Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Potential Evidence for a Global Flood
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 121 of 320 (574694)
08-17-2010 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Buzsaw
08-16-2010 11:05 PM


Re: Genetic data
Buz, the link I gave you to Oetzi totally refutes Baumgartners position. He is simply wrong, end ofr subject.
In case you missed it here it is again.
quote:
There is one well known place where we can look to see if there is ANY reality to the assertion of some super-genome and that is with Oetzi the Iceman.
What do we know about Oetzi?
First he was both contemporary with Adam and likely a Grandson.
He lived about 5300 years ago and so Adam was still alive.
His mitochondrial DNA is from the haplogroup K.
He was born and his childhood was near the present town of Feldthurns in what today is Italy, but then moved about 50 km south.
He was around 40-50 years old when he died.
He had eaten twice recently, one Chamois, the other Red Deer meat along with fruit and grain, likely bread.
His shoes were composite, soles of bear skin, uppers deerhide. They were insulated with grasses.
There was blood from four other people on him.
Pollen showed that he ate his last meal in a mid altitude conifer forest and that it was spring time.
The biggest thing is that NOTHING was very different. There were NO signs of some Super-Genome in his makeup, the makeup of the other people, the critters or food, the materials used.
So, if there was some super-genome, why are there no signs of it in the people, animals, plants, spores and pollen contemporary with Adam?
No difference in genome, plants, animals, people, temperature, air pressure, anything.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Buzsaw, posted 08-16-2010 11:05 PM Buzsaw has not replied

misha
Member (Idle past 4628 days)
Posts: 69
From: Atlanta
Joined: 02-04-2010


Message 122 of 320 (574749)
08-17-2010 4:00 PM


I would absolutely LOVE to see Buz explain the physics behind his "vapor canopy."
- How the equivalent amount of water could be suspended in the upper atmosphere without causing debilitating pressures beneath
- How the equivalent amount of water could precipitate without poaching the earth's atmosphere
- How the equivalent amount of water could possibly affect the decay rates of multiple radioactive isotopes in a congruent fashion.
- How the equivalent amount of water could possibly allow enough light to traverse to foster photosynthesis at the earth's surface.
This vapor canopy thing is so absurd. Creationists would be much better off saying that the flood was a miracle and can not be proven or disproven by science.

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by anglagard, posted 08-17-2010 10:20 PM misha has replied

anglagard
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


(1)
Message 123 of 320 (574806)
08-17-2010 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by misha
08-17-2010 4:00 PM


But Which Planet?
Misha writes:
I would absolutely LOVE to see Buz explain the physics behind his "vapor canopy."
- How the equivalent amount of water could be suspended in the upper atmosphere without causing debilitating pressures beneath
- How the equivalent amount of water could precipitate without poaching the earth's atmosphere
- How the equivalent amount of water could possibly affect the decay rates of multiple radioactive isotopes in a congruent fashion.
- How the equivalent amount of water could possibly allow enough light to traverse to foster photosynthesis at the earth's surface.
Buzsaw's vapor canopy does exist (except for the affecting decay rates part). The problem is that planet is not Earth, it is Venus.
Yeah, I know, virtually no water vapor and lots of carbon dioxide, but that is what happens when a planet gets 'poached.'
One should remember, the Buzsaw (Woodmorappe) hypothesis is literally "out of this world," meaning it has nothing remotely rational to do with this planet or its inhabitants.
It is about Venus.

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman Rushdie
This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by misha, posted 08-17-2010 4:00 PM misha has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by misha, posted 08-18-2010 1:59 PM anglagard has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 124 of 320 (574823)
08-18-2010 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Buzsaw
08-16-2010 11:05 PM


Re: Genetic data
Baumgartner has offered some evidence which appears to make sense. I suggest a reading and responses to questionable statements in it.
The tried to radiocarbon date mineralized organic material from the Cretaceous?
That's like trying to find out how old I am by sawing me in half and counting my growth rings. It is guaranteed to get the wrong result, because I am not a tree.
And even using a method guaranteed to fail, they still got results several times older than their imaginary Young Earth ... at which point the unsubstantiated ad hoc excuses start.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Buzsaw, posted 08-16-2010 11:05 PM Buzsaw has not replied

misha
Member (Idle past 4628 days)
Posts: 69
From: Atlanta
Joined: 02-04-2010


Message 125 of 320 (574933)
08-18-2010 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by anglagard
08-17-2010 10:20 PM


Re: But Which Planet?
One should remember, the Buzsaw (Woodmorappe) hypothesis is literally "out of this world," meaning it has nothing remotely rational to do with this planet or its inhabitants.
It is about Venus.
That's what makes the "vapor canopy" claim so peculiar. We know the results it would produce because we have a test case next door. Yet they continue to promote it despite the evidence against them. But, then again, facts have never stopped them before.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by anglagard, posted 08-17-2010 10:20 PM anglagard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by hooah212002, posted 08-18-2010 2:05 PM misha has not replied

hooah212002
Member (Idle past 802 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 126 of 320 (574934)
08-18-2010 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by misha
08-18-2010 1:59 PM


Re: But Which Planet?
*puts on creationist cap*
You've never been to Venus, so you can't know
*takes off creationist cap, feels slightly more stupid*
Edited by hooah212002, : mis-spelled stupid, of all words

"A still more glorious dawn awaits
Not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise
A morning filled with 400 billion suns
The rising of the milky way"
-Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by misha, posted 08-18-2010 1:59 PM misha has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Bikerman, posted 08-18-2010 2:14 PM hooah212002 has replied

Bikerman
Member (Idle past 4956 days)
Posts: 276
From: Frodsham, Chester
Joined: 07-30-2010


Message 127 of 320 (574935)
08-18-2010 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by hooah212002
08-18-2010 2:05 PM


Re: But Which Planet?
Surely the removal of that particular cap would not result in feeling 'more' stupid would it?
(I suppose one could argue that a proper humility and admission of ignorance is a central feature of science, as opposed to an unwarranted, arrogant and insupportable certainty...)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by hooah212002, posted 08-18-2010 2:05 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by hooah212002, posted 08-18-2010 2:27 PM Bikerman has not replied

hooah212002
Member (Idle past 802 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 128 of 320 (574940)
08-18-2010 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Bikerman
08-18-2010 2:14 PM


Re: But Which Planet?
[off topic clarification]
It wasn't the removal that made me feel as such, but the donning of said headwear at all.
[/off topic clarification]

"A still more glorious dawn awaits
Not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise
A morning filled with 400 billion suns
The rising of the milky way"
-Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Bikerman, posted 08-18-2010 2:14 PM Bikerman has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 129 of 320 (575689)
08-20-2010 8:11 PM


Good thread for archaeologist to present evidence for the global flood
This is a good thread for archaeologist to present his evidence for the global flood.
Archaeologist keeps claiming that the bible is 100% accurate and that there is no evidence of error.
This is a perfect thread for him to present his refutation to all of the evidence we have presented in various threads showing the belief in a global flood about 4,350 years ago is erroneous.
On many of those other threads a detailed discussion of flood evidence would be off topic, but this thread is perfect!
So please, archaeologist, show where the posts I have made in several places are incorrect.
And don't just recite your catechism. Bring evidence.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by jar, posted 08-20-2010 8:15 PM Coyote has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 130 of 320 (575690)
08-20-2010 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Coyote
08-20-2010 8:11 PM


Re: Good thread for archaeologist to present evidence for the global flood
Too late!
He didn't learn here either.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Coyote, posted 08-20-2010 8:11 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Coyote, posted 08-20-2010 8:29 PM jar has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 131 of 320 (575696)
08-20-2010 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by jar
08-20-2010 8:15 PM


Re: Good thread for archaeologist to present evidence for the global flood
I addressed those claims, but he never responded. And he hasn't responded on the other threads either.
One might begin to think he has catechism and dogma, but no real evidence, eh?
Archaeologist, here's your big chance! Present your evidence for the global flood ca. 4,350 years ago and refute the evidence I have presented on several different threads.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by jar, posted 08-20-2010 8:15 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Coyote, posted 08-21-2010 9:44 AM Coyote has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 132 of 320 (575834)
08-21-2010 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Coyote
08-20-2010 8:29 PM


Re: Good thread for archaeologist to present evidence for the global flood
Bump for archaeologist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Coyote, posted 08-20-2010 8:29 PM Coyote has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 133 of 320 (631380)
08-31-2011 8:06 PM


Bumped for "Just being real".
Bumped for "Just being real".
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Just being real
Member (Idle past 3936 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


(3)
Message 134 of 320 (631400)
08-31-2011 9:02 PM


Reply to Panda's comment
Panda: The bible claims that there was a global flood. Yet it is a known archaeological fact that there was no global flood..
First I would point out how interesting I find it that most who reject a global flood, overlook the fact that fossils require an anoxic environment in which to even form. And that this type of environment usually only occurs in nature, in rapid sedimentary deposit situations. Which of course only occur in "flood" conditions. Therefore I would predict that had the Earth (which is 70% covered in water now) truly once been covered in a world wide global flood (WWGF), that it's crust would have layer upon layer of sediments that would be filled with millions of fossilized dead things...
.
.
.
Did you know that the Earth's crust is comprised of layer upon layer of sediments that are filled with millions of fossilized dead things?
The typical uniformitarian geologist, of course, believes that these layers were laid down over millions of years. But have you ever considered the fact that in most of these stratalayers, "surface imprints" which have been fossilized, are common? Featureslike ripple patterns, animal tracks and rain drop impressions? Under usual conditions these features arequickly destroyed by normal erosion and life. In order for these types of impressions to be preserved, the next sediment layer must be laid down very fast, and the next layer, and the next, and so forth.
Secondly, there's often burrows preserved and fossilized that are oriented starting from lower strata and moving upward. These are like what you would expect had an animal been buried by the sediment and tried to dig its way out. They are very different from the normal typewhich are oriented in all directions.
A third thing to notice while looking at the geologic record, is that it consists mostly of "rocks"but very few paleo-soils. Normally, poorly consolidated rocks aren't considered to be made of ancient materials that have ever been actual soils. Evolutionary thinking in geology says that land surfaces supported an abundance of life for hundreds of millions of years. So where's all the paleo-soils in the record that supported that life? It's not there!
Fourth, consider what we see evidence in the Coconino Sandstone of the Grand Canyon area. Uniformitarian geologists date this sandstone to be around 270 myrs old. It was believed to be an ancient desert. If you didn't know, the Coconino covers more than 100,000 square miles. Howeverfossilized amphibians tracks have been foundin the sandstone. This is evidence that it was laid down by water. Almost all geologists would have drawn this same conclusion if it weren't for the implications it poses. The amounts and movements of water can easily be calculated by the amount of sand deposited. Calculations of the amount of water volume needed to create the Coconino with its undulates (sand dunes) would require water at 100 foot depth, moving at a speed of three to five feet per second. Water moving at that speed and depth has never been observed, not even at open sea. Which means it would take an unprecedented storm of great magnitude to create the Coconino sandstone layers.
Fifth, we can further conclude that the Coconino was not laid down under a dry desert condition, by noticing that directly under it is a "blade edged"thin layer of Hermit shale. The shale had to have uplifted at least high enough to create a desert. But if that had occurred then normal erosion processes wouldn't have left the top of the layer so virtually flat as is observed today. The top of the shale exhibits no signs of erosion. How's that possible if it remained exposed to the surface for sand to begin to accumulate 10 myrs later?
Sixth, these blade edged flat layers, such as the Hermit, completely diminishes the idea of long passages of time between deposits, (regardless of what index fossils are found in them). Contact layers between rock layer units show the same knife edged characteristics and are seen just about everywhere. There's really only two reasonable scenarios that explain these characteristics. Either continuous and rapid deposition took place with almost instantcurrent shifts, or deposition after spaces of sheet erosion from rapidly flowing water at an equal depth over a huge area that had equally erodingsediment taking place in all areas. Either case would need the WWGF scenario described in the Bible.
Seventh, consider the existence of polystrate fossils in coal beds for example, which are often separated by layers of lime stone. Each layer is usually said to be several million years old. But this conclusion falls apart by the hundreds of polystrate fossils (like vertically fossilized trees) which pierce through the various layers. (Sometimes several layers) These fossils are so common that they are oftena real hazard to coal miners who can suddenly be crushed when one dislodges and falls on him in the mines. These fossils are found in coal world wide. The obvious question of course is, how did the upper portions of these trees remain exposed for several million years while waiting forthe other layers to gradually be deposited in around them to preserve them? The fact of the matter is that the accumulation of the different layers must have actually been at least faster than it takes for wood to decay. They have even found animal fossils that penetrate more than one layer of coal.
Eighth, consider how at the Green River Formation, many fossilized catfish have been found with skin and soft parts preserved.Many are even oriented to traverse through several laminations of shale deposits. The kind of deposits that Uniformitarians normally interpret as being representative of several season cycles of sediment. How's it possible for the upper portions to survive several season cycles before being covered?
Ninth is the lack of bio-turbation between conforming layers of strata. If millions of years really took place between the deposits of conformable layers, why are their surfaces so scarce of millions of years of life? By that I mean things like burrows, root formations, etc... are mostly missing from the record. How could large land masses have existed for millions of years virtually untouched by life, with life being so abundant?
I'll stop here for now. We can continue when ever you wish.

