Jump to content


Photo

Fossil Record


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
43 replies to this topic

#21 numbers

numbers

    Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 228 posts
  • Age: 37
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Houston

Posted 15 February 2011 - 08:33 AM

Before getting too much into mars, do you still think that plants are required to make oxygen in order to produce water and that water cannot exist without plants to produce it?


Mars and water?

1) Mar's atmosphere is mainly CO2 (95.32%).

ok, not sure why you feel this is relevant to water existing prior to plants.

2) The poles on Mars gets so cold this CO2 freezes and falls like snow making it look like polar ice caps exist,

ok, still not sure why this you think this matters.

3) The atmosphere barometric pressure is 1/4 - 1/8 that of earth. Which means that any water there would boil at around 50 degrees. Which means all evidence of of oceans etc.... Would be in the atmosphere in gaseous state. But that is not what we find. There being mainly CO2 means there was no water.

http://en.wikipedia....osphere_of_Mars

Did you read the article you linked, because it states quite plainly that water exists on mars. Nobody is saying mars currently has oceans of liquid water on the surface, that would be absurd. Mars is known to have water vapor and water ice and has the potential for liquid water underground. Water ice and vapor are still chemically H2O which is what you said required plants to produce via oxygen production. Since there are no plants on mars, the moon, or interstellar space, and H2O exists in those places, it's reasonable to conclude that plants are not required to produce water.

These clouds of water-ice were photographed by the Opportunity rover in 2004. NASA scientists working on the Phoenix Mars mission confirmed on July 31, 2008 that they had indeed found subsurface water ice at Mars' northern polar region

1) No other planet in the solar system has the oxygen earth does in it's atmosphere.

I gave the explanation for this in my post "Plants and photosythetic bacteria were the driving source in the production of the O2 in our atmosphere but the water and oxygen atoms themselves pre-date plants."

2) No other planet in the solar system has water like earth does.

That's a temperature/atmospheric density issue, not one of non-existence of water. Water exists in gaseous or solid forms in many other places. The post I was replying to was arguing that H2O couldn't exist without plants, not that liquid water didn't exist.

3) No other planet has an ozone layer.

It's not expected that they would, no other planet has photosynthetic life to produce the O2 required to fuel ozone production.

How do you make H2O out of an atmosphere that is mainly CO2?

Generally you don't. Where are you thinking that such a thing happened? The simplest way would to just add H2O directly until you had your desired amount of water. Assuming you are talking about mars your question should have been the reverse, where did the water go to leave mostly CO2 in the atmosphere. There are several possiblities, such as being frozen underground, or lost into space.
http://en.wikipedia....te_of_the_ocean

How do you have oceans where the water boils at 50 degrees F and the normal temp is 70?
How do you have predicted oceans of water on a planet where water no longer exist, and there is no gaseous evidence in the atmosphere that it ever did?
How do you get ice caps of H2O where there is no water? Frozen CO2.

Why do you think there were surface oceans of water at those conditions? Have you considered that the temperature and pressure on mars might not have always been the same as it is now? You predict that there were once oceans when you see large scale rock formations that are related to oceans.

So why would science lie to the public about mars? It's called lying in the tune of a trillion dollars for the mission to mars. How many people would lie for that money?

View Post

Who's lying? The info about mars you listed is common knowledge, available to anyone, and has been for decades. Do you think there is someone saying that there are oceans of water on the surface of mars currently?

#22 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 February 2011 - 07:52 PM

And where would you say the all the oxygen came from to bond with hydrogen to make all the water if water and rain were before plants? Is there another type rain that does not require H2O?

The reason I bring this up is because it's a problem for the fossil record because:

Plants make oxygen, oxygen is needed for rain. But plants cannot survive without water. So water and plants would have to exist at the very same time, which means the source for oxygen for all the water did not come from plants. It had to come from a different source. What was that source and how is it supported by the column?

View Post


Plants don't make oxygen. Plants produce free oxygen.

This brings up another interesting point about the fossil record. Iron is soluble in water. Rust is not. When cyanobacteria began producing free oxygen the iron dissolved in Earth's early seas was oxidized and precipitated. This is why you almost invariably see fossils of respirating animals above banded formations.

#23 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 15 February 2011 - 08:21 PM

Plants don't make oxygen.  Plants produce free oxygen. 

