Jump to content


Photo

Young Earth Age Correlations


  • Please log in to reply
162 replies to this topic

#121 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 18 September 2011 - 07:08 PM

Exponential Light Speed Curve Is Evidence Of A Young Universe


The speed of light has been slowing down since it's been measured over the last 200 years. Some will say that it's due to improved and more accurate measuring techniques, but then they have to explain why the exponential curve just happens to be "by chance" a perfect match for the YEC model.

In 1982, Dr. Barry Setterfield, an Australian astronomer, made an amazing discovery that he first presented at the 1983 National Creation Conference. Dr. Setterfield tabulated all the measurements of the speed of light since 1675. The computer-generated curve showed that the speed of light was slowing at an exponential rate. Extrapolating back to 4082 BC, the approximate time of creation of the earth, the speed of light was 107 – 1011 times its present velocity. Immediately, the scientific community set out to discredit Dr. Setterfield's report, only to verify that he was indeed correct to an extremely high statistical probability. No one could explain this exponential decay.



Ten years later in 1992, I realized that the Hubble space telescope and others show space filling with gas and dust. Many enormous clouds of dust and gas in space are so dense that they completely obscure the light from any stars behind them. Hubble's Bubble is a good example. This enormous cloud of gas six light-years across is in the constellation Cassiopeia. Dust and gas decrease the speed of light. This would explain Setterfield's discovery that the speed of light was much greater at the time of creation of the earth. Light waves are the result of vibrations of electrons in matter. In my opinion, light waves are propagated instantaneously in an absolute vacuum. When a light wave strikes some matter, the infinitesimal inertia of the electrons requires an infinitesimal amount of time for the electrons in the matter to vibrate at the frequency of the light wave. This results in a delay in light passing through any medium. If this is true, light from the stars would be seen on the earth the instant the stars were created because space had no gas or dust at the time of creation.



I suggest that a simple experiment would be to measure the velocity of light in a container holding several atmospheres of air, and then measure it as a vacuum is gradually created in the container. I predict that its velocity will increase exponentially as the vacuum is created. In view of Dr, Setterfield's discovery, the earth is not 12 – 20 billion years old, but only about 6,000 years old. Confirmation of a 6000-year age of the earth was discovered by correcting errors found by Creation Science nuclear decay of radioactive isotopes.


Posted Image


The exponential decay of the velocity of light in space with time is given in Setterfield, Barry, 1983, The Velocity of Light and the Age of the Universe, National Creation Conference, Minneapolis – St. Paul. This graph shows the speed of light slowing down as space is filled with dust and gas.


Http://www.intelligentdesigntheory.info/speed-light.html

MODIFICATIONS TO LIGHT-SPEED MODEL

During the period from 1980 until 1987, my light-speed research was developed around the 350 years of data on light-speed, c, and the best part of 90 years of accumulated data from the associated atomic constants. The theoretical approach adopted was one that was in agreement with the observational evidence that was amassed during that period. The results were outlined in the Report of August 1987, which was initially issued under the auspices of SRI International and Flinders University. Since then, the data base has been extended, mainly through astronomical evidence, and ultimate causes have been sought for the observed phenomena.

The astronomical data have required the energy conservation approach adopted earlier to be extended to cover an additional effect that is not apparent over the short term in terrestrial data. When this is done, some minor changes occur in the basic approach adopted during the 1980's. Importantly, the astronomical and geological evidence extend the data base back to the frontiers of the universe and with it our understanding of the probable processes acting to bring about the observed effects.

As a result of this extension, some of the conclusions reached in the 1987 Report require modification. The new model is presented in Behavior of the Zero Point Energy and Atomic Constants. A listing of the most important of these changes now follows.

OUTLINE OF NEW MODEL:
It is generally accepted that the fabric of space was stretched out in response to processes operating at the inception of the cosmos. It is proposed that this stretching invested the fabric of space with an energy that eventually manifests as the zero-point energy, which is an intrinsic property of the vacuum. Evidence is deduced that the zero-point energy is increasing with time. The reason for the progressive change in the strength of the zero-point energy (ZPE) may be traced to the behaviour of the vacuum at the Planck length level. A smooth increase in the ZPE induces a smooth decline in the speed of light, c, and the rate of ticking of atomic clocks, while simultaneously smooth changes in the values of some atomic constants also occur.

Evidence in the scientific literature indicates that the ZPE sustains atomic structures universally. Therefore it is proposed that, as more energy became progressively available to them from the vacuum, atomic particle and orbit energies underwent a series of discrete isotropic increases or quantum jumps when the ZPE increased to a quantum threshold. Within the quantum interval, energy was conserved in all atomic processes, as atoms could not access fractions of a full quantum of energy from the ZPE. Thus, with increasing time, atoms emitted light that shifted in jumps towards the blue end of the spectrum. With increasing astronomical distance (looking back in time), theory indicates that the resulting redshift should increase in jumps of 2.633 km/s, in accord with Tifft's statistically treated observations that yield a quantisation of 2.667 km/s. This means that the treatment of the redshift and the Doppler formula in the 1987 Report has been superseded.

MODIFICATIONS:
From Table 12 on page 28 of the 1987 Report , Option III is now favoured over Option I by the new work. This means that e, the electric permittivity of the vacuum, and m, the vacuum's magnetic permeability, are both proportional to 1/c. If 'e' is the electronic charge, this results in the quantity e2/ε being independent of c within a quantum interval, as is its magnetic equivalent which is m2/μ. This ensures that the electric and magnetic properties of the vacuum always maintain the same proportions as is demanded with any change in the strength of the ZPE. If this were not the case, there would also be dispersion effects on light propagating through space that are not in accord with observation.

The section on Gravitation in the Report on pages 43 and 44 is now superseded by a treatment in accord with SED physics and the effect of the ZPE on point particle charges. The result is that there would be no change in gravitational phenomena, including gravitational acceleration and orbit times for planets and celestial bodies, as the ZPE increased and c declined. This arises because the term Gm is a constant, where G is the Newtonian gravitational constant and m is mass. The dynamical (orbital) clock has thus ticked at a constant rate. Although this conclusion is the same as in the Report, the means whereby it is derived is different.

