Jump to content


Photo

Evolution Proof


  • Please log in to reply
106 replies to this topic

#41 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • syracuse

Posted 19 November 2007 - 07:51 PM

Hi James,

This is from discovery institute about Cambrian:
Rapid appearance of the primary animal types in the fossil record is very consistent with an Intelligent Design model. ”

View Post


Hi Bruce,
First, let me address the comment by the discovery institute. Clearly, if I just said that the fossil record of the Cambrian was very consistent with evolutionary theory and just stopped there, you would rightly argue that more needs to be said regarding exactly how the theory predicts the specific results.

All theories need to be specific - and intelligent design 'theorists' do not get any exceptions if they want to throw their hat in the ring. Consider the basic facts.
1. There are thousands of feet of rock with nothing but single cell life forms
2. Complex Ediacaran fossils appear, possibly go through some transitions then disappear
3. After (higher up) the Ediacaran fossils disappear, we see a number of new phyla. Scientists trace most of the current life to these phyla, but there is nothing modern about these. There are no teeth, or bones or seeds or pollen etc. No evidence of fish or land life.
4. Higher up, most of these specific species are gone - but higher up we find animals with similar large scale properties (similar phyla).

So what is the Intelligent Design theory that explains these facts?? The only design theory that seems to make sense is one where the intelligent designer did the following.
1. Created single celled algae
2. Waited a long long time while algae spread across the plant and layers upon layers of sediment built up
3. Created the Ediacaran animals - then let them die
4. Created the Cambrian animals - then let them die
5. Created fish - let most all of the early ones die
6. Waited a while, then created land plants but no flowering plants
7. Waited a while then created land animals ....

Ok, you get the picture. I think I could create a theory like this to explain the fossil record, but it certainly doesn't sound like a literal interpretation of Genesis. And I never hear the Intelligent Design people proposing sequential creation. But you need to have a sequential account to explain the fossil record.

The other approach is to argue that life is evolving. Yes, this approach argues that there must have been transitional species. But the theory provides no guarantees that they will ever be found. We are extremely lucky that we even have the both the Ediacaran and Cambrian animals.

Assuming the evolutionary point of view, we might ask, where on the planet did they evolve? Suppose they first evolved in some place equivalent to the Amazon river and the fossils are now buried under 5000 feet of sediment. How long will it take to find them?

Personally, I think the evidence is compelling that at least two of the phyla in the Cambrian evolved from the animals in Vendian (i.e., Ediacaran), but we need to wait for more research on these fossils.

Suppose we find no precursors or decendents to one of the phyla like this odd one
Posted Image
http://www.seanet.co...nes/fopabin.gif

Should we conclude that the Intelligent Designer was trying out a few animals?

The following is a timeline. If one doesn't like the notions of millions of years, then just consider that this is the relative depth of different types of fossils. Was the intellgent designer an experimenter with different types of animals? Did he/she give up on the Ediacara animals?

Posted Image

#42 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 20 November 2007 - 10:09 AM

Random thoughts (no coherency)

I agree, IMO the Creation model does not really fit the fossil record.

The creation model does say there will be sudden appearances of complex animals before the simpler life forms. The fossils in the Cambrian explosion still looks like a top down rather than a bottom up.

We may be close to finding transitional fossils- good point.

We may never find transitional fossils because they didn't survive: Can't really change my world view with this arguement. We may never know for sure.

Life forms comes and goes: I don't see a coherency to evolution or creation with this argument.

Nothing makes sense with me on the fossils. I really have to explore this further.

Nice post Jamesf: TY for all the effort. You present your points well.

#43 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • syracuse

Posted 21 November 2007 - 11:44 AM

The creation model does say there will be sudden appearances of complex animals before the simpler life forms.  The fossils in the Cambrian explosion still looks like a top down rather than a bottom up.

......

Life forms comes and goes:  I don't see a coherency to evolution or creation with this argument.

Nothing makes sense with me on the fossils.  I really have to explore this further.

View Post


Hi Bruce,
I would like to discuss these points. There is an interesting difference between diversity and complexity. In the Cambrian, we have remarkably few animal types in the vertebrate line. For example, in the Burgess Shale there is just one. It is called Pikaia and it looks like this

Posted Image
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pikaia

There are no eyes, no teeth, no bones. I should not call it simple since it has a digestive system, the ability to swim etc. I should also note that there is a Cambrian pre-vertebrate in China, that does appear to have an eye. However, what is clear is that the diversity of pre-verebrates in the Cambrian is remarkably low. Maybe two, maybe a handful.

No boney fish has ever been found and of course, no land animals or dinosaurs etc. The argument is that all vertebrates alive today descended from a creature like this one: all fish, dinosaurs, bats, cats, elephants, humans, chimps, birds etc.

