relationships of layers of rocks (beds) throughout a region. Each column represents the sequence of beds at a specific locality. The same beds, which in places may thicken or thin (some may pinch out entirely) according to the local environment of deposition, are bracketed within the lines connecting the three columns.

For convenience, geologists commonly group adjoining beds that possess similar or related features (including fossils) into a single, more conspicuous unit called a formation. The component beds of each formation are described, the formation is named, and the information is published for the use of all geologists. Formation names comprise two or more words, the first part usually taken from a geographic feature near which the rocks are prominently displayed. The last word indicates the principal rock type, or if of mixed rock types, the word formation is used: The Morrison Formation--the Wingate Sandstone--the Todilto Limestone--the Mancos Shale.


This has been massively tested and massively validated, as geologists have been doing this comparison for centuries, it is so massively tested that it is known as the Law of Superposition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_superposition

quote:
The law of superposition (or the principle of superposition) is a key axiom based on observations of natural history that is a foundational principle of sedimentary stratigraphy and so of other geology dependent natural sciences:
Sedimentary layers are deposited in a time sequence, with the oldest on the bottom and the youngest on the top.

The principle was first proposed in the 11th century by the Persian geologist, Avicenna (Ibn Sina), and the law was later formulated more clearly in the 17th century by the Danish scientist Nicolas Steno.[1]
...
Steno stated another, more general principle in this way:

“ If a solid body is enclosed on all sides by another solid body, of the two bodies that one first became hard which, in the mutual contact, expresses on its own surface the properties of the other surface. ”
In other words: a solid object will cause any solids that form around it later to conform to its own shape.

Steno was able to show by this reasoning that fossils and crystals must have solidified before the host rock that contains them was formed. If a "tongue stone" had grown within a rock, it would have been distorted by the surrounding rock, in much the same way that a tree root is distorted by growing into a crack in the earth. Instead, the "tongue stone" must have been buried in soft sediments which hardened later. Veins (mineral-filled cracks) and many crystals, on the other hand, must have formed after the surrounding rock was a solid, because they often did show irregularities of form caused by having to conform to the surrounding solid rock.

Finally, in the case of strata, layers on top of a set of strata conform to the shape of lower layers. . . and therefore, in a set of strata, the youngest layers must be those of the top layer, and the oldest must lie on the bottom. This is because the youngest layer was deposited after the oldest layers, which determines their place in the layers. Since the oldest was deposited first it is on the bottom and vice versa.


And the top of each layer determines the shape of the bottom of the next layer above. This provides another way to test the concept: if layer A deforms layer B then it would be the first formed first to harden layer.

A third way that this concept has been tested is with radiometric dating: if the law of superposition is correct then the radiometric dating should show a progression of ages from oldest at the bottom to youngest at the top.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/confirm.html (4)

quote:
However, there is an easier way to check if a method is reliable. We can see if it gives consistent answers against some other method.

For example, Potassium-Argon (K-Ar) dating was tested against the Cenozoic-Era North American Land Mammal ordering. By ordering, I mean that rock layers were given numbers, with bigger numbers at greater depth. Each fossil was given the number of the rock layer it was found in. (Geologists call this stratigraphic order.) Here are the results:


Stratigraphic K-Ar Date # Samples
Position Name of Age (millions) Dated
======== ============ ======== ==========
1 Irvingtonian 1.36 1
2 Blancan 1.5 - 3.5 7
3 Hemphillian 4.1 -10.0 8
4 Claredonian 8.9 -11.7 16
5 Barstovian 12.3-15.6 9
6 Hemingfordian 17.1 1
7 Arikareean 21.3-25.6 4
8 Orellian --- 0
9 Chadronian 31.6-37.5 9
10 Duchesnean 37.5 3
11 Uintan 42.7-45.0 2
12 Bridgerian 45.4-49.0 2
13 Wasatchian 49.2 1
14 Puercan 64.8 1

The standard geological idea is that "deeper is older". (It's called the Principle of Superposition, and was invented two centuries before Darwin.) In this table, Superposition and K-Ar dating are mutually consistent.

Layer by layer the stratigraphic measures older by radiometric dating, entirely consistent with the long term deposition of sedimentary layers (and not some jumbled debris of some fantasy flood scenario). None of the K-Ar Dates overlap into the wrong sedimentary layers.

This same kind of layering, with oldest layer first, also occurs in limestone and calcite deposits, in stalactites and similar formations. These formation also trap radioactive isotopes that then decay, with the most decayed layers being the oldest first layers of the deposits.

Thus the law of superposition is validated in many ways, in many locations, for many many years.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 354 by Peg, posted 06-10-2009 4:47 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 361 by Coyote, posted 06-11-2009 8:47 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 362 by Peg, posted 06-11-2009 9:14 PM RAZD 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 © 2020