The other major change has been the determination of the basic curve for light-speed. The paper undergoing review establishes a linear relationship between the redshift and the velocity of light via the behaviour of the ZPE. The redshift can then be used as a measure of the value of c. Furthermore, looking out into astronomical distances is equivalent to looking back in time. Consequently, the standard graph of redshift plotted against distance is equivalent to a graph of the speed of light plotted against time. It is the same graph with re-scaled axes. Observational evidence indicates that an oscillation is also involved. This oscillation means that the minimum value attained for c around 1970 may be followed by a slight increase or, alternatively, may be followed by further decay after this stationary period has ended. The actual behaviour at this point has yet to be determined. However, evidence is accumulating that a slight rise in c has occurred. This matter is the subject of ongoing investigation.

In secular literature, changing c models are now being considered under the heading of VSL (variable speed of light) theories. The 'cDK' reference is retained to distinguish it from other models. However the term 'DK' which came about from the word 'decay' really has nothing to do with the concept of decay as it is known in biology. This has given rise to some misconceptions about the behavior of light, which might have other implications. In fact, photons in transit do not lose energy by the mechanisms in operation in this model, so light itself is not undergoing any 'decay' when its velocity drops. The drop is due entirely to an increase in the ZPE which itself is responsible for sustaining all atomic structures throughout the cosmos.

Barry Setterfield ­

2nd October 2001; updated August 31, 2007



Modifications To Light Speed Model



Experiments and results


The speed of light has been observed to have exceeded the speed of 300,000 km/sec, albeit over short range, in quantum tunneling experiments (Landauer 1993, Brown 1995).



Enjoy.

#122 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 08 November 2011 - 11:22 AM

Uniform CMB Is A Prediction Of The YEC Model

If the universe was created in it's relatively present condition, then we would expect to see cosmic microwave background emanating from the stars and galaxies in a uniform pattern since they are all the same age.

Posted Image

This prediction has not only been confirmed, but is also a contradiction to the predictions of the big bang model. They are left with a very unlikely solution called Inflation Theory.

Another expected observation of creation is the fact that galaxies at the outer edge of our universe are apparently the same age as those near by.

There are fully formed distant galaxies that must have already been billions of years old over 13 billion years ago; which would make them older than the Big Bang. Then there is the problem of the oldest globular clusters so far discovered, whose ages are in excess of 16 billion years. The Milky Way and other galaxies are also so old that they must have formed before the so called "Dark Ages" and thus almost immediately after the Big Bang, which is not consistent with theory.

Using the Infrared Array Camera (IRAC) aboard NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope, astronomers have detected about a dozen very red galaxies at a distance of 10 to12 billion light years from Earth (cfa Harvard 2005). According to the Big Bang model, these galaxies existed when the universe was only about 1/5 of its present age of 13.75 billion years. The unpredicted existence of "red and dead" galaxies so early in the universe challenges Big Bang theories relating to galaxy formation (cfa Harvard 2005). Analysis show that galaxies exhibit a large range of properties. Young galaxies with and without lots of dust, and old galaxies with and without dust. There is as much variety in the so called "early universe" as we see around "today" in galaxies closer to Earth. Link





Big Bang? A Critical Review







Enjoy.

#123 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 21 November 2011 - 06:13 PM

Vastly Different Age Inclusions In Zircons Is Further Evidence Of Accelerated Nuclear Decay (A continuation of post #96)

Geologists have recently acknowledged that zircons contain vastly different aged inclusions. The zircons show no evidence of cracking or other routes for which these inclusions could have entered the zircon. If the tightly bound lattice structure of these zircons are impermeable, then it further corroborates the RATE's findings that billions of years of decay has occurred in only thousands of years.

Discovery Upsets Geological Dating

For a long time, geologists have used microscopic crystals called zircons as “time capsules” for dating rock strata. The tiny crystals are so durable it was believed they were virtually impermeable. Now, however, inclusions inside the zircons appear to be vastly different in age. This could have drastic effects on how certain formations are dated.

According to Science Magazine News, Earth’s time capsules “may be flawed.” An Australian team took a look at about 7,000 zircons from the Jack Hills of western Australia, a conglomerate formation containing pebbles that have undergone heavy bouts of metamorphism. The zircons were thought to be between 2.65 and 3.05 billion years old. A few had inclusions, and some of the inclusions that were dated using radiometric means came out as young as 800 million years – the assumed date of the surrounding metamorphic rock.

This means that zircons are not as protected from outside influence as thought. The scientists could find no way in for younger radioactive material to get inside some of the “young” inclusions – no hairline fractures, for instance. If carried in by fluids, “the fluids may have traveled along defects in the zircon’s crystal structure caused by radioactive decay or along pathways that are either too small to see or oriented such that they're invisible.”

Reporter Sid Perkins described how this finding may “stir people up”:

In recent years, some researchers have used analyses of zircons and their inclusions—and in particular, the temperatures and pressures they've been exposed to since their formation—to infer the presence of oceans or of modern-style plate tectonics on Earth more than 4 billion years ago, well before previously suspected, Rasmussen says. But based on the team's new findings, which will be reported next month in Geology, those conclusions are suspect, he notes.

Another geologist was even more worried.“The results‘suggest that analyses of zircon inclusions can’t be trusted much at all,’adds Jonathan Patchett, an isotope geochemist at the University of Arizona in Tucson.” Another geologist was not so pessimistic but warned that use of zircon dating information will have to be done more carefully from now on. Link






Enjoy.

#124 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 21 November 2011 - 07:09 PM

Starlight And Time

Dr. Russel Humphreys has proposed a YEC cosmological model that proposes Gravitational Time Dilation rather than a faster speed of light. The hypothesis is corroborated by time differences in atomic clocks at different elevations.



Prestigious Journal Endorses Basics of Creationist Cosmology

by D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D. Physics - A prestigious scientific journal, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), has just published an article using the same foundations and starting scenario as the “white-hole” creationist cosmology I published in 1994. Since the sponsoring organization, the National Academy of Séances—I mean “Sciences”—is officially hostile to creationism, I doubt that the editors of PNAS consciously meant to do us a favor. The authors, mathematicians Joel Smoller and Blake Temple, did not reference my writings, so perhaps they knew nothing of my cosmology. However, a connection might exist, because my book, Starlight and Time, is now into its eighth printing with more than 50,000 copies circulating worldwide. Such a connection, whether conscious theft or unconscious diffusion of ideas, would in either case be the sincerest form of flattery! Link




Enjoy.