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by jar, posted 08-31-2011 9:14 PM Just being real has replied
 Message 136 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-31-2011 9:21 PM Just being real has not replied
 Message 137 by Panda, posted 08-31-2011 9:22 PM Just being real has replied
 Message 138 by Coyote, posted 08-31-2011 9:34 PM Just being real has not replied
 Message 153 by Percy, posted 09-01-2011 7:16 AM Just being real has replied
 Message 196 by Boof, posted 09-05-2011 11:56 PM Just being real has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(3)
Message 135 of 320 (631402)
08-31-2011 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Just being real
08-31-2011 9:02 PM


Re: Reply to Panda's comment
It really doesn't matter how much (even false) evidence you present in support of the Biblical Flood, it has been totally refuted; there is absolute evidence that it never happened.
The Biblical Flood is simply myth and fantasy.
In the version of the myth found in Genesis 6 God instructs Noah to:
quote:
19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. 21 You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them."
In the version of the myth found in Genesis 7 we see similar (close but not the same) instructions:
quote:
2 Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.
We also find similar explanations of what will be destroyed in Genesis 6 it says:
quote:
7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earthmen and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the airfor I am grieved that I have made them."
and in Genesis 7:
quote:
4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made."
In both myths lots of critters get killed, in the myth found in Genesis 6 it seems to be talking about land animals and birds while the myth found in Genesis 7 goes even further and wipes out all living things.
If we play mix and match and take the best scenario from each of the myths we might be able to claim that only the birds and land animals were wiped out based on the passage from the Genesis 6 story and that we have the larger saved population found in Genesis 7.
Based on that mix and match game set we have a situation where all land animals and birds found today will be descended from a population that consisted of at most fourteen critters (seven pairs of clean animals and birds) and at worst case four critters (two pair of unclean animals).
Now that is what I would call a real bottleneck.
We know we can see bottlenecks in the genetic record; a great example is the one in Cheetahs but we even see them in the human genome and most other species.
BUT...
If the flood actually happened we would see a bottleneck in EVERY species of animal living on the land and EVERY bird and EVERY one of the bottlenecks show up in the SAME historical time period.
Talk about a big RED flag.
That bottleneck signature would be something every geneticists in the world would see. It would be like a neon sign, Broadway at midnight on New Years Eve. It would be something even a blind geneticist could see.
So it seems to me to be a very simple test that will support or refute the Flood.
If that genetic marker is there in EVERY species living on land or bird of the air, then there is support for the flood. It does not prove the flood happened but it would be very strong support.
If on the other hand that genetic marker is NOT there, then the Flood is refuted.
The marker is not there.
The Biblical Flood is totally, completely refuted.
{In my judgement, this is rather a Jar boilerplate rant and is in little or no way a reply to the content of the message it is a reply to. - Adminnemooseus}
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Note in red.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Just being real, posted 08-31-2011 9:02 PM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by IamJoseph, posted 08-31-2011 9:44 PM jar has replied
 Message 151 by Just being real, posted 09-01-2011 7:05 AM jar has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024