Jump to content


Photo

Another Unfossilized Fossil


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

#21 Guest_Taikoo_*

Guest_Taikoo_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 October 2009 - 12:08 PM

Can i just say that melanin is the pigment in the ink of this cephalopod.  Melanin is "a brown-black polymer of dihydroxyindole, dihydroxyindole carboxylic acid" See all the oxygen in this polymer--that's not good for preservation.  Oxygen burns all elements.

This is an explanation from wikipedia for carboxylic acid --"The weak O-H bond causes the acid molecule to be less stable, and causing the hydrogen atom to be labile, thus it dissociates easily to give the H+ ion. Since the acid is unstable, the equilibrium will lie on the right."  All off wikipedia.

Okay it is an acid and it is unstable--it wants to give off the H+ ion.  It has oxygen.  It will deteriorate.  It doesn't need water or free oxygen. 

To say this ink would not break down after 150 million is only because the human mind has no mechanism for the perception of that duration.

What's more is that any paleontologist should have enough chemistry to know what I just stated and it really irritates me that such lies by omission are  propagated to an ignorant public!!!!!!

View Post



The statement that "oxygen burns all elements" is as false as 2+2=12.

The most basic understanding of chemistry would tell you that.

There is no reason to think you are deliberately lying of course. Nor to assume it of others.

Before you go talking about "ignorant lies" you really should have at least some sort of knowledge of the subject.

#22 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 23 October 2009 - 03:55 PM

If it can last 4500 years, why NOT 155 million?

View Post


I don't even see how it could last 4500 years... 155 million years is just completely rediculous.

#23 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 23 October 2009 - 03:57 PM

The statement that "oxygen burns all elements" is as false as 2+2=12.

The most basic understanding of chemistry would tell you that. 

There is no reason to think you are deliberately lying of course.  Nor to assume it of others.

Before you go talking about "ignorant lies" you really should have at least some sort of knowledge of the subject.

View Post


Are you sure??? Simply because without oxygen you cannot have fire...

#24 Guest_Taikoo_*

Guest_Taikoo_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 October 2009 - 05:43 PM

Are you sure??? Simply because without oxygen you cannot have fire...

View Post



yes! i am sure. there are over a hundred elements.

You can try your mighty best to burn gold, it will absolutely not burn

you can put chlorine and oxygen together, they will not burn, nothing will make them combine.

if you take chlorine gas, and drop in a piece of sodium metal you will get a violent fire, which, when it is done will leave an ash of, get this, table salt. You will be satisfied that 'fire' doesnt always involve oxygen.

drop the sodium metal into pure oxygen, and you best stand back.

drop it in water, again stand back but when you are done you will have sodium hydroxide, the main ingredient in Drano.

One last thing. the presence of oxygen in a compound in no way means the oxygen is going to leave its position and move to another ion to attach to. It just depends on what you have. it takes energy to split oxygen from a compound. if the energy is not available, the compound will remain stable to the end of time.

#25 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 23 October 2009 - 06:56 PM

I see where the confusion between oxidizer, and oxygen comes in. A fire must always have either oxygen or an oxidizer. Oxygen is an oxidizer.

Maybe someone can answer this, are chemical's that act like oxygen to speed up combustion labled oxidizers because they act like oxygen??? Or do they react with oxygen to produce a flame???

#26 Guest_Taikoo_*

Guest_Taikoo_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 October 2009 - 07:00 PM

I see where the confusion between oxidizer, and oxygen comes in.  A fire must always have either oxygen or an oxidizer.  Oxygen is an oxidizer.

Maybe someone can answer this, are chemical's that act like oxygen to speed up combustion labled oxidizers because they act like oxygen???  Or do they react with oxygen to produce a flame???

View Post


Try reading this maybe it will help

http://hyperphysics....ical/oxred.html

#27 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 23 October 2009 - 07:32 PM

Ah, thanks for the link. Chemistry is complicated, but it is comprehendable with the right amount of study.

#28 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Sparks, Nv

Posted 24 October 2009 - 12:24 AM

You will be satisfied that 'fire' doesnt always involve oxygen.