#125 digitalartist

digitalartist

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • New York, NY

Posted 22 November 2011 - 01:15 PM

Exponential Light Speed Curve Is Evidence Of A Young Universe


The speed of light has been slowing down since it's been measured over the last 200 years. Some will say that it's due to improved and more accurate measuring techniques, but then they have to explain why the exponential curve just happens to be "by chance" a perfect match for the YEC model.


Actually it is better measurements that have adjusted the sol to it's current value (arrived at in 1983). If we look at these measurements from 1675-193 we see the adjustments.

1675 Rømer and Huygens, moons of Jupiter 220,000
1729 James Bradley, aberration of light 301,000
1849 Hippolyte Fizeau, toothed wheel 315,000
1862 Léon Foucault, rotating mirror 298,000 ±500
1907 Rosa and Dorsey, EM constants 299,710 ±30
1926 Albert Michelson, rotating mirror 299,796 ±4
1950 Essen and Gordon-Smith, cavity resonator 299,792.5 ±3.0
1958 K.D. Froome, radio interferometry 299,792.50 ±0.10
1972 Evenson et al., laser interferometry 299,792.4562 ±0.0011
1983 17th CGPM, definition of the metre 299,792.458 (exact)

As you can see it jumped around a bit early on do to far less accurate methods of measuring. One can not take them at face value or one would conclude that the sol increased from 1675 - 1849 then dropped and remained fairly constant. We can see the increased accuracy of measuring the sol from 1862 - 1983 since the margin of error decreases then disappears in 1983. If we are to conclude a change in the speed of light over time based on the available information from the more accurate calculations from 1862 - 1983 then we would have say that over that 121 year period the sol has actually increased not decreased. The only sure and accurate way to determine if the sol is changing or remaining steady is for measurements after 1983 being compared with the 1983 known exact measurement.

#126 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 24 November 2011 - 11:00 PM

Actually it is better measurements that have adjusted the sol to it's current value (arrived at in 1983). If we look at these measurements from 1675-193 we see the adjustments.

1675 Rømer and Huygens, moons of Jupiter 220,000
1729 James Bradley, aberration of light 301,000
1849 Hippolyte Fizeau, toothed wheel 315,000
1862 Léon Foucault, rotating mirror 298,000 ±500
1907 Rosa and Dorsey, EM constants 299,710 ±30
1926 Albert Michelson, rotating mirror 299,796 ±4
1950 Essen and Gordon-Smith, cavity resonator 299,792.5 ±3.0
1958 K.D. Froome, radio interferometry 299,792.50 ±0.10
1972 Evenson et al., laser interferometry 299,792.4562 ±0.0011
1983 17th CGPM, definition of the metre 299,792.458 (exact)

As you can see it jumped around a bit early on do to far less accurate methods of measuring. One can not take them at face value or one would conclude that the sol increased from 1675 - 1849 then dropped and remained fairly constant. We can see the increased accuracy of measuring the sol from 1862 - 1983 since the margin of error decreases then disappears in 1983. If we are to conclude a change in the speed of light over time based on the available information from the more accurate calculations from 1862 - 1983 then we would have say that over that 121 year period the sol has actually increased not decreased. The only sure and accurate way to determine if the sol is changing or remaining steady is for measurements after 1983 being compared with the 1983 known exact measurement.



Actually, given the assumptions used by Setterfield, the discordant dates (only a few) are expected due to error bars and the ones that are flat out wrong are obvious; I wouldn't think that any scientist would be criticized for excluding Romer's calculation. And given the fact that the vast majority do follow the exponential curve, then the speed of light slowing down can be inferred from the data.

It isn't often that an idea happens to be observed by chance, so I'm going with the prediction made rather than a face value assessment.



Enjoy.

#127 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 25 November 2011 - 01:56 AM

Archaeopteryx feathers and bone chemistry fully
revealed via synchrotron imaging
(A continuation of post #12, post #18, and post #90)



Abstract

Evolution of flight in maniraptoran dinosaurs is marked by the acquisition of distinct avian characters, such as feathers, as seen in Archaeopteryx from the Solnhofen limestone. These rare fossils were pivotal in confirming the dinosauria-avian lineage. One of the key derived avian characters is the possession of feathers, details of which were remarkably preserved in the Lagerstätte environment. These structures were previously simply assumed to be impressions; however, a detailed chemical analysis has, until now, never been completed on any Archaeopteryx specimen. Here we present chemical imaging via synchrotron rapid scanning X-ray fluorescence (SRS-XRF) of the Thermopolis Archaeopteryx, which shows that portions of the feathers are not impressions but are in fact remnant body fossil structures, maintaining elemental compositions that are completely different from the embedding geological matrix. Our results indicate phosphorous and sulfur retention in soft tissue as well as trace metal (Zn and Cu) retention in bone. Other previously unknown chemical details of Archaeopteryx are also revealed in this study including: bone chemistry, taphonomy (fossilization process), and curation artifacts. SRS-XRF represents a major advancement in the study of the life chemistry and fossilization processes of Archaeopteryx and other extinct organisms because it is now practical to image the chemistry of large specimens rapidly at concentration levels of parts per million. This technique has wider application to the archaeological, forensic, and biological sciences, enabling the mapping of “unseen” compounds critical to understanding biological structures, modes of preservation, and environmental context.Link





Enjoy.

#128 johnsmith1048576

johnsmith1048576

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 27
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • California

Posted 26 November 2011 - 01:22 AM

Permian placoderm found above a triceratops

Posted Image

The Empire Mountains of southern Arizona have Cretaceous rock capped by Permian limestone. The contact zone, between the layers of rock, undulates like the meshing of a gear. If the geologic sequences of this formation were really the result of an overthrust, how did such meshwork avoid getting planed off? There is no other erosive evidence either such as scraping, gouging, or linear striations at the contact zones.

This dilemma is easily explained and predicted by marine organisms being transported onto the continents and covering terrestrial organisms during the flood.

I'm sorry I'm not an expert of geology. In fact, I know very little. We do agree that the geology column is the same everywhere in the world, except for a couple of cases like this one where the column is upside down, correct? So, the "mainstream" science explanation is that the column was turned upside down by plate tectonics, right? Thus they predict that all of the fossils would still be in their corresponding layers, correct? This is also what we observe, correct?

So, the alternative is that the geology column is the same everywhere, except in a couple isolated mountains, where just by luck it happens to be exactly the opposite of everywhere else, with all of the fossils in the expected places.

