Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Options
Comments
-
Wicknight said:
You didn't ask for that. You said: You guys claim you have evidence that the species on the Ark existed. You do not have any evidence of thisQuote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Er, just the same evidence as you - the biosphere around us. It is how we account for that evidence that is debated.
that is not evidence that the ark existed.
Evidence for the species is therefore the same as yours.
Evidence for the Ark was given further down my post.
Again, you don't listen. I specifically dealt with that in my reply.Put it this way, if I said every life form on Earth developed from a boat 30,000 years ago in Africa, how would you say "No, we have evidence that they all developed from an Ark 6,000 years ago in the middle east"
It was the different versions I was referring to. As to defining a kind: see Who’s really pushing ‘bad science’?, subsection What do creationists really teach? http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/lerner_resp.aspQuote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Where evolutionists struggle to decide what constitutes a species, creationists face the same problem with kinds.
That is nonsense. Evolutionary biologist have defined what a "species" is. More than once, which is where the difficulty comes from.
Creationists have yet to define a "kind" at all
Your wacky idea is just obsfustation. You know those articles answered your objection - but you want us to waste our time covering all the same ground, only for you to come back with, that doesn't actually answer the question I'm asking. But let me humour you a bit: Geological evidence that exists of the same band of deposits covering vast areas of the planet support the Flood (world-wide flood)account. The catastrophic origin of fossils supports the Flood ( the catastrophy above all) account. Genetic bottlenecks support the Flood (bottlenecking all land mammals to the pairs that survived in the Ark) account.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Geological: See for example http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...ences-part-one
Catastropic origin of fossils: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...astrophism.asp
Genetic bottlenecks: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i1/events.asp
None of those answer my question
Heres a wacky idea, how about you and JC stop simply posting a nonsense article from AiG that doesn't actually answer the question I'm asking, and attempt to explain it to me yourselves
If you mean we have indisputable scientific evidence for the Flood, no we don't - nor have we claimed to.It is after all supposed to be crystal clear.
We are telling you many things scientific - but it is true we don't have indisputable evidence that lions and tigers came from an immediate common ancestor rather than a more distant one. Neither can you. You can speculate just like us. You obviously don't know the difference between historical and operational science.Or any reason to think they were. You see the problem here? You are just guessing. There is no science here. You can't tell what was on the ark, how what was on the ark actually survived, what wasn't on the ark, how they survived, or what modern animals descended from what original "kind" species.
You can't actually tell me anything scientific.
OK, any fossil from dog family would be of one kind, a fossil from the cat family would be of another kind. That's two. How are they dated? Depends on how one thinks the sedimentary layers were laid down - fast or slow. We go for fast, therefore the dating is recent. If we are lucky enough to have biological remains in the fossil, that would be definite proof of a fairly recent origin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
They are the fossils
Which ones?
Tell me ONE fossil animal that you know was the original "kind" that died during the flood. And explain how it is dated.
Genetic bottle-necking is surely supportive of such a theory.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Let me suggest that any species that can breed with another is genetically extremely close. You deny that?
No, I don't deny that. But AGAIN that doesn't answer my question. You have no genetic evidence that all life on Earth came from a handful of original "kind" species.
We could rake about in the fossils and say this was the ancestor of that, just like you do - but it indeed would not be science. Just as the evolutionary tree is not science, just speculation. So can we say the Arabian is closer to the original horse kind than is the Shetland pony? Is the Pigmy closer to Noah's form than the Nordic man?Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Indeed, we must speculate based on similarities. Is this not what evolutionists do?
But you don't speculate based on similarities. You can't tell me what creationists "speculate" the original kinds where, or what animals descended from which.
Tell me what the name of the species on the Ark that Great Apes descended from 6,000 years ago. Tell me what Creationists believe is the evolution from that species to the modern one. When did the modern species first appear.
Tell me what the name of modern European horses ancestor that was on the Ark was 6,000 years ago. Tell me what animals come in between. I don't need all of them, give me just a few.
What we can say is that the pig and the sheep do not come from the same kind, nor the ape and man. But again, that certainty is theological rather than scientific. And so your opinion on the matter. You do not have a reliable scientific record to prove the history of the pig, sheep ,ape or man - only fossils that you may speculate over.
Seems we are both in the same scientific boat.You can't do this because the science is simply not there. You are just making this nonsense up as you.
OK, Mr. Science, show me how you would be able to distinguish between ancestors from 15,000 years ago and ones 6000 (or 4300) years ago. I'm always glad to learn new science.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
We would have great difficulty in scientifically challenging something so (relatively) close to our own position. We would of course reject it for Biblical reasons.
Well you shouldn't. If the Earth is in fact only 10,000 years old, and all life on Earth developed from a handful of animals 6,000 years ago it should in fact be very simple to demonstrate that modern animals didn't come from a set of animals 15,000 years ago.
So of you go, do it. It should be easy, you do after all have all this over whelming evidence.
Yes, same fossils as you. As to the dating of rocks, the assumptions determine the outcome - rapid decay rates under the conditions at the Flood would give results that uniformitarian assumptions would hold to be vastly more ancient. Rocks of known date of formation in the recent past also show that radioiostope dating is not the self-interpretating evidence you suggest. So, as I said above, a scientific dating of fossils is not that simple.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
As you should know if you were following the debate, such dating is also rejected scientifically by creationists.
What, all independent dating methods? All of them.
Well obviously you have your own way of dating fossils and rocks, that don't use any of these flawed methods.
I want you to explain them to me. I don't want a link to AiG, I want you to explain it to me now how Creationist date their fossils all to about 10,000 - 6,000 years ago. You do date all your fossils to that age right? You do have fossils right?
You will also be aware that there is a big discrepancy between many types of dating of the age of the earth. It seems one picks what best suits one's argument. Hardly science.
They don't need to date the fossils - if they did, no doubt they would pursue further means to do so. What they do show is that radiometric dating does not disprove their theory that the fossils are no more than several thousands of years of age. That's all they need to prove.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Quite so. They use science to do it. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/1107rate.asp
That article is simply an attack on radiometric dating. It does not explain how Creationists date their fossils.
If you reject all radiometric dating methods (there are a few and strangely for such a flawed system the give the same result more often than not), please explain how creationists date their fossils without using radiometric dating. I want you to explain it please, not a link to AiG nonsense.
Let me start with the latest big example: the earthquake and tsunami of Boxing Day 2005. I used Sky and the BBC mostly in dating it. Krakatoa in 1883 - press and government reports. There are many others, all depending on reporting by witnesses as to the date. We do not have reports from before the Flood, but may reasonably assume similar catastropies occurred then - unless we have reason to suggest a less dynamic operation of physics on the Earth (we don't).Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
No, catastropes would have occurred before the Flood and do so after.
