Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9180 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,259 Year: 5,516/9,624 Month: 541/323 Week: 38/143 Day: 0/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   la brea tar pits/ humphreys
graedek
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 37 (23829)
11-22-2002 9:25 PM


I have been trying to follow the discussion on Humphrey's helium retention studies,as well as his creation theory.(the water ball and all that) I would like to check out his book starlight and time(i think that was the title)
What is the opinion around here towards his ideas? Could they have merit? I know one thing, it is sure cool to see someone thinking outside the box and being creative (even if he is wrong in the end).
I'm curious about the la brea tar pits. I was hoping for some accurate up-to-date information on this, resources, etc. What is the most current work done in this area? I get intimidated doing searches because of the volume of misinformation/misinterpretations out there
I read that the bones discovered had some weird characteristics.....no soft tissue, and super packed together, etc.....What do evolutionary/creationists supporters conclude about the pits?
Seems odd......
Anyways, gotta go....coffee's brewing
------------------
*******sleeper********
[This message has been edited by graedek, 11-22-2002]
[This message has been edited by graedek, 11-22-2002]

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Chara, posted 11-24-2002 12:36 AM graedek has not replied
 Message 9 by Quetzal, posted 11-25-2002 4:11 AM graedek has not replied
 Message 21 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-19-2002 10:26 PM graedek has not replied

  
Chara
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 37 (24000)
11-24-2002 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by graedek
11-22-2002 9:25 PM


quote:
Originally posted by graedek:
I have been trying to follow the discussion on Humphrey's helium retention studies,as well as his creation theory.(the water ball and all that) I would like to check out his book starlight and time(i think that was the title)
What is the opinion around here towards his ideas? Could they have merit? I know one thing, it is sure cool to see someone thinking outside the box and being creative (even if he is wrong in the end).
I'm curious about the la brea tar pits. I was hoping for some accurate up-to-date information on this, resources, etc. What is the most current work done in this area? I get intimidated doing searches because of the volume of misinformation/misinterpretations out there
I read that the bones discovered had some weird characteristics.....no soft tissue, and super packed together, etc.....What do evolutionary/creationists supporters conclude about the pits?
Seems odd......
Anyways, gotta go....coffee's brewing

bump

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by graedek, posted 11-22-2002 9:25 PM graedek has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 11-24-2002 10:46 AM Chara has not replied

  
funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 37 (24026)
11-24-2002 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Chara
11-24-2002 12:36 AM


Interesting topic. Seems the only info i can find is on Christian based web pages. Hmmm how come other science pages don't mention this? Wonder why this has been here for a few days and no one wants to talk about it? Interesting indeed. I'd look in to it more there graedek, but as far as pure data you should know better than to ask for something as silly as that. Either side will have arranged selective facts in such a way that it could support their theory. And i would venture to guess that neither side is providing the the whole truth thus they are both lying to you. With holding facts and data that was discovered because they couldn't plug it into their theory. Pure raw data indeed!
------------------
saved by grace

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Chara, posted 11-24-2002 12:36 AM Chara has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by edge, posted 11-24-2002 11:10 AM funkmasterfreaky has not replied
 Message 16 by Brad McFall, posted 12-19-2002 1:04 AM funkmasterfreaky has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1823 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 4 of 37 (24035)
11-24-2002 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by funkmasterfreaky
11-24-2002 10:46 AM


quote:
Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
Interesting topic. Seems the only info i can find is on Christian based web pages.
Look a little further.
quote:
Hmmm how come other science pages don't mention this? Wonder why this has been here for a few days and no one wants to talk about it? Interesting indeed.
Actually, I believe we beat this to death not long ago. Creationist partisans had little of substance to counter evolutionist arguments, as usual. It got to be pretty tedious, so now the subject is soporific. Perhaps Moose can give you a link to that thread. Or perhaps you could dredge up one (please, just one at a time) creationist argument and we could discuss it. Making vague charges like the one below are not really worth discussing.
quote:
I'd look in to it more there graedek, but as far as pure data you should know better than to ask for something as silly as that. Either side will have arranged selective facts in such a way that it could support their theory. And i would venture to guess that neither side is providing the the whole truth thus they are both lying to you. With holding facts and data that was discovered because they couldn't plug it into their theory. Pure raw data indeed!
An interesting charge. Perhaps you can confirm it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 11-24-2002 10:46 AM funkmasterfreaky has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Adminnemooseus, posted 11-24-2002 2:09 PM edge has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 37 (24039)
11-24-2002 11:12 AM