Frequently, doesn't Flood geology make the argument that the slower species are found in lower layers because the flood waters got to them first? How does this jive with the sea creature fossils on the top of the mountains? Why do we only see sea creature fossils on the top of the mountains with the reversed geology column, but not on the other mountains. And we're talking presumably a lot of fossils. This seems to have a rather high statistical correlation, enough that random chance will not suffice. In fact, I now claim that these two explanations are inconsistent. If we observe all of the "slower" moving animals at the lower levels because they ran the slowest from the flood waters, and most tall places completely lack these "slow" animals and sea creatures, then this should predict that we should not see sea creatures at the top of mountains. At least, it should predict that we should either see a relatively nice uniform height distribution, not this two spike distribution with sea creatures on top of some mountains and no sea creatures on top of other mountains.

#129 johnsmith1048576

johnsmith1048576

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 27
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • California

Posted 26 November 2011 - 01:39 AM

I'm just replying to the ones I can comment usefully on. Sorry I'm not an expert in all things.

Sea ooze. Soft mud from dead plants and animal life form on the floor of the oceans, at the rate of about one inch (2.54 cm) every 1,000 to 5,000 years. The depth of ooze indicates the earth is quite young.

Surely we can explain this with bacterial or something which eats the ooze. If not, we can invoke plate tectonics and how the ocean plates are frequently recycled due to subduction zones.

Thickness of ocean sediments. If the earth was billions of years old, the ocean floor would be covered by sediments from land, measuring 60 to 100 miles [96.5 to 160.9 km] thick, and all the continents would be eroded away. Instead, we only find a few thousand feet of sediment. Based on known yearly sediment deposition, calculations yield only a few thousand years for our planet.

Again, could this possibly be explained with plate tectonics? I suppose if the number is thousands vs millions. I'd need to see sources to comment further.

One related topic, which bears reference to this.
http://en.wikipedia....gnetic_reversal
Now, there are certain kinds of rocks, that when they cool, they harden in such a way that they record the current orientation of the local magnetic field. It's really cool. What's cooler is that you can look at the ocean floor at these kinds of rocks, and they exist in alternating bands. The bands are not regular in width, but there are definite bands. The bands are parallel to known faults. The "mainstream" explanation is plate tectonics, and the Earth's magnetic pole reverses from time to time. It's really fun stuff. It involves the geo dynamo hypothesis/theory of the Earth's magnetic field. IIRC, there's been some modeling of the Earth's core, the dynamo, and how it's possible you can get pole reversals. Again, it's really cool stuff.

Also, elsewhere, I've seen it quoted that the Earth's magnetic field is decaying, and that's another evidence for a young earth. That argument assumes a constant rate of decay, which is wrong if you buy plate tectonics, given the above evidence.

Mutation load. Calculations based on genetic load (the gradually increasing negative effect of mutation on living organisms) indicate that life forms could not have continued more than several thousand years,—and still be as free from mutational defects as they now are. (The deteriorated atmosphere after the Flood, with the consequent increase of solar radiation, probably increased the rate of accreditation of this genetic load.)

Now this might as well be an argument that evolution isn't true. If evolution is true, then it explains this quite well. The negative mutations are weeded out, and only the non-mutations and the positive mutations survive to reproduce. It's quite elementary. Of course, I suppose that if you don't buy evolution, then this is an evidence for a young Earth.

Related: That reminds me. So, the accepted story amongst young earthers is that Noah took only 2 (or 7) of each kind on his ship, right? Now, if all animals on the planet came from only 2 (or 7) breeding individuals in the past, then this would be detectable. This model has falsifiable predictions. We've done the analysis, and it's wrong. We know the rough rate of mutation, and the genetic diversity of most breeding populations on the planet. There had to been a lot more than 2 (or 7) breeding individuals for each population in the distant past. If there was such an incredibly low number, this leaves a huge mark on the genetics of current day animals. For example, this actually happened to the cheetah. The cheetah has an incredible lack of genetic diversity. As a species, it's having problems because of it - more susceptible to diseases, you know. Fun fact, any cheetah on the planet can take a skin graft from any other cheetah on the planet. They did the experiment. They all took. (IIRc, it was like 50 cheetahs as distantly related as they could find.) It took because their immune systems recognized the skin grafts, and that's because of the remarkable lack of genetic diversity in the cheetah.

So, I just want to confirm, is there an "official" explanation for this? Did god come down a few hundred years after the flood to do a miracle and change the genetics of all species (except the cheetah) on the planet to reach the currently observed genetic diversity?

Edited by johnsmith1048576, 26 November 2011 - 01:45 AM.


#130 johnsmith1048576

johnsmith1048576

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 27
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • California

Posted 26 November 2011 - 01:52 AM

The explanation they speak of is polywrong. It contradicts itself two ways, right up front.

TIme dilation is difficult mumbo-jumbo mathematically (actually tedious - not really difficult difficult). But it's easy to remember the direction, and they need you to forget this. Time supposedly slows down for faster-moving objects. This is easy to remember because it's claimed time would stop altogether if one were to travel at the speed of light.

Now they've got slower-moving objects experiencing time at a slower rate than faster-moving objects. How do I know? There's an accepted principle in their own cosmology that says the farther away things are, the faster they're moving.

So, distant objects would be in slow motion - not fast motion.

Unfortunately, this succinct synopsis is incorrect. Think about it for a sec - general relativity says that there is no preferred speed, and all observations are independent of your current speed. So, what you said is inconsistent. Take an observer A, like you, and a fast moving object B, say a distant galaxy. You see B as moving at high speed, and thus you argue that B moves slower through time. In other words, if you could see a clock at B, it would be running slower than a clock in your hand. Now let's ask what B sees. B sees A moving at a high speed. Thus B should see the clock in A's hand moving slower than the clock in B's hand. However, this just doesn't add up.

In short, in general relativity, it's not the speed. It's the acceleration.

In other words, see the twin paradox.
http://en.wikipedia....ki/Twin_paradox

In the twin paradox, only one twin accelerated to near light speed from his starting inertial frame, and that's the younger twin when he gets back to Earth. Both twins were at high speed from each other's perspective.

Sadly, I barely understand this myself, so I won't be able to help you much more than this.

