Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,061 Year: 5,318/9,624 Month: 343/323 Week: 187/160 Day: 4/19 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Where did the Egyptians come from ?
John
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 112 (14857)
08-05-2002 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by blitz77
08-05-2002 10:34 AM


quote:
Originally posted by blitz77:
Actually, you forgot one problem. The age until the offspring start reproducing. You have assumed that the offspring do not reproduce until the parents have gotten older by 30 yrs. If you use a generation time of say 20 yrs instead, it allows a population of - from a starting population of 1 couple- 227 million.
[This message has been edited by blitz77, 08-05-2002]

No. That is not what I assumed. I assumed that the generations cycle around thirty years, which is reasonable if on the short side. I calculated an average and extrapolated. For a quick illustration, I think I did pretty well.
A quick review of what I left out:
1) nutrition-- after the flood, very very bad
Poor nutrition will increase the infant mortality rate, decrease survival to adulthood of those infants that do survive, delay the onset of puberty and thus reproduction, increase the chance of miscarriage, increase the chances the mother will die in childbirth or shortly thereafter due to general physiological weakness associated with malnutrition(reducing her reproductive potential), increase the time lag between pregnancies
2) freshwater--- also very bad after the flood
Much the same as poor nutrition
3) accidental death and disease not associated with nutrition
Well, pretty self explainatory
Take a look at around prb.org
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by blitz77, posted 08-05-2002 10:34 AM blitz77 has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5979 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 48 of 112 (14862)
08-05-2002 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by blitz77
08-05-2002 10:34 AM


Hey blitz!
Although this is slightly off-topic, I'm hoping you can answer a question for me. I've asked it a number of times in various places, but no one seems to be able to help me out. To wit: if the current world population is derived from four breeding pairs - which apparently didn't interbreed - where can I read about the evidence for the incredible genetic bottleneck that took place in the population? Moreover, where is the evidence of a genetic bottleneck of staggering proportions in even one non-human species alive today? I mean, given the relatively short time span (4000 years or so), there should be evidence of a gigantic bottleneck in at least those species represented as "kinds" on the ark, no?
Thanks for your help.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by blitz77, posted 08-05-2002 10:34 AM blitz77 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by John, posted 08-05-2002 12:35 PM Quetzal has not replied
 Message 50 by gene90, posted 08-05-2002 2:06 PM Quetzal has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 112 (14863)
08-05-2002 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Quetzal
08-05-2002 12:24 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Quetzal:
To wit