Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 73 (8962 total)
121 online now:
caffeine, PaulK, Tangle (3 members, 118 visitors)
Newest Member: Samuel567
Post Volume: Total: 871,028 Year: 2,776/23,288 Month: 967/1,809 Week: 86/313 Day: 3/39 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Which animals would populate the earth if the ark was real?
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2083
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 277 of 991 (705839)
09-03-2013 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by kofh2u
09-02-2013 11:04 PM


Re: But the Biblical Flood myths have been totally refuted.
kofh2u writes:

3) Just before the "flood" Genesis reports inbreeding between different "kinds" of men, a case of hybridization which we recently confirmed by genetic tests that indicate the people of today carry Neanderthal genes in them.

As I understand it; sub-Saharan Africans don't carry Neanderthal genes. Interbreeding between some humans and Neanderthals occurred in Eurasia after a group or groups of humans moved out of Africa. How do these tie into what you wrote? Did the Flood miss sub-Saharan Africa as those people without Neanderthal genes also survived ?

Edited by Pressie, : Spelling mistakes


This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by kofh2u, posted 09-02-2013 11:04 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by NoNukes, posted 09-03-2013 1:17 AM Pressie has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2083
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(2)
Message 318 of 991 (705918)
09-04-2013 4:34 AM
Reply to: Message 303 by mindspawn
09-03-2013 10:56 AM


Re: The flood story (getting pretty off the topic core)
mindspawn, I checked the reference provided here:
mindspawn writes:

Look at the following list of anomalies, please notice that many of these anomalies are from Russia, here's just a few:
http://www.nwcreation.net/anomalies.html

It is from an anti-scientific, fundamentalist religious YEC organisation. The article was written by John Woodmorappe (real name Jan Peczkis, who describes himself as a ‘science teacher’).

He has a table with what he calls anomalous fossils. The reference to a South African so-called anomalous fossil in his table drew my eye immediately.

Peczkis claims the proper age of Archeocyathids is Cambrian. He said they were found in Permian deposits at Dwyka, South Africa.

Well, the word Dwyka rang a bell. The Dwyka Formation is the lowest formation in the Main Karoo Basin, occurring over wide areas of the country. It is a glacial deposit, consisting a mixture of, amongst others gravel and boulders. Obviously that gravel and boulders didn’t appear from thin air, but were obtained from already existing rocks.

The gravel and boulders therefore are older than the tillite; not the age of the tillite. Some of that gravel and boulders do contain fossils. Way older than the Permian Dwyka Formation, simply because those boulders in which they occur are way older than the Dwyka Formation. The result is that it’s very possible to find a Cambrian fossil in Permian tillites.

I consulted the original article he referenced and it turned out that I was right!

Rozanov A. Yu. and F. Debrenne. 1974. Age of Archaeocyathid Assemblages. American Journal of Science, Vol 274, October 2, 833-848.

On page 845.

AJ writes:

Recently Dr. M. Cooper (South African Museum) has collected arch-aeocyathids in glacial erratics embedded in Dwyka tillite of South Africa. The samples were sent to one of the authors (F. Debrenne) for studies. Preliminary observations of the surfaces (without help of thin sections until now) give us first results, the evidence of forms closed to Thalamocyathus , Zonacyatus, Syringocnema, and Pycnoidocyatus. If clear affinities are established with the faunas of Antartica and possibly Australia the Archeocyatha would be used not only for distant correlations but also as a clue for continental drift and recognition of Gondwana in Cambrian time.

My bold.

Then from the Glossary of Geology:
GARY, M., MACAFEE R (JR), and WOLF, C. L. (eds), 1977. Glossary of Geology. American Geological Institute.

Glossary of Geology writes:

Tillite: A consolidated or indurated sedimentary rock formed by lithification of glacial till, esp. pre-Pleistocene till (such as the Late Carboniferous tillites in South Africa and India).

Glossary of Geology writes:

Till [glac geol]: Unsorted and unstratified drift, generally unconsolidated, deposited directly by and underneath a glacier without subsequent reworking by water from the glacier, and consisting of a heterogeneous mixture of clay, sand, gravel, and boulders varying widely in size and shape.


Nothing anomalous about finding Cambrian fossils in Cambrian clay, sand, gravel and boulders deposited as Permian tillite.

Seems as if the creationist was trying to mislead people again. He wrote an untruth. Why do creationists always have to tell untruths about everything? It seems as if it’s all they have.

I won’t even bother to check the rest.

Edited by Pressie, : Spelling


This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by mindspawn, posted 09-03-2013 10:56 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 326 by mindspawn, posted 09-04-2013 6:42 AM Pressie has responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2083
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 329 of 991 (705929)
09-04-2013 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 326 by mindspawn
09-04-2013 6:42 AM


Re: The flood story (getting pretty off the topic core)
mindspawn wites
quote:
Good point, and thank you for taking the time to look at the link. I'm also reluctant to use religious sites for evidence, but felt that the references would speak for themselves. But obviously Peczkis has misinterpreted the data. When I have time I will look through some of the other alleged anomalies to see if there are any decent ones I can use in future discussions.