#131 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 26 November 2011 - 01:48 PM

I'm sorry I'm not an expert of geology. In fact, I know very little. We do agree that the geology column is the same everywhere in the world, except for a couple of cases like this one where the column is upside down, correct? So, the "mainstream" science explanation is that the column was turned upside down by plate tectonics, right? Thus they predict that all of the fossils would still be in their corresponding layers, correct? This is also what we observe, correct?

So, the alternative is that the geology column is the same everywhere, except in a couple isolated mountains, where just by luck it happens to be exactly the opposite of everywhere else, with all of the fossils in the expected places.

Frequently, doesn't Flood geology make the argument that the slower species are found in lower layers because the flood waters got to them first? How does this jive with the sea creature fossils on the top of the mountains? Why do we only see sea creature fossils on the top of the mountains with the reversed geology column, but not on the other mountains. And we're talking presumably a lot of fossils. This seems to have a rather high statistical correlation, enough that random chance will not suffice. In fact, I now claim that these two explanations are inconsistent. If we observe all of the "slower" moving animals at the lower levels because they ran the slowest from the flood waters, and most tall places completely lack these "slow" animals and sea creatures, then this should predict that we should not see sea creatures at the top of mountains. At least, it should predict that we should either see a relatively nice uniform height distribution, not this two spike distribution with sea creatures on top of some mountains and no sea creatures on top of other mountains.


Actually, the opposite is true. All the layers only exist in two places on the entire planet. Even then, the fossils in those layers do not conform to the OE's mental abstract.

One of the best known locations is the Grand Staircase in the southwestern United States. In this location we can examine nearly two miles of strata that range from the Precambrian to the Cretaceous. In the lowest level we have the Grand Canyon. Here we can use basic geologic principles to make predictions based on the assumptions of both models.

The uniformitairian model predicts slow gradual deposition over many millions of years. But according to geologic principles inter-bedding of strata can only occur during contemporaneous deposition.

Posted Image

The Cambrian Mauv inter-beds with the Mississippian Redwall Limestone seven times despite the Ordovician, Silurian, and Devonian epoch being completely absent (an unconformity of 180-200 million years).

The strata also tells us from the number of fossils and their orientation by Rose Diagrams, that this is a catastrophic deposition.


REGIONALLY EXTENSIVE MASS KILL OF LARGE ORTHOCONE NAUTILOIDS, REDWALL LIMESTONE (LOWER MISSISSIPPIAN), GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK, ARIZONA

AUSTIN, Steven A., Geology Department, Institute for Creation Rsch, Santee, CA 92071-2833, saustin@icr.edu and WISE, Kurt P., Bryan College, Box 7585, Dayton, TN 37321-7000

Billions of large fossil orthocone nautiloids occur within a single lime packstone bed of the Redwall Limestone through the Grand Canyon region, northern Arizona and southern Nevada. The uppermost 2-m-thick packstone bed of the Whitmore Wash Member of the Redwall Limestone (Osagean Series of the Mississippian System) contains a coplanar horizon averaging 1 nautiloid fossil per m2. The bed with abundant nautiloids extends westward 290 km from Marble Canyon on the Colorado River to Frenchman Mountain near Las Vegas. The platform facies of the bed with abundant nautiloids originally occupied an area of at least 1.5 x 104 km2. Nautiloids resemble the genus Rayonnoceras, but the siphuncle differs from any described in the literature.

Mean length of nautiloids is 0.8 m with log-normal size distribution indicating mass kill of an entire population. Implosion structures and collapse of the body cavity argue that bodies were within the shells at the time of burial. Orientations of nautiloids indicate they were swept up in a westward or southwestward sediment flow. About 15% of nautiloids are vertical within the bed. The packstone bed has inverse grading and abundant fluid-escape pipes indicating strongly fluidized condition and deposition by abrupt freezing from a hyperconcentrated sediment gravity flow. The enormous hyperconcentrated flow hydroplaned westward at a velocity of over 5 m/sec through a shallow, carbonate platform environment, sweeping up, smothering and depositing an entire seafloor population of nautiloids.
Link


The biblical catastrophic model is the hypothesis making the accurate predictions - not the other way around.




Enjoy.

#132 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 26 November 2011 - 02:02 PM

Mutation load. Calculations based on genetic load (the gradually increasing negative effect of mutation on living organisms) indicate that life forms could not have continued more than several thousand years,—and still be as free from mutational defects as they now are. (The deteriorated atmosphere after the Flood, with the consequent increase of solar radiation, probably increased the rate of accreditation of this genetic load.)

Now this might as well be an argument that evolution isn't true. If evolution is true, then it explains this quite well. The negative mutations are weeded out, and only the non-mutations and the positive mutations survive to reproduce. It's quite elementary. Of course, I suppose that if you don't buy evolution, then this is an evidence for a young Earth.


No. Natural selection can not select mutations, rather individuals.

See this post: http://www.evolution...indpost&p=74637

Related: That reminds me. So, the accepted story amongst young earthers is that Noah took only 2 (or 7) of each kind on his ship, right? Now, if all animals on the planet came from only 2 (or 7) breeding individuals in the past, then this would be detectable. This model has falsifiable predictions. We've done the analysis, and it's wrong. We know the rough rate of mutation, and the genetic diversity of most breeding populations on the planet.


No, John. You haven't looked at any empirical mutation rate.

More recent direct mtDNA mutation rate studies also seem to confirm the earlier findings by Parsons and others. In an 2001 article published in the American Journal of Human Genetics, Evelyne Heyer et. al., presented their findings of the mtDNA mutation rate in deep-rooted French-Canadian pedigrees.

Their findings "Confirm[ed] earlier findings of much greater mutation rates in families than those based on phylogenetic comparisons. . . For the HVI sequences, we obtained 220 generations or 6,600 years, and for the HVII sequences 275 generations or 8,250 years. Although each of these values is associated with a large variance, they both point to ~7,000-8,000 years and, therefore, to the early Neolithic as the time of expansion [mostly northern European in origin] . . . Our overall CR mutation-rate estimate of 11.6 per site per million generations . . . is higher, but not significantly different, than the value of 6.3 reported in recent the recent pedigree study of comparable size . . . In another study (Soodyall et al. 1997), no mutations were detected in 108 transmissions. On the other hand, two substitutions were observed in 81 transmissions by Howell et al. (1996), and nine substitutions were observed in 327 transmissions by Parsons et al. (1997). Combining all these data (1,729 transmissions) results in the mutation rate of 15.5 (Cl 10.3-22.1). Taking into account only those from deep-rooting pedigrees (1,321 transmissions) (Soodyall et al. 1997; Sigurdardottir et al. 2000; the present study) leads to the value of 7.9. The latter, by avoiding experimental problems with heteroplasmy, may provide a more realistic approximation of the overall mutation rate."

Also, consider an even more recent paper published in a 2003 issue of the Annals of Human Genetics by B. Bonne-Tamir et al. where the authors presented their results of a their study of "Maternal and Paternal Lineages" from a small isolated Samaritan community. In this paper they concluded:

"Compared with the results obtained by others on mtDNA mutation rates, our upper limit estimate of the mutation rate of 1/61 mutations per generation is in close agreement with those previously published." [compared with the rate determined by Parsons of 1/33 generations, a rate of 1/61 is no more than double].

One more interesting paper published in September 2000 in the Journal Scientist by Denver et al. is also quite interesting. These scientists reported their work with the mtDNA mutation rates of nematode worms and found that these worm's molecular clocks actually run about "100 times faster than previously thought" [emphasis added].


http://www.evolution...indpost&p=52826

According to the empirical rates (the only known way to test any hypothesis) the human race can only be extrapolated back to a time referenced by the historical accounts of the bible; Accurate predictions rarely happen by chance and dozens of them are astronomically improbable.

There had to been a lot more than 2 (or 7) breeding individuals for each population in the distant past. If there was such an incredibly low number, this leaves a huge mark on the genetics of current day animals. For example, this actually happened to the cheetah. The cheetah has an incredible lack of genetic diversity. As a species, it's having problems because of it - more susceptible to diseases, you know. Fun fact, any cheetah on the planet can take a skin graft from any other cheetah on the planet. They did the experiment. They all took. (IIRc, it was like 50 cheetahs as distantly related as they could find.) It took because their immune systems recognized the skin grafts, and that's because of the remarkable lack of genetic diversity in the cheetah.

So, I just want to confirm, is there an "official" explanation for this? Did god come down a few hundred years after the flood to do a miracle and change the genetics of all species (except the cheetah) on the planet to reach the currently observed genetic diversity?


Here your confused again. The lack of genetic diversity only proves that a recent bottleneck has occurred in cheetahs. Scientists have calculated it to being as recent as 3,000 years ago - well within the biblical age for Noah's flood.




Enjoy.

#133 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 09 December 2011 - 11:25 PM

Faster Than Light Neutrinos Could Help Explain A Faster Speed Of Light In Zero Gravity

It has been assumed that photons have zero mass and that means that gravity has no effect on the speed of C. Now OPERA has repeated an experiment that confirms neutrinos traveling faster than the speed of C.

A second experiment at the European facility that reported subatomic particles zooming faster than the speed of light -- stunning the world of physics -- has reached the same result, scientists said late Thursday.


The "positive outcome of the [second] test makes us more confident in the result," said Fernando Ferroni, president of the Italian Institute for Nuclear Physics, in a statement released late Thursday. Ferroni is one of 160 physicists involved in the international collaboration known as OPERA (Oscillation Project with Emulsion Tracking Apparatus) that performed the experiment.


http://www.cbsnews.c...ight-particles/


Since neutrinos have less mass than photons, then it can be expected that they would travel faster. It would also make the speed of photons faster in zero gravity making it possible for light to get here from the far reaches of space faster than the assumed constant.


What is so shocking here isn't that Einstein was wrong as they are claiming, but rather, that nobody anticipated photons having mass and how it only changes one equation of his theorem. It in no way changes the laws of physics as we know them since mass is known to be influenced by gravity. E = mc2 isn't wrong it was incomplete.



Enjoy.



#134 KBC id

KBC id

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 109 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Atlanta, Ga.

Posted 11 December 2011 - 05:34 PM

It has been assumed that photons have zero mass and that means that gravity has no effect on the speed of C. Now OPERA has repeated an experiment that confirms neutrinos traveling faster than the speed of C.


And the race to debunk the faster than c observation begins......

....some physicists have suggested, the neutrinos are not traveling along the straight line we thought they were, but instead were hopping into one of the extra dimensions predicted by string theory, and taking a shortcut to their destination. If they traveled a shorter distance in the measured time, then their actual speed may not have been faster than light.
http://www.livescien...-neutrinos.html

Lets debunk the observable evidence based on another totally unsubstantiated theory. No sense in changing the standard methodology of preserving a bias right?


Credit: David A. Aguilar/Harvard-Smithsonian Center for AstrophysicsMany other aspects of astronomy could also stand to be affected if the new discovery holds. Some important ideas about the history of the universe, in fact, are based on neutrino measurements and theories.
"Neutrinos are abundant in the early universe and if they behave differently, this affects calculations of the evolution of the early universe, nucleosynthesis and the seeds of structure formation," astronomer Derek Fox of Pennsylvania State University wrote in an email to LiveScience.
Furthermore, neutrinos are produced in the fusion reactions that power stars, so if these particles behave differently than thought, star models may need to be revised. (Above, an artist's conception of the history of the cosmos.)
http://www.livescien...-neutrinos.html

What? the 'FACTS' about the 'evolution' of the universe are going to change. Who would have imagined. Ummmm, what happens now to all the arguements that were based on those FACTS?
They will most likely 'evolve' right?
Shall we propose a theory of evolving facts?.... infact static facts don't exist that was just an erronious hypothesis. ;)

#135 digitalartist

digitalartist

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • New York, NY

Posted 12 December 2011 - 02:27 PM

Actually, given the assumptions used by Setterfield, the discordant dates (only a few) are expected due to error bars and the ones that are flat out wrong are obvious; I wouldn't think that any scientist would be criticized for excluding Romer's calculation. And given the fact that the vast majority do follow the exponential curve, then the speed of light slowing down can be inferred from the data.

It isn't often that an idea happens to be observed by chance, so I'm going with the prediction made rather than a face value assessment.



Enjoy.


If we use those measurements as the data then we can infer that comparing the 1972 and 1983 measurements the sol actually increased instead of decreasing.

However let us use the 1950 and 1983 measurements to set a base reduction of the sol because they have the least margin of error. We find in that 23 year period a decrease in the sol of .042. Now if we extrapolate that back to 4000 BCE we find the sol would have increased by 10.865 and would be 299,803.323 hardly conclusive of a young universe.

#136 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 12 December 2011 - 09:40 PM

Hi, digitalartist.