Please explain how you know this. Give me the date of these catastrophes and the methods used to date them
We don't know which ones were on the Ark. Only that the ones that weren't (+ all peers of the individuals on board) perished.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
As I said above, virtually all of the fossils can't be the individuals who were on the Ark. The kinds represented were.
What does that mean? There were thousand of dinosaur species. Which ones were on the Ark? And what happened to the others?
You seem to be confusing how one would date fossils and how one would date the age of the Earth. The article covered the latter.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
One scientifc dating method for the fossils is given above, but since it is their recent origin that is in question, evidence for a recent creation will serve as a rough guide for the fossils also. Such evidence: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp
Your previous article from AiG didn't contain dating methods an neither does one.
No it shouldn't. It would all be speculation as to what fossil predated another. The 'tree' is constructed to suit your theory.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
As I said above, just like yourselves, we rely on similarities and breeding compatibility. How do you seek to trace the ancestors of the tiger, for example?
Ok, and what has this study of "similarities and breeding" told you.
Pick any modern animal and trace back through the fossil record their ancestors back to the ark. If there are bits missing that doesn't really matter, but considering the huge amount of fossils that span that 4,000 years it should be very simple for you to do.
There is no way of telling if one predated another by way of speciation.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I didn't say there was such a record, only that a physical description of the kinds which entered the Ark is an unreasonable request. All we can point to are the fossils, and they will no doubt include speciation examples also.
Fine, point to the fossils. Which are the fossils of the original "kinds" that were on the ark. Which are the fossils of their ancestors.
They didn't. (Sigh)...the species of today came from kinds that were on the Ark.Care to explain how 450,000 species fitted on the ark?
Apologies first for giving the BC date as the age - I've edited my post to give the correct approximate age (4300). I know that this is so because it has been proved that many species interbreed - a critical property of a kind. The interbreeders come from one kind. Even some that cannot now interbreed may also be from the same kind. That drastically reduces the number of species needed for the Ark.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The number of species today is vastly more than the number of kinds 2304 years ago.
Explain to me how you know this. And when I say "you" I mean you, not yet another link to AiG nonsense.
You did seem to suggest that species did not increase with time.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
You think that the number of species is a constant? That as one drops out another takes its place? That new adaptions necessitate the extinction of their originators?
No?
Not by the creationist definition - and I think you said it was we who coined the term? Inventing your own definitions now, or consructing strawmen?Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
It doesn't. It doesn't exist. Only micro-evolution - adaption within kind.
That isn't micro-evolution. Micro-evolution is evolution within species.
Macro-evolution is evolution from species to species.
I'll leave that to the scientists like JC to explain, as it is a bit too technical for me. But I will check up for myself.Explain to me how macro-evolution takes place so quickly. If you like you can explain how different species of Zebra can have different size chromosomes within the space of 4,000 years.
Actually that is a good one.
I want you to explain how your version of macro-evolution increases the size of species chromosomes without using mutation, which you say cannot do add genetic information.
Rapid speciation of the kinds on the Ark.Yes but you have to explain where the species AFTER the flood came from. Which you can't do.
I think JC has covered that, but I will check later, as I must sign off to get ready for work tonight.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
As I said above, it doesn't exist. Rapid speciation does.
So me evidence of one mammal species where this has taken place.0 -
Scattered along the migration routes from Ararat, as we have previously established.
Well JC and Wolfsbane have a bit of problem there, since they have repeatable claimed that there has never been discovered a single transitional fossil within the fossil record.
Funny considering that 3,000 species macro-evolved to hundreds of thousands in the space of 1,000 years.0 -
-
Well JC and Wolfsbane have a bit of problem there, since they have repeatable claimed that there has never been discovered a single transitional fossil within the fossil record.
Funny considering that 3,000 species macro-evolved to hundreds of thousands in the space of 1,000 years.
.....more like 3,000 to 20,000 .......but anyway!!!!
Could I also point out that, not only was the Flood the largest extinction event so far on Earth......it was also by far the largest fossilisation event as well!!!!
........since then, fossilisation potention has only been local and extremely limited......and that is why there are very few fossils from more recent times.
Could I also point out that speciation can be very rapid......a change in the plant being eaten has been found to trigger speciation in insects......and something as ephimeral as birdsong can cause speciation in birds......but such triggers always produces only new insects and birds respectively......thereby observing the Creation Science Law of speciation within Kinds!!!! :cool::):D0 -
You said: You guys claim you have evidence that the species on the Ark existed. You do not have any evidence of this
Evidence for the species is therefore the same as yours.
You don't have any evidence that these species existed. I know this because you can't even tell me what these species were!!
You didn't "deal with that"Again, you don't listen. I specifically dealt with that in my reply.
You said you can't because the two dates are too close. Which is a ridiculous thing to say. If you can't tell if modern animals came from the Biblical Ark then why do you claim that modern animals came from the Biblical Ark!
You either have evidence that all species on Earth evolved from a handful on a wooden boat 4,000 years ago, or you don't Wolfsbane
And I think it is pretty clear you don't. Repeatably saying "Its the same evidence you have" is just stupid.
That article doesn't define what a "kind" is.It was the different versions I was referring to. As to defining a kind: see Who’s really pushing ‘bad science’?, subsection What do creationists really teach? http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/lerner_resp.asp
Stop quoting AiG, particular when your links don't answer my question
No, its frustration at the fact that you keep linking to AiG to hide the simple fact that you do not know what you are talking about and that none of the AiG articles you link to ever answer the question you are askedYour wacky idea is just obsfustation.
If they answer my question then it should be very simple for you to read them yourself and answer my question in your own words.You know those articles answered your objection
I didn't ask you if you had evidence. I asked you for the evidence. I already know you claim to have evidence. I want to know what it is. In your own words please.Geological evidence that exists of the same band of deposits covering vast areas of the planet support the Flood (world-wide flood) account.
No, thats not what I mean, but well done wasting some more time not answering the questionIf you mean we have indisputable scientific evidence for the Flood, no we don't - nor have we claimed to.
I'm not looking for indisputable evidence, any scientific evidence at all will do.but it is true we don't have indisputable evidence that lions and tigers came from an immediate common ancestor rather than a more distant one.
I didn't ask you that. And even if I did, "any of them" isn't an answer. I asked you for a specific fossil.OK, any fossil from dog family would be of one kind, a fossil from the cat family would be of another kind. That's two.
Give me a fossil of the same species that was on the ark. Any of the species. And then explain how that fossil was dated.