This brings up another interesting point about the fossil record.  Iron is soluble in water.  Rust is not.  When cyanobacteria began producing free oxygen the iron dissolved in Earth's early seas was oxidized and precipitated.  This is why you almost invariably see fossils of respirating animals above banded formations.

View Post


You are wasting time if you want to argue semantics. Making oxygen is just a term. You can google plants make oxygen.

#24 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 15 February 2011 - 08:28 PM

Before getting too much into mars, do you still think that plants are required to make oxygen in order to produce water and that water cannot exist without plants to produce it?
ok, not sure why you feel this is relevant to water existing prior to plants. 

ok, still not sure why this you think this matters.
Did you read the article you linked, because it states quite plainly that water exists on mars.  Nobody is saying mars currently has oceans of liquid water on the surface, that would be absurd.  Mars is known to have water vapor and water ice and has the potential for liquid water underground.  Water ice and vapor are still chemically H2O which is what you said required plants to produce via oxygen production.  Since there are no plants on mars, the moon, or interstellar space, and H2O exists in those places, it's reasonable to conclude that plants are not required to produce water.

These clouds of water-ice were photographed by the Opportunity rover in 2004. NASA scientists working on the Phoenix Mars mission confirmed on July 31, 2008 that they had indeed found subsurface water ice at Mars' northern polar region
I gave the explanation for this in my post "Plants and photosythetic bacteria were the driving source in the production of the O2 in our atmosphere but the water and oxygen atoms themselves pre-date plants."
That's a temperature/atmospheric density issue, not one of non-existence of water.  Water exists in gaseous or solid forms in many other places. The post I was replying to was arguing that H2O couldn't exist without plants, not that liquid water didn't exist.

It's not expected that they would, no other planet has photosynthetic life to produce the O2 required to fuel ozone production.

Generally you don't.  Where are you thinking that such a thing happened?  The simplest way would to just add H2O directly until you had your desired amount of water.  Assuming you are talking about mars your question should have been the reverse, where did the water go to leave mostly CO2 in the atmosphere.  There are several possiblities, such as being frozen underground, or lost into space.
http://en.wikipedia....te_of_the_ocean
Why do you think there were surface oceans of water at those conditions? Have you considered that the temperature and pressure on mars might not have always been the same as it is now?  You predict that there were once oceans when you see large scale rock formations that are related to oceans.
Who's lying? The info about mars you listed is common knowledge, available to anyone, and has been for decades.  Do you think there is someone saying that there are oceans of water on the surface of mars currently?

View Post


You are the one who brought mars into this. If you cannot stand to be corrected by a creationist, then this forum is not where you should be.

Here is NASA trying to sell mars as having oceans so they can get the trillion dollars it's going to take to go there.

A0vjYvqtiyE

NASA deception to get money to go to mars?

Also this proves my theory that animation is now evidence for what cannot be proven. If you can think it, animate it, you have basically proved it as long as it conforms to evolution. Physical evidence need not apply.

#25 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 February 2011 - 09:14 PM

You are wasting time if you want to argue semantics. Making oxygen is just a term. You can google plants make oxygen.

View Post


It's not semantics. Your premise that water and plants don't exist without each other is clearly false. The most common element in the universe is hydrogen. The second most common is helium which is inert. The third most common is oxygen which readily bonds with two hydrogen atoms. Neither oxygen or water require plants to exist.

#26 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 16 February 2011 - 12:00 AM

It's not semantics.  Your premise that water and plants don't exist without each other is clearly false.  The most common element in the universe is hydrogen.  The second most common is helium which is inert.  The third most common is oxygen which readily bonds with two hydrogen atoms.  Neither oxygen or water require plants to exist.

View Post


And can you prove this (where the earth got it's oxygen), or is it only accepted because it conforms with old earth which supports and conforms to evolution?

And answer why no other planet has an atmosphere anywhere near what the earth is?

I find it ironic that science will accept quick layering of the earth core and mantle, but will reject hydrologic sorting of the column. I guess if the idea conforms to the accepted theory, then itself becomes accepted:

This so called iron catastrophe resulted in the separation of a primitive mantle and a (metallic) core only 10 million years after the Earth began to form, producing the layered structure of Earth and setting up the formation of Earth's magnetic field.
http://en.wikipedia....irst_atmosphere


How does steam come from a planet to hot to contain water in the first place?
How does water condense in an forming atmosphere that has low barometric pressure that would have kept it in a gaseous state?