If we use those measurements as the data then we can infer that comparing the 1972 and 1983 measurements the sol actually increased instead of decreasing.

However let us use the 1950 and 1983 measurements to set a base reduction of the sol because they have the least margin of error. We find in that 23 year period a decrease in the sol of .042. Now if we extrapolate that back to 4000 BCE we find the sol would have increased by 10.865 and would be 299,803.323 hardly conclusive of a young universe.


I think your missing the assumptions of the model. Setterfeld is assuming a near constant from 1972 through 1983. So, the error in that timeframe is irrelevant to the extrapolated curve. Even with the apparent change from 1950 to present, Setterfield's curve is exponential and shouldn't be expected to have measurable differences in that time frame (according to two other measurements made in 1950). These data are not conclusive of a young universe since we can't go back 2000 years and measure the speed of C; Rather, it is taken as evidence which correlates with other predictions of a young universe.

And given the results of all collective data (given below), it gives us an almost certain probability that the speed of C has slowed over the last 300 years.

CONCLUSION FROM COLLECTIVE DATA

When all 163 values involving 16 different methods are used, the linear fit to the data gives a decay of 38 Km/s per year. If only the best data from Table 9, chosen by Abraham43, are coupled with all other figures, then 146 values indicate a decay of 43 Km/s per year. The data mean is 753 Km/s above c now and the hypothesis that c has been constant at today's value over the last 300 years can be rejected with a confidence interval of 97.2%. Nevertheless, if we summarize from the above discussion the difference of the best data means from c now in Km/s at the mean date, we obtain the following:


http://ldolphin.org/.../report.html#3i


Thanks.

#137 digitalartist

digitalartist

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • New York, NY

Posted 13 December 2011 - 10:14 AM

Jason 777,


Going back over your post (#121) http://www.evolution...indpost&p=75065

Mr Setterfield's hypothesis is based in large part on conjecture and to some extent errors in logic. If we look at the data we do see a reduction of the speed of light on a curve but even with all the data from 300+ years taken into account and plotting the curve (sorry I have no program that would do this), we would not have the enormous change in speed around 4000 BCE as depicted on the chart but a more constant curve.

It seems to me that his claim that there was no gas or dust in space allowing for the sol to be greater is refuted by the Bible. The Bible indicates God created the heavens and Earth and while it does detail parts of the Earths creation, it does not do the same for space. We can not, therefore, assume that God created the dust and gas that is in space at a later time. It would all have been done in the 6 days of creation so would have been there from the start to affect the sol.

The statement that the sol would have been as much as 1000 times the current value and that the light from the stars would have reached the Earth instantly is invalid. If a star were say 1000 light years away, then even at 1000 times the current speed it still would have taken the light 1 year to reach the Earth. Stars farther away would have taken longer.

That statement about the increased speed also invalidates the statement about the age of the Earth. If we take the age as 12 billion years and apply a sol 1000 times greater than it is today but keep that elevated speed constant and not declining the Earth would still be 12,000,000 years old not 6000. To make that reduction from 12 billion to 6,000 would require the sol to have been 2 million times faster in 4000 BCE and that does not work with his calculations.

While he may be justified in his theory about the reduction in the sol, his unsupported view of a huge drop in the sol just after creation, coupled with his error about the existence of gas and dust in the universe at the time of creation prevent his theory from being used to support the belief that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

#138 Tirian

Tirian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 112 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sweden

Posted 19 December 2011 - 05:27 AM

Jason 777, Going back over your post (#121) http://www.evolution...indpost&p=75065 Mr Setterfield's hypothesis is based in large part on conjecture and to some extent errors in logic. If we look at the data we do see a reduction of the speed of light on a curve but even with all the data from 300+ years taken into account and plotting the curve (sorry I have no program that would do this), we would not have the enormous change in speed around 4000 BCE as depicted on the chart but a more constant curve. It seems to me that his claim that there was no gas or dust in space allowing for the sol to be greater is refuted by the Bible. The Bible indicates God created the heavens and Earth and while it does detail parts of the Earths creation, it does not do the same for space. We can not, therefore, assume that God created the dust and gas that is in space at a later time. It would all have been done in the 6 days of creation so would have been there from the start to affect the sol. The statement that the sol would have been as much as 1000 times the current value and that the light from the stars would have reached the Earth instantly is invalid. If a star were say 1000 light years away, then even at 1000 times the current speed it still would have taken the light 1 year to reach the Earth. Stars farther away would have taken longer. That statement about the increased speed also invalidates the statement about the age of the Earth. If we take the age as 12 billion years and apply a sol 1000 times greater than it is today but keep that elevated speed constant and not declining the Earth would still be 12,000,000 years old not 6000. To make that reduction from 12 billion to 6,000 would require the sol to have been 2 million times faster in 4000 BCE and that does not work with his calculations. While he may be justified in his theory about the reduction in the sol, his unsupported view of a huge drop in the sol just after creation, coupled with his error about the existence of gas and dust in the universe at the time of creation prevent his theory from being used to support the belief that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.


When did you last read about Setterfields hypothesis?

As far as I can understand he does not base his beliefs soley on some historical measurements of the speed of light. Instead his current ideas are due to five anomalies in astronomy and physics which current theories does not handle, namely:
  • The speed of light changing
  • The changing mass of subatomic particles
  • The quantization of the red shift
  • The measured changes in something called Planck’s Constant
  • The fact that the atomic clock, as measured by atomic processes, does not run at the same rate as our orbital clock, or the way we measure time by our motion through space.
Look at http://www.setterfie...ic summary.html for some basic info on what his hypothesis are today. He has been quite busy in recent years.

#139 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 19 December 2011 - 09:36 PM

The Ice Age Is Evidence Of A Global Flood

For an ice age to occur we must have a combination of mechanisms to account for colder summers to keep the ice from melting and warmer oceans to produce higher than average precipitation rates. A global flood is able to account for both of these phenomenon.

We can also look to age markers to determine if this did indeed occur within the biblical time line.

Quote by Sean D. Pitman:

"Harvey Nichols, back in the late 60s, published a study of the history of the "Canadian Boreal forest-tundra ecotone". This study "suggested that the arctic tree-line had moved northwards 350 to 400 km beyond its modern position (extending soils evidence collected by Irving and Larsen, in Bryson et al. 1965, ref. 6) during the mid-Holocene warm period, the Hypsithermal. The climatic control of the modern arctic tree-line indicated that prolonged summer temperature anomalies of ~ + 3 to 4 C were necessary for this gigantic northward shift of the tree-line, thus fulfilling Budyko's temperature requirement for the melting of Arctic Ocean summer ice pack. A more extensive peat stratigraphic and palynological study (Nichols, 1975, ref. 7) confirmed and extended the study throughout much of the Canadian Northwest Territories of Keewatin and Mackenzie, with a paleo-temperature graph based on fossil pollen and peat and timber macrofossil analyses. This solidified the concept of a +3.5 to 4 degree (+/- 0.5) C summer warming, compared to modern values, for the Hypsithermal episode 3500 BP back at least to 7000 before present, again suggesting that by Budyko's (1966) calculations there should have been widespread summer loss of Arctic Ocean pack ice. By this time J.C. Ritchie and F. K. Hare (1971, ref.8) had also reported timber macrofossils from the far northwest of Canada's tundra from even earlier in the Hypsithermal."

Harvey Nichols (1967a) "The post-glacial history of vegetation and climate at Ennadai Lake, Keewatin, and Lynn Lake, Manitoba (Canada)", Eiszeitalter und Gegenwart, vol. 18, pp. 176 - 197.

H. Nichols (1967b) "Pollen diagrams from sub-arctic central Canada", Science 155, 1665 - 1668.



These "warm" features are not limited to Canada or Europe, but can be seen around the entire Arctic Circle. Large trees as well as fruit bearing trees and peat bogs, all of which have been dated as being no older than a few tens of thousands of years, are found along the northern most coasts of Russia, Canada, and Europe - often well within the boundaries of the Arctic Circle. Millions of Wholly Mammoth along with horse, lion, tiger, leopard, bear, antelope, camel, reindeer, giant beaver, musk sheep, musk ox, donkey, ibex, badger, fox, wolverine, voles, squirrels, bison, rabbit and lynx as well as a host of temperate plants are still being found all jumbled together within the Artic Circle - along the same latitudes as Greenland all around the globe. Again, the remains of many of these plants and animals date within a few tens of thousands of years ago. Yet, their presence required much warmer conditions within the Arctic Circle than exist today - as explained by Nichols above.

And, this problem isn't limited to the Hypsithermal period. Speaking of the area between Siberia and Alaska as well as the Yukon Territory of Canada Zazula et al said, "[This region] must have been covered with vegetation even during the coldest part of the most recent ice age (some 24,000 years ago) because it supported large populations of woolly mammoth, horses, bison and other mammals during a time of extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation."


Grant D. Zazula, Duane G. Froese, Charles E. Schweger, Rolf W. Mathewes, Alwynne B. Beaudoin, Alice M. Telka, C. Richard Harington, John A Westgate, "Palaeobotany: Ice-age steppe vegetation in east Beringia", Nature 423, 603 (05 June 2003)"


The evidence that flora and fauna were in the Arctic Circle in the recent past is rather conclusive that the Greenland ice sheets could not have stayed frozen for 200,000 years.


"Marine sediment cores [taken in the Barents Sea] representing the entire Holocene yielded foraminifera which showed that a temperature optimum (the early Hypsithermal) developed between 7800 and 6800 BP, registering prolonged seasonal (summer) ice free conditions, and progressing to 3700 BP with temperatures similar to those of today, after which a relatively abrupt cooling occurred."

J-C Duplessy, E. Ivanova, I. Murdmaa, M. Paterne, and L. Labeyrie, ( 2001): "Holocene paleoceanography of the northern Barents Sea and variations of the northward heat transport by the Atlantic Ocean" in "Boreas" vol. 30, # 1, pp. 2 - 16.

" Storms can vary in their temperature patterns. They can also last a few hours to several days, weeks, or even months. Of course, these storms and other anomalous weather patterns might present a bit of a problem for the uniformitarian paradigm. Consider the following excerpt from a 1997 issue of the Journal of Geophysical Research:


“Fundamentally, in counting any annual marker, we must ask whether it is absolutely unequivocal, or whether nonannual events could mimic or obscure a year. For the visible strata (and, we believe, for any other annual indicator at accumulation rates representative of central Greenland), it is almost certain that variability exists at the subseasonal or storm level, at the annual level, and for various longer periodicities (2-year, sunspot, etc.). We certainly must entertain the possibility of misidentifying the deposit of a large storm or a snow dune as an entire year or missing a weak indication of a summer and thus picking a 2-year interval as 1 year.”


Good examples of this phenomenon can be found in areas of very high precipitation, such as the more coastal regions of Greenland. It was in this area, 17 miles off the east coast of Greenland, that Bob Cardin and other members of his squadron had to ditch their six P-38’s and two B-17’s when they ran out of gas in 1942 - the height of WWII. Many years later, in 1981, several members of this original squad decided to see if they could recover their aircraft. They flew back to the spot in Greenland where they thought they would find their planes buried under a few feet of snow. To their surprise, there was nothing there. Not even metal detectors found anything. After many years of searching, with better detection equipment, they finally found the airplanes in 1988 three miles from their original location and under approximately 260 feet of ice! They went on to actually recovered one of them (“Glacier Girl” – a P38), which was eventually restored to her former glory.20
What is most interesting about this story, at least for the purposes of this discussion, is the depth at which the planes were found (as well as the speed which the glacier moved). It took only 46 years to bury the planes in over 260 feet (~80 meters) of ice and move them some 3 miles from their original location. This translates into a little over 5 ½ feet (~1.7 meters) of ice or around 17 feet (~5 meters) of compact snow per year and about 100 meters of movement per year. In a telephone interview, Bob Cardin was asked how many layers of ice were above the recovered airplane. He responded by saying, “Oh, there were many hundreds of layers of ice above the airplane.” When told that each layer was supposed to represent one year of time, Bob said, “That is impossible! Each of those layers is a different warm spell – warm, cold, warm, cold, warm, cold.” 21 Also, the planes did not sink in the ice over time as some have suggested. Their density was less than the ice or snow since they were not filled with the snow, but remained hollow. They were in fact buried by the annual snowfall over the course of almost 50 years."




http://www.detecting...ancientice.html





Enjoy.

#140 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 20 December 2011 - 03:25 AM

Good thing there wasn't a dinosaur jumbled up in those mammoths, or they would be 65 million years old! :crazyguy:




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users