No its not. It would be if a similar genetic bottle neck was found in all species. The fact that it isn't demonstrates that all life on Earth did not suffer a bottle neck 4,000 years ago.Genetic bottle-necking is surely supportive of such a theory.
If you want to explain to me how it is go ahead, but I'm pretty sure you won't be able to (since it isn't)
I await your inevitable link to a nonsense AiG page :rolleyes:
Er, actually it would be science Wolfsbane. It would be good science, which is why you don't do it.We could rake about in the fossils and say this was the ancestor of that, just like you do - but it indeed would not be science.
It would be gathering support for your theory. You guys don't do this because you know the support isn't there. You can't tell me what these fossils are because they don't exist, which is why you don't go looking for them. Yet you still claim your theories are really well supported :rolleyes:What we can say is that the pig and the sheep do not come from the same kind, nor the ape and man. But again, that certainty is theological rather than scientific.
ALL OF THIS is theological Wolfsbane. You don't have science for any of this. :rolleyes:
Your weak excuse that Creationists don't want to lower themselves to the scientific standards of biologists (seriously??) who actually do group and classify fossils in an attempt to scientifically support evolution, is pathetic.
You don't have any science here.
You have no definition of what characteristics classify one species as one kind and another as a different kind. You have no clue about what "kind" any of the species in the fossil record are. You ridiculously claim you aren't going to look because it would just be speculation.
You don't have any evidence for this and you actually admit that you aren't looking for any.
Yet this is supposed to be an overwhelming scientific theory!!
Utter nonsense.
No, actually we aren'tSeems we are both in the same scientific boat.
You can claim that fossil study is "speculation" rather than science, and that creationists don't lower themselves to this, but that simply demonstrates that you have no idea what science is.OK, Mr. Science, show me how you would be able to distinguish between ancestors from 15,000 years ago and ones 6000 (or 4300) years ago. I'm always glad to learn new science.
Certainly.
They would be dated (a concept you seem very unfamiliar with).
Despite Creationists claims that radiometric dating is always wrong, that is simply a lie. Radiometric dating can be wrong, but most of the time it isn't and it is possible to verify that a date given is correct by testing the piece more than once using different methods (if they are all wrong they should all give different answers)
Secondly there are other ways to date piece aside from radiometric dating.
Thats wonderful, how about you actually answer the question I asked you.So, as I said above, a scientific dating of fossils is not that simple.
How do Creationists date their fossils to the exact same period in time. Explain the process.
Of course they need to date the fossils, they claim they a large number of them all from the exact same event that happened at the same moment in time!!They don't need to date the fossils
So basically what you are saying is Creationists have never dated a single fossil. Well I will certainly agree with you there :rolleyes:
No that isn't what they need to prove. They need to demonstrate that these fossils are the same ageWhat they do show is that radiometric dating does not disprove their theory that the fossils are no more than several thousands of years of age. That's all they need to prove.We do not have reports from before the Flood, but may reasonably assume similar catastropies occurred then - unless we have reason to suggest a less dynamic operation of physics on the Earth (we don't).
I'm asking you about the ones you claim to know happened, and how you dated them.
Are you now admitting that you actually have no idea what specific catastrophes happened before the flood, if any, or when they happened?
Ok, now we are getting some where.We don't know which ones were on the Ark.
So you admit you have no idea what species were on the Ark and what species weren't on the Ark.
I'm not confusing anything. You claimed that that article contained dating methods. It doesn't.You seem to be confusing how one would date fossils and how one would date the age of the Earth. The article covered the latter.
This is why I'm sick of you linking to AiG, because these articles do not answer the questions you are being asked (which you no doubt realise) and it just wastes time.No it shouldn't. It would all be speculation as to what fossil predated another.
It wouldn't be speculation if you had the science to back it up. You obviously don't.
Yet you claim that your Biblical Creation theory is very well supported scientifically?
There are hundreds of ways of telling Wolfsbane. The fact that you don't know any doesn't mean they don't exist. Evolutionary biologists have been doing this for the last 100 years. It is a science, one that they can test their findings.There is no way of telling if one predated another by way of speciation.
Once again I'm asking you for the science and there simply isn't any.They didn't. (Sigh)...the species of today came from kinds that were on the Ark.
How do you know this?
You have admitted you don't have a clue how old any of these fossils are, or which ones came after which.
Which is?Not by the creationist definition
Which you have no evidence actually happened. Well I'm convinced.Rapid speciation of the kinds on the Ark.0 -
Advertisement
-
Well Wolfsbane claims you can't date any fossils to the Flood. So that might be a bit of a problem in demonstrating this.Could I also point out that, not only was the Flood the largest extinction event so far on Earth......it was also by far the largest fossilisation event as well!!!!
Perhaps you can explain how you date fossils.0 -
Read my answers on page 193.......and when you have fully 'internalised' them, come back to me!!!!:D:)
You don't have a post on page 193
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=316566&page=193
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
How about you just admit that you have no evidence at all that the rapid macro-evolution you are talking about has taken place in mammals.0 -
-
SubjectSean wrote: »Now you have it. There just isn't one that we didn't make up. Where they all agree, there is God. The logical One.
PS: You aren't supposed to think Judaism is man made, remember?
Interesting point, of course!
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
SubjectSean wrote: »Thanks Scofflaw for taking the time. That would all seem to make good sense generally although I'm having a little difficulty in reconciling it with the statement that in regard to the human brain:
"This type of rapid and extensive genetic turn over makes little sense from an evolutionary perspective, given the deleterious effects of most mutations and the extensive complexity and integration of the biological systems that make up the human brain. If anything, this type of rapid evolution should be catastrophic"
I think this is a quote from Bruce Lahn, an assistant professor of human genetics at the University of Chicago.
The observation is interesting, but perhaps Lahn is ignoring the very large number of things that go wrong with brain development - in both live-born humans, and even more so in miscarriages. I imagine the selection pressures for adequate brain development are very strong, though.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
This is something that interests me, but probably not for this thread. Take two examples from Ireland recently - grey vs red squirrels and the zebra mussel invasion - both seem to indicate that evolution lags well behind environmental change in that there are plenty of examples where an introduced species has outperformed all indigenous ones - which you would imagine that evolution should have fine tuned to the environment. As I said probably not for this tread though.Well, if you think about the way that evolution is a process that fits organisms against their environment, it makes sense. Environmental niches are stable over very long timescales - millions of years in some cases. However, when they change, they often change abruptly. It should be no surprise that under those circumstances evolutionary adaptation is rapid.
No reason not to put it on the thread, considering what else is already here...one of the factors appears to be greater tolerance by grey squirrels of ecological disturbance and fragmentation, both of which are environmental factors operating in the UK and Ireland. There's also the invading species lack of natural predators and diseases.