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.

Edited by Pressie, : Spelling

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : Changed sentence. It doesn't get fixed in the post, though. Last sentence should read 'Seems as if you are just as dishonest as that source you referred to. Been shown here on this thread already.'


This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by mindspawn, posted 09-04-2013 6:42 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 341 by mindspawn, posted 09-04-2013 10:23 AM Pressie has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2083
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

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2083
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

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2083
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 356 of 991 (705986)
09-05-2013 1:47 AM
Reply to: Message 321 by mindspawn
09-04-2013 5:22 AM


Re: Another brief off topic note
mindspawn writes:

There is a definite seasonal pattern to radiometric decay:
http://wavewatching.net/...ible-experimental-physics-edition


No, there isn't.

From the source you, yourself, provided.

Under the heading Update and Forums Round-Up:

Wavewathcing writes:

When the original claims were made they triggered follow-up research. Some of it was inconclusive, some of it contradicted the findings and a measurement performed on the Cassini probe's 238Pu thermonuclear fuel clearly ruled out any sun-distance related influence on that alpha emitter.

The references to these studies are provided there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 321 by mindspawn, posted 09-04-2013 5:22 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 357 by mindspawn, posted 09-05-2013 3:01 AM Pressie has responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2083
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 responded

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

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2083
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 yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2083
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 responded

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

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2083
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 responded

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

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2083
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 376 of 991 (706010)
09-05-2013 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 374 by mindspawn
09-05-2013 8:03 AM


Re: Another brief off topic note
mindspawn writes:

The reason for my participation in this thread is to show that a biblical flood has never been disproved.

It has. The Beaufort Group.

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

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2083
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 378 of 991 (706013)
09-05-2013 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 372 by mindspawn
09-05-2013 7:00 AM


Re: Another brief off topic note
This one was funny.

mindspawn writes:

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"

Read it again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 372 by mindspawn, posted 09-05-2013 7:00 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2083
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 381 of 991 (706016)
09-05-2013 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 372 by mindspawn
09-05-2013 7:00 AM


Re: Another brief off topic note
mindspawn writes:

Ok , sorry I misunderstood you. You feel the data could be faulty because of external influences on the equipment?

Yes. That's also what the researchers hinted at.

mindspawn writes:

I agree that any studies showing daily/seasonal variations should be checked against environmental influences on the equipment.

Yes. Everything so far has shown that the 'seasonal variations' are a result of influences on the equipment. The atom theory is very robust and has stood the test of time.

mindspawn writes:

I would assume that institutions like The Geological Survey of Israel, and Purdue University would adjust the data for any such influences.

They sure should do it. From that source you provided, it seems as if the institutions did their part of the job, but the researchers didn't do theirs.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Remember that one.

Edited by Pressie, : Whole reply changed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 372 by mindspawn, posted 09-05-2013 7:00 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 382 by mindspawn, posted 09-05-2013 9:43 AM Pressie has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2083
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 548 of 991 (706641)
09-16-2013 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 405 by mindspawn
09-06-2013 4:10 AM


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

In the early Triassic (Katberg) there are "accelerated rates of sediment accumulation". This could very well indicate flooding.
http://gsabulletin.gsapubs.org/content/118/11-12/1398.full
"In both the Poortjie and lower Katberg sandstones, weakly developed paleosols indicate accelerated rates of sediment accumulation (Retallack et al., 2003). "

Hope you do know that palosoils are the opposite of flooding. Especially when you consider that vertically there's more than one palosoil horizon present. The word 'soils' in it should have given you a hint.

From GARY, M., MACAFEE R (JR), and WOLF, C. L. (eds), 1977. Glossary of Geology. American Geological Institute.

Glossary of geology writes:

A buried soil horizon of the geologic past. When uncovered, it is said to be exhumed. See also: dirt bed. Syn. buried soil; fossil soil.

Your global flood at the P-T boundary has been debunked by palosoils in the Karoo Sequence alone. You should read up on those biozones, too.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 405 by mindspawn, posted 09-06-2013 4:10 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 557 by mindspawn, posted 09-16-2013 6:47 AM Pressie has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2083
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 897 of 991 (709281)
10-24-2013 4:56 AM
Reply to: Message 896 by mindspawn
10-24-2013 4:20 AM


No Fluddy in Karoo
mindspawn writes:

Only the latest studies are moving towards this general acknowledgment of a major transgression at the PT boundary.

It was a non-event in the areas of the Karoo Sequence studied there. Not deposited in a 'Fluddy'.

Start at The terrestrial Permian-Triassic boundary event bed is a nonevent to be found at http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/37/3/199.abstract. Then go to other studies. http://jsedres.sepmonline.org/content/79/5/316.full.pdf+html.

No 'major transgressions' in the study areas of the Karoo Sequence. No 'Fluddy layer'. It seems to me as if the word 'transgression' means 'The Fluddy' to you. It doesn't.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 896 by mindspawn, posted 10-24-2013 4:20 AM mindspawn has not yet 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