Or did the earth just get the right amount of gases for our livable atmosphere like poof there it is? I think you need to read up on what they are now saying about the formation of our atmosphere. Much has changed, and more theories exist.

#27 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 16 February 2011 - 02:43 PM

And can you prove this (where the earth got it's oxygen), or is it only accepted because it conforms with old earth which supports and conforms to evolution?

And answer why no other planet has an atmosphere anywhere near what the earth is?

View Post



I don't have to prove it. It's common sense. You can't have photosynthesis without oxygen.

And answer why no other planet has an atmosphere anywhere near what the earth is?

View Post


Because of photosynthesis. What's your point???

You asked

Plants make oxygen, oxygen is needed for rain. But plants cannot survive without water. So water and plants would have to exist at the very same time, which means the source for oxygen for all the water did not come from plants. It had to come from a different source. What was that source and how is it supported by the column?

View Post


and it's been addressed. Don't try to make yourself right by changing the topic.


How does steam come from a planet to hot to contain water in the first place?
How does water condense in an forming atmosphere that has low barometric pressure that would have kept it in a gaseous state?

View Post


You've essentially answered your 1st question with your 2nd. Look at a phase diagram.



Or did the earth just get the right amount of gases for our livable atmosphere like poof there it is? I think you need to read up on what they are now saying about the formation of our atmosphere. Much has changed, and more theories exist.

View Post


I don't know anybody who would say Earth's atmosphere has always existed as is currently does.

#28 numbers

numbers

    Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 228 posts
  • Age: 37
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Houston

Posted 16 February 2011 - 07:41 PM

You are the one who brought mars into this. If you cannot stand to be corrected by a creationist, then this forum is not where you should be.

Here is NASA trying to sell mars as having oceans so they can get the trillion dollars it's going to take to go there.

A0vjYvqtiyE

NASA deception to get money to go to mars?

Also this proves my theory that animation is now evidence for what cannot be proven. If you can think it, animate it, you have basically proved it as long as it conforms to evolution. Physical evidence need not apply.

View Post

I'd be happy to be corrected but I can't see anywhere that you've shown I've been wrong about something.
I asked: Do you think there is someone saying that there are oceans of water on the surface of mars currently?


The url for that video goes to an Italian site that discusses mars's past oceans 4 billion years ago, not the present day. So you'll have to elaborate on why you think this video is showing NASA saying there are oceans on mars currently.

I'd also appreciate if you could answer whether you still think plants are necessary to create the O in H2O given that there is H2O in places where plants have never existed.

#29 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 16 February 2011 - 09:23 PM

I'd be happy to be corrected but I can't see anywhere that you've shown I've been wrong about something. 
I asked: Do you think there is someone saying that there are oceans of water on the surface of mars currently?


The url for that video goes to an Italian site that discusses mars's past oceans 4 billion years ago, not the present day.  So you'll have to elaborate on why you think this video is showing NASA saying there are oceans on mars currently.

I'd also appreciate if you could answer whether you still think plants are necessary to create the O in H2O given that there is H2O in places where plants have never existed.

View Post

Numbers,

We had a big discussion on another thread about the cause of hematite on sand and sandstone. That's what's on the Mars sands. I read a new theory--I wish I could remember where I read it (lol). They have caused dry sand coated with iron 2 to oxidize to iron 3 (red) by "tumbling." It can happen in months. So theoretically, dry sand coated mixed with iron 2 can oxidzie from the silicate (SiO2) in the sand grains bumping into each other.

#30 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 17 February 2011 - 03:06 AM

I don't have to prove it.  It's common sense.


The excuse for zero evidence.

You can't have photosynthesis without oxygen. 
Because of photosynthesis.  What's your point???
You asked
and it's been addressed.  Don't try to make yourself right by changing the topic.


I was not the one who brought mars into this, so your point is mute. If you guys cannot defend what you imply not my problem.

You've essentially answered your 1st question with your 2nd.  Look at a phase diagram. 


There is a difference between condensing (making moisture from the atmosphere) and being in a gaseous state (hydrogen and oxygen).