However, more importantly, perhaps, is the problem of what you might call "partial fitness". There are usually several ways of adapting to a given niche, and it's possible for a species to evolve in a direction that leads to, say, a maximum of 75% of the possible fitness-for-niche, at the expense of quite narrow adaptation. Along comes another species, maybe only 50% fit, but more broadly fit. Because of the broader fitness of the invader, their numbers will probably wind up larger than the native species overall - with the result that, while they are not able individually to out-compete the native, their greater numbers result in sufficient resource usage to cause a decline in the sustainable native population.
Say you have red squirrels, which eat only pine cones, at 75% efficiency. Say there are enough pine cones ("100") to support 75 red squirrels.
Add grey squirrels, which eat pine cones 50% of the time, at 50% efficiency, and the rest of the time eat oak acorns at 75% efficiency. Assume there's enough acorns (again "100") to support 75 grey squirrels without them eating any pine cones.
Now let the greys compete for the pine cones as well. Although they are less efficient than the reds, 75 greys with an alternative food source will still make a dent in the pine cones. The result will be a decrease in the number of reds, possibly as follows:
Reds will out-compete the greys for pine cones 3:2, so the 100 pine cones will divide up 60:40. That's only enough pine cones to support 60 reds, so we're already seeing a population reduction for the reds - down from 75.
The 40 pine cones will support an additional 40 greys, so the population is now 60 reds, 105 greys. In turn, this greater population of greys will put further pressure on the reds.
I have a horrible suspicion that the actual mathematical modelling involves differentiation & integration, but the outline should be fairly clear - an asymptotic decline in red squirrel numbers. Once the red population is reduced below breeding viability, it disappears.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
So, anyone got any answers for the video Wick posted a few posts up?
This one incase anyone is unsure. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=54761725&postcount=78510 -
So, anyone got any answers for the video Wick posted a few posts up?
This one incase anyone is unsure. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=54761725&postcount=7851
Its ok, Jean K. Lightner (a vet don't you know) from Answers in Genesis has already came up an indisputable answer - The Bible says otherwise :eek:
Considering none of the Creationists posts seem able to do anything but link to AiG, I'm would imagine the only response you would ever get would be a link to this article. Lets see what she says -Some AiG idiot wrote:Most importantly, reliable eyewitness testimony is more powerful than circumstantial evidence in establishing historical details. The Bible, inspired by the Creator himself, indicates that humans were created in the image of God and distinct from other animals.
You see Ciaran, Creationists don't need to answer the question, the Bible already says that it isn't true!
They don't need to do "science" (which is just speculation according to Wolfsbane). Doing so would just lower them down to the level of evolutionary biologists. And they already know the true, sure didn't God tell them himself.
Facts, evidence, theory and observation ... Creationist want nothing to do with that! :rolleyes:0 -
Human brain evolution isn't understood yet. We know from the human genome project that the brain mostly evolved over a period of three million years. However we don't know how it evolved because, as Lahn said, from all the evolutionary pathways we have studied the evolution of the brain should be a complete failure. As far as I know it's a major open problem.The observation is interesting, but perhaps Lahn is ignoring the very large number of things that go wrong with brain development - in both live-born humans, and even more so in miscarriages. I imagine the selection pressures for adequate brain development are very strong, though.
Can somebody tell me how the presence of a lot of water changes decay rates?wolfsbane wrote:As to the dating of rocks, the assumptions determine the outcome - rapid decay rates under the conditions at the Flood would give results that uniformitarian assumptions would hold to be vastly more ancient.0 -
Human brain evolution isn't understood yet. We know from the human genome project that the brain mostly evolved over a period of three million years. However we don't know how it evolved because, as Lahn said, from all the evolutionary pathways we have studied the evolution of the brain should be a complete failure. As far as I know it's a major open problem.
Interesting...reminds me of that quote - "if our brain was simple enough for us to understand, we would be too simple to understand it".Can somebody tell me how the presence of a lot of water changes decay rates?
It doesn't - but I'll let JC have a crack if he likes.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
You don't have a post on page 193
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=316566&page=193
Sorry, should have been page 393!!!:o0 -
Judaism is also (divinely inspired) a faith!!!SubjectSean wrote: »Now you have it. There just isn't one that we didn't make up. Where they all agree, there is God. The logical One.
PS: You aren't supposed to think Judaism is man made, remember?0 -
-
No reason not to put it on the thread, considering what else is already here...one of the factors appears to be greater tolerance by grey squirrels of ecological disturbance and fragmentation, both of which are environmental factors operating in the UK and Ireland. There's also the invading species lack of natural predators and diseases.
However, more importantly, perhaps, is the problem of what you might call "partial fitness". There are usually several ways of adapting to a given niche, and it's possible for a species to evolve in a direction that leads to, say, a maximum of 75% of the possible fitness-for-niche, at the expense of quite narrow adaptation. Along comes another species, maybe only 50% fit, but more broadly fit. Because of the broader fitness of the invader, their numbers will probably wind up larger than the native species overall - with the result that, while they are not able individually to out-compete the native, their greater numbers result in sufficient resource usage to cause a decline in the sustainable native population.
Say you have red squirrels, which eat only pine cones, at 75% efficiency. Say there are enough pine cones ("100") to support 75 red squirrels.
Add grey squirrels, which eat pine cones 50% of the time, at 50% efficiency, and the rest of the time eat oak acorns at 75% efficiency. Assume there's enough acorns (again "100") to support 75 grey squirrels without them eating any pine cones.
Now let the greys compete for the pine cones as well. Although they are less efficient than the reds, 75 greys with an alternative food source will still make a dent in the pine cones. The result will be a decrease in the number of reds, possibly as follows:
Reds will out-compete the greys for pine cones 3:2, so the 100 pine cones will divide up 60:40. That's only enough pine cones to support 60 reds, so we're already seeing a population reduction for the reds - down from 75.
The 40 pine cones will support an additional 40 greys, so the population is now 60 reds, 105 greys. In turn, this greater population of greys will put further pressure on the reds.
I have a horrible suspicion that the actual mathematical modelling involves differentiation & integration, but the outline should be fairly clear - an asymptotic decline in red squirrel numbers. Once the red population is reduced below breeding viability, it disappears.
cordially,
Scofflaw
The above is a reasonable account of what is going on with red/grey Squirrel population dynamics.
This explanation is in full conformance with the amazing genetic diversity produced at Creation.......
However, it totally undermines the Evolutionist faith in the magical powers of 'selection' to perfectly 'fit' an organism over 'millions of years' to it's environment.....as was already pointed out by pH.......