View Post


Sorry to nit-pick, but you are going to have to qualify that statement. I fight fire. Without oxygen it dies. No oxygen=no fire.
Often it is created within the fire itself. One of the reasons fire on a ship, especially aircraft carrier, is so feared. Many light metal alloys create oxygen when they burn, yes even the gold in the electronics is converted. The fire is so hot there is no way to extinguish. The craft goes over the side. It can be watched burning as it sinks out of sight. I imagine the pressure may smother it at some point. Don't know the physics of that.

Nasa will listen if you can provide fire without oxygen. That much more for the air breathers aboard. They really do begrudge sharing with the rockets.

#29 Guest_Taikoo_*

Guest_Taikoo_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 October 2009 - 06:49 AM

Ah, thanks for the link.  Chemistry is complicated, but it is comprehendable with the right amount of study.

View Post



it is difficult, and its not really my thing. But it is a very pure science, very provable, very "true".

its kind of like math in that regard. There are some things in math that are just incomprehensible if you dont have the background, that dont seem as if they could possibly be.

Chemistry is like that too. The problems with this "ink' lasting so long are arguments from incredulity and, ignorance about chemistry.

#30 wombatty

wombatty

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Location:Warsaw, Indiana
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Warsaw, Indiana

Posted 24 October 2009 - 07:54 AM

The problems with this "ink' lasting so long are arguments from incredulity and, ignorance about chemistry.

View Post

A bit off topic, but...

I always love when evolutionists try to cast ID/creationist arguments (often wrongly) as 'arguments from incredulity'. The tactic is easily turned back on them. For instance, one of the mainstays of evolutionary argumentation, from Darwin to today is that 'this [biological feature] is incomprehensible from a creationist/ID perspective' or 'an Intelligent Designer' would not have designed this [biological feature] this way'. Not only is this a theological/metaphysical/non-scientific argument, it is a bald 'argument from incredulity' and evolutionists use it all the time. Sauce, goose, gander....

#31 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 24 October 2009 - 08:11 AM

it is difficult, and its not really my thing.  But it is a very pure science, very provable, very "true". 

its kind of like math in that regard.  There are some things in math that are just incomprehensible if you dont have the background, that dont seem as if they could possibly be.

Chemistry is like that too.  The problems with this "ink' lasting so long are arguments from incredulity and, ignorance about chemistry.

View Post

First, I want to say how well stated wombatty's last post was.

Welcome to EFT, Taikoo. I've been reading some of your other posts and you seem to be in a mode where you're quite certain that you need to educate us dunderheads.

This attack from incredulity may be worth its own thread because I get this from evolutionists all the time. When the charge is made it seems that the evolutionist feels often at liberty to employ this line of reasoning in any case where an argument is made to demonstrate why something can't be. Are all arguments that demonstrate; why something can't be a certain way, arguments from incredulity? If not, how do we differentiate between an argument that properly falsifies an idea versus an argument from incredulity?

#32 wombatty

wombatty

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Location:Warsaw, Indiana
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Warsaw, Indiana

Posted 24 October 2009 - 08:27 AM

First, I want to say how well stated wombatty's last post was.

Welcome to EFT, Taikoo. I've been reading some of your other posts and you seem to be in a mode where you're quite certain that you need to educate us dunderheads.

This attack from incredulity may be worth its own thread because I get this from evolutionists all the time. When the charge is made it seems that the evolutionist feels often at liberty to employ this line of reasoning in any case where an argument is made to demonstrate why something can't be. Are all arguments that demonstrate; why something can't be a certain way, arguments from incredulity? If not, how do we differentiate between an argument that properly falsifies an idea versus an argument from incredulity?

View Post

Thanks Adam :rolleyes:. The problem, I think, with this approach is evolutionists are always appealing to possible future discoveries (i.e. vaporware) that will reconcile their theory with observation. The best recent examples are the soft-tissues discovered in [increasingly more] dino bones. Creationists, given what we know of the decay rates of bilogical material, point of the difficulty such disoveries pose for the mya/bya paradigm. How the evolutionists respond?

We obviously don't understand everything about this issue, there must be some, as yet unknown fossilization process that can accout for this.


Evolutionists - were they as committed to 'the purely objective and empircal scientific enterprise' [a characature in itself] as they claim to be, should at the very least tenatively allow for the possibility that some such fossils are not millions/billions of years old. No such luck; what we do know must yield to what they know must be true.

#33 Guest_Taikoo_*

Guest_Taikoo_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 October 2009 - 08:58 AM

A bit off topic, but...

I always love when evolutionists try to cast ID/creationist arguments (often wrongly) as 'arguments from incredulity'. The tactic is easily turned back on them. For instance, one of the mainstays of evolutionary argumentation, from Darwin to today is that 'this [biological feature] is incomprehensible from a creationist/ID perspective' or 'an Intelligent Designer' would not have designed this [biological feature] this way'. Not only is this a theological/metaphysical/non-scientific argument, it is a bald 'argument from incredulity' and evolutionists use it all the time. Sauce, goose, gander....

View Post


Hi Wombatty! You can always speak to me directly rather than in the third person.
it's nicer, dont you think?

Couple of things. I have noticed that ID / Creationists like to use the word "evolutionist', which, while its nicer than calling me a "ChinK', it is intended to convey a lack of respectability. Much like if i made up a word, say, "Theocreologist" for the ID people.

Argument from incredulity is like "ad hom" and some other overused terms. i actually had never used it before, myself, and i believe i wont again.

Still, when a person says basically, "I dont believe it could happen so it must not have"... and there is actually a simple explanation..what else does one call it?

I see what you are saying about how the evolution argument about how something seems oddly designed for a creator to have done it that way. I dont see much point in that as an argument myself, it is all speculation about the motives and methods of a creator whose existence is also speculative. Too unhinged from anything like actual data to be worth talking about, imho.

Anyway, hi Womabatty, hope to have more talk with you, and, you know, you can call me Taikoo, or hey you, just dont call me "evolutionist", ok?

#34 Guest_Taikoo_*

Guest_Taikoo_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 October 2009 - 09:13 AM

First, I want to say how well stated wombatty's last post was.

Welcome to EFT, Taikoo. I've been reading some of your other posts and you seem to be in a mode where you're quite certain that you need to educate us dunderheads.

This attack from incredulity may be worth its own thread because I get this from evolutionists all the time. When the charge is made it seems that the evolutionist feels often at liberty to employ this line of reasoning in any case where an argument is made to demonstrate why something can't be. Are all arguments that demonstrate; why something can't be a certain way, arguments from incredulity? If not, how do we differentiate between an argument that properly falsifies an idea versus an argument from incredulity?

View Post


Hi Adam!

Thanks for the welcome.

I am really sorry if I come on as if I think people are dunderheads. i have been playing forum a bit lately, and already noticed out some peole like to come busting in and set everyone straight. So! If i cast myself in that role, then that is embarrassing.

Out of school and out of work except part time, kind of going nuts and looking for things to keep my mind off worrying.

i hope i would treat everyone here with respect, and that the 'reap as you sow' porinciple applies.

As for correcting things that i see that are not factually accurate..

if i were to be with some guys who are talking football, and i started talking about how the goalie and the shortstop werent guarding the net right, I guess Id show i didnt know sports. Real easy to smoke me out; i dont know a thing about football.

I see people say things about some aspect of science that i feel comfortable in what I know about it, then its hard for me to resist saying how it really is.

And as i noted to another poster, if you argue from a point that is just mistaken, it makes for a poor argument. More fun for me to discuss on a reasonable basis! Nobody would like talking football with me, by the same token.

if i am being too much and some how not welcome here please let me know.

taitai

ps yes a thread on that subject would be good

#35 wombatty

wombatty

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Location:Warsaw, Indiana
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Warsaw, Indiana

Posted 24 October 2009 - 09:21 AM

Hi Wombatty!  You can always speak to me directly rather than in the third person.
it's nicer, dont you think?

View Post

As I stated, my post was a bit of topic and therefore general. I simply saw your post as an opportunity to respond to a common argument made by evolutionists.

Couple of things.  I  have noticed that ID / Creationists like to use the word "evolutionist', which, while its nicer than calling me a "ChinK', it is intended to convey a lack of respectability.  Much like if i made up a word, say, "Theocreologist" for the ID people.

View Post

Nonsense. Since you are an atheist, I assume you are an evolutionist of some stripe - what other option do you have? Therefore, the label 'evolutionist' is a descriptive one - and one scientists happily apply to themselves all of the time, regardless of their race. I'm not sure why you think it's an isult, much less that is has anything to do with your ethnicity. I happily refer to myself as a young-earth creationist quite often (that's what I aml, after all), I call someone an evolutionist (if they are) in the same spirit.

...when a  person says basically, "I dont believe it could happen so it must not have"... and there is actually a simple explanation..what else does one call it?

View Post

Assuming your point for argument [that, in this case, there is a 'simple explanation' consistent with evolutionary theory) I guess I would call it either an argument from ignorance or simple dishonsety (depending on who's making the argument).

Anyway, hi Womabatty, hope to have more talk with you, and, you know, you can call me Taikoo, or hey you, just dont call me "evolutionist", ok?

View Post

Hi to you as well Taikoo - no offense intended. :rolleyes:

#36 Guest_Taikoo_*

Guest_Taikoo_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 October 2009 - 09:25 AM

Thanks Adam  :rolleyes:. The problem, I think, with this approach is evolutionists are always appealing to possible future discoveries (i.e. vaporware) that will reconcile their theory with observation. The best recent examples are the soft-tissues discovered in [increasingly more] dino bones. Creationists, given what we know of the decay rates of bilogical material, point of the difficulty such disoveries pose for the mya/bya paradigm. How the evolutionists respond?
Evolutionists - were they as committed to 'the purely objective and empircal scientific enterprise' [a characature in itself] as they claim to be, should at the very least tenatively allow for the possibility that some such fossils are not millions/billions of years old. No such luck; what we do know must yield to what they know must be true.

View Post



Hi again Wom!

I dont know how committed to purely objective etc you think scientists are, but I dont think its really correct to call it a caricature.

it is an ideal, and a very difficult discipline. As an ideal, its unattainable. One simple has to do his / her best.

There may be some such as you say, who will not even allow for the possibility that they are istaken about something.

Any scientist who is like that is a poor specimen, guilty of gross mispractice.

As I noted in another thread, in science one has data points. What connects them is the theory. ALL theories are open to falsificaiton.

What connects all the scientists that I have been around, wht they have in common is that they are curious people who want to know how things work, what things are. To make prejudgements about how things are and close the mind against new information would be the most basic sort of violation of both personality and of science itself.

So... while its true that there are individual personalities including some "old fossils' who are not so open to new theories, it just is not accurate to caracterize the entire community as you did.


In the turn about is fair play dept, it is the usual perception of people in scienc that the theists think they have the answers already, and all evidence to the contrary must yeild to what they know to be true already.

Is that an unfair perception? Please explain if it is.

#37 Guest_Taikoo_*

Guest_Taikoo_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 October 2009 - 09:47 AM

As I stated, my post was a bit of topic and therefore general. I simply saw your post as an opportunity to respond to a common argument made by evolutionists.
Nonsense. Since you are an atheist, I assume you are an evolutionist of some stripe - what other option do you have? Therefore, the label 'evolutionist' is a descriptive one - and one scientists happily apply to themselves all of the time, regardless of their race. I'm not sure why you think it's an isult, much less that is has anything to do with your ethnicity. I happily refer to myself as a young-earth creationist quite often (that's what I aml, after all), I call someone an evolutionist (if they are) in the same spirit.
Assuming your point for argument [that, in this case, there is a 'simple explanation' consistent with evolutionary theory) I guess I would call it either an argument from ignorance or simple dishonsety (depending on who's making the argument).
Hi to you as well Taikoo - no offense intended.  :rolleyes:

View Post


Hi wombat..Sure did not think any offense, national origin or anything else was intended. sorry if it seemed like i took it that way.

If I manage to be offensive I hope someone will correct me so i can improve myself.

Couple quick points, im supposed to head for the mall in a bit here/

I wasnt being specific about something that has a simple explanation, just saying that in general sometimes things do in fact have simple explanations that when someone hears it, theyd be bound to understand.


Its not really nonsense about the word 'evolutionist". Im probably a bit over sensitive about it. Some have no problem with it, maybe depending on the circumstances. I prefer not to be referred to as an "evolutionist' mainly because some use it to imply that it is a faith, or religion. As long as it doesnt mean that to you, then feel free to call me an evo and i wont be touchy about it. deal?

#38 wombatty

wombatty

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Location:Warsaw, Indiana
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Warsaw, Indiana

Posted 24 October 2009 - 12:36 PM

In the turn about is fair play dept, it is the usual perception of people in scienc that the theists think they have the answers already, and all evidence to the contrary must yeild to what they know to be true already.

Is that an unfair perception?  Please explain if it is.

View Post

I think, in general, it's fair - but no more so than with the evolutionary establishment. Someone some time ago on another thread noted the sometimes conflicting hypotheses that one finds in creation science circles, implying that this was a problem. I noted that not only does this happen in evolutionary as well as creationary circles, there's not real problem with it. I went on to note the many conflicting hypotheses within TOE (p.e. vs. gradualism, tree-of-life vs. web/ring-of-life, cursorial vs. arboreal origin of birds, natural selection is sufficient/is not sufficient, etc.). The point is that both camps tolerate, in fact encourage, this 'free-for-all' paradigm (the more possibilities you have the more likely one is correct).

What is not tolerated in either camp is a questioning of the paradigm/worldview within which these theories are formulated. You alluded to the notion that facts are arranged within a theory and that ALL theories are falsifiable. True enough, but the aforementioned paradigm/wordlview is a level above that of the theories. In similar fashion, theories find their context within the paradigm/worldview. The paradigm/worldview is the settled, unquestionable, top level explanatory framework for both camps; for evolutionists, it is materialistic naturalism, for creationists, it is biblical theism. Theories that are not commensurate, in principle, with the framework are not even considered.

For example, look at the work of Mary Schwietzer. Do you think that her work on dino soft tissue would have been published if she had offered - even as just a tentative possibility - the explanation that the bones were on the order of hundreds/thousands of years old as opposed to millions/billions? Not a chance - though the data itself is certainly consistent with such an explanation.

This is where I think that, by and large, creationists outshine their evolutionary counter-parts. We openly acknowledge the fundamental role our worldview and foundational assumptions have in our scientific work. More often than not, evolutionists are not upfront about these factors in their own work. This can be seen most clearly in how they constantly cast the creation vs. evolution debate as 'science vs. religion'. This is dishonest nonsense. Both sides use the same facts to build their theories; but again the range of theories are limited by the overarching worldview/paradigm. And worldviews/paradigms are, by definition, philosophical/theological in nature. This is why theology was once considered 'the queen of the sciences'. In reality, it still is queen of the sciences, it just depends on whose theology (or, in a more general sense, philosophy) sits on the throne.

To hear evolutionists talk, their philosophy (naturalistic materialism) plays no part whatever in their science. At best, this is naive; at worst, it's dishonest. This is what I was referring to when I mentioned the ''the purely objective and empircal scientific enterprise' caricature; 'purely objective and empirical' in the sense of 'free from philosophy/theology'. I maintain that, in this sense, evolutionists do portray science in this way. They do so by illegitimately incorporating their materialistic philosophy into the very definition of science, but that's another issue for another thread.

#39 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 24 October 2009 - 03:14 PM

No I'm far from a chemistry expert. Melanin contains plenty of oxygen which taikoo pointed out would be corrosive. But why did it not decay even after 4500 years is amazing.

Interesting fact--Wiltshire England is a chalk geology, and a little west of Dover. Dover has been discussed here before.

Seems to be another argument for the squid being buried quickly--which is another argument for rapid production of the phytoplankton and rapid deposition of the chalk rather than slow uniform sedimentation.

#40 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 24 October 2009 - 03:27 PM

The statement that "oxygen burns all elements" is as false as 2+2=12.

The most basic understanding of chemistry would tell you that. 

There is no reason to think you are deliberately lying of course.  Nor to assume it of others.

Before you go talking about "ignorant lies" you really should have at least some sort of knowledge of the subject.

View Post

Anyone knows oxygen is very reactive. Technically it oxidizes things, and combustion is a result of oxidation. No, not every thing that oxidizes is going to be accompanied by fire, --a rusty axe does not burn. But fire is a result of oxidation--that is the result of the reaction of oxygen and heat with other elements--such as carbon--in the thing being burnt.

My point in saying the phrase is that it is highly reactive with other elements and that if the oxygen gets free in biological compounds it should begin to react and break down those compounds--would it not?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users