Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Stratnerd
New member
show me the study that can account for apparently (not actually) younger rocks consistently on top of apparently (not actually) older rocks. What you are suggesting is that rocks with differing parent material had sorted itself out according to parent-daughter isotopes and not age OR there was a time after the earth was formed and land created that radioactivity was >>>> faster to acounter for the same ratios.
NO! How much effect do to tides have on deep sea or this would also mix up fossils (and dismiss claims of sorting according to escape ability) it would also destroy delicate fossils - I have a pair of Carboniferous amphibian tracks that were 70 feet under other sediments. Tides affect near shore but there wasn't even a shore during the flood.
you are entitled to your opinion but most people would suggest that estimates are evidence if they are reliable. These estimates of coalescence, in humans, are based on known mutation rates in mitochondria.
I didn't think hundred of acres of mud hundreds of feet thick could form into rock so quickly. And it must have at rates that were amazing - maybe a year or two since a river cutting through mud, would just collapse on itself.
Tides when you need them tides when you don't. So were tides mixing things up or not? Are most population centers near the ocean? Why wouldn't all those dead babies, women, and men, cats, rats, dinosaurs, hats, all wash out to the nearby ocean?
why would I expect whales, seals, pelicans, gulls, etc with clams and jellyfish? I could have sworn all these things lived in the ocean.
I would expect that there would be a center of specis richness where most organisms that can't get around well near a hypothetical landing site for the Ark. Away from that site I would expect to find fewer and fewer organisms that can't get around well.
so the Galapagos tortoises moved from Ararat to the Galapagos and then speciated into the various species in 6000 years? Is there any evidence of this amazing hypothesis?
huh see the quote just below...
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
one goes evidence -> conclusion and the other goes Truth -> evidence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
may I suggest then, that you don't know the history of evolution well.
sounds like a great thread for Origins... be my guest.
Not so... just a few ways
1. A more reliable estimator of absolute age constrains the Earth to be much younger
2. Some law is discovered that precludes the changes in phenotype and genotype that we've seen over time
3. The presence of modern form in all ages get discovered
theories in the sense of the scientist is a generalization that accounts for evidence (e.g., natural selection). to the creationist, a theory is a generalization of ad hocs and handwaving (e.g., hydroplate theory, vapor canopy theory) necessary to keep a literal interpretation of Genesis tenable.
No you don't because you must be able to accept falsification to actually test a hypothesis and you must entertain the possibility of alternative hypotheses. Creationist, by defination, do not allow alternatives and they cannot allow falsification.
For example,
Hypothesis1: There was a single global flood just 6000 years ago
Hypothesis2 (the alternative) there was no flood
Prediction: Population genetics should point to a severe population bottleneck 6000 years ago
the test....
Now what? Do creationist admit that H2 is possible? and that H1 has been falsified?
You mean creationist continuously think of the best ways to falsify a 6000 year old Earth?
neither are methods but patterns we see in the fossil records and they are not mutually exclusive and there is evidence of both.
The land of improved accuracy and precision; and creationism?
Last edited:
Mr. Coffee
New member
Our Fun Day Together At Battle Talk:
"Look, bumpkin, I worked at a zoo, and no way they had enough people to shovel all the poop on the Ark."
"A chair is a chair."
"That's a non-sequitur, zoo-boy. The Bible says nothing about shovels on the Ark."
"Letter c, letter h, letter a, letter i, letter r. Why are you so OBTUSE?"
"Are you saying they left it on there?!?"
"Or CHAIR. Cushions are not case-sensitive."
"Yes, they needed it to plant a garden. All the topsoil was washed away."
"A chair by any other name would smell like naugahyde. But it wouldn't be 'chair'".
"Look, bumpkin, I worked at a zoo, and no way they had enough people to shovel all the poop on the Ark."
"A chair is a chair."
"That's a non-sequitur, zoo-boy. The Bible says nothing about shovels on the Ark."
"Letter c, letter h, letter a, letter i, letter r. Why are you so OBTUSE?"
"Are you saying they left it on there?!?"
"Or CHAIR. Cushions are not case-sensitive."
"Yes, they needed it to plant a garden. All the topsoil was washed away."
"A chair by any other name would smell like naugahyde. But it wouldn't be 'chair'".
ROTFL... thats great stuff!
If one isn't following the thread these comments must seem awfully strange!
PureX
Well-known member
Just because something is real doesn't make it absolute. You seem to be implying that if we can't effect something's existence, it must be an absolute. But in fact all forms of existence pass away. Energy constantly changes and takes on new forms. Your chair, or whatever we decide to call it, exists in whatever form it exists in for a finite time, therefor, it's "reality" is RELATIVE to time and space and circumstance. In fact, every form or structure that we are able to perceive is relative to time, space, and circumstances as far as we know. No thing in the universe is absolute except perhaps the energy that temporarily takes on all these forms and becomes our universe. But we don't know where that comes from so we don't know what will happen to it. We can't say if it will pass away or not.
Sure, but it's reality is still relative to time, space, and circumstances, and so is not absolute.
But we don't have that "fixed yardstick", and all we are doing is guessing. We humans live in a world of probabilities, not a world of certainty. That's just the way it is. Welcome to the human condition: the condition of being perpetually uncertain. Our only yardstick becomes ourselves and each other. This is so frightening for so many of us that we simply MAKE UP that yardstick, so that we can pretend that we are not lost in perpetual uncertainty. This is what religion is all about. This is what "believers" do. Religions give us the imaginary yardsticks so we can be relieved of the fear of our own ignorance.
I like reality. Sometimes it sucks, but most of the time it's great, and I have lived many years of my life escaping from realy, so I do have a comparison. *smile* But reality is not an absolute; at least not for us. We humans are living in a relative and finite dimension.
One Eyed Jack
New member
Stratnerd, I've already told you how the strata are dated by the index fossils they contain. Working from those presuppositions, there is no way I can show you what you're asking for.
What? How are igneous rocks going to sort out their constituent elements? I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
Yes.
It has some effect. I remember seeing a time-lapse video of the sea floor one time, and there was all kinds of stuff going on down there.
They are mixed up to some degree.
What method was used to date these tracks?
No there wasn't, was there? But then again, the Earth wasn't covered with a uniform level of water. It was deeper in some places than it was in others.
Estimates are based on assumptions.
Coalescence means coming together to form a whole. What does this have to do with the mutation rates of mitochondria? I'm sure you've got a point here somewhere, but I don't see it.
Well it did -- go to Mt. Saint Helens and take a look. It's as rocky as you could possibly want it to be now.
Maybe, maybe not. Those canyons carved through the sediment deposited around Mt. Saint Helens didn't collapse in on themselves, and they were carved in way less than a year.
To some degree -- yes.
We have no idea where most of the population centers were before the flood, what with them all being destroyed.
During the flood, wasn't the ocean pretty much everywhere?
Nice dodge, but you were talking about mostly land animals.
You seem to be forgetting the fact that sometimes people take animals with them. How'd all those camels get to Australia? They were introduced by humans.
Uh... no. That's ridiculous. If you're going to make a strawman, at least come up with a good one.
There are tortoises everywhere. I used to find them in my backyard all the time. The Galapagos tortoise is but one species among many. I don't remember anyone identifying them as the great-grandfather of all tortoises.
Ok... we'll examine that when we get to it.
You may, but you'd be wrong. The basic assumption (that all life on Earth has a common ancestor) is still the same.
What's the point? I already know what you'll do.
How would this be a way to test evolution?
You mean like the one that says living things only reproduce after their own kind?
This won't happen as long as you continue dating things using the geologic column.
Our theories account for the evidence.
This simply isn't true. But as long as you believe this sort of slander, it'll keep you from examining creationism.
There are several hypotheses out there.
Again, this simply isn't true. But like I said, as long as you refuse to look into it, you'll keep believing this sort of nonsense.
You mean 4,400 years ago.
Again, you mean 4,400 years ago. As far as population genetics goes, you might want to check out this link.
Not really. That doesn't explain all the sediment containing billions of dead things, nor does it do anything to explain the fact that virtually every culture has a global flood legend.
You mean the way evolutionists continuosly think of the best ways to falsify evolution? I should probably point out here that not all creationists are Young Earth Creationists.
So you're admitting to the lack of transitionals in the fossil record? This is what led them to come up with the theory of punctuated equilibrium, you know. Of course it's still an argument from ignorance, but what can you expect? Use what you got, right?
Same place. We'll see who gets there first.
Last edited:
One Eyed Jack
New member
The second law of thermodynamics precludes it. If the universe had always been here, it would have run down by now, and there would be no energy available for work.
Flipper
New member
Novice:
Yes, I saw this the first time, thanks. It's hard to answer a post when you're not logged on and reading TOL, if you can imagine such a thing.
Well, *you* probably can't but some of us have jobs and enjoy earning a living.
First, your question was along the lines of "there can't possibly be a 4th alternative". I have shown that there is a 4th alternative. You may not like it, but it is one that modern cosmology favors and is investigating. While you're enjoying the taste of your own words, you might want to surf back through the thread and click on some of the links I and others have referenced, so you can move into the 20th century of scientific thinking.
As to your other questions, the answers may vary depending on what is being proposed. I wonder, though, why I am being held to this new standard of "practical terms". How well, do you think, would your "C" hold up to these terms?
C. A Supernatural creator created all the energy and matter that exists
How is that possible in "practical terms"?
What were the specific mechanics of fiat creation?
Where did this event take place if NOTHING existed yet?
If God is infinite in knowledge, where is this knowledge stored?
However, because I'm a good person who takes pity on the wilfully ignorant, you will find both simple and advanced explanations of current thinking on some of your questions regarding D here. Enjoy:
http://superstringtheory.com/cosmo/cosmo5.html
I am sure that you will have more questions after reading this. I won't hesitate to recommend your local library, where I am sure you already spend quite a lot of time. As you embark on your learning voyage, you will discover that there's much more to libraries than just being a place to sleep in and steal newspapers from.
You will notice that some of these hypotheses make predictions that can be tested, and are also developed to unify and then explain the development of the four fundamental forces in the universe. They have the advantage of being good mathematical models that provide an explanation of why the universe is the way it is. Is a mathematical model that unifies physics superior to the OT description? I think it is, because it provides us with the potential to test and explore.
When will you be posting links to similar hypotheses of fiat creation? Can you provide an explanation of why you are unable to? Can you give your best guess as to when such hypotheses might be forthcoming? Why won't they be?
Yes, I saw this the first time, thanks. It's hard to answer a post when you're not logged on and reading TOL, if you can imagine such a thing.
Well, *you* probably can't but some of us have jobs and enjoy earning a living.
First, your question was along the lines of "there can't possibly be a 4th alternative". I have shown that there is a 4th alternative. You may not like it, but it is one that modern cosmology favors and is investigating. While you're enjoying the taste of your own words, you might want to surf back through the thread and click on some of the links I and others have referenced, so you can move into the 20th century of scientific thinking.
As to your other questions, the answers may vary depending on what is being proposed. I wonder, though, why I am being held to this new standard of "practical terms". How well, do you think, would your "C" hold up to these terms?
C. A Supernatural creator created all the energy and matter that exists
How is that possible in "practical terms"?
What were the specific mechanics of fiat creation?
Where did this event take place if NOTHING existed yet?
If God is infinite in knowledge, where is this knowledge stored?
However, because I'm a good person who takes pity on the wilfully ignorant, you will find both simple and advanced explanations of current thinking on some of your questions regarding D here. Enjoy:
http://superstringtheory.com/cosmo/cosmo5.html
I am sure that you will have more questions after reading this. I won't hesitate to recommend your local library, where I am sure you already spend quite a lot of time. As you embark on your learning voyage, you will discover that there's much more to libraries than just being a place to sleep in and steal newspapers from.
You will notice that some of these hypotheses make predictions that can be tested, and are also developed to unify and then explain the development of the four fundamental forces in the universe. They have the advantage of being good mathematical models that provide an explanation of why the universe is the way it is. Is a mathematical model that unifies physics superior to the OT description? I think it is, because it provides us with the potential to test and explore.
When will you be posting links to similar hypotheses of fiat creation? Can you provide an explanation of why you are unable to? Can you give your best guess as to when such hypotheses might be forthcoming? Why won't they be?
Stratnerd
New member
index fossils were once used to give relative dates. Radiometric dating has allowed absolute dating (you or anyone for that matter has yet to show why these dates are unreliable). Once fossils are associated with certain dates via radiometric dating then they can be used as indexes of absolute dates.
But fossils has nothing to do with this. Radiometric dating shows younger rocks over older rocks... how does such a thing happen? See below...
BINGO!!! Either radiometric dates are working or you have something really weird going on like igneous rocks sorting themselves out according to apparent (not actual) ages - that's the only way you had a point when you mentioned the parent:daughter problem. Also, some of these techniques use materials whose parent material is a gas and doesn't start the clock until the rock cools.
So tidal mixing can get gravel on top of sand on top of silt but still not get mammalian, dinosaurian, avian fossils to mix... that's an interesting universe you live in. You can't have it both ways.
Flipper
New member
OEJ:
Certainly that's true. But it seems like if all the multiplicity of cats with all their adaptions evolved in just 6,000 years, the genome would have incontrovertible evidence for an agressive rate of change, no? I'm particularly interested in the mechanisms that allowed such dramatic change in such a short time, the checks that prevented speciation beyond the "kind", and the mechanics of the ruthless culling that ejected genes from the pool as the animals took on their forms and adaptions. Unless you're implying that all cats still have the ability to become lions/tigers/servals/housecats/cheetahs/snowleopards/mountainlions etc etc...
Basically, I'm thinking your genome would bear little resemblance to what we actually see. I'm also thinking that any species genome would clearly and incontrovertibly point to being only 6,000 years in existence. I also don't see why all cats wouldn't hold the genetic potential to become tigers/lions/cheetahs without even requiring selective pressure. Will we be able to switch on these primordial genes to restart the 6,000 year speciation mechanism?
The cheetahs likely genetically bottlenecked towards the end of the ice age, 10,000 years ago. What happened to this extraordinary evolutionary mechanism you propose? After all, the entire diversity of cat-kind evolved from, what, a single pair in just 6,000 years? What happened in the interim?
Luckily, answers may be in the offing. Dr Stephen O'Brien at the Laboratory of Genomic Diversity at the National Cancer Institute is sequencing the domestic cat genome (he's also the guy who IDed the genetic similarity between all surviving cheetah - apparently they're closer genetically than human identical twins which I didn't know).
http://home.ncifcrf.gov/ccr/lgd/comparative_genome/catgenome/whythecat.asp
I look forward to his discovery of the 6,000 year old genome and these genetic mechanisms you are surely proposing.
I'm surprised they haven't found them already, as you are suggesting a much more aggressive rate of genetic section (presumably no mutation, as all the available info would be in the genome, right) than even the most optimistic evolutionist.
I'm just interested to know how you would explain all this in just 6,000 years.
Certainly that's true. But it seems like if all the multiplicity of cats with all their adaptions evolved in just 6,000 years, the genome would have incontrovertible evidence for an agressive rate of change, no? I'm particularly interested in the mechanisms that allowed such dramatic change in such a short time, the checks that prevented speciation beyond the "kind", and the mechanics of the ruthless culling that ejected genes from the pool as the animals took on their forms and adaptions. Unless you're implying that all cats still have the ability to become lions/tigers/servals/housecats/cheetahs/snowleopards/mountainlions etc etc...
Basically, I'm thinking your genome would bear little resemblance to what we actually see. I'm also thinking that any species genome would clearly and incontrovertibly point to being only 6,000 years in existence. I also don't see why all cats wouldn't hold the genetic potential to become tigers/lions/cheetahs without even requiring selective pressure. Will we be able to switch on these primordial genes to restart the 6,000 year speciation mechanism?
The cheetahs likely genetically bottlenecked towards the end of the ice age, 10,000 years ago. What happened to this extraordinary evolutionary mechanism you propose? After all, the entire diversity of cat-kind evolved from, what, a single pair in just 6,000 years? What happened in the interim?
Luckily, answers may be in the offing. Dr Stephen O'Brien at the Laboratory of Genomic Diversity at the National Cancer Institute is sequencing the domestic cat genome (he's also the guy who IDed the genetic similarity between all surviving cheetah - apparently they're closer genetically than human identical twins which I didn't know).
http://home.ncifcrf.gov/ccr/lgd/comparative_genome/catgenome/whythecat.asp
I look forward to his discovery of the 6,000 year old genome and these genetic mechanisms you are surely proposing.
I'm surprised they haven't found them already, as you are suggesting a much more aggressive rate of genetic section (presumably no mutation, as all the available info would be in the genome, right) than even the most optimistic evolutionist.
I'm just interested to know how you would explain all this in just 6,000 years.
PureX said,
You said,
You said,
You said,
Soulman
I guess I’m not sure how the word “absolute” is being used. It seems like every time I’ve use it, you’ve objected. For the sake of discussion, absolute and “real” are synonymous. I’ll treat them as non-equivalents if it creates less confusion. Atheists are relativists, and relativists hate absolutes.
You said,
Regardless of space, time, and circumstance, which are relevant, I think the point is that whatever form the chair takes, the form is REAL. Energy to raw material to chair to raw material and back to energy again are all SOMEthing, all states of being, so if you’re saying that nothing is “absolute” because nothing exists in an infinite form, then of course you’d be right, as far as it goes. IF that’s what you mean by “absolute,” and IF nothing exists in an infinite form. I can’t speak for all theists. I can’t even speak for other Christians. (The word “Christianity” has become too broad. I shudder every time I hear the words, “Christians believe…”) The God of the Bible as understood is, as an infinite form, “absolute,” even, I think, by your definition. The absolute, infinite God of the Bible is the fixed, unchanging standard by which the “stuff” of reality is conceived, and perceived. If reality was a movie, God would be the screen on which the movie was projected. Take away the screen -- in this case the absolute standard and “background” of reality -- all you’ll be doing is shining a flashlight in a vacuum. There is nothing to “perceive” in this vacuum, until the stuff of reality is “held up to” and “perceived” against the “screen” or background of the infinite form. Without some concept of an overriding infinite form (theistic or non-theistic), I don’t see how the differentiation and order of the universe could be explained, or even possible.
You said,
It’s a good line, but a lousy argument. Atheists don’t have a fixed yardstick, so all they CAN do is guess. Nothing too deep, or new, about that. Perpetual uncertainty is all atheism has to offer. But, at least they deliver! You say theists invented God out of fear of their own ignorance, but it could just as easily be asserted that atheists deny absolutes because they fear God.
You said,
Sure beats the alternative!
Soulman
One Eyed Jack
New member
The only problem with that is they don't radiometrically date fossils.
But it does, because they don't radiometrically date sedimentary layers either.
I don't think so. Imaginine this scenario: you go to date a rock using the uranium-lead method, and you assume there was no lead there when it hardened -- but what if there was? This is going to throw your dates way off.
Don't you mean the daughter material? And why doesn't the clock start until the rock cools? Does radioactivity not take place in molten lava?
Dude, you apparently don't know what you're talking about. Dinosaurs, birds, and mammals all existed together in the Jurassic. We do find their fossils together.
You don't know the starting conditions. They've dated lava flows in Hawaii that they know are only 200 years old at several million years. The KBS Tuff was dated at something like 212 million years old -- until they found a human skull underneath it. Now it's only a couple million years old. You can get all kinds of dates, since all you're really doing is measuring isotopes.
Don't you mean ancestors? Are you saying things backwards just to see if you can trip me up, or do you just not know what you're talking about?
That's not what I said, but you can do the same thing with concrete. It'll set under water.
Well, they were destroyed by the flood. What exactly do you expect to find?
Humans don't live like wild animals, and they rarely live with them. Why would you expect to find them so close together?
I just told you -- they didn't live together. Nobody is ever going to find my remains next to that of a lion, because I don't live near any lions.
Jellyfish, brachiopods, and trilobites are found together, aren't they? I know they lived at the same time. Whales are dated by invoking the geologic column. Of course, so are these other organisms, but nobody is disputing that they lived at the same time.
Last edited:
Re: The Tao of the Ill-e(quip)ped
Re: The Tao of the Ill-e(quip)ped
Chari……….
Bingo!! You are exactly correct! Yet, no one said it wasn't a tautology!
I was referring to (as my quote, to which you re-posted in your response, clearly indicated) the "a chair is an absolute" assertion.
The statement " a chair is a chair" is a useless rhetorical statement (tautology), it cannot be proved false, but this certainty comes at the cost of telling us nothing new. To assert that a "chair is an absolute" simply begs the question: How does Freak know? And since his supporting statement, "a chair is a chair", is a useless tautology and by definition tells us nothing, Freak cannot logically justify using it to prove or provide evidence of an absolute.
I was simply illustrating to Freak how vague and arbitrary the concept of "chair" is, let alone it's supposed correlation to abstract absolutism.
Chari, before you start flinging straw-man accusation around it would benefit your argument to first address the relevant argument at hand yourself!
Re: The Tao of the Ill-e(quip)ped
Chari……….
Bingo!! You are exactly correct! Yet, no one said it wasn't a tautology!
I was referring to (as my quote, to which you re-posted in your response, clearly indicated) the "a chair is an absolute" assertion.
The statement " a chair is a chair" is a useless rhetorical statement (tautology), it cannot be proved false, but this certainty comes at the cost of telling us nothing new. To assert that a "chair is an absolute" simply begs the question: How does Freak know? And since his supporting statement, "a chair is a chair", is a useless tautology and by definition tells us nothing, Freak cannot logically justify using it to prove or provide evidence of an absolute.
I was simply illustrating to Freak how vague and arbitrary the concept of "chair" is, let alone it's supposed correlation to abstract absolutism.
Chari, before you start flinging straw-man accusation around it would benefit your argument to first address the relevant argument at hand yourself!
Eireann
New member
They lived together in the Triassic? Now you have me confused. I thought you were one of those arguing for a 6000-year-old earth? If the earth is 6000 years old, there wouldn't have been a Triassic. It is placed approximately 250 million years ago. Humans didn't appear until the Quaternary Period (the Tertiary, Jurassic and Cretaceous Periods all fall between the Quaternary and Triassic periods).
- Status