Jump to content


Photo

Global Warming Paved The Way For Dinosaurs


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

#1 OneHourPhoto

OneHourPhoto

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Melbourne

Posted 01 December 2010 - 12:34 AM

Global warming paved the way for dinosaurs
December 1, 2010, 7:57 am

Global warming 300 million years ago triggered a reptile evolution that inadvertently paved the way for the rise of dinosaurs 100 million years later, research has found.

Scientists from Royal Holloway at the University of London and the University of Bristol said global warming devastated tropical rainforests during the Carboniferous Period.

"At that time, Europe and North America lay on the equator and were covered by steamy tropical rainforests," the scientists said.

"But when the Earth's climate became hotter and drier, rainforests collapsed, triggering reptile evolution.

Dr Howard Falcon-Lang, from the Department of Earth Sciences at Royal Holloway, said climate change caused rainforests to fragment into small "islands" of forest.

"This isolated populations of reptiles and each community evolved in separate directions, leading to an increase in diversity," he said.

University of Bristol Professor Mike Benton said this was a classic ecological response to habitat fragmentation.

"You see the same process happening today whenever a group of animals becomes isolated from its parent population," Professor Benton said.

"It's been studied on traffic islands between major road systems or, as Charles Darwin famously observed in the Galapagos, on oceanic islands."

Sarda Sahney, from the University of Bristol, said it was fascinating that "even in the face of devastating ecosystem-collapse, animals may continue to diversify through the creation of endemic populations".

"Life may not be so lucky again in the future, should the Amazon rainforest collapse," she said.

The scientists studied the fossil record of reptiles before and after rainforest collapse. They showed that reptiles became more diverse and changed their diet as they struggled to adapt to a rapidly changing climate and environment.


Source: http://au.news.yahoo...-/world/8427926

#2 JoshuaJacob

JoshuaJacob

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ponchatoula, Louisiana
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ponchatoula, Louisiana

Posted 01 December 2010 - 07:08 AM

And they got all this from looking at fossils? Amazing ;)

#3 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 01 December 2010 - 10:34 AM

One can learn quite a bit from fossils... especially about climate, considering that plants are also preserved, but of course only so much and then the embellishments start.

Europe and North America were on the equator? I would like to see more on this idea.

The scientists studied the fossil record of reptiles before and after rainforest collapse. They showed that reptiles became more diverse and changed their diet as they struggled to adapt to a rapidly changing climate and environment.

YEC believe that creatures adapt and speciate. The difference is in the mechanism at play. Why do they have that ability to adapt? Is it due to random mutation and Natural Selection over long periods of time? I frankly do not see how very many species survive that. YEC believe that the diversity is already programed into creatures. Then when natural selection occurs, much like selective breeding, a new type of animal can come onto the scene, but this animal (new species if you will) has less ability to adapt, less diversity, less genetic information to pass on to their offspring.

Sarda Sahney, from the University of Bristol, said it was fascinating that "even in the face of devastating ecosystem-collapse, animals may continue to diversify through the creation of endemic populations".

"Life may not be so lucky again in the future, should the Amazon rainforest collapse," she said.

Does it not seem likely that animals had more of an ability to adapt in the past than what they have today?

#4 Seth

Seth

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 277 posts
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Chicago

Posted 01 December 2010 - 10:47 AM

Quite amazing indeed!

You know, there is so much that can be said about this section of that article posted here.

For one, I don't think global alarmist will appreciate what these scientists are saying. Since the alarmist are consistently claiming that the cause of global warming is "MAN" made and not "NATURAL".

This is an amazing quote as well, "Life may not be so lucky again in the future, should the Amazon rainforest collapse," she said.
Did she use the word "LUCKY"? What does "lucky" even mean within the evolutionary fairytale? I mean look how the next scientists described the situation.
"...They showed that reptiles became more diverse and changed their diet as they struggled to adapt to a rapidly changing climate and environment."

Now THAT sounds more in line with the fairytale. What does the process of evolution care about "luck" if it will simply "adapt" to WHATEVER the changing climate and environment may be??? That being said, why then are most evolutionists "alarmed" with the so called "global warming"? Will not all life simply "adapt"?

Then you have this very misleading statement (I won't go so far as to call it a flat out lie, since in the evolutionists mind Micro-evolution means the same as Macro, even though they are not. But it seems clear to me that this is the "process happening today" that he is referring to. He certainly can NOT mean a "Macro" process). ""You see the same process happening today whenever a group of animals becomes isolated from its parent population," Professor Benton said."

This sounds like another story to be added to the current fairytale of evolution. However this one might not stick as well and may find a lot of resistence within evolutionary circles because of it's blatant inconsistency with their religion. I mean if global warming was actually happening then to an evolutionist is that BAD for evolution or GOOD? And if Bad, why?

#5 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 01 December 2010 - 11:31 AM

Now THAT sounds more in line with the fairytale. What does the process of evolution care about "luck" if it will simply "adapt" to WHATEVER the changing climate and environment may be??? That being said, why then are most evolutionists "alarmed" with the so called "global warming"? Will not all life simply "adapt"?

Then you have this very misleading statement (I won't go so far as to call it a flat out lie, since in the evolutionists mind Micro-evolution means the same as Macro, even though they are not. But it seems clear to me that this is the "process happening today" that he is referring to. He certainly can NOT mean a "Macro" process). ""You see the same process happening today whenever a group of animals becomes isolated from its parent population," Professor Benton said."

This sounds like another story to be added to the current fairytale of evolution. However this one might not stick as well and may find a lot of resistence within evolutionary circles because of it's blatant inconsistency with their religion. I mean if global warming was actually happening then to an evolutionist is that BAD for evolution or GOOD? And if Bad, why?

View Post

I totally agree.

A lot of scientists are actually in line with the idea that global warming is caused by the movement of the earth around the sun and makes the climate change...

I just read an article about global warming by Michael Oard. He says that a lot of the doom and gloom predictions are not likely.

#6 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 01 December 2010 - 04:25 PM

And they got all this from looking at fossils? Amazing


Sure is. Especially, when you look at all of the ancestors of all the different families.

Posted Image

Oops! The dotted lines are inferred and the blue lines are completely missing an ancesteral lineage. Luckily, there is some evidence from DNA.


Posted Image


;)




Enjoy.

#7 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 01 December 2010 - 06:35 PM

One can learn quite a bit from fossils... especially about climate, considering that plants are also preserved, but of course only so much and then the embellishments start.

Europe and North America were on the equator? I would like to see more on this idea.
YEC believe that creatures adapt and speciate. The difference is in the mechanism at play. Why do they have that ability to adapt? Is it due to random mutation and Natural Selection over long periods of time? I frankly do not see how very many species survive that. YEC believe that the diversity is already programed into creatures. Then when natural selection occurs, much like selective breeding, a new type of animal can come onto the scene, but this animal (new species if you will) has less ability to adapt, less diversity, less genetic information to pass on to their offspring.

Does it not seem likely that animals had more of an ability to adapt in the past than what they have today?

View Post


Climate evidence is only accepted when it supports evolution and the old earth ideas.

Posted Image

Air bubbles in Amber show a atmosphere rich in oxygen. But that does not conform to the global warming extremist view so it is rejected. Evolution conformism requires that all evidence that does not conform to the general view be rejected.

#8 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 02 December 2010 - 04:19 AM

Climate evidence is only accepted when it supports evolution and the old earth ideas.

http://yecheadquarte...jpgSlide169.JPG

Air bubbles in Amber show a atmosphere rich in oxygen. But that does not conform to the global warming extremist view so it is rejected. Evolution conformism requires that all evidence that does not conform to the general view be rejected.

View Post


I have never thought about a correlation between the debates in climatology involving climate change or global warming and studies that are concerned or accept either an old earth or evolution. The correlation I have seen is far more along political lines. But it is true that creationists tend to often be evangelical Christians who tend to be more conservative in terms of politics and more critical of climate change

Thinking about your post I still doubt creationism vs. mainstream science enters into this debate about climate to any great degree, or are you simply making a somewhat blanket statement (that I have seen before) that all scientific evidence goes through a filter for non-creationists? This would have a worker ask, "Does this support evolution and an old earth?"..."No, it does not therefore I will ignore it and throw it out." This is not how it is done. However it is a process that I often see in YEC studies. I don't think I have seen many YEC discussions where evidence that cannot be forced into a young earth mold or anti-evolution mold is cited.

Within my profession many geologists are very negative about the validity of a human-activity caused climate change or global warming cycle. They cite such changes over much of geologic time to suggest or claim that we are simply in yet another such cycle which would have happened anyway. In doing so they are rejecting "climate change" of this kind by citing cycles found in applying vast geologic time.

Air bubbles in amber have been analyzed, and yes, sometimes they have shown elevated levels of oxygen compared with the percentage found in the atmosphere today. But the analysis that found these values was not rejected, it was published.

The Oxygen-Rich Cretaceous Atmosphere

Analyses of the gases in these bubbles show that the Earth's atmosphere, 67 million years ago, contained nearly 35 percent oxygen compared to present levels of 21 percent. Results are based upon more than 300 analyses by USGS scientists of Cretaceous, Tertiary, and recent-age amber from 16 world sites. The oldest amber in this study is about 130 million years old.


However, the analysis of some other gas bubbles found in amber appear to show levels similar or lower than what is presently found. What was the composition of the bubble in the picture you have posted? What was its age?

The consequences of an elevated oxygen level during Cretaceous time are speculative. Did the higher oxygen support the now extinct dinosaurs? Their demise was gradual in the transition from late Cretaceous to early Tertiary times, as was the decrease in oxygen content of the atmosphere. 


Amber gas bubbles

Once again, I don't see the bias you are indicating. As is really usual and typical in mainstream science, the data is collected and analyzed and conclusions drawn from what is found, not what is left after data has been rejected or not used. That sort of thing seems far more typical in creation science studies I have seen where a bit of data taken from here, and a bit of data taken from from there is shoe-horned into a YEC concept that ignores much of the evidence or data available.

#9 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 02 December 2010 - 04:39 AM

I have never thought about a correlation between the debates in climatology involving climate change or global warming and studies that are concerned or accept either an old earth or evolution. The correlation I have seen is far more along political lines. But it is true that creationists tend to often be evangelical Christians who tend to be more conservative in terms of politics and more critical of climate change

Thinking about your post I still doubt creationism vs. mainstream science enters into this debate about climate to any great degree, or are you simply making a somewhat blanket statement (that I have seen before) that all scientific evidence goes through a filter for non-creationists? This would have a worker ask, "Does this support evolution and an old earth?"..."No, it does not therefore I will ignore it and throw it out." This is not how it is done. However it is a process that I often see in YEC studies. I don't think I have seen many YEC discussions where evidence that cannot be forced into a young earth mold or anti-evolution mold is cited.

Within my profession many geologists are very negative about the validity of a human-activity caused climate change or global warming cycle. They cite such changes over much of geologic time to suggest of claim that we are simply in yet another such cycle which would have happened anyway. In doing so they are rejecting "climate change" of this kind by citing cycles found in applying vast geologic time.

Air bubbles in amber have been analyzed, and yes, sometimes they have shown elevated levels of oxygen compared with the percentage found in the atmosphere today. But the analysis that found these values was not rejected, it was published.
However, the analysis of some other gas bubbles found in amber appear to show levels similar or lower than what is presently found. What was the composition of the bubble in the picture you have posted? What was its age?
Amber gas bubbles

Once again, I don't see the bias you are indicating. As is really usual and typical in mainstream science, the data is collected and analyzed and conclusions drawn from what is found, not what is left after data has been rejected or not used. That is far more typical in creation science studies I have seen where a bit of data taken from here, and from there is shoe-horned into a YEC concept that ignores much of the evidence or data available,

View Post


Then you can reply to my challenge here: http://www.evolution...?showtopic=3908

So far all evolutionists avoid it like the plague.

And the amber deal. Here is an example of conformism and denial: http://www.nytimes.c...ient-amber.html

#10 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 02 December 2010 - 04:58 AM

And they got all this from looking at fossils? Amazing  ;)

View Post


That's because speculation paved the way for evolution. And they've been riding the wave every since then. Stack twenty skulls (with varying degrees of similarity), and wah-lah! You have a hypothesis that is book worthy! In the same manner, you can latch onto a cyclical weather pattern, blow it out of proportion, and theorize anything you want!
And "Book Deals Galore", fake documentaries AND a "politically correct" Nobel! All the while living within the carbon footprint of a industrialized second world country!

#11 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 02 December 2010 - 06:36 AM

Scientists reported in October that tiny 80-million-year-old bubbles, analyzed with a sensitive new technique, suggested that the earth's atmosphere might have been 50 percent richer in oxygen than it is today. That finding, by Robert A. Berner of Yale University, stunned experts on evolution and climate.

Ikester's link

Fascinating. Did you know that they have done experiments raising animals in an oxygen rich atmosphere (particularly insects) and they become larger? Larger than they ever grow now. They concluded that more oxygen in the atmosphere is the reason that we have 3 feet long fossils of dragonflies, etc. Receding oxygen levels having to do with some extinctions seems very plausible. I love this stuff.

Geode, the thing is in many YEC articles they will say: "Does this prove a YE? No, but this evidence seems to fit into a YE paradigm much better..." Yes, I see scientists fit evidence into their mold of a YE. I also see scientist fit evidence into their mold of evolution. I think that one makes more sense than the other. I don't think that the scientists on the differing sides are really doing anything different. They are both fitting the evidence to meet their pre-conceived ideas. And, frankly, I don't see a lot of creationists claiming anything different. Yes, I have seen creationists discard or ignore evidence. I have seen evolutionists do the same thing.


I have another question for evolutionists... How does amber form? Can you prove that by making some yourself?

#12 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 02 December 2010 - 08:32 AM

Then you can reply to my challenge here: http://www.evolution...?showtopic=3908

So far all evolutionists avoid it like the plague.

And the amber deal. Here is an example of conformism and denial: http://www.nytimes.c...ient-amber.html

View Post


Your second link supports what I was saying, that scientists do not hide data. Here we have different opinions about what was actually measured. This also goes in opposition to your first link in a way. All of the workers involved are not conforming to one idea.

I can say that the people working is science that I know of, including myself try to escape a dogmatic approach that assumes we know the answer and that we must fit our observations with a set and conformist framework. We find that data that does not fit with the assumed models. Ignoring the problem does not make it go away and significantly we may be applying a wrong model. Yes, there are times when we lack courage and go along with an explanation because to do so is easier and will not be questioned. But this can lead to costly errors. I went along with a fault interpretation every one favored. A new worker saw the folly and I could see he was correct and the more experienced workers incorrect.

It has become a cliché in saying that any scientist who provided good and solid evidence against evolution would become very important and famous as a significant scientist in history. There are some who like to do this, but none have succeeded. But the various mechanisms by which evolution came about have been disputed. Stephen Jay Gould was hardly being a conformist in proposing "punctuated equilibrium"....

I studied fossils in my thesis. I followed where they led me, and they changed in an order that I found had been published elsewhere from thousands of miles away. I followed an objective procedure.

I don't know any scientists in my circle who talk about seeking only the natural. Many things known to be "natural" today were once thought to be supernatural in nature. Our understanding of what was actually the scientific basis for many phenomena came from not restricting study in any way, and coming to an understanding that way. You make false assumptions about scientists in my opinion.

I disagree that all "truth" is of the same value. This is true of non-creationist research as well. Some studies are poorly done with poor conclusions not really proven in the data obtained. I think there should be an equal playing field for research that follows the same rigor and stands up to the same challenges from others with knowledge in the field. In my opinion 99% of all who post on either side of this subject are not looking to change their minds. It does not mean that it can't happen, just that it is very unlikely. I weigh all evidence against what I personally have encountered, or what I can find from others that have done relevant studies. That is what I attempt to do with creationist evidence. So far I have found major holes in most of these studies in which I have background knowledge.

#13 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 02 December 2010 - 08:38 AM

Ikester's link

Fascinating. Did you know that they have done experiments raising animals in an oxygen rich atmosphere (particularly insects) and they become larger? Larger than they ever grow now. They concluded that more oxygen in the atmosphere is the reason that we have 3 feet long fossils of dragonflies, etc. Receding oxygen levels having to do with some extinctions seems very plausible. I love this stuff.

Geode, the thing is in many YEC articles they will say: "Does this prove a YE? No, but this evidence seems to fit into a YE paradigm much better..." Yes, I see scientists fit evidence into their mold of a YE. I also see scientist fit evidence into their mold of evolution. I think that one makes more sense than the other. I don't think that the scientists on the differing sides are really doing anything different. They are both fitting the evidence to meet their pre-conceived ideas. And, frankly, I don't see a lot of creationists claiming anything different. Yes, I have seen creationists discard or ignore evidence. I have seen evolutionists do the same thing.
I have another question for evolutionists... How does amber form? Can you prove that by making some yourself?

View Post


I am not an expert on amber, but think it can be traced by proper geochemisty to the resins in trees it is thought to form from....can I make it? I doubt it as it takes time to produce the alterations in its properties. But I don't thin creationists and non-creationists really dispute amber and its creation.

#14 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 02 December 2010 - 01:59 PM

Your second link supports what I was saying, that scientists do not hide data.

View Post


This is what I find incredibly deceptive in debates like this. People talk about scientists as though they were a completely different species, separate from the rest of "mortal" humans. I'm sure that's not the way you intended it to come across, but it illustrates beautifully the kind of attitudes we have about those higher up on the "ladder of credibility".

Scientists, unless you have some information to the contrary, are people. They are not immune to the kinds of influences and temptations and ambitions that are common to all mankind. And the greatest problem might not be anything as blatent as actually lying. I think it is much more subtle than that.

People who are part of a system that in any way places pressures and demands on them, are subject to influence, and as long as there remains the concept of a righteous God calling mankind to account for such an unscientific thing as sin, I doubt there will be many scientists interpreting their data in a way that supports creation.

#15 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 02 December 2010 - 02:08 PM

I disagree that all "truth" is of the same value. This is true of non-creationist research as well. Some studies are poorly done with poor conclusions not really proven in the data obtained. I think there should be an equal playing field for research that follows the same rigor and stands up to the same challenges from others with knowledge in the field. In my opinion 99% of all who post on either side of this subject are not looking to change their minds. It does not mean that it can't happen, just that it is very unlikely.

View Post

Posted Image

I weigh all evidence against what I personally have encountered, or what I can find from others that have done relevant studies. That is what I attempt to do with creationist evidence. So far I have found major holes in most of these studies in which I have background knowledge.

View Post

Point taken.

#16 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 03 December 2010 - 12:32 AM

This is what I find incredibly deceptive in debates like this. People talk about scientists as though they were a completely different species, separate from the rest of "mortal" humans. I'm sure that's not the way you intended it to come across, but it illustrates beautifully the kind of attitudes we have about those higher up on the "ladder of credibility".

Scientists, unless you have some information to the contrary, are people. They are not immune to the kinds of influences and temptations and ambitions that are common to all mankind. And the greatest problem might not be anything as blatent as actually lying. I think it is much more subtle than that.

People who are part of a system that in any way places pressures and demands on them, are subject to influence, and as long as there remains the concept of a righteous God calling mankind to account for such an unscientific thing as sin, I doubt there will be many scientists interpreting their data in a way that supports creation.

View Post


Ikester was posting about scientists. I made a reply about scientists. I made no such attempt to say that scientists are "a different species" in terms of being infallible and not subject to human weaknesses. You are clearly writing something into my response that is not there. I can't see how what I posted could be taken the way you explain here. I also can't see how what I wrote is at all deceptive. However, is a climatologist more credible when talking about climate change than the rest of us? Yes, I would say so even at peril of being accused of setting up a "ladder of credibility."

It appears that you are saying that most scientists might not interpret data in favor of a creationist viewpoint because God holds men liable for sin. I doubt any non-creationist scientists took such an approach. However, some probably rejected religion due to such a concept. Whether of not they would have taken a more creationist viewpoint otherwise is debatable. Some also undoubtedly made interpretations using a bias that did not allow them to be objective.

But you have reminded me about what I find deceptive in debates like this one. I challenged a claim that evidence was rejected about the subject at hand in the USGS study. It was not. However, the creationist explanations of the same study do seem deceptive.

Sometimes in amber, which is petrified tree sap, they find air bubbles trapped. The air bubbles trapped in amber have 50% more oxygen than we do today. Today we are breathing 21% oxygen, amber bubbles have 32% oxygen.  Well, evolution teaches that the earth had no oxygen at the beginning when life was 'evolving'.  This is not true.  The air bubbles in the amber prove that the earth had more oxygen in the past than it does today.


Deceptive creationist explanation

Notice that no mention is made of gas samples measuring at lower oxygen levels? It implies that all the measured samples were 50% higher than the level today which is not true of what was found in the study. That apparently did not fit in with the creationist viewpoint being made, as it apparently would be harder to explain the actual varibility found in the samples with a creationist model.

The comment about the earth having no oxygen being a concept "taught" by evolution sets up the non sequitur that follows.

The earth is believed to always have had abundant amounts of oxygen. I think what they meant to make a comment about was atmospheric oxygen.

As displayed above, many articles have appeared in recent years discussing the topic of ancient amber and oxygen levels. In short, the evidence seems clear. Earth's atmosphere once contained more oxygen, specifically around 35% (as opposed to today's 21%). Tiny bubbles of ancient air trapped by successive flows of tree resin have been discovered in ancient amber, and analyses of the gases in these bubbles reveal these startling numbers. Lest the skeptic argue insufficient testing, the results were based on more than 300 analyses by USGS scientists. Interestingly, the amber samples were also from different evolutionary periods ... the Cretaceous, Tertiary, etc., and even came from 16 world sites. The oldest sample tested was said to be about 130 million years old.

Arguments & Objections

The only argument given (and a very poor one) is the idea that some amber bubbles don't contain such high levels of oxygen. Notice that this argument is identical to the one in reference to large insects ... that is, "that not all fossil insects are of large proportions." As stated earlier, so we'll state again. This argument fails to deal with the samples that do contain higher oxygen levels. Furthermore, it is easier to make sense of amber bubbles that contain lower oxygen levels, as leakage could have taken place. However, endeavoring to make sense of amber bubbles that contain more oxygen is indeed rather a more difficult task.


2nd Example of creationists "mining" only the data they wish to use

This explanation implies that the samples from different "evolutionary" periods all contained 35% oxygen and is flat out not what was found in the study, with more recent samples having lower levels of oxygen. The claim that this value was the "starting" number is also false as lower values were in the oldest samples analysed. These are of course not "evolutionary periods" of time as the were defined independent of any thoughts of evolution and before Darwin and Wallace published their thoughts. That is also deceptive.

Why is it a bad argument that some bubbles contained a lower oxygen value? We see lower values now. Is there something magic about 35% to the creationist author of this writing? How does this fail to explain bubbles with higher oxygen levels? That implies that the scientists doing the study thought that higher oxygen levels were not possible and were trying to argue against them. This was not the case, so this is also deceptive on the part of the creationist writer.

Furthermore I would ask about the leakage comment. Suppose some of the gas did in fact leak. If it did so was a partial vacuum the result or is it being implied that oxygen selectively leaked and other gases took its place? I think a better explanation if one doubts the increased oxygen levels is to say that the sample was not representative when captured in the first place. That was what somebody was quoted as thinking in the NY Times piece that Ikester linked.

Dr. Craig, however, believes the gases do not directly reflect the ancient atmosphere, but must first have been dissolved in fluid. Oxygen dissolves more readily than nitrogen, the major component of the atmosphere, so relatively high levels of oxygen might be expected, he said.



#17 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 03 December 2010 - 03:03 AM

Your second link supports what I was saying, that scientists do not hide data. Here we have different opinions about what was actually measured. This also goes in opposition to your first link in a way. All of the workers involved are not conforming to one idea.

I can say that the people working is science that I know of, including myself try to escape a dogmatic approach that assumes we know the answer and that we must fit our observations with a set and conformist framework. We find that data that does not fit with the assumed models. Ignoring the problem does not make it go away and significantly we may be applying a wrong model. Yes, there are times when we lack courage and go along with an explanation because to do so is easier and will not be questioned. But this can lead to costly errors. I went along with a fault interpretation every one favored. A new worker saw the folly and I could see he was correct and the more experienced workers incorrect.

It has become a cliché in saying that any scientist who provided good and solid evidence against evolution would become very important and famous as a significant scientist in history. There are some who like to do this, but none have succeeded. But the various mechanisms by which evolution came about have been disputed. Stephen Jay Gould was hardly being a conformist in proposing "punctuated equilibrium"....

I studied fossils in my thesis. I followed where they led me, and they changed in an order that I found had been published elsewhere from thousands of miles away. I followed an objective procedure.

I don't know any scientists in my circle who talk about seeking only the natural. Many things known to be "natural" today were once thought to be supernatural in nature. Our understanding of what was actually the scientific basis for many phenomena came from not restricting study in any way, and coming to an understanding that way. You make false assumptions about scientists in my opinion.

I disagree that all "truth" is of the same value. This is true of non-creationist research as well. Some studies are poorly done with poor conclusions not really proven in the data obtained. I think there should be an equal playing field for research that follows the same rigor and stands up to the same challenges from others with knowledge in the field. In my opinion 99% of all who post on either side of this subject are not looking to change their minds. It does not mean that it can't happen, just that it is very unlikely. I weigh all evidence against what I personally have encountered, or what I can find from others that have done relevant studies. That is what I attempt to do with creationist evidence. So far I have found major holes in most of these studies in which I have background knowledge.

View Post


Have you ever heard of the canopy theory? It's a creationist idea that makes the earth's atmosphere 2-3 times the oxygen it is now. This is the main reason it was being fought very hard back when I started debating the C vs E subject. Now since evolutionists think they have pretty much killed off the idea through belittling anyone whom believed in it. They now "steal" the idea of rich oxygen atmosphere and try to claim the idea came from them.

All truth is not of the same value? Your attempt to merge what rejects God does not work. The core of evolution denies "any" supernatural power or event. Making a bridge in the attempt to merge the two is not going to change that.

1) Which truth did you have to give up in order to build that bridge to try and merge God and evolution?
2) Does science or God dictate how God creates in your belief?
3) Which side has anti-God (atheists) as part of their peer group, TE or YEC?
4) Why do you think there will be a separation between the sheep and the goats at the throne of Christ?
5) Can you give me any examples of where the subject of evolution was ever used to bring anyone unto salvation?

If evolution cannot be used to produce the fruits of Salvation to bring souls unto the kingdom of God, then is is not of God. In fact I would like to see an TE here use evolution in a message of salvation to bring someone to Christ.

By their fruits ye shall know them.

#18 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 03 December 2010 - 03:15 AM

Ikester was posting about scientists. I made a reply about scientists. I made no such attempt to say that scientists are "a different species" in terms of being infallible and not subject to human weaknesses.  You are clearly writing something into my response that is not there. I can't see how what I posted could be taken the way you explain here.  I also can't see how what I wrote is at all deceptive. However, is a climatologist more credible when talking about climate change than the rest of us? Yes, I would say so even at peril of being accused of setting up a "ladder of credibility."

It appears that you are saying that most scientists might not interpret data in favor of a creationist viewpoint because God holds men liable for sin. I doubt any non-creationist scientists took such an approach. However, some probably rejected religion due to such a concept. Whether of not they would have taken a more creationist viewpoint otherwise is debatable. Some also undoubtedly made interpretations using a bias that did not allow them to be objective.

But you have reminded me about what I find deceptive in debates like this one. I challenged a claim that evidence was rejected about the subject at hand in the USGS study. It was not. However, the creationist explanations of the same study do seem deceptive.
Deceptive creationist explanation

Notice that no mention is made of gas samples measuring at lower oxygen levels? It implies that all the measured samples were 50% higher than the level today which is not true of what was found in the study. That apparently did not fit in with the creationist viewpoint being made, as it apparently would be harder to explain the actual varibility found in the samples with a creationist model.

The comment about the earth having no oxygen being a concept "taught" by evolution sets up the non sequitur that follows.

The earth is believed to always have had abundant amounts of oxygen. I think what they meant to make a comment about was atmospheric oxygen.
2nd Example of creationists "mining" only the data they wish to use

This explanation implies that the samples from different "evolutionary" periods all contained 35% oxygen and is flat out not what was found in the study, with more recent samples having lower levels of oxygen. The claim that this value was the "starting" number is also false as lower values were in the oldest samples analysed. These are of course not "evolutionary periods" of time as the were defined independent of any thoughts of evolution and before Darwin and Wallace published their thoughts. That is also deceptive.

Why is it a bad argument that some bubbles contained a lower oxygen value? We see lower values now. Is there something magic about 35% to the creationist author of this writing? How does this fail to explain bubbles with higher oxygen levels? That implies that the scientists doing the study thought that higher oxygen levels were not possible and were trying to argue against them. This was not the case, so this is also deceptive on the part of the creationist writer.

Furthermore I would ask about the leakage comment. Suppose some of the gas did in fact leak. If it did so was a partial vacuum the result or is it being implied that oxygen selectively leaked and other gases took its place? I think a better explanation if one doubts the increased oxygen levels is to say that the sample was not representative when captured in the first place. That was what somebody was quoted as thinking in the NY Times piece that Ikester linked.

View Post


Have you saved anyone yet using the book of Darwin?
Where are the evolutionists for Christ crusades like Billy Graham does?

Maybe you believe as Teilhard de Chardin did:

“Christ saves. But must we not hasten to add that Christ, too, is saved by evolution?”
http://www.salvemari..... Religion.htm

So who is your real God? And if evolution is truly being used by God to create, then why is not the same subject also used to bring more souls unto salvation?

#19 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 03 December 2010 - 01:05 PM

You are clearly writing something into my response that is not there.



"scientists do not hide data" ... is there, is it not?

It seems to me you are saying something about the character of scientists in general. My response was more along the lines that the problem is not as conspicuous as someone deliberately hiding anything, although I don't doubt for a second that such things happen, even among scientists. It is the subtleties about the way we view scientists that worries me, especially when interpretation and theory becomes "fact".

"It appears that you are saying that most scientists might not interpret data in favor of a creationist viewpoint because God holds men liable for sin".


No more than anyone else!

Most scientists are nothing more than people who specialize in a particular field of study. Yes, that makes them an authority in that particular field, but hardly in anything beyond the field they specialize in.

In a world where practically EVERYONE is spoon-fed continuallly with the idea that evolution is fact, how is it humanly possible that the interpretations of scientists are not colored by the evolutionary worldview? And their interpretations are in turn peer-reviewed by other scientists who also have have their bellies filled with this nonsense since birth.

#20 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 04 December 2010 - 02:33 AM

Have you saved anyone yet using the book of Darwin?
Where are the evolutionists for Christ crusades like Billy Graham does?

Maybe you believe as Teilhard de Chardin did:

“Christ saves.  But must we not hasten to add that Christ, too, is saved by evolution?”
http://www.salvemari..... Religion.htm

So who is your real God? And if evolution is truly being used by God to create, then why is not the same subject also used to bring more souls unto salvation?

View Post


So your best comeback to my last post is to change the subject? I think I have seen just about this exact set of thoughts before on this forum. Did they come from you, and did they apply to a past discussion better than this one, where they seem to simply derail the thread with criticism of "theistic evolution"...? I was not making a case for this.

Why should anybody bother to hold a crusade for a scientific principle that is basically universally accepted by those involved in research within the life sciences? That would really be "preaching to the choir." Evolutionary science is not about saving anyone, at least in the spiritual sense, but its application has started having an impact on saving lives in the physical sense, or least extending lifetimes.

My thoughts about science are based upon evidence. My belief in Christ in based upon faith. The purpose of God in saving mankind has nothing to do with evolution or the nature of life on the planet in my opinion, so your comments here have little meaning for me personally. If I had held to beliefs that required a young earth and special creation to have occurred, I would have lost faith in those beliefs long ago for scientific research has shown them to be false. Fortunately my faith in Christ was not based upon such ideas but upon what we have been given in the gospels and other writings of prophets and apostles and so my faith has survived. I don't think it was ever the intent of God for men to obsess over how they came to be. We did come to be and are called to follow Christ.

Have people rejected Christ because of the theory of evolution? Yes, I think this is sadly the case. I have known several people that have done just that, but it was not the science on its own that led to their rejection in some cases. Some were told that they had a choice, to accept a literal reading of Genesis and YEC ideas or evolution. They made their choice. It is sad because the concepts of science and faith in Christ do not need to be mutually exclusive.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users