I don't know anybody who would say Earth's atmosphere has always existed as is currently does.

View Post


Which is ironic that the earth can recover from early earth type atmosphere, but is being destroyed by man-made global warming.

#31 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 17 February 2011 - 03:19 AM

I'd be happy to be corrected but I can't see anywhere that you've shown I've been wrong about something.


When was the last time you were corrected by a creationist? Never?

I asked: Do you think there is someone saying that there are oceans of water on the surface of mars currently?


And I showed you that NASA is promoting it using animation. And I showed you also there is no evidence left behind in the atmosphere for oceans of water. Not my problem that you cannot get around that to see the truth.

The url for that video goes to an Italian site that discusses mars's past oceans 4 billion years ago, not the present day.  So you'll have to elaborate on why you think this video is showing NASA saying there are oceans on mars currently.


LOL, you still don't get it? You are just going to act dumb because you cannot be corrected by a creationist.

I'd also appreciate if you could answer whether you still think plants are necessary to create the O in H2O given that there is H2O in places where plants have never existed.

View Post


If you are going to continue wasting time by acting dumb because to be corrected by a creationist is the lowest of the low from your point of view, suspension maybe in order because now you are equivocating by continuing.

And to answer you question in the fashion you do mine: How do you absolutely know the planet never had plants?

#32 numbers

numbers

    Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 228 posts
  • Age: 37
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Houston

Posted 17 February 2011 - 10:47 PM

When was the last time you were corrected by a creationist? Never?
And I showed you that NASA is promoting it using animation. And I showed you also there is no evidence left behind in the atmosphere for oceans of water. Not my problem that you cannot get around that to see the truth.


There seems to be a mis-communication here and I can't tell where it's coming from.

Reading your posts sounds like you think that people at NASA are suggesting that right now, at this very moment, there are oceans of liquid water on the surface of mars that you or I could splash around in if we went there.
I am saying that nobody is saying or implying such a thing, which is why posting a video of a depiction of mars as it might have looked billions of years ago doesn't contradict anything I've said. "Billions of years ago" is not equal to "present day".

If you are trying to say that people think that billions of years ago there was a large amount of liquid water on mars then the answer is yes, most scientists do think that, but they also know the water is no longer on the surface or in the atmosphere. The thinking is that some of it is frozen underground while most of the vapor in the atmosphere escaped into space (H2O has a lower molecular weight than CO2 or N2 or most other gasses left in the martian atmosphere). It has been confirmed that there is water ice on mars both underground and under CO2 at the poles. There is also water ice on the moon in shadowed craters. There is also water ice in comets. There is also water in interstellar space.


water ice in ice caps: http://en.wikipedia....#Polar_ice_caps
water ice underground: http://www.space.com...r-ice-mars.html
water ice on moon: http://articles.cnn....stem?_s=PM:TECH
water ice on comets: http://www.newsdesk....?ArticleID=1213
water in deep space: http://en.wikipedia....space#Triatomic


LOL, you still don't get it? You are just going to act dumb because you cannot be corrected by a creationist.
If you are going to continue wasting time by acting dumb because to be corrected by a creationist is the lowest of the low from your point of view, suspension maybe in order because now you are equivocating by continuing.

And to answer you question in the fashion you do mine: How do you absolutely know the planet never had plants?

View Post


Well we know there have been no plants on the moon despite the presence of water ice, since it's too small to support an atmosphere or liquid water. We know there have been no plants in deep space despite the presence of water since life as we know it can't live in deep space. We know there have been no plants on comets, despite being made of water ice, since like the moon they are too small to support an atmosphere or liquid water. It's possible that liquid water existed long enough on mars for photosynthetic bacteria (not clear whether you want to call these plants) to emerge but that's very speculative. If you are talking about more traditional plants like grass, trees, or even seaweed then we can be confident they never existed on mars since there's no indication liquid water existed long enough for them to develop (it took 1-2 billion years for the first multicellular organisms to show up on earth and about 4 billion for the first land plants).

Now, since I answered your question, would you mind getting back to your original question. You asked "And where would you say the all the oxygen came from to bond with hydrogen to make all the water if water and rain were before plants"

The answer is that oxygen, like all elements heavier than hydrogen, is produced by fusion in stars and that it predates the existence of plants.

Do you still think that plants are needed for the existence of water, given that water exists in areas where plants never have?

#33 ModusTollens

ModusTollens

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 38 posts
  • Age: 22
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • St. Louis, MO

Posted 18 February 2011 - 02:35 AM

For instance, the pre-cambrian layer is made up mostly of bottom feeders, no?  Would it not sound logical to expect to see at the bottom layers of a global flood event, the most simplistic of bottom feeders, that are the least capable of defending themselves, and are the least capable of fleeing the scene (being at the bottom when the fountains of the deep opened up)?


If there were a large flood, one would absolutely expect to see statistically significant trends in the data. That is, one might expect that mammals, with high intelligence, were better at getting away than, say reptiles, which were better at getting away than, say bottom feeders...perhaps you'd think flying animals of all types, birds, bats, insects, etc. would get away the best, as they don't need contact with the rapidly shrinking ground to escape. So, problem #1: flying animals did not differentiate themselves in any way from their land-borne counterparts, flying reptiles are found with other reptiles, and flying mammals are found with other mammals. Problem #2: you mean to tell me that not one single mammal was killed in the initial stages of the flood? Sure, one could believe that mammals would be statistically better at getting away than reptiles or bottom-feeders...but that every single mammal escaped, presumably, for several days without a single one dying, even of natural causes? That's simply ludicrous.

#34 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 18 February 2011 - 09:31 AM

If there were a large flood, one would absolutely expect to see statistically significant trends in the data.  That is, one might expect that mammals, with high intelligence, were better at getting away than, say reptiles, which were better at getting away than, say bottom feeders...perhaps you'd think flying animals of all types, birds, bats, insects, etc. would get away the best, as they don't need contact with the rapidly shrinking ground to escape.  So, problem #1:  flying animals did not differentiate themselves in any way from their land-borne counterparts, flying reptiles are found with other reptiles, and flying mammals are found with other mammals.  Problem #2:  you mean to tell me that not one single mammal was killed in the initial stages of the flood?  Sure, one could believe that mammals would be statistically better at getting away than reptiles or bottom-feeders...but that every single mammal escaped, presumably, for several days without a single one dying, even of natural causes?  That's simply ludicrous.

View Post

I have thought about this a great deal. The fountains of the great deep opened up. That was the first step to the flood. Mammals were not on the bottom of the ocean so they were not buried in the catastrophic mudslides. Volcanic activity is related to the earth being opened up, so volcanic activity went along with the flood. The gases and ash would kill the flying animals and they would fall onto the ground where they were buried.

Here is a flood myth that goes along with this:

The stories of the Teutonic tribes of Scandinavia are vivid and describe terrifying events. The imagery of these legends emphasizes the size of the cataclysm. One such tale portrays the chaos of the world when the mighty wolf Fenrir shook himself and 'made the whole world tremble. The aged ash tree Yggdrasil [envisaged as the axis of the earth] was shaken from its roots to its topmost branches. Mountains crumbled or split from top to bottom ... '. Men 'were driven from their hearths and the human race was swept from the surface of the earth. The earth itself was beginning to lose its shape. Already the stars were coming adrift from the sky and falling into the gaping void. … Flames spurted from fissures in the rocks; everywhere there was the hissing of steam. All living things, all plant life, were blotted out. … And now all the rivers, all the seas rose and overflowed. From every side waves lashed against waves. They swelled and boiled and slowly covered all things. The earth sank beneath the sea …'. Then slowly 'the earth emerged from the waves. Mountains rose anew ... . Men also reappeared. ... Enclosed in the wood itself of the ash tree Yggdrasil ... the ancestors of a future race of men had escaped death.

The Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology, Chancellor Press, London, UK, pp. 275-277, 1996.

#35 ModusTollens

ModusTollens

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 38 posts
  • Age: 22
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • St. Louis, MO

Posted 18 February 2011 - 10:44 PM

I have thought about this a great deal. The fountains of the great deep opened up. That was the first step to the flood. Mammals were not on the bottom of the ocean so they were not buried in the catastrophic mudslides. Volcanic activity is related to the earth being opened up, so volcanic activity went along with the flood. The gases and ash would kill the flying animals and they would fall onto the ground where they were buried.

Here is a flood myth that goes along with this:  The Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology, Chancellor Press, London, UK, pp. 275-277, 1996.

View Post


Sure, it is conceivable (and I perhaps should have been clearer) that all mammals would survive longer than all deep-sea bottom creatures. What I really have a problem with is that your hypothesis suggests that every reptile survived longer than the first wave of insects, and that every mammal survived longer than both the first wave of insects and the first wave of reptiles. Birds, for these purposes, I group in their proper zoological place, with the reptiles. (They have just recently been reclassifed as therapod dinosaurs...we missed it for so long because we just assumed dinosaurs were not feathered and did not have warm blood, but birds share more common DNA with alligators than alligators share with turtles, and skeletally, birds are clearly dinosaurs, as it turns out). This is what I referred to as ludicrous. There would have been mammals killed and left behind just as the waters started to rise, just as mammals die every day. The same goes for reptiles. There simply would have been a mixture of all extant land creatures as soon as water began to encroach upon the land, some dying of natural causes, some drowning because they were infirm and left behind, some which just got caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.

You say you think the flying animals would all die because of volcanic activity. Anyone who has either studied mass extinctions or volcanic activity would, I think, be deeply skeptical of this claim, but let us accept it momentarily for the sake of argument. If all the flying animals died because of a common cause at the same time, they should be found together. This does not occur in the lowest layers. Insects come first, then birds are added, then mammalian fliers. Birds occur at the same layers as other reptiles, and bats and the like show up with the rest of the mammals.

The implied EO's (expected observations) of the flood hypothesis simply are that you would expect to see a mixture of animals throughout the stages of the flood, with all extant animals present (at differing statistical levels) in the earliest levels. Then, you would see the representation of smarter, more sophisticated animals increase (but not suddenly appear) as you look up the strata.

#36 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 18 February 2011 - 11:05 PM

Sure, it is conceivable (and I perhaps should have been clearer) that all mammals would survive longer than all deep-sea bottom creatures.  What I really have a problem with is that your hypothesis suggests that every reptile survived longer than the first wave of insects, and that every mammal survived longer than both the first wave of insects and the first wave of reptiles.  Birds, for these purposes, I group in their proper zoological place, with the reptiles. (They have just recently been reclassifed as therapod dinosaurs...we missed it for so long because we just assumed dinosaurs were not feathered and did not have warm blood, but birds share more common DNA with alligators than alligators share with turtles, and skeletally, birds are clearly dinosaurs, as it turns out). 

View Post

I thought that the geological column shows an increase in complexity... birds are just as complex as mammals in my book.

#37 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 18 February 2011 - 11:40 PM

And where would you say the all the oxygen came from to bond with hydrogen to make all the water if water and rain were before plants? Is there another type rain that does not require H2O?

The reason I bring this up is because it's a problem for the fossil record because:

Plants make oxygen, oxygen is needed for rain. But plants cannot survive without water. So water and plants would have to exist at the very same time, which means the source for oxygen for all the water did not come from plants. It had to come from a different source. What was that source and how is it supported by the column?

View Post


I think water existed before plants. There are hydrous minerals that could have contributed water vapor to the early atmosphere that could have condensed. I remember a theory where prokaryotic bacteria consume hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide to produce water and sulfur, with oxygen not being one of the products. Then plants using photosynthesis could get their start in the existing water and really get the ball moving.

#38 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 18 February 2011 - 11:48 PM

There seems to be a mis-communication here and I can't tell where it's coming from.

Reading your posts sounds like you think that people at NASA are suggesting that right now, at this very moment, there are oceans of liquid water on the surface of mars that you or I could splash around in if we went there.
I am saying that nobody is saying or implying such a thing, which is why posting a video of a depiction of mars as it might have looked billions of years ago doesn't contradict anything I've said.  "Billions of years ago" is not equal to "present day".

If you are trying to say that people think that billions of years ago there was a large amount of liquid water on mars then the answer is yes, most scientists do think that, but they also know the water is no longer on the surface or in the atmosphere.  The thinking is that some of it is frozen underground while most of the vapor in the atmosphere escaped into space (H2O has a lower molecular weight than CO2 or N2 or most other gasses left in the martian atmosphere).  It has been confirmed that there is water ice on mars both underground and under CO2 at the poles.  There is also water ice on the moon in shadowed craters.  There is also water ice in comets.  There is also water in interstellar space.
water ice in ice caps:  http://en.wikipedia....#Polar_ice_caps
water ice underground: http://www.space.com...r-ice-mars.html
water ice on moon: http://articles.cnn....stem?_s=PM:TECH
water ice on comets: http://www.newsdesk....?ArticleID=1213
water in deep space: http://en.wikipedia....space#Triatomic
Well we know there have been no plants on the moon despite the presence of water ice, since it's too small to support an atmosphere or liquid water.  We know there have been no plants in deep space despite the presence of water since life as we know it can't live in deep space.  We know there have been no plants on comets, despite being made of water ice, since like the moon they are too small to support an atmosphere or liquid water.  It's possible that liquid water existed long enough on mars for photosynthetic bacteria (not clear whether you want to call these plants) to emerge but that's very speculative.  If you are talking about more traditional plants like grass, trees, or even seaweed then we can be confident they never existed on mars since there's no indication liquid water existed long enough for them to develop (it took 1-2 billion years for the first multicellular organisms to show up on earth and about 4 billion for the first land plants).

Now, since I answered your question, would you mind getting back to your original question.  You asked "And where would you say the all the oxygen came from to bond with hydrogen to make all the water if water and rain were before plants"

The answer is that oxygen, like all elements heavier than hydrogen, is produced by fusion in stars and that it predates the existence of plants.

Do you still think that plants are needed for the existence of water, given that water exists in areas where plants never have?

View Post


If I tell you that "if" oceans of water existed at "one time" on mars. And no longer did. The evidence of oceans of evaporated water would be in mars atmosphere. Now because you know this to be true, and you know I have cornered you and shown that you are wrong in using mars as an example. And have more or less called you out on it. You have decided that you will act dumb and become dogmatic about being right.

Why do I think you are acting dumb on purpose to get out of facing this? Me and you have had several debates. I know that from debating you, you are not that stupid. Plus, this is a common tactic when an atheist does not want to be corrected by a creationist. So you are not the first one to try this, and you won't be the last.

But since you have decided to continue acting dumb to what was said and practically derail this thread, I have decided to suspend you for 14 days.

Debate can continue.

#39 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 19 February 2011 - 12:25 AM

QUOTE(ModusTollens @ Feb 19 2011, 01:44 AM)
Sure, it is conceivable (and I perhaps should have been clearer) that all mammals would survive longer than all deep-sea bottom creatures.  What I really have a problem with is that your hypothesis suggests that every reptile survived longer than the first wave of insects, and that every mammal survived longer than both the first wave of insects and the first wave of reptiles.  Birds, for these purposes, I group in their proper zoological place, with the reptiles. (They have just recently been reclassifed as therapod dinosaurs...we missed it for so long because we just assumed dinosaurs were not feathered and did not have warm blood, but birds share more common DNA with alligators than alligators share with turtles, and skeletally, birds are clearly dinosaurs, as it turns out).
*
I thought that the geological column shows an increase in complexity... birds are just as complex as mammals in my book.

View Post


Only in general did organisms increase in complexity. Birds (not re-classified as therapod dinosaurs as claimed) and mammals are both more complex than worms. yet worms still exist. Some of the simplest organisms that appear early in the geologic record appear very late in it as well.

#40 ModusTollens

ModusTollens

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 38 posts
  • Age: 22
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • St. Louis, MO

Posted 19 February 2011 - 04:53 PM

Only in general did organisms increase in complexity. Birds (not re-classified as therapod dinosaurs as claimed) and mammals are both more complex than worms. yet worms still exist. Some of the simplest organisms that appear early in the geologic record appear very late in it as well.

View Post


Birds, it appears, are indeed theropod dinosaurs. Here are a few links.

http://www.ucmp.berk.../theropoda.html

http://www.ucmp.berk...ids/avians.html

http://en.wikipedia....da#Major_groups

http://cas.bellarmin...ry_of_birds.htm

http://www.geol.umd....z/gaiaintro.pdf

As the second of those links says, "The 'controversy' remains an interest more of the press than the general scientific community."

I do, however, agree...of course "simple" organisms appear both early and late in the record. It's that more and more "complex" organisms joined the party in stages.

And the digestive tracts and brains of birds are considerably less complex than those found in mammals.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users