.............the Red Squirrel should be 'king' of the native tree plantations in Ireland........by being perfectly adapted ......but the Reds are being spectacularly 'over-run' by the Greys .......who are barely here a 'wet week'!!!!:D0 -
Wait, so you don't believe in natural selectionA reasonable explanation of what is going on with red/grey Squirrel population dynamics.
This explanation is in full conformance with the amazing genetic diversity produced at Creation.......but totally undermines the Evolutionist faith in the magical powers of selection to perfectly 'fit' an organism to it's environment.....as was already pointed out by pH!!:D
Surely even you could accept that if an animal is strong/fitter/bigger than usual it has a higher chance of getting food and producing more off spring.0 -
Advertisement
-
A reasonable explanation of what is going on with red/grey Squirrel population dynamics.
This explanation is in full conformance with the amazing genetic diversity produced at Creation.......but totally undermines the Evolutionist faith in the magical powers of selection to perfectly 'fit' an organism to it's environment.....as was already pointed out by pH!!:D
Your complete inability to understand science is a source of never-ending amazement to me, as is your charming ignorance of almost every aspect of it! The concept of evolutionary "blind alleys" is well known.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
No, there isn't. The figures from all methods are in reasonably good agreement with each other.wolfsbane wrote:You will also be aware that there is a big discrepancy between many types of dating of the age of the earth.
Well, on a point of order, it's good to see you asking questions here, rather than looking up something on Ken Ham's site.wolfsbane wrote:OK, Mr. Science, show me how you would be able to distinguish between ancestors from 15,000 years ago and ones 6000 (or 4300) years ago. I'm always glad to learn new science.
In answer to your question -- there are a few ways you can do this.
The easiest way is by digging. The 15kya ancestor will be deeper down than a 4.3kya ancestor. If you're pulling them out of ice, then it's even easier and you can just count the layers down from the top.
Next up, you can try carbon-dating. Contrary to what the unqualified Ham says, C14 dating is quite accurate and will easily distinguish between something 4.3kyo and something almost four times as old. Beyond 50k years, C14 dating is generally not used.
Alternatively, if you have access to the DNA from the 15kya ancestor, the 4.3kya ancestor and today's model, you'd expect to see a reasonable number of minor genetic changes between now and the 4.3kya guy, around twice times as many in between 4.3kya and 15kya, and around three times as many between today's one and the 15kya ancestor's DNA.
I'm sure there are other ways, but these are a few simple ones just off the top of my head.0 -
-
Wait, so you don't believe in natural selection
Surely even you could accept that if an animal is strong/fitter/bigger than usual it has a higher chance of getting food and producing more off spring.
It is NS in action ......and in full conformance with the amazing genetic diversity produced at Creation.......
However, it totally undermines the Evolutionist faith in the magical powers of 'selection' to perfectly 'fit' an organism over 'millions of years' to it's environment.....as was already pointed out by pH.......
.............the Red Squirrel should be 'king' of the native tree plantations in Ireland........by being perfectly adapted ......but the Reds are being spectacularly 'over-run' by the Greys .......who are barely here a 'wet week' (on an Evolutionist timescale)!!!
The concept of Materialistic Evolution is ITSELF a 'blind alley'!!!:eek::):DThe concept of evolutionary "blind alleys" is well known.
......would it not depend on how deeply they buried the bodies in the first place.......surely somebody who was found in a shallow grave could be thousands of years older than somebody buried 'eight feet under' last week????!!!The easiest way is by digging. The 15kya ancestor will be deeper down than a 4.3kya ancestor.:D
The 'unqualified Ham', as you describe him actually HAS as Science degree.....and taught Science in Australia for many years...............Contrary to what the unqualified Ham says, C14 dating is quite accurate and will easily distinguish between something 4.3kyo and something almost four times as old.
...........and he also has access to some of the leading radiometric dating experts on Earth.....and they confirm everything that he has said about it's limitations....and it's benefits!!!:D
You would have to ASSUME that the rate of genetic change was constant over time and space to draw such a conclusion........and such an assumption would be on very shaky ground if one of the bodies belonged to a Uranium Prospector!!!!:):DAlternatively, if you have access to the DNA from the 15kya ancestor, the 4.3kya ancestor and today's model, you'd expect to see a reasonable number of minor genetic changes between now and the 4.3kya guy, around twice times as many in between 4.3kya and 15kya, and around three times as many between today's one and the 15kya ancestor's DNA.
Thanks Wicknight.......Well done JC, bravo.
.....great to get some support ..........nearly ALL of the Christians on the Boards are deafening me .......with their silence......or occasionally 'popping up' to take a verbal 'pot shot' at me!!!!:D0 -
-
................see the quote from Professor Gould immediately below!!!!:eek::):DProfessor Stephen Jay Gould wrote:
Nonoverlapping Magisteria
by Stephen Jay Gould
ncongruous places often inspire anomalous stories. In early 1984, I spent several nights at the Vatican housed in a hotel built for itinerant priests. While pondering over such puzzling issues as the intended function of the bidets in each bathroom, and hungering for something other than plum jam on my breakfast rolls (why did the basket only contain hundreds of identical plum packets and not a one of, say, strawberry?), I encountered yet another among the innumerable issues of contrasting cultures that can make life so interesting. Our crowd (present in Rome for a meeting on nuclear winter sponsored by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences) shared the hotel with a group of French and Italian Jesuit priests who were also professional scientists.
At lunch, the priests called me over to their table to pose a problem that had been troubling them. What, they wanted to know, was going on in America with all this talk about "scientific creationism"? One asked me: "Is evolution really in some kind of trouble. and if so, what could such trouble be? I have always been taught that no doctrinal conflict exists between evolution and Catholic faith, and the evidence for evolution seems both entirely satisfactory and utterly overwhelming. Have I missed something?"
A lively pastiche of French, Italian, and English conversation then ensued for half an hour or so, but the priests all seemed reassured by my general answer: Evolution has encountered no intellectual trouble; no new arguments have been offered. Creationism is a homegrown phenomenon of American sociocultural history—a splinter movement (unfortunately rather more of a beam these days) of Protestant fundamentalists who believe that every word of the Bible must be literally true, whatever such a claim might mean.
JC you'd really want to go away and think about what you are trying to establish here on this thread. Scofflaw recently decribed you as having 'a charming ignorance' now believe me sir that is as good as it will get for you here so quit while you're ahead. :mad::);):(:eek::o:p:cool:...
incidentally about two thousand four hundred and nine posts ago I asked you to stop inserting smiley faces....didn't you see 0 -
Wicknight said:
Logic isn't your strongest point, as we've determined time and again. You and I both have evidence that we come from ancient ancestors. That we can't produce a family tree more than a few generations does not mean they did not exist - they did, but we cannot specify exactly who they were. So with the biosphere as a whole. You and I may dig up bones in our neighbourhood graveyard and speculate which were our ancestors. If we have grave records we may have good reason to think so. If we have DNA, even better. But without this, as is the case mostly with fossils, it is pure speculation to ascribe descent to any particular one.You don't have any evidence that these species existed. I know this because you can't even tell me what these species were!!
Some of you have suggested the age can be determined by radiometric means, and by which layers they are in. If one could be sure that C14 can deliver on that, then I have no problem doing so. If the layers can be accurately dated, likewise. But can they? Deposition rates vary, and rapid ones may cover contemporary emtombments over a relatively great depth. If we can over come having to make assumptions about how long it took for the layers to be created, then dating would be possible. Even the ice-core dating seems not to be as simple as it is projected: To demonstrate that the astronomical theory biases all data sets and that annual layer counts can be adjusted to come close to expectations, all one has to do is read how the count of ‘annual’ layers below 2,300 metres was changed in the GISP2 core. Based on the deep-sea core chronology applied to the Vostok Antarctica ice core, Meese noted that their timescale for GISP2 was off by 25,000 years at 2,800 metres depth:You said you can't because the two dates are too close. Which is a ridiculous thing to say. If you can't tell if modern animals came from the Biblical Ark then why do you claim that modern animals came from the Biblical Ark!
‘They predicted the age of the ice at 2800 m to be about 110,000 years, 25,000 years older than had been originally counted on the basis of visual stratigraphy [Meese et al., 1994].’13
The senior author then went back to the laboratory to ‘recheck’ the visible stratigraphy or dust layers. She discovered that by using a 1-mm wide laser beam in the LLS method instead of an 8-mm wide beam, 25,000 more annual layers of dust were ‘discovered’ between 2,300 and 2,800 metres! One must be especially careful when evolutionary/uniformitarian scientists claim ‘agreement’ between two or more ‘independent’ dating methods and/or data sets. See full article for more on ice-core dating, Ice cores vs the Flood http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v18/i2/icecore.asp
You point to the fossils and say, "We came from them". I point to the fossils and say, "We came from some of their peers". I point to genetic bottle-necking as supportive of that. I point to dating methods that suggest a young earth. I point to global sedimentation.You either have evidence that all species on Earth evolved from a handful on a wooden boat 4,000 years ago, or you don't Wolfsbane
And I think it is pretty clear you don't. Repeatably saying "Its the same evidence you have" is just stupid.
Definitions from that article:Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
It was the different versions I was referring to. As to defining a kind: see Who’s really pushing ‘bad science’?, subsection What do creationists really teach? http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/lerner_resp.asp
That article doesn't define what a "kind" is.
1. Thus the biblical kinds would have originally been distinct biological species, i.e. a population of organisms that can interbreed to produce fertile offspring, but that cannot so breed with a different biological species.
2. the kind is larger than one of today’s ‘species’. This is because each of the original kinds was created with a vast amount of information. There was enough variety in the information in the original creatures so their descendants could adapt to a wide variety of environments.
3. Creationists have pointed out that as long as two creatures can hybridize with true fertilization, the two creatures are the same kind
4. Also, if two creatures can hybridize with the same third creature, they are all members of the same kind
The author goes on to make what I consider to be a telling observation: Some atheistic skeptics have demanded that creationists should list every single ‘kind’. Of course, to even begin to do so, it would be necessary to perform hybridization experiments on all sexually reproducing organisms, so this is unreasonable. And no evolutionist has ever listed all biological species anyway, as opposed to a list of organisms classified into arbitrary man-made groupings classified as species. And the skeptic’s demand for a list of every single kind overlooks the fact that a denotative definition (i.e. exhaustive list) is not the only kind of definition. The hybridization criterion is a more reasonable operational definition, which could in principle enable researchers to list all the kinds.
I don't know if it is your bigotry or lack of logic that blinds you to the presence of the answers. One should be able to recognise our opponent's arguments, even if we disagree with them.Stop quoting AiG, particular when your links don't answer my question
For example, oil deposits occur across vast areas of the Earth. Their formation requires very rapid and oxygen-deficient conditions. Flood catastrophy would provide that, and since oil is world-wide, it suggests a world-wide flood.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Geological evidence that exists of the same band of deposits covering vast areas of the planet support the Flood (world-wide flood) account.
I didn't ask you if you had evidence. I asked you for the evidence. I already know you claim to have evidence. I want to know what it is. In your own words please.
Your evidence that they came from one common with man is just an interpretation of what you see in the fossil record. Just like me. The fossils say nothing directly (other than rubbishing uniformitarian evolution). So I can say with as much surety as you for your tale that they are consistent with the Creation/Flood account.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
but it is true we don't have indisputable evidence that lions and tigers came from an immediate common ancestor rather than a more distant one.
I'm not looking for indisputable evidence, any scientific evidence at all will do.
You still aren't listening. OK, say we take the Microraptor. Was one of these species on the Ark? We don't know. All the Bible tells us is that all the kinds were on it. If it was on it, that species later died out. But the kind that produced the Microraptor may well have continued to speciate.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
OK, any fossil from dog family would be of one kind, a fossil from the cat family would be of another kind. That's two.
I didn't ask you that. And even if I did, "any of them" isn't an answer. I asked you for a specific fossil.
Give me a fossil of the same species that was on the ark. Any of the species. And then explain how that fossil was dated.
Dating of fossils we covered above.
OK; I haven't looked into the details on all species - I'll get back to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Genetic bottle-necking is surely supportive of such a theory.
No its not. It would be if a similar genetic bottle neck was found in all species. The fact that it isn't demonstrates that all life on Earth did not suffer a bottle neck 4,000 years ago.
but such grouping doesn't prove anything - it just tells a story in support of the theory. That's Ok, for if a story could not be told it would undermine the theory - but it only a story, not proof. Creationists tell their own stories in support of their theory, and they can classify fossils with the best - but it is entirely subjective.Your weak excuse that Creationists don't want to lower themselves to the scientific standards of biologists (seriously??) who actually do group and classify fossils in an attempt to scientifically support evolution, is pathetic.
and neither do you - just stories.You don't have any science here.
The classification of species, families, etc is a human filing system - not necessary evidence of their relatedness. So anyone can place this fossil in that camp or the other, depending on what characteristic one considers most significant. All it gets is a file. It doesn't prove anything.You have no definition of what characteristics classify one species as one kind and another as a different kind.
Creationists know the earth is c6000 years old, and the Flod - the major cause of fossils, c 4300 ago. They challenge claims of radiometric dating on the basis that the methods make presuppositions e.g, constant rates - that have been shown not to hold, and of proven massive errors. They examine the evidence - geology, biology, etc. - to see if it fits with the Biblical record. They make their interpretations based on their assumptions, just like evolutionists.Of course they need to date the fossils, they claim they a large number of them all from the exact same event that happened at the same moment in time!!
So basically what you are saying is Creationists have never dated a single fossil. Well I will certainly agree with you there
Certainly. I'm even happy to admit that there may have been none, and consequently no fossils from then exist. That's what I said.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
We do not have reports from before the Flood, but may reasonably assume similar catastropies occurred then - unless we have reason to suggest a less dynamic operation of physics on the Earth (we don't).
I'm asking you about the ones you claim to know happened, and how you dated them.
Are you now admitting that you actually have no idea what specific catastrophes happened before the flood, if any, or when they happened?
I've said so repeatedly - glad you are catching on!So you admit you have no idea what species were on the Ark and what species weren't on the Ark.
Proof again of your blindness -Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
You seem to be confusing how one would date fossils and how one would date the age of the Earth. The article covered the latter.
I'm not confusing anything. You claimed that that article contained dating methods. It doesn't.
This is why I'm sick of you linking to AiG, because these articles do not answer the questions you are being asked (which you no doubt realise) and it just wastes time.
From the article:
4. Not enough mud on the sea floor.
5. Not enough sodium in the sea.
6. The earth’s magnetic field is decaying too fast.
7. Many strata are too tightly bent.
8. Biological material decays too fast.
9. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic “ages” to a few years.
10. Too much helium in minerals.
11. Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata.
12. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.
13. Agriculture is too recent.
14. History is too short.
I'm all ears - no, not a mutant, just keen to hear what these proofs are.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
There is no way of telling if one predated another by way of speciation.
There are hundreds of ways of telling Wolfsbane. The fact that you don't know any doesn't mean they don't exist. Evolutionary biologists have been doing this for the last 100 years. It is a science, one that they can test their findings.
The same way you know they didn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
They didn't. (Sigh)...the species of today came from kinds that were on the Ark.
How do you know this?
Not so - I only said I couldn't tell the small time frame differences. I can tell they are not decades of thousands, much less millions of years old. As I said, most were from c4300 years ago.You have admitted you don't have a clue how old any of these fossils are, or which ones came after which.
Evolution form one kind to another. Goo to you; ape to man; etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Not by the creationist definition
Which is?0 -
Not really. This dating technique works reasonably well because we assume that few organisms die, then dig holes and jump into them.
......would it not depend on how deeply they buried the bodies in the first place.......robindch wrote:The easiest way is by digging. The 15kya ancestor will be deeper down than a 4.3kya ancestor.
Without getting too technical, the general principle here is that when something dies it stops moving and later dead things will probably fall on top of it.
...which does not have any obvious relation to radio-dating -- see the course description here (scroll down to 'environmental science'), hence he is unqualified to speak on the topic. In fact, now that I actually read what he is qualified to do:The 'unqualified Ham', as you describe him actually HAS as Science degree
I see that he is, amazingly, even less qualified than I thought he was.Graduates are equipped to assess resources, design and implement environmental impact programs, analyse and interpret environmental data and formulate contingency plans...
Have you ever considered there might be a reason for this?nearly ALL of the Christians on the Boards are deafening me .......with their silence......or occasionally 'popping up' to take a verbal 'pot shot' at me!!!!0 -
Logic isn't your strongest point, as we've determined time and again. You and I both have evidence that we come from ancient ancestors. That we can't produce a family tree more than a few generations does not mean they did not exist - they did, but we cannot specify exactly who they were. So with the biosphere as a whole. You and I may dig up bones in our neighbourhood graveyard and speculate which were our ancestors. If we have grave records we may have good reason to think so. If we have DNA, even better. But without this, as is the case mostly with fossils, it is pure speculation to ascribe descent to any particular one.
A neat little analogy which fails to encapsulate evolution. It is impossible to tell which family people are from by their bones (except in the case of a hereditary deformity), because people are all the same species. The analogy doesn't hold water when you're trying to determine the ancestry of species, because there we're actually dealing with macroscopic physiological changes.
The part of the truth your analogy captures is that we cannot be sure that fossil X is a lineal descendant of fossil Y - which is more like not being sure whether the skeleton in the grave is a great-uncle or your grandfather.Some of you have suggested the age can be determined by radiometric means, and by which layers they are in. If one could be sure that C14 can deliver on that, then I have no problem doing so. If the layers can be accurately dated, likewise. But can they? Deposition rates vary, and rapid ones may cover contemporary emtombments over a relatively great depth.
Fortunately rapid deposition leaves different traces from slow deposition.If we can over come having to make assumptions about how long it took for the layers to be created, then dating would be possible. Even the ice-core dating seems not to be as simple as it is projected: To demonstrate that the astronomical theory biases all data sets and that annual layer counts can be adjusted to come close to expectations, all one has to do is read how the count of ‘annual’ layers below 2,300 metres was changed in the GISP2 core. Based on the deep-sea core chronology applied to the Vostok Antarctica ice core, Meese noted that their timescale for GISP2 was off by 25,000 years at 2,800 metres depth:
‘They predicted the age of the ice at 2800 m to be about 110,000 years, 25,000 years older than had been originally counted on the basis of visual stratigraphy [Meese et al., 1994].’13
The senior author then went back to the laboratory to ‘recheck’ the visible stratigraphy or dust layers. She discovered that by using a 1-mm wide laser beam in the LLS method instead of an 8-mm wide beam, 25,000 more annual layers of dust were ‘discovered’ between 2,300 and 2,800 metres! One must be especially careful when evolutionary/uniformitarian scientists claim ‘agreement’ between two or more ‘independent’ dating methods and/or data sets. See full article for more on ice-core dating, Ice cores vs the Flood http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v18/i2/icecore.asp
Ruddy scientists, eh? Going back and checking the evidence like that, and discovering they were inaccurate first time round...doesn't happen with Creationism, does it?
Seriously, the example shows what's right with science - the verification against multiple independent sources that led to the discovery of the inaccuracy, the going back and using different methods, and the publishing of the whole process.You point to the fossils and say, "We came from them". I point to the fossils and say, "We came from some of their peers". I point to genetic bottle-necking as supportive of that. I point to dating methods that suggest a young earth.
What dating methods that suggest a young earth? The only "dating method" that produces a young earth is Biblical chronology.I point to global sedimentation.
Do you? I'm fascinated...why? What does that statement even mean? You think that the existence of sediments around the world means there must have been a Flood?Definitions from that article:
1. Thus the biblical kinds would have originally been distinct biological species, i.e. a population of organisms that can interbreed to produce fertile offspring, but that cannot so breed with a different biological species.
2. the kind is larger than one of today’s ‘species’. This is because each of the original kinds was created with a vast amount of information. There was enough variety in the information in the original creatures so their descendants could adapt to a wide variety of environments.
3. Creationists have pointed out that as long as two creatures can hybridize with true fertilization, the two creatures are the same kind
4. Also, if two creatures can hybridize with the same third creature, they are all members of the same kind
Species, then. You need to straighten things out with JC. You also need to demonstrate that at some point biological diversity collapsed to very little, and then began expanding at a huge rate - within the timespan of recorded history.
You would also need to explain how the Bible fails to mention any of these interesting features.The author goes on to make what I consider to be a telling observation: Some atheistic skeptics have demanded that creationists should list every single ‘kind’. Of course, to even begin to do so, it would be necessary to perform hybridization experiments on all sexually reproducing organisms, so this is unreasonable.
Not at all. Genetic proximity will give you a good idea of whether cross-breeds will be viable, or even worth trying for. No-one is asking you to try to cross-breed eagles and whelks.And no evolutionist has ever listed all biological species anyway, as opposed to a list of organisms classified into arbitrary man-made groupings classified as species.
FFS, what utter rot. There is no such thing as a species except within man-made classifications. Honestly, why parade your ignorance like that?And the skeptic’s demand for a list of every single kind overlooks the fact that a denotative definition (i.e. exhaustive list) is not the only kind of definition. The hybridization criterion is a more reasonable operational definition, which could in principle enable researchers to list all the kinds.
So it is possible? Make up your minds!I don't know if it is your bigotry or lack of logic that blinds you to the presence of the answers. One should be able to recognise our opponent's arguments, even if we disagree with them.
I certainly recognise some of them as complete twaddle, I'm afraid.For example, oil deposits occur across vast areas of the Earth. Their formation requires very rapid and oxygen-deficient conditions. Flood catastrophy would provide that, and since oil is world-wide, it suggests a world-wide flood.
What ****e. Really, wolfsbane, you know, and I know, that you effectively don't know anything about oil formation. Oil formation does not require "rapid conditions", assuming that to mean "rapid deposition and burial". They do require anoxic conditions, which are not found in flood waters. Oil source rocks are found in six stratigraphic levels - they are not found everywhere in the world by any means - to call them "worldwide" is rubbish, since they are found patchily, with very strong clustering. A worldwide flood with similar conditions throughout the world (mountains down, remember?) would produce no such picture. If they were produced by the death and burial of pre-flood organisms, it's utterly impossible that there should be stacked reservoirs separated by hundreds of metres of rock, since that would indicate multiple death-and-burial episodes in the same place, with significant periods of time between them - a scenario irreconcilable with the Flood - yet stacked reservoirs are common in the major oil provinces.
Finally, the suggestion that because oil is worldwide it indicates a global flood is absolutely fatuous, in and of itself. It's a syllogistic error of mammoth proportions.Your evidence that they came from one common with man is just an interpretation of what you see in the fossil record. Just like me. The fossils say nothing directly (other than rubbishing uniformitarian evolution). So I can say with as much surety as you for your tale that they are consistent with the Creation/Flood account.
Except that you have to explain how the floodwaters never mixed up the wrong types of fossils, and managed to grade everything quite nicely into what appears to be an evolutionary sequence. If you choose to give an answer to that, you will need to do more than just use the word 'hydrodynamics' - you'd need to show how no known form of settling of mixed debris gives the results actually found.but such grouping doesn't prove anything - it just tells a story in support of the theory. That's Ok, for if a story could not be told it would undermine the theory - but it only a story, not proof. Creationists tell their own stories in support of their theory, and they can classify fossils with the best - but it is entirely subjective.
One story is produced only by those with a prior commitment to Biblical literalism. Nobody except Creationists ever come to the interpretation Creationists do - whereas scientists of every faith, creed, and culture have been able to see the evolutionary explanation.The classification of species, families, etc is a human filing system - not necessary evidence of their relatedness. So anyone can place this fossil in that camp or the other, depending on what characteristic one considers most significant. All it gets is a file. It doesn't prove anything.
Phew! At last, something nearly true in a wilderness of half-baked rubbish! Nevertheless, the outlines of major groups are clear. Eagles and whelks are not closely related - your objection is valid only for closely related organisms, and not valid at all for genetic classifications.Creationists know the earth is c6000 years old, and the Flod - the major cause of fossils, c 4300 ago. They challenge claims of radiometric dating on the basis that the methods make presuppositions e.g, constant rates - that have been shown not to hold, and of proven massive errors. They examine the evidence - geology, biology, etc. - to see if it fits with the Biblical record. They make their interpretations based on their assumptions, just like evolutionists.
The assumption geologists start with is that the present is a guide to the past - that the angle of rest for sand grains was the same 400 million years ago as it is now. We also exclude the supernatural.
I appreciate that it's possible to assume exactly the opposite - that the supernatural was involved, and that everything operated differently in the past - radioactive decay was faster, light travelled at a different speed, debris settled in water in completely different ways, there was a huge vapour canopy over the earth, there were huge water bodies under the earth, continents moved as fast as aircraft, animals had completely different genomes, humans lived hundreds of years, speciation took a couple of years, and so on until dribbling sets in - but it's all horsecock.
The problem with that approach is that it doesn't lead anywhere, because it puts the idea that the earth was made out of the droppings of a giant rat on exactly the same footing as the Biblical account - because essentially you're saying that you don't know how things happened, because it didn't happen like it does now, and anyway, some of it was done supernaturally in any case.Proof again of your blindness -
From the article:
4. Not enough mud on the sea floor.
Ocean floor is recycled at subduction trenches.5. Not enough sodium in the sea.
As is the sodium, producing calc-alkali granites.6. The earth’s magnetic field is decaying too fast.
Very recently.7. Many strata are too tightly bent.
Millions of years at heat and pressure will produce almost any deformation style imaginable, up to and including rocks that look like toothpaste....
Honestly, why are we going through all this again? These are the arguments of particularly dim schoolboys.
annoyed,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
This pretty much sums up the creationist position in general and AiG in particular:
However, when the interpretation of scientific data contradicts the true history of the world as revealed in the Bible, then it’s the interpretation of the data that is at fault. It’s important to remember that we have limited data, and new discoveries have often overturned previous ‘hard facts’.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/tree_ring.asp
When confronted with evidence of a tree cut down in 1964 that was 500 years old at the time of the so called 'flood'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristlecone0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement