Jump to content


Photo

Another Unfossilized Fossil


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

#41 Guest_Taikoo_*

Guest_Taikoo_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 October 2009 - 03:42 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.

View Post



the fossils are in clay, not chalk, from what I just read.

"quickly" is of course a relative term. Buried quickly enough to prevent decomposition prior to burial. It is not unusual for a fair amount of clay to be washed into shallow water after a heavy rain, where it will settle out and bury whatever is on the bottom. A person would have to read the original research papers to get an idea of what happened there.

Sometimes soft tissue is preserved when the animal was dessicated prior to burial.

You may have misunderstood what i said about the oxygen present in the squid ink.
Free oxygen would not be present in any significant amount. The fact that the squid has clearly been buried a long time indicates that the decay or ink sealed against the outside... as it would be in clay...certainly does not deteriorate quickly! Perhaps not at all.

I think there have been other instances of fossil ink being found to be in good condition.

#42 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

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

Posted 24 October 2009 - 04:20 PM

the fossils are in clay, not chalk, from what I just read.

"quickly" is of course a relative term.  Buried quickly enough to prevent decomposition prior to burial. It is not unusual for a fair amount of clay to be washed into shallow water after a heavy rain, where it will settle out and bury whatever is on the bottom.  A person would have to read the original research papers to get an idea of what happened there.

Sometimes soft tissue is preserved when the animal was dessicated prior to burial.

You may have misunderstood what i said about the oxygen present in the squid ink.
Free oxygen would not be present in any significant amount.  The fact that the squid has clearly been buried a long time indicates that the decay or ink sealed against the outside... as it would be in clay...certainly does not deteriorate quickly!  Perhaps not at all.

I think there have been other instances of fossil ink being found to be in good condition.

View Post


So because there is possibility of another way that supports old earth and evolution, there is no way it could support creation?

#43 Guest_Taikoo_*

Guest_Taikoo_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 October 2009 - 07:10 PM

So because there is possibility of another way that supports old earth and evolution, there is no way it could support creation?

View Post



Oh, I would not say that there is an if / then that says "no way". I did not read the original research papers, I dot know what they say. A news release or internet item is not the way to get the details.

I take this preservation of ink as being an interesting oddity but not as anything very profound or deeply meaningful.

I dont of course know what you mean by "creation". In general it seems to mean that a god created everything in a short span of time a few thousand years ago.

I would say that any data with which I am familiar is consistent with deep geological time, and I am not aware of any data that would contradict or falsify the theories about geologic time and dating.

#44 Guest_Taikoo_*

Guest_Taikoo_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 October 2009 - 07:25 PM

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.

View Post



Well! i see you wont be so easily satisfied. tho honestly, if you ever did put chlorine gas together with some sodium or potassium you would surely think it was at least the next best thing to fire.


Making aluminum or gold into oxygen is simply impossible, under any conditions that humans know how to create. In the dept of getting people to listen, anyone who can do transmutation of elements will get a great deal of attention.

so I think you misunderstood the chemistry of what goes on, as far as metals being converted to oxygen. Zinc or aluminum dust will make quite a fire, given half a chance, but it consumes a lot of oxygen, certainly does not release any.

There are compounds that release a lot of oxygen when heated,, potassium chlorate is a popular. one.

#45 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

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

Posted 24 October 2009 - 09:04 PM

Well!  i see you wont be so easily satisfied.  tho honestly, if you ever did put chlorine gas together with some sodium or potassium you would surely think it was at least the next best thing to fire.

But not "fire" so irrelevent to support your argument.

Making aluminum or gold into oxygen is simply impossible,

True, but the you implied they will not burn. They will. Everything I know of has a temperature at wich it will burn. This may not leave a residue of ash every time. The chemical breakdown does not always leave any component, but it occurs.

so I think you misunderstood the chemistry of what goes on, as far as metals being converted to oxygen

View Post

No. The metal is not converted into oxygen. Same as wood is not. It burns under water because the flash point is so high that is separates H2O into hydrogen and oxyen, which fuels the fire.

#46 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 25 October 2009 - 05:12 AM

They do so by illegitimately incorporating their materialistic philosophy into the very definition of science, but that's another issue for another thread.

View Post

Which we have one on hand...

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=2219

The phrasing and use of terms may not be universally appreciated but the principles in the above thread directly address what you're saying here, wombatty.

#47 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 25 October 2009 - 05:21 AM

ps yes a thread on that subject would be good

View Post

Here you go:

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=2794

#48 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 25 October 2009 - 07:46 AM

the fossils are in clay, not chalk, from what I just read.

View Post

Skimmed and made a faulty inference. However Wiltshire is still 2/3 chalk geology and the clay is in valleys. Wiltshire Geology Therefore the clay would be in association with the chalk.

How would uniforms explain the simultaneous, separate, slow deposition over millions of years. It makes more sense that the valleys were cut by catastrophic water and subsequently filled in by clay material.

"quickly" is of course a relative term.  Buried quickly enough to prevent decomposition prior to burial.   It is not unusual for a fair amount of clay to be washed into shallow water after a heavy rain, where it will settle out and bury whatever is on the bottom.  A person would have to read the original research papers to get an idea of what happened there.

View Post

You are using water, just in uniformintarian terms. Are you saying then that the valleys were formed and then the clay washed in?

Sometimes soft tissue is preserved when the animal was dessicated prior to burial.

View Post

According to my reading, which is better than my first attempt-- the first step of decay is autolysis, which is self digestion of the cells because of their own enzymes. This produces liquid. How is the animal dessicated?

You may have misunderstood what i said about the oxygen present in the squid ink.
Free oxygen would not be present in any significant amount.  The fact that the squid has clearly been buried a long time indicates that the decay or ink sealed against the outside... as it would be in clay...certainly does not deteriorate quickly!  Perhaps not at all.

View Post

There is plenty of oxygen in amino acids. After reading about decomposition I don't think my explanation on O is sufficient--although I think during breakdown there would be free O--you are probably right --it would not be enough.

You also have anerobic bacteria causing putrefaction, causing the amines of cadaverine and putrescine.

I think there have been other instances of fossil ink being found to be in good condition.

View Post

Yes but other occurrences do not confirm the ages. One thing I would be interested to see is a C-14 reading in the soft tissue. C-14 should not be present after 155 million years.

#49 Guest_Taikoo_*

Guest_Taikoo_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 October 2009 - 08:13 AM

But not "fire" so irrelevent to support your argument.
True, but the you implied they will not burn.  They will.  Everything I know of has a temperature at wich it will burn.  This may not leave a residue of ash every time.  The chemical breakdown does not always leave any component, but it occurs.
No.  The metal is not converted into oxygen.  Same as wood is not.  It burns under water because the flash point is so high that is separates H2O into hydrogen and oxyen, which fuels the fire.

View Post



i see we need some definitions.
What do you mean by "fire'?

I didnt imply that aluminum etc wotn burn. i even specifically said that aluminum burns very hot and fast. Steel wool burns nicely.

You said "Many light metal alloys create oxygen ". Please explain what you mean if you dont mean they are converted into oxygen.

When you say that aluminum is not "converted' to oxygen 'same as wood is not" its not a good comparison. Wood is a compound, metals are not. It is simple to separate out the elements making up wood, you can if you wish extract pure oxygen from wood. Not from any metal.

Please explain what you mean when you say "the chemical breakdown does not always leave a component". does not leave any behind, or does not make any components? What would a "component" be?

Are you suggestiong that aluminum can undergo a chemical breakdown? i cant tell for sure what you mean by chemical breakdown.

Are you saying that any element on earth will burn, ie combine with oxygen?

Is it your statement that at high temperature water will break down into hydrogen and oxygen, and that the oxygen will then be freed to combine with, say, some wood that is underwater?

how would you define 'burn"? "combustion"?

Sorry if I am being tedious but your use of terms does not match std chemistry usage so i need to determine just what you mean. half the time when people disagree on something they just are using words a bit differently.

#50 Guest_Taikoo_*

Guest_Taikoo_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 October 2009 - 08:40 AM

Skimmed and made a faulty inference.  However Wiltshire is still 2/3 chalk geology and the clay is in valleys. Wiltshire Geology Therefore the clay would be in association with the chalk. 

How would uniforms explain the simultaneous, separate, slow deposition over millions of years.  It makes more sense that the valleys were cut by catastrophic water and subsequently filled in by clay material.

You are using water, just in uniformintarian terms.  Are you saying then that the  valleys were formed and then the clay washed in?

According to my reading, which is better than my first attempt-- the first step of decay is autolysis, which is self digestion of the cells because of their own enzymes.  This produces liquid.  How is the animal dessicated?

There is plenty of oxygen in amino acids.  After reading about decomposition I don't think my explanation on O is sufficient--although I think during breakdown there would be free O--you are probably right --it would not be enough.

You also have anerobic bacteria causing putrefaction, causing the amines of cadaverine and putrescine.

Yes but other occurrences do not confirm the ages.  One thing I would be interested to see is a C-14 reading in the soft tissue.  C-14 should not be present after 155 million years.

View Post



If i read the original article, so I have no comment on valleys. I surely dont see tho how it is a faulty inference to say that if the animal was buried in clay, its not buried in chalk.

I dont know what you mean by "association". Please define.

You can say 'it makes more sense... catastrophic' but this is just your opinion. Based i would guess, on very little information.

No reputable geologist on earth will say that there is any data to be found anywhere on earth that indicates that there was ever a world wide flood. if anyone ever did, an increasingly vanishingly small chance, it would be a world wide sensation of the first order. you do know that, dont you?


You dont need to tell me about autolysis, anaerobic bacteria or cadaverine. just letting you know, so you wont waste words. Those malodorous substances btw are not necessarily associated either with bacteria, or just anaerobic ones.

You can find earthworms dried out on the sidewalk after a rain. Etc and so on. You tell me how that happens if your bacteria etc always liquify an animal upon death. Lots of soft tissue fossils are to be found, tho for any of the original tissue to remain is much less common. The ink isnt tissue, of course, tho you seemed to refer to it as tissue.

This is really pointless to talk about whether the squid ink breaks down quickly. it very obviously does not. here it is; not broken down despite many years in the ground. if it lasts a thousand years in good shape thats kind of a hint that its not gonna break down much if at all.

In any case... did you see an original paper that discussed the composition of the 'ink". Possibly there was nothing but carbon, which of course can be used to make a sort of ink.

your C 14 dating wont work past about 60,000 years.

Other occurences of well preserved squid / octopus ink wont confirm the age of what?

#51 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 October 2009 - 09:41 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


Scientists won't hesitate to say "we don't know". If it is used by science it's used in response to the fallacy itself being used by creationists.

#52 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 25 October 2009 - 11:50 AM

If i read the original article, so I have no comment on valleys. I surely dont see tho how it is a faulty inference to say that if the animal was buried in clay, its not buried in chalk.

View Post

Because I looked up Wiltshire geology. I think the geology would be pertinent info to have for the preservation issue. I did not see in the original post what the squid had been found in--I may have skimmed over it. So I assumed it was found in the chalk.

I dont know what you mean by "association".  Please define.

View Post

The clay being in association with the chalk means it is in the same geography, but it is separate. Most of the clay is found in valleys. The chalk is very pure--made up of phytoplankton shells.

You can say 'it makes more sense... catastrophic' but this is just your opinion.  Based i would guess, on very little information.

View Post

I guess you aren't aware of canyons being cut very quickly by water or other viscous flows. There's no "opinion" to it. A little water did it -- Six Day Formation

No reputable geologist on earth will say that there is any data to be found anywhere on earth that indicates that there was ever a world wide flood.  if anyone ever did, an increasingly vanishingly small chance, it would be a world wide sensation of the first order.  you do know that, dont you?

View Post

Most science people who believe the Biblical account are well aware of the importance of reputation in science research. That's why most of them are in industrial, secondary education, and medical--science fields that don't directly come head to head with modern origins interpretation. They eat better this way.

If you think there would be a sensation--we are talking about falsification of evolution which would affect many careers and institutions. I'm thinking it would be more like a war, smear campaigns, a discrediting of all creationists--kind of like what has been going on since the writing of "The Genesis Flood" by Dr. Henry Morris in 1966 and "Darwin's Little Black Box," by Michael Behe which started the creationist and ID movements respectively.

You dont need to tell me about autolysis, anaerobic bacteria or cadaverine.  just letting you know, so you wont waste words.   Those malodorous substances btw are not necessarily associated either with bacteria, or just anaerobic ones.

View Post

What would you like me to tell you then. Autolysis is enzyme related. Putrefaction is bacteria related.

In any case... did you see an original paper that discussed the composition of the 'ink".  Possibly there was nothing but carbon, which of course can be used to make a sort of ink.

View Post

You can google it to find that most squid ink is made up of melanin.

your C 14 dating wont work past about 60,000 years.

View Post

Exactly my point. This is why I said I would like to see a C-14 dating. If the soft tissue of the ink sac has C-14 it is not 155 million.

#53 Guest_Taikoo_*

Guest_Taikoo_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 October 2009 - 01:40 PM

Because I looked up Wiltshire geology.  I think the geology would be pertinent info to have for the preservation issue.  I did not see in the original post what the squid had been found in--I may have skimmed over it.  So I assumed it was found in the chalk. 

The clay being in association with the chalk means it is in the same geography, but it is separate.  Most of the clay is found in valleys.  The chalk is very pure--made up of phytoplankton shells.

I guess you aren't aware of canyons being cut very quickly by water or other viscous flows.  There's no "opinion" to it.  A little water did it --  Six Day Formation

Most science people who believe the Biblical account are well aware of the importance of reputation in science research.  That's why most of them are in industrial, secondary education, and medical--science fields that don't directly come head to head  with modern origins interpretation.  They eat better this way.

If you think there would be a sensation--we are talking about falsification of evolution which would affect many careers and institutions.  I'm thinking it would be more like a war, smear campaigns, a discrediting of all creationists--kind of like what has been going on since the writing of "The Genesis Flood" by Dr. Henry Morris in 1966 and "Darwin's Little Black Box," by Michael Behe which started the creationist and ID movements respectively.
What would you like me to tell you then.  Autolysis is enzyme related.  Putrefaction is bacteria related.

You can google it to find that most squid ink is made up of melanin.
Exactly my point.  This is why I said I would like to see a C-14 dating.  If the soft tissue of the ink sac has C-14 it is not 155 million.

View Post



I wont be using snarky comments on you, please refrain from using them on me.
" guess you aren't aware of canyons being cut very quickly".

i have taken several geology courses; have you? I've been around University people all my life.

As for your gully there, its no secret that floods will cut quite impressive gullies in fine unconsolidated sediment such as what you have there. That is in no way it itself evidence for or against the so called 'noah flood".

It is quite another thing to cut a deep narrow canyon through marble, a very hard resistant rock....like this beautiful but hard to photograph canyon in Taiwan, Taroka gorge. http://lh6.ggpht.com...7I/IMG_2799.JPG

Seriously if you want to talk geology its good to know something about it.
There is NO published data anywhere to be found that shows that there ever was a flood of the noah sort. There is an enormous body of data that contradicts that theory. What is one to think?

Im not sure what you are saying about smear campaigns etc. I am going to guess... please clarify.

is it about a world wide conspiracy to suppress evidence?

Reputation... the only thing about research that will spoil a person's reputation will be bad research. Fraud..carelessness..data that cant be verified... experimental results that cannot be duplicated...that kind of thing.

With people working and competing all over the world, the genii gets out of the bottle one way or the other, even if people are skeptical at first.

What would I like you to tell me about chemistry and microbiology? Probably nothing.. do you have any background? i was just saying i dont need basic wiki type info. I didnt need google to tell me about melanin in cephalopod ink.


Might be fun to C14 the squid ink. All work in science is open to verificaiton and possible falsificaiton. i'd say tho that chances youd find that formation to be less than 60k years is going to be vanishingly small.

#54 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

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

Posted 26 October 2009 - 03:09 AM

i see we need some definitions. 
What do you mean by "fire'?

I have always believed this a relatively well understood word. Fire. Enough people understand it well enough to run if it is a threat or to scoot closer if they are cold. As a firefighter, fire is a the result of a combustible+heat+oxygen and a chemical reaction. As a power generator, it is my close friend, when safely distant. Is fire someting different in the midwest?

I didnt imply that aluminum etc wotn burn.  i even specifically said that aluminum burns very hot and fast.  Steel wool burns nicely.

Nope, you did not imply it, you stated it plain and bold.
"You can try your mighty best to burn gold, it will absolutely not burn"
Your words on Oct 23 2009, 06:43 PM in a reply to scott.

You said "Many light metal alloys create oxygen ".  Please explain what you mean if you dont mean they are converted into oxygen.

My appologies. "Many light metal alloys create oxygen when they burn, yes even the gold in the electronics is converted". Is the entire quote it does make more sense as a whole. But it could be more complete. Converted is the best I can do for the result of the burned material. They all convert to something; Ash, vapor, etc. Sometimes the same base elements remain, but the form is altered.
Create oxygen is wrong a couple ways: the oxygen is already there, so not "created". The oxygen does not come from the metal but the water (I was discussing a ship fire?) the metals burn so hot they separate the water into hydrogen and oxygen. Make sense now?

When you say that aluminum is not "converted' to oxygen 'same as wood is not" its not a good comparison.  Wood is a compound, metals are not.  It is simple to separate out the elements making up wood, you can if you wish extract pure oxygen from wood.  Not from any metal.

I don't recall that statement - aluminum conversion to oxygen, that would be a good trick.

Please explain what you mean when you say "the chemical breakdown does not always leave a component".  does not leave any behind, or does not make any components?  What would a "component" be?

"Everything I know of has a temperature at wich it will burn. This may not leave a residue of ash every time. The chemical breakdown does not always leave any component, but it occurs."
My bad again. It does make more sense when the entire statement is there. I could have been more precise at the end. ...does not leave any physical, visible, residual component...
Every material (no not necessarily every element) can be converted by the presence of a hot enough fire into something it was not before the fire.

Are you suggestiong that aluminum can undergo a chemical breakdown?  i cant tell for sure what you mean by chemical breakdown.
Are you saying that any element on earth will burn, ie combine with oxygen?

Shall I trade tedium for tedium? What do you mean "burn"? Combine with oxygen is not in any definition I recall. "Burn" must relate to the context I used it with. Fire will burn anything if the conditions are met for the particular material in question. The result will also vary with the material. A welder will use his torch to burn metal into the converted form he requires. Uncontrolled the same fire can burn a work of art into a lump of shiny metal.

Is it your statement that at high temperature water will break down into hydrogen and oxygen, and that the oxygen will then be freed to combine with, say, some wood that is underwater?

No, I believe I am repeating now but; the metals burn at such a great heat that they cause a chemical breakdown of materials in contact. In the example of the ship board fire, yes, the water is separated into hydrogen and oxygen and if there are combustible available (pilot's seat etc.) they will burn.

how would you define 'burn"?

I would not define it, Webster has done well enough.

#55 Guest_Taikoo_*

Guest_Taikoo_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 October 2009 - 08:11 AM

I have always believed this a relatively well understood word.  Fire.  Enough people understand it well enough to run if it is a threat or to scoot closer if they are cold.  As a firefighter, fire is a the result of a combustible+heat+oxygen and a chemical reaction.  As a power generator, it is my close friend, when safely distant.  Is fire someting different in the midwest? 
Nope, you did not imply it, you stated it plain and bold.
"You can try your mighty best to burn gold, it will absolutely not burn"
Your words on Oct 23 2009, 06:43 PM in a reply to scott.
My appologies.  "Many light metal alloys create oxygen when they burn, yes even the gold in the electronics is converted".  Is the entire quote it does make more sense as a whole.  But it could be more complete.  Converted is the best I can do for the result of the burned material.  They all convert to something; Ash, vapor, etc.  Sometimes the same base elements remain, but the form is altered.
Create oxygen is wrong a couple ways: the oxygen is already there, so not "created".  The oxygen does not come from the metal but the water (I was discussing a ship fire?)  the metals burn so hot they separate the water into hydrogen and oxygen.  Make sense now?

I don't recall that statement - aluminum conversion to oxygen, that would be a good trick. 
"Everything I know of has a temperature at wich it will burn. This may not leave a residue of ash every time. The chemical breakdown does not always leave any component, but it occurs."
My bad again.  It does make more sense when the entire statement is there.  I could have been more precise at the end.  ...does not leave any physical, visible, residual component...
Every material (no not necessarily every element) can be converted by the presence of a hot enough fire into something it was not before the fire.

Shall I trade tedium for tedium?  What do you mean "burn"?  Combine with oxygen is not in any definition I recall.  "Burn" must relate to the context I used it with.  Fire will burn anything if the conditions are met for the particular material in question.  The result will also vary with the material.  A welder will use his torch to burn metal into the converted form he requires.  Uncontrolled the same fire can burn a work of art into a lump of shiny metal. 

No, I believe I am repeating now but; the metals burn at such a great heat that they cause a chemical breakdown of materials in contact.  In the example of the ship board fire, yes, the water is separated into hydrogen and oxygen and if there are combustible available (pilot's seat etc.) they will burn.

I would not define it, Webster has done well enough.

View Post



Well, lets see. you said "Many light metal alloys create oxygen when they burn, yes even the gold in the electronics is converted. "

So I wanted to see what you meant by create. And convert. I thought you (maybe) meant converted into oxygen..We are clear on aluminum not breaking down and converting to oxygen.

I did say that Al will burn, and I have done it. I ALSO said that gold wont burn, and I am busted; I was wrong; you are right.

Yes when something burns it is converted into something else. The "base" element is of course always, not sometimes, stlll present, tho you may just mean it left in the smoke.

The words 'burn" and "fire" are used in a lot of not very technical ways. I dont mean to be tedious. Well, not always..!

I think we can say that fire and combustion always involve oxygen. Burn? well there is sunburn and there is oxidation. For chemistry we can say it means you have to have oxygen to burn something.

You said oxygen will burn anything, but modified it a bit to not all elements.

But then, under the most extreme of conditions who knows what will happen. Inside the sun? Maybe you can get Xenon oxide in a lab if you try hard enough... not that it would be stable! That works for me..in theory, anything should be able to combine with oxygen, even if we have never seen it done.

You are right about a metal fire underwater of course, it will take oxygen away from the hydrogen, split the water molecules.

I think thats enough on that. Mostly just me thinking I knew something I didnt, and then us agreeing on the meaning of vocab.

As for the original topic, about the oxygen present ruining the squid ink, well, it didnt happen, so that should answer the question of whether it would happen under those circumstances.

oh... if you have seen metal burning underwater that must be incredibly impressive!

#56 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

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

Posted 26 October 2009 - 09:04 PM

Oh, I would not say that there is an if / then that says "no way".  I did not read the original research papers, I dot know what they say.  A news release or internet item is not the way to get the details. 

I take this preservation of ink as being an interesting oddity but not as anything very profound or deeply meaningful.

I dont of course know what you mean by "creation".  In general it seems to mean that a god created everything in a short span of time a few thousand years ago.

I would say that any data with which I am familiar is consistent with deep geological time, and I am not aware of any data that would contradict or falsify the theories about geologic time and dating.

View Post


Time falsifies evolution. If I ask you why you cannot show me a certain process that is interpretated from a fossil dug up, you will claim that time does not allow this. Therefore time becomes your excuse. If you ask me to falsify such an interpretation, I also run into the same problem with time. I cannot go an observe that process and say you are wrong.

So showing the processes, or falsifying them, has the same problem to overcome. Time. And the only way to overcome it is to build a time machine. And how close are we to doing that? Zero.

So time keeps those who would question evolution at bay because time is the excuse used to not produce the evidence needed to solidify evolution as a proven true fact. And it also keep all those who would challenge it, not being able to which makes the theory unfalsifiable. This is because as long as time is accepted as the replacable excuse for not being able to produce the processes claimed. Then that same claim makes evolution unfalsifiable, and unscientific,

For how do you prove a process you cannot observe, but yet accept?
For how do you disprove a claim you cannot see?

#57 Guest_Taikoo_*

Guest_Taikoo_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 October 2009 - 05:33 AM

Time falsifies evolution. If I ask you why you cannot show me a certain process that is interpretated from a fossil dug up, you will claim that time does not allow this. Therefore time becomes your excuse. If you ask me to falsify such an interpretation, I also run into the same problem with time. I cannot go an observe that process and say you are wrong.

So showing the processes, or falsifying them, has the same problem to overcome. Time. And the only way to overcome it is to build a time machine. And how close are we to doing that? Zero.

So time keeps those who would question evolution at bay because time is the excuse used to not produce the evidence needed to solidify evolution as a proven true fact. And it also keep all those who would challenge it, not being able to which makes the theory unfalsifiable. This is because as long as time is accepted as the replacable excuse for not being able to produce the processes claimed. Then that same claim makes evolution unfalsifiable, and unscientific,

For how do you prove a process you cannot observe, but yet accept?
For how do you disprove a claim you cannot see?

View Post



Time might falisify evolution if you could demonstrate that it was a problem.
You cant do it by just announcing it. You could do it if you could show that geological time is nonsense, as by finding modern organisms fossilized along with ones from what is believed to be, say, 200 million years old.

"Excuse' is a completely inappropriate word to use. It impugns my motives intent and honesty; i wont carry on a conversation on those terms. "Claim" is a similar word.

As for observing the process, if that were an essential aspect of all good theory then we would know little about air, would we?

In chemistry, one simply cannot and never will be able to see atoms. you cannot see the processes that take place; yet the theory that is used is wonderfully effective, and the results are very predictable. You will never be able to prove that atoms are as we believe them to be, in every detail.

It is accepted that the theory involved is useful, and in all known ways matches to the observed action of atoms. That is how one accepts a theory that he cant see, always keeping in mind that ALL theory is open to change or disproof.

maybe there are tiny fairies in there, not protoms and electrons.

Evolution is not open to being proven as a true fact. Neither is atomic theory, or any scientific theory. if you only believe that which is a PROVEN fact, then dont ever serve on a jury. We deal with "beyond a reasonable doubt"; we are open to the possibility that someone will come in with contrary evidence to throw the case out of court. Evolution would be a snap to falsify, just find a cow skeleton along with some dinosaurs.

That is how it is. What you said here does not look like your own thoughts, a product of thorough knowledge of science and time in reflection.

If you do spend some time on it and consider what i said, you will see that i am correct.

#58 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 27 October 2009 - 09:35 AM

I will make this brief.
Atomic theory is theory.  Simple.  It isnt the  "theory of atoms".

The existence and nature of atoms is theoretical.  They cannot be directly observed.

If yu want to be insulting and say things like: "If you cannot understand words, I can draw pictures.", you can talk to someone else.  Simple.

If you wish to continue on polite terms, let me know.  And let me know that you understand that atomic theory is, yes theory.

View Post


A theory is a theory because it has not been proven a true fact. Once a Theory has been proven true, it is no longer a theory, but a fact.

To say that a theory can never be proven is a logical mistake in and of itself. This belief of no absolutes, which came from Kurt Godel... needs to be discarded.

To even say that a theory can never be proven... is stating an absolute. Do you see your mistake here???

Kurt Godel was insane, and he thought that if a theory was able to be proven a true fact then it was false. Which is a completely illogical idea. There's a reason why Kurt Godel died of starvation from a severe case of being paranoid of food poisoning.

The only reason the idea of no absolutes ( the incompleteness theorem) has survived is because Kurt was a friend of Albert Einsteins. Atheist are simply fascinated with the idea that nothing can be proved... which is very illogical... Maybe if someone could prove to Kurt Godel that his idea was false... he may not have died of starvation.

#59 Guest_Taikoo_*

Guest_Taikoo_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 October 2009 - 10:56 AM

A theory is a theory because it has not been proven a true fact.  Once a Theory has been proven true, it is no longer a theory, but a fact.

To say that a theory can never be proven is a logical mistake in and of itself.  This belief of no absolutes, which came from Kurt Godel... needs to be discarded. 

To even say that a theory can never be proven... is stating an absolute.  Do you see your mistake here???

Kurt Godel was insane, and he thought that if a theory was able to be proven a true fact then it was false.  Which is a completely illogical idea.  There's a reason why Kurt Godel died of starvation from a severe case of being paranoid of food poisoning.

The only reason the idea of no absolutes ( the incompleteness theorem) has survived is because Kurt was a friend of Albert Einsteins.  Atheist are simply fascinated with the idea that nothing can be proved... which is very illogical... Maybe if someone could prove to Kurt Godel that his idea was false... he may not have died of starvation.

View Post







This one is perhaps the oldest and moldiest of the "pratts". It needs to be discarded, maybe the mods here could disallow it for all its tedium and the time wasted on it.

In China, we care nothing about what someone named Kurt did or didnt think, and care nothing about what Christians do or dont think.

Anyone in the world who works in science knows that a scientific theory is falsifiable but can never be proven. If there is a god who can step in to prove something , fine.

If you want to understand what a scientific theory is and why I said what i said, you can study it for yourself. Im sure nothing I personally could say would convince you. I wont discuss it with you unless you would like me to suggest some reading.

#60 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 27 October 2009 - 03:53 PM

This one is perhaps the oldest and moldiest of the "pratts".  It needs to be discarded, maybe the mods here could disallow it for all its tedium and the time wasted on it.

In China, we care nothing about what someone named Kurt did or didnt think, and care nothing about what Christians do or dont think. 

Anyone in the world who works in science knows that a scientific theory is falsifiable but can never be proven.  If there is a god who can step in to prove something , fine. 

If you want to understand what a scientific theory is and why I said what i said, you can study it for yourself.  Im sure nothing I personally could say would convince you.  I wont discuss it with you unless you would like me to suggest some reading.

View Post


Well you need to understand the history of your beliefs, and why you hold them. It occurs to me that since you disrespect the one who placed your (incompleteness theorem) as the main strangle hold on the definition of scientific theory... then how can I take you seriously???

It's your opinion... Actually Kurt Godel's opinion, that a scientific theory can never be proven... which is not a fact, and is completely illogical. You need to come to terms with this, and you'd better start caring. God has nothing to do with this.

As a matter of fact Kurt Godel believed in God, or a god. He was no atheist, but he is the one who made the tada: (incompleteness theorem)

The Idea that a scientific theory is not provable is called: The Incompleteness Theorem. It doesn't matter if your in China, or Antarctica, this idea is the main one you cling to, and you need to come to terms with your logical fallicy.

Yes, the incompleteness theorem... it needs to be discarded, and it's a shame that people continue to believe such. This has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with truth.... NOT avoiding it.

How dare you ask me to study the scientific theory, when you don't even know what the incompleteness theorem is... I mean really... This theorem has completely muddied the point of the Scientific Theory in the first place. The incompleteness theorem is the modern basis for the Scientific Theory, and a false basis at that.

Yes, and why is the incompleteness theorem logical? Can you give me one good reason??? Can you support this major logical fallicy??? Why is it important???

Do you not understand that if something else is found out about a theory that has been proven is true, doesn't make it any less proven or false???

I don't want this type of answer: Because everybody else believe's it, or because it's a Major part of the Scientific Theory... Do you have a good reason???

Proving things isn't hard. Saying things can't be proven that have been proven is just insane.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users