Try this opinion from Dr Hugh Ross of reasons to believe ministry...
Page not found - Reasons to Believe
in particular
quote:
One of the errors of the original Starlight and Time proposal which remains in Humphreys' reconstruction of his argument, is the claim that gravity is radically different in a bounded and an unbounded universe. The falsity of this claim is obvious to people familiar with relativity theory and cosmology and is easily explainable to non-specialists. Humphreys' continued insistence on this is further evidence of misunderstandings of the physics of general relativity and cosmology.
In general relativity, matter produces spacetime curvature, and spacetime curvature manifests itself in what we call gravity. The relationship between the spacetime curvature and the matter content of the universe is given by the Einstein field equations, which are customarily expressed in shorthand notation as
Gm n =8p GTm n
The left hand side of this equation, Gm n , is the Einstein curvature tensor, which is composed of products of the spacetime metric tensor gm n with derivatives of that tensor with respect to the spacetime coordinates23 The right hand side contains numerical constants (G is Newton's gravitational constant) and the "stress-energy" tensor, T m n , also called the "energy-momentum" tensor. It contains information about the matter, energy, pressure and momentum content of the universe. It is obvious from this equation that if two universes have the same energy-momentum T m n ,, then their Einstein curvature tensors will also be identical. The matter-filled region of the bounded universe which Humphreys postulates has an identical energy-momentum tensor to the unbounded universe he wishes to replace, and consequently it has spacetime curvature which is identical to that of the unbounded universe. Gravitational behaviors such as the "Newtonian gravitational field"24 and time dilation are a consquence of the spacetime curvature. Identical spacetime curvature means that the gravitational behaviors must be identical. This fact alone is an adequate rebuttal of Humphreys' claims.

Even other creationists don`t like it.....

  
Adminnemooseus
Inactive Administrator


Message 6 of 37 (24062)
11-24-2002 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by edge
11-24-2002 11:10 AM


quote:
Perhaps Moose can give you a link to that thread.
Try http://EvC Forum: Starlight and Time---question that must be answered -->EvC Forum: Starlight and Time---question that must be answered
Adminnemooseus
------------------
{mnmoose@lakenet.com}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by edge, posted 11-24-2002 11:10 AM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 11-24-2002 3:09 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied
 Message 8 by graedek, posted 11-24-2002 3:20 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 37 (24070)
11-24-2002 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Adminnemooseus
11-24-2002 2:09 PM


looks as though my ploy to get a comment on this subject has been succesful. I happen to know the person who posted this topic out of pure curiosity and i figured that seeing funkmasterfreaky posting on this thread may draw some attention. I have no real knowledge or interest in this particular topic but i am sure graedek would like to discuss this. Data on this (or anything else) is hard to come by and you never know which side has the accurate facts because they are always delivered with an opinion or in a way in which to suggest something. So if you know where some data is. Not by a journalist for we all know how ridiculous scientific journalism is compared to actual science. I believe this is what graedek is looking for. As a person with very keen scientific interest and a mind for it that may very well in the future rival the best there is no interest in opinion here. only data. (note this is from what i know and if i'm wrong graedek will clear it up and hopefully forgive me if i have misrepresented them.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Adminnemooseus, posted 11-24-2002 2:09 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
graedek
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 37 (24075)
11-24-2002 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Adminnemooseus
11-24-2002 2:09 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Adminnemooseus:
quote:
Perhaps Moose can give you a link to that thread.
Try http://EvC Forum: Starlight and Time---question that must be answered
Adminnemooseus

Thanx for the info guys (and as for you funk, gotta love your pot-stirring methods)
------------------
*******sleeper********

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Adminnemooseus, posted 11-24-2002 2:09 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5989 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 9 of 37 (24163)
11-25-2002 4:11 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by graedek
11-22-2002 9:25 PM


Hi graedek,
I'm not sure what you're looking for inre Rancho La Brea. I'm not familiar with the creationist claims here - maybe you can fill me in? The Page Museum is the main website for the Los Angeles Museum of Natural History on La Brea, so maybe you'll find what you're looking for there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by graedek, posted 11-22-2002 9:25 PM graedek has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by forgiven, posted 11-25-2002 1:49 PM Quetzal has replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 37 (24246)
11-25-2002 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Quetzal
11-25-2002 4:11 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Quetzal:
Hi graedek,
I'm not sure what you're looking for inre Rancho La Brea. I'm not familiar with the creationist claims here - maybe you can fill me in? The Page Museum is the main website for the Los Angeles Museum of Natural History on La Brea, so maybe you'll find what you're looking for there.

quetzal, i think the creationist view runs something like, there's at least one area (i've read many), only about 4 cubic feet, in which so many fossils are located, from so many different types of creature, that it would be impossible without the 'catastrophic' scenerio (ie the flood)... you might wanna look into that, i haven't been able to find any website that even attempts to explain the occurance in evolutionary terms

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Quetzal, posted 11-25-2002 4:11 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 11-25-2002 2:39 PM forgiven has not replied
 Message 12 by John, posted 11-25-2002 3:39 PM forgiven has not replied
 Message 17 by Quetzal, posted 12-19-2002 2:43 AM forgiven has not replied

  
funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 37 (24257)
11-25-2002 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by forgiven
11-25-2002 1:49 PM


This is what i was talking about at the top saying i couldn't find anything other than creationists views. I know the humphreys thing is all over the place, but the la brea tar pits thing i can't find anything else.
------------------
saved by grace

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by forgiven, posted 11-25-2002 1:49 PM forgiven has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 37 (24265)
11-25-2002 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by forgiven
11-25-2002 1:49 PM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
quetzal, i think the creationist view runs something like, there's at least one area (i've read many), only about 4 cubic feet, in which so many fossils are located, from so many different types of creature, that it would be impossible without the 'catastrophic' scenerio (ie the flood)... you might wanna look into that, i haven't been able to find any website that even attempts to explain the occurance in evolutionary terms

Am I mistaken in thinking that the tar pits are ... um tar, or used to be? And things placed in tar don't stay put over thousands of years but get jumbled around.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by forgiven, posted 11-25-2002 1:49 PM forgiven has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by graedek, posted 11-25-2002 5:16 PM John has not replied

  
graedek
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 37 (24279)
11-25-2002 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by John
11-25-2002 3:39 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
quetzal, i think the creationist view runs something like, there's at least one area (i've read many), only about 4 cubic feet, in which so many fossils are located, from so many different types of creature, that it would be impossible without the 'catastrophic' scenerio (ie the flood)... you might wanna look into that, i haven't been able to find any website that even attempts to explain the occurance in evolutionary terms

Am I mistaken in thinking that the tar pits are ... um tar, or used to be? And things placed in tar don't stay put over thousands of years but get jumbled around.

I was thinking more along the lines of the pits having some relation to chaotic glacial flooding from that time period...(IIS 10.0 Detailed Error - 404.0 - Not Found)
I have been trying to find a topographical map of L.A with U.C loc 2050 (one of the U of C main exc. site )to compare with my other flood maps...(above link and others)to make visualizing my ideas easier...
"One of the mysteries that surround the animals at Rancho La Brea is the extinction event that made many of these animals disappear forever. This extinction event was not like those that have been labeled as "mass extinctions." Unlike the dinosaurs that were wiped out by a large and destructive worldwide event, the causes of the extinctions at Rancho La Brea were much more subtle." (La Brea Tar Pits)
I am also curious how different the coastline is thought to have looked (in the context of pangea and C.D)in that age(http://www.tarpits.org/education/guide/geology/time.html)
------------------
*******sleeper********

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by John, posted 11-25-2002 3:39 PM John has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Coragyps, posted 11-25-2002 6:05 PM graedek has not replied

  
graedek
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 37 (24284)
11-25-2002 5:24 PM


"The ice could only temporarily restrain such an immense volume of water. When the lake reached its maximum depth, water burst through the ice barrier, shooting out of Clark Fork Canyon at a rate 10 times the combined flow of all the rivers in the world. At that rate the lake would have drained in as little as 48 hours!"
(IIS 10.0 Detailed Error - 404.0 - Not Found)
In my previous post i was suggesting that the outpouring of this flood or others of that time period could have reached further south than just montana, oregon, idaho and washington....
am i out to lunch?
------------------
*******sleeper********

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 852 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 15 of 37 (24294)
11-25-2002 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by graedek
11-25-2002 5:16 PM


quote:
I have been trying to find a topographical map of L.A with U.C loc 2050 (one of the U of C main exc. site )to compare with my other flood maps
Try Attention Required! | Cloudflare - they have the whole US.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by graedek, posted 11-25-2002 5:16 PM graedek has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024