Yes, there are some strange animals in Cambrian, that we never see again in higher layers, but animals go extinct all the time. There are certainly some major extinction events found in the fossil record. Often these large extinction events correspond to large scale geological features. For example over 90% of all species disappear completely at the end of the Permian (251 million years ago). In fact, over half of all the Genuses we find in the fossil record disappear. It even killed off all the remaining species of trilobites which had dominated the fossil record for 300 million years. At the same time, we see the massive Siberian lava flows (enough lava to cover the United States to a depth of 40 feet) which likely resulted in an equally massive release of sulfur oxides into the atmosphere.

Posted Image
http://en.wikipedia....xtinction_event

As seen in the graph, big extinction events also occured in the Cambrian. And animal extinctions even occur today. However, I don't think the disappearances of life support any particular view. However, after these extinction events (after the meteor event which killed off the dinosaurs), we see the sudden drop in diversity followed by a steady increase (e.g., the rise of the mammals after the dinosaurs went extinct). This increase in diversity follows from two kinds of theory.

A. The new animals evolved from the surviving animals
B. The intelligent designer stepped into create a number of new species that just happened to show similarities to the surviving species.

I am sure you know which one I support. Evolution does tend to increase diversity, but only because new traits can be successful in new environments. However, evolution is not "directed" towards greater complexity. If less complexity was useful in some environment (e.g., as with cave animals that lose eyes), then evolution can also result in less complexity.

Hope this helps.
James

#44 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 21 November 2007 - 01:52 PM

Hi Bruce,
I would like to discuss these points. There is an interesting difference between diversity and complexity. In the Cambrian, we have remarkably few animal types in the vertebrate line. For example, in the Burgess Shale there is just one. It is called Pikaia and it looks like this

Posted Image
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pikaia

There are no eyes, no teeth, no bones. I should not call it simple since it has a digestive system, the ability to swim etc. I should also note that there is a Cambrian pre-vertebrate in China, that does appear to have an eye. However, what is clear is that the diversity of pre-verebrates in the Cambrian is remarkably low. Maybe two, maybe a handful.

No boney fish has ever been found and of course, no land animals or dinosaurs etc. The argument is that all vertebrates alive today descended from a creature like this one: all fish, dinosaurs, bats, cats, elephants, humans, chimps, birds etc.

Yes, there are some strange animals in Cambrian, that we never see again in higher layers, but animals go extinct all the time. There are certainly some major extinction events found in the fossil record. Often these large extinction events correspond to large scale geological features. For example over 90% of all species disappear completely at the end of the Permian (251 million years ago). In fact, over half of all the Genuses we find in the fossil record disappear. It even killed off all the remaining species of trilobites which had dominated the fossil record for 300 million years. At the same time, we see the massive Siberian lava flows (enough lava to cover the United States to a depth of 40 feet) which likely resulted in an equally massive release of sulfur oxides into the atmosphere.

Posted Image
http://en.wikipedia....xtinction_event

As seen in the graph, big extinction events also occured in the Cambrian. And animal extinctions even occur today. However, I don't think the disappearances of life support any particular view. However, after these extinction events (after the meteor event which killed off the dinosaurs), we see the sudden drop in diversity followed by a steady increase (e.g., the rise of the mammals after the dinosaurs went extinct). This increase in diversity follows from two kinds of theory.

A. The new animals evolved from the surviving animals
B. The intelligent designer stepped into create a number of new species that just happened to show similarities to the surviving species.

I am sure you know which one I support. Evolution does tend to increase diversity, but only because new traits can be successful in new environments. However, evolution is not "directed" towards greater complexity. If less complexity was useful in some environment (e.g., as with cave animals that lose eyes), then evolution can also result in less complexity.

Hope this helps.
  James

View Post


This is extremely interesting stuff.

Personal: My brother in law is a mining engineer (Mine Manager) and he goes to the Tucson, AZ and Denver to sell lots of fossils: He trades and barters. His house is like a museum: He has very expensive fossils, some worth over $ 25 K. He ran a mine in Nanibia, for several years. He just moved back to the States. He brought back cases of rocks and fossils he purchased there- Lots of topaz: some kind he never sees in Tucson. I will be going to his house for Christmas. He isn't a Christian so I will get further educated on this subject from someone closer to your world view.

Comments: That Pikaia fossil was absolutely amazing.

Questions: Is there any evidence from your point of view for a Noah like flood? Are scientist convinced that a meteor killed the dinosaurs? Are there any competing theories?

#45 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denmark

Posted 22 November 2007 - 04:19 AM

Allow me to chip on, although James' presentations are impressive.

There is some talk in one of these threads about winning over people, and you mention that your relation is not a Christian. Let me make this absolutely clear:

I accept and advocate evolution, but I would not dream of trying to convert anybody from Cristianity, or any other religion, for that matter. I know that some (on both sides) disagree, but in my opinion, there is absolutely no scism between evolution and religion. An evolutionist can believe that God created life and species. The only disagreement is about HOW God created it.

An atheist position is nearly inseparable from evolution, but the opposite does not apply.

On Noah's flood: It depends on what you mean by it. Flood accounts are to be found in several mythologies, and there is little doubt that most, if not all are based on real events, or possibly, the same event.

However, the global flood account where all land-masses are submerged and all land-based life forms have to survive in a single boat for an extended period of time, that story has no place in the physical world. For several reasons:

- There is not enough free water on the planet to cover all land masses.
- There are no geological traces of any recent large-scale rearragement of land hights and ocean depths that could support that Earth was at any time covered by one shallow ocean.
- There are no universal traces of flooding. There are plenty of local traces, but they are disconnected in time and place, and there are many areas that have obviously not been under water in any even remotely recent period.
- The timescale does not make sense; while the scripture is unclear about exactly how long the rising of waters took, it is quite specific about the time passing till they reeded, and it is impossible that waters could recede in such a short time.

That was the flood itself, now for Noah's Ark:

Since he presumably had divine help, let us assume he was able to perform the, in itself fantastic, feat of building a seaworthy wooden vessel of that size, but:

- How did the animals gather from all over the planet to board the ark?
- How did a few people tend to so many and diverse animals for an extended period of time? Feeding and cleaning would require the manpower of a small army.
- How did they store the necessary foodstuffs for so many different animals?
- How did didease microbes, many of which aredeadly and cannot survive for any extended period outside a host, make it?
- Once the flood was over, how did the animals disperde back over the planet?

Hans

#46 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 22 November 2007 - 06:43 AM

Allow me to chip on, although James' presentations are impressive.

There is some talk in one of these threads about winning over people, and you mention that your relation is not a Christian. Let me make this absolutely clear:

I accept and advocate evolution, but I would not dream of trying to convert anybody from Cristianity, or any other religion, for that matter. I know that some (on both sides) disagree, but in my opinion, there is absolutely no scism between evolution and religion. An evolutionist can believe that God created life and species. The only disagreement is about HOW God created it.

An atheist position is nearly inseparable from evolution, but the opposite does not apply.

On Noah's flood: It depends on what you mean by it. Flood accounts are to be found in several mythologies, and there is little doubt that most, if not all are based on real events, or possibly, the same event.

However, the global flood account where all land-masses are submerged and all land-based life forms have to survive in a single boat for an extended period of time, that story has no place in the physical world. For several reasons:

1) There is not enough free water on the planet to cover all land masses.
2) There are no geological traces of any recent large-scale rearragement of land hights and ocean depths that could support that Earth was at any time covered by one shallow ocean.
3) There are no universal traces of flooding. There are plenty of local traces, but they are disconnected in time and place, and there are many areas that have obviously not been under water in any even remotely recent period.
4) The timescale does not make sense; while the scripture is unclear about exactly how long the rising of waters took, it is quite specific about the time passing till they reeded, and it is impossible that waters could recede in such a short time.


I numbered you assumptions so I can address them one by one.

1) I notice you use the term: Free water. Does water have to be free to flood things? Volcanoes erupt all the time, and water is brought up with each eruption. So are you trying to claim that a flood can only have one type of water, in which there is not enough of, in order to flood the earth? That statement in itself is bias, and is thought up to make sure that there is never an explanation for this. Because I know that with this statement, that you know that I will use the information about water being locked in the upper mantle that can fill 30 of our oceans.

So to what evidence do you have that only "free water" can flood anything?

2 and 3) Like you say, there are local traces. How would you prove that a world wide flood would require the whole earth to have evidence as such? Floods happen all the time. And over a few years, the evidence disappears. So your claim for world wide evidence has to be seen, does not work unless you can prove that with a world wide flood. that world wide evidence would be left. Can you?
Attached File  Oysters_giant.jpg   26.43KB   53 downloads Attached File  Flood_2_miles_above_sea_level.jpg   23.41KB   56 downloads Attached File  life_on_mountains.jpg   25.39KB   48 downloads

4) Really? How scientifically would you prove this claim? Or is this just an opinion of yours? Just like a fish that does not evolve for millions of years does not work with the evolution time-line either.
Attached File  from_water_to_land.jpg   20.78KB   47 downloads Attached File  Slide199f.jpg   24.55KB   46 downloads

The annual rings are also wrong:

Attached File  Slide502ice_cores.jpg   44.32KB   44 downloads Attached File  Slide505_ice_cores.jpg   46.31KB   91 downloads Attached File  Slide510_ice_cores.jpg   42.81KB   82 downloads

That was the flood itself, now for Noah's Ark:

Since he presumably had divine help, let us assume he was able to perform the, in itself fantastic, feat of building a seaworthy wooden vessel of that size, but:

1) How did the animals gather from all over the planet to board the ark?
2) How did a few people tend to so many and diverse animals for an extended period of time? Feeding and cleaning would require the manpower of a small army.
3) How did they store the necessary foodstuffs for so many different animals?
4) How did didease microbes, many of which aredeadly and cannot survive for any extended period outside a host, make it?
5) Once the flood was over, how did the animals disperde back over the planet?
Hans

View Post


1) How do you know that the animals were all over the planet back then? And how many years was Noah building the Ark? So if the animals had to come from far away, they had time.
2 and 3) When David was thrown into the lions den, what did God do to keep the lions from eating him? If He did it there, he can do it on the ark.
4) Sin brought death, so as long as sin existed. Things that cause death existed regardless. So how do diseases keep coming back that we keep thinking we have gotten rid of? How does the bubonic plague keep coming back when we were supposed to have gotten rid of it?
5) Migration.

#47 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 22 November 2007 - 09:14 AM

I numbered you assumptions so I can address them one by one.

1) I notice you use the term: Free water. Does water have to be free to flood things? Volcanoes erupt all the time, and water is brought up with each eruption. So are you trying to claim that a flood can only have one type of water, in which there is not enough of, in order to flood the earth? That statement in itself is bias, and is thought up to make sure that there is never an explanation for this. Because I know that with this statement, that you know that I will use the information about water being locked in the upper mantle that can fill 30 of our oceans.

So to what evidence do you have that only "free water" can flood anything?

2 and 3) Like you say, there are local traces. How would you prove that a world wide flood would require the whole earth to have evidence as such? Floods happen all the time. And over a few years, the evidence disappears. So your claim for world wide evidence has to be seen, does not work unless you can prove that with a world wide flood. that world wide evidence would be left. Can you?
Attached File  Oysters_giant.jpg   26.43KB   53 downloads Attached File  Flood_2_miles_above_sea_level.jpg   23.41KB   56 downloads Attached File  life_on_mountains.jpg   25.39KB   48 downloads

4) Really? How scientifically would you prove this claim? Or is this just an opinion of yours? Just like a fish that does not evolve for millions of years does not work with the evolution time-line either.
Attached File  from_water_to_land.jpg   20.78KB   47 downloads Attached File  Slide199f.jpg   24.55KB   46 downloads

The annual rings are also wrong:

Attached File  Slide502ice_cores.jpg   44.32KB   44 downloads Attached File  Slide505_ice_cores.jpg   46.31KB   91 downloads Attached File  Slide510_ice_cores.jpg   42.81KB   82 downloads
1) How do you know that the animals were all over the planet back then? And how many years was Noah building the Ark? So if the animals had to come from far away, they had time.
2 and 3) When David was thrown into the lions den, what did God do to keep the lions from eating him? If He did it there, he can do it on the ark.
4) Sin brought death, so as long as sin existed. Things that cause death existed regardless. So how do diseases keep coming back that we keep thinking we have gotten rid of? How does the bubonic plague keep coming back when we were supposed to have gotten rid of it?
5) Migration.

View Post

The pictures stated "click to zoom" When I clicked all I got was gibberish. Would you link some of those articles- pictures. It is very interesting stuff.

Also, you stated that there was enough water in the upper mantle to cover 30 oceans. Is there a link or a way I could get further information on this. TIA

God Bless you,

Bruce

#48 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 22 November 2007 - 09:26 AM

Since he presumably had divine help, let us assume he was able to perform the, in itself fantastic, feat of building a seaworthy wooden vessel of that size, but:

- How did the animals gather from all over the planet to board the ark?
- How did a few people tend to so many and diverse animals for an extended period of time? Feeding and cleaning would require the manpower of a small army.
- How did they store the necessary foodstuffs for so many different animals?
- How did didease microbes, many of which aredeadly and cannot survive for any extended period outside a host, make it?
- Once the flood was over, how did the animals disperde back over the planet?

Hans

View Post


Yes, this would be a logistical nightmare. For this to happen, God would have had to intervene and help Noah.

The geological information is very interesting.

#49 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 22 November 2007 - 09:55 AM

The new testament mentions Noah at least twice. Therefore, from a Christian perspective, the event happened and Noah's flood is not an allegory.

Mathew 24: 36-41
"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[f] but only the Father. 37As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 40Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. 41Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.


Hebrews 11:7
By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family. By his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.



#50 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • syracuse

Posted 22 November 2007 - 11:05 AM

This is extremely interesting stuff.

Personal:  My brother in law is a mining engineer (Mine Manager) and he goes to the Tucson, AZ and Denver to sell lots of fossils:  He trades and barters.  His house is like a museum:  He has very expensive fossils, some worth over $ 25 K. He ran a mine in Nanibia, for several years.  He just moved back to the States.  He brought back cases of rocks and fossils he purchased there- Lots of topaz: some kind he never sees in Tucson.  I will be going to his house for Christmas.  He isn't a Christian so I will get further educated on this subject from someone closer to your world view.

View Post


About four years ago, I was driving from the east coast to the west and just happened to pass through Tucson during the Rock and Gem show. It was absolutely wonderful. Wish I could have spent a week there. Picked up some beautiful ammonites. I plan on making a vacation of it with my wife some day.

Namibia is one of the locations that has fossils of the pre-Cambrian - Ediacaran animals. Does your brother have any of these?
Posted Image
http://scienceblogs....ian_fossils.php

Questions:  Is there any evidence from your point of view for a Noah like flood?

View Post


Hans has provided some good material regarding flood issues. There is no evidence of a world wide flood. There is evidence of many local floods including one that is believed to have been the source of the Noah story. You can read that here.
http://sc.essortment...odepic_rmtq.htm

By the beginning of the 19th century, the geologic evidence was becoming clear that there was no world wide flood. There is a great little book called "The Seashell on the Mountaintop" about the priest Nicolaus Steno (in the 17th century) who was of the first to note that the seashells on mountains did not really support a global flood model. Steno later became a Saint.

http://findarticles....12/ai_102275165

Most of these layers showed evidence that these sea animals had been there for many generations. The flood was not on these mountains long enough for these animals to move there, grow old, and reproduce there for many many generations. And they were in their original growth positions in many cases, not moved there by some torrent.

I don't believe Ikester's rocks in the Andes are oysters, but if they were it would demonstrate that the area had been underwater for quite a long time - which certainly doesn't match the Noah theory.

What I always find curious is that those places that creationists claim is great evidence of a huge flood, often provides the best evidence of a very old earth. For example, say you find what appears to be quickly buried trees like in Yellowstone. Underneath these trees you will find thousands of feet of alternating lava flows and sediment layers. A flood model just does not produce alternating lava flows and sediment layers. Other places we find salt layers several meters thick, showing various lines of evidence supporting the idea that the salt is from an ancient salt lake that dried.

Are scientist convinced that a meteor killed the dinosaurs?  Are there any competing theories?

View Post


Yes, in the majority, scientists are convinced that a meteor contributed to the end of the dinosaurs. They even found the crater off the coast of the Yucatan after the theory had been proposed. I highly recommend a short little book called "T.Rex and the Crater of Doom". It was written by the guy that got the Nobel Prize for this work (Alverez), but it is a very fun, fascinating easy read.

http://findarticles....901/ai_n8828832

At the time the dinosaurs disappear, Alverez found evidence of a layer of an element called iridium all over the planet. Iridium is found all over the earth at this layer but is relatively rare on the earth overall. However, iridium is common in meteorites. And this lead to the theory as to why the dinosaurs vanished. The evidence of the crater buried under the Yucatan was considered conclusive to many.

I should note, however, that there was also a lot of volcanic activity at this time. This may have well been caused by the meteor that slammed into the earth. So these mass extinctions may have been caused by the combination of both the meteor and this volcanic activity.

By the way, I have never heard of a young earth account of why the dinosaurs disappear in the fossil record at the same time as this iridium layer is layed down. Would love to hear it.

Time for family and turkey!
Best,
James

p.s. here are some pictures of the crater partly buried underneath the Yucatan in Mexico.
This is a gravity map
Posted Image

Here is a description. There are lots of pictures on the web
http://www.sheppards...cts-Mexico4.htm

#51 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 22 November 2007 - 10:54 PM

The pictures stated "click to zoom"  When I clicked all I got was gibberish.  Would you link some of those articles- pictures.  It is very interesting stuff.

Also, you stated that there was enough water in the upper mantle to cover 30 oceans.  Is there a link or a way I could get further information on this. TIA

God Bless you,

Bruce

View Post


http://www.yecheadqu...sters_giant.jpg

http://www.yecheadqu...e_sea_level.jpg

Here is an extra one on the flood showing how the top of the Grand Canyon is worn with the same wear patterns that the bottom is. And how the wear patterns are just as deep in the top of the canyon as the bottom is. Even though the wear at the top should have been gone a long time ago. Even the deepness of the wear is almost the same, you can't get that unless it was all caused recently by the same event.

Posted Image

The evolutionist excuse for this is that the wear at the top is caused by wind. In which I ask: Does wind cause almost exact wear patterns as water? For this no evidence could be provided.

The ones on the ice cores:

http://www.yecheadqu...02ice_cores.jpg
http://www.yecheadqu...5_ice_cores.jpg
http://www.yecheadqu...7_ice_cores.jpg
http://www.yecheadqu...0_ice_cores.jpg

The thing about the annual ring claim is that they made this statement without ever testing it to see if it were true. This left the door open for them to be proven wrong. So when this guy went out to get those planes that were lost, and dug them out of the ice. The planes position in the ice proved the annual ring theory wrong.

I think the annual ring theory is just as stupid as the evolutionist claim the moon dust theory is. Both were guessed at, site unseen, and assumptions untested.

#52 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 22 November 2007 - 11:04 PM

Here is the stuff on the coelacanth fish:

Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image

No evolution for millions of years proves that evolution is not needed. The evolutionist excuse for no evolution: The species evolved far enough to survive so no more evolution was needed. But yet evolutionists will also claim that evolution "never" stops. The coelacanth is second from the bottom of the evolution chart.

#53 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 22 November 2007 - 11:24 PM

My brother in law's mother had a ranch in northern South Dakota (she has died). In this ranch Brad found many ammonites and various other fossils. He has someone full time finding and cleaning these fossils and ammorites. I guess he has a big booth in Tucson. He sent me ~ 3 inch ammorite that is very colorful: Brad stated that good color is sought after. I have no idea what fossils he has from Namibia- I would be surprised if he had any Pre-Cambrian fossils.

Good stuff as always: (Wow, I thought precambrian fossils where much smaller: Very cool fossil)

Notes about the flood:

I believe 40 days and 40 nights just means a long time not a literal 40 days and nights.

I also believe that the intent of the flood was to cover the area where man existed, not the entire world.


Questions: (Only answer if you want to: I know so little that I may be like that 2 year old kid with an infinite amount of questions. Also, I should look this stuff up and not ask you to do it)

1. How did they date when that meteorite struck? High temperatures accelerate carbon decay and make carbon dating difficult.
2. What could survive 2 years of a black out caused by this meteorite. It seams like all life would either hibernate or die off.
3. I would think a strike like this could shift our axis or cause some other detrimental effect.

Questions about the flood:

I have heard a theory that there was a great canopy of water in our atmosphere before the flood which created a green house affect. The theory states that is why we have fossils in very cold regions- like Alaska. What do you think of that theory?

#54 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 22 November 2007 - 11:26 PM

Water to flood the whole earth:

Frost says that solidified lava that has erupted at mid-ocean ridges contains glass that can be analyzed for water content. His research team has calculated how much water the lava's parent material in the mantle must have contained. "It ends up being between 100 and 500 parts per million," he says. And if the whole mantle contained 500 parts per million of water, Frost calculates that would be the equivalent of 30 oceans of water.


http://www.ldolphin....deepwaters.html

This is not a creationist site either. The statement is about half way down the page.

#55 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 22 November 2007 - 11:38 PM

http://www.yecheadqu...sters_giant.jpg

http://www.yecheadqu...e_sea_level.jpg

Here is an extra one on the flood showing how the top of the Grand Canyon is worn with the same wear patterns that the bottom is. And how the wear patterns are just as deep in the top of the canyon as the bottom is. Even though the wear at the top should have been gone a long time ago. Even the deepness of the wear is almost the same, you can't get that unless it was all caused recently by the same event.

Posted Image

The evolutionist excuse for this is that the wear at the top is caused by wind. In which I ask: Does wind cause almost exact wear patterns as water? For this no evidence could be provided.

The ones on the ice cores:

http://www.yecheadqu...02ice_cores.jpg
http://www.yecheadqu...5_ice_cores.jpg
http://www.yecheadqu...7_ice_cores.jpg
http://www.yecheadqu...0_ice_cores.jpg

The thing about the annual ring claim is that they made this statement without ever testing it to see if it were true. This left the door open for them to be proven wrong. So when this guy went out to get those planes that were lost, and dug them out of the ice. The planes position in the ice proved the annual ring theory wrong.

I think the annual ring theory is just as stupid as the evolutionist claim the moon dust theory is. Both were guessed at, site unseen, and assumptions untested.

View Post

Thanks for the info. Those clams are huge.

God Bless
Bruce

#56 numbers

numbers

    Troll

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

Posted 23 November 2007 - 12:02 AM

The ones on the ice cores:

http://www.yecheadqu...02ice_cores.jpg
http://www.yecheadqu...5_ice_cores.jpg
http://www.yecheadqu...7_ice_cores.jpg
http://www.yecheadqu...0_ice_cores.jpg

The thing about the annual ring claim is that they made this statement without ever testing it to see if it were true. This left the door open for them to be proven wrong. So when this guy went out to get those planes that were lost, and dug them out of the ice. The planes position in the ice proved the annual ring theory wrong.

I think the annual ring theory is just as stupid as the evolutionist claim the moon dust theory is. Both were guessed at, site unseen, and assumptions untested.

View Post


You do realize that there's a difference between ice layers and feet of ice, right?. A hundred feet of ice is not the same thing as 100 annual layers. Those pictures only say how many feet of ice accumulated, there's no mention of how many layers of ice were present. If you want to challenge the idea of ice layers representing annual accumulation you need to provide a count of annual ice layers present at the site, not just a measure of ice accumulation.

#57 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 23 November 2007 - 01:30 AM

You do realize that there's a difference between ice layers and feet of ice, right?.  A hundred feet of ice is not the same thing as 100 annual layers.  Those pictures only say how many feet of ice accumulated, there's no mention of how many layers of ice were present.  If you want to challenge the idea of ice layers representing annual accumulation you need to provide a count of annual ice layers present at the site, not just a measure of ice accumulation.

View Post


Posted Image

In 48 years, those planes were covered in 263 feet of ice. That's 5.5 feet a year. To make the annual rings correct, there would have to be ice cores that have "one annual ring" per 5.5 feet.

Posted Image

Now as you are looking at the guy standing where the melted ice is to get at those planes. Let's ponder that he is about 5.5 feet tall. Now you can see the rings in the ice wall next to him. Do you see one ring from the length of his head to his feet? I see several rings. And these are the ones visible to the eye.

When they examine ice cores, they do it under a microscope which will reveal even more rings. So does that sound like one annual ring per 5.5 feet of ice per year? Do the math.

Example: How many annual rings do you see here?

Posted Image

I doubt that this ice core is longer that my arm.

#58 numbers

numbers

    Troll

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

Posted 23 November 2007 - 04:40 AM

Posted Image

In 48 years, those planes were covered in 263 feet of ice. That's 5.5 feet a year. To make the annual rings correct, there would have to be ice cores that have "one annual ring" per 5.5 feet.


Yes, if you took a ice core from that area in greenland there will be thick annual deposits, split up into identifiable accumulation and thaw layers, so what?

Posted Image

Now as you are looking at the guy standing where the melted ice is to get at those planes. Let's ponder that he is about 5.5 feet tall. Now you can see the rings in the ice wall next to him. Do you see one ring from the length of his head to his feet? I see several rings. And these are the ones visible to the eye.


Annual layers in ice cores are marked by repeating patterns of accumulation (winter layers) and thawing and refreezing (summer layers). They result in different types of ice. As a general rule, each years worth of accumulation is seperated by layers of hoarfrost, not just by discoloration, which is the only ring type visible in that photo.

Theres no way to visually identify where each years accumulation ends from that photo. It's the type of ice that matters in identifying annual layers, not just the color of the ice.

You still haven't presented a creationist source that gives a count of the annual layers from that area. I'd like to know how many annual layers creationists think are present in that area and how they are arriving at that number. I'll even make a prediction.

Prediction: Using the same methods used to analyze ice cores in other parts of the world no creationist has counted more than 50ish years worth of ice layers in that area in greenland.

When they examine ice cores, they do it under a microscope which will reveal even more rings. So does that sound like one annual ring per 5.5 feet of ice per year? Do the math.

Example: How many annual rings do you see here?

Posted Image

I doubt that this ice core is longer that my arm.

View Post


1. Different places on earth have different amounts of precipitation. Just because greenland gets 5 ft of snow per year doesn't mean all ice cores contain 5 ft of snow per year.
2. I don't know where that ice core is from but I will bet anything you like it wasn't taken from the area in greenland where the planes were buried in. Therefore theres no reason to expect the ice core to contain the same amount of precipitation as greenland.

#59 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denmark

Posted 23 November 2007 - 06:12 AM

I numbered you assumptions so I can address them one by one.

1) I notice you use the term: Free water. Does water have to be free to flood things? Volcanoes erupt all the time, and water is brought up with each eruption. So are you trying to claim that a flood can only have one type of water, in which there is not enough of, in order to flood the earth? That statement in itself is bias, and is thought up to make sure that there is never an explanation for this. Because I know that with this statement, that you know that I will use the information about water being locked in the upper mantle that can fill 30 of our oceans.

So to what evidence do you have that only "free water" can flood anything?


Well, I don't know how to answer this (and stay polite), but I'll try. For water to flood something it has to be free, as in liquid state. Feel free to suggest how water that is frozen or bound chemically to rocks can flood anything. I am aware that there is plenty of water bound inside the Earth, but the keyword here is bound. There are different ways that water can be bound, but to free it, you need to apply heat. Typically several hundreds of degrees C. If that water was burned free for use in the flood, building a boat would not have helped Noah much.

2 and 3) Like you say, there are local traces. How would you prove that a world wide flood would require the whole earth to have evidence as such? Floods happen all the time. And over a few years, the evidence disappears. So your claim for world wide evidence has to be seen, does not work unless you can prove that with a world wide flood. that world wide evidence would be left. Can you?


There are local traces, of local floods. In most cases, we can see where the water came from, and whence it went. If the entire world had been covered in water some 5,000 years ago, then yes, the traces would have been visible in most places. What is worse, for the flood idea, is that there are places that have obviouslt NOT been floded for eons. Ice core analysis tell us that Greenland and Antartic glaciers have developed steadily for more than 100,000 years.

Finally, remember that the onus of proof is on you. I don't have to disprove the flood, you have to prove it.

4) Really? How scientifically would you prove this claim? Or is this just an opinion of yours? Just like a fish that does not evolve for millions of years does not work with the evolution time-line either.


Sorry I lost you there, which claim do you list under 4)?

Yes, so-called living fossils (actually nobody ever claimed it did not evolve, only that it did not evolve much) are quite compatible with evolution. There are both mechanisms that tend to keep a species stable amnd mechanisms that tend to change it. Well-adapted species can remain with little change over long periods of time.

The annual rings are also wrong:


Ice rings? They are layers. They have nothing to do with ice thickness. In some areas ice accumulates much faster, and large parts of the great arctic and antarctic glaciers are not very old, because ice collects quickly (just as it rains more in some places than others), and the glaciers drift towards the sea. The really old ice cores are collected in areas where the ice grows slowly. Remember, these glaciers are continent-sized; different places have different conditions.

1) How do you know that the animals were all over the planet back then? And how many years was Noah building the Ark? So if the animals had to come from far away, they had time.


I said as much. Except, obviously, the fossil record indicates that animals were always all over the planet.

2 and 3) When David was thrown into the lions den, what did God do to keep the lions from eating him? If He did it there, he can do it on the ark.


Why, of course! God can make anything possible. However, we are discussing naturalistic explanations, here.

4) Sin brought death, so as long as sin existed. Things that cause death existed regardless. So how do diseases keep coming back that we keep thinking we have gotten rid of? How does the bubonic plague keep coming back when we were supposed to have gotten rid of it?


It comes back because the micro-organism survives somewhere. Or are you suggesting it returns by abiogenesis? ;)

5) Migration.


So, all the marsipuals wandered all the way to the Singapore area, leaving no trace enroute, then swam about 3,000 miles, circumnavigating several very big islands, and settled in Australia? The animals typical to the Americas swam across the Atlantic, etc. ... Excuse me :rolleyes: .

... Or do you suggest continental drift?

Hans

#60 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denmark

Posted 23 November 2007 - 07:09 AM

Notes about the flood:

I believe 40 days and 40 nights just means a long time not a literal 40 days and nights.

I also believe that the intent of the flood was to cover the area where man existed, not the entire world.


Yes, I also don't think the Bible is to be taken literally.

1.  How did they date when that meteorite struck?  High temperatures accelerate carbon decay and make carbon dating difficult.


Several points here.

High temperatures do not accelerate carbon decay. C14 dating works by determining the content of C14 in a biological sample. The decay of an isotope is not affected by temperature.

Read about carbon dating here: http://www.c14dating.com/int.html

The dating of the meteorite strike is done by geological methods. All over the planet we find a thin layer of iridium-rich deposit in chalk deposits. There are numerous websites explainig various aspects of this.

2.  What could survive 2 years of a black out caused by this meteorite.    It seams like all life would either hibernate or die off.


Well, it needn't have been as bad as all that. I know some popular accounts (usually accompanied by some dramatic animated movie showing dinosaures drop like flies) tend to draw a very sinister picture. For anything within a thousand miles of this impact, it was certainly bad news, but the planet-wide effect was more likely a change in climate, varius parts of food chains being knocked out, and all in all, widespread changes in living conditions. Animals would not have dropped dead, but the new conditions changed the odds in the constant struggle for life, and many species suddenly found themselves unfit for survival. During the next many generations, numerous species whithered and headed for extinction, while others prospered.

3.  I would think a strike like this could shift our axis or cause some other detrimental effect.


No, not perceptibly. The Earth is too heavy for that. A mile-size meteorite is just a pepple in this context.

Questions about the flood:

I have heard a theory that there was a great canopy of water in our atmosphere before the flood which created a green house affect. The theory states that is why we have fossils in very cold regions- like Alaska. What do you think of that theory?


Makes no sense. What would support a canopy of water? Why would it create a green-house effect? Water means clouds. Not exactly something that heats things.

The explanation for (even tropical) fossils in Arctic regions is continental drift.

Hans




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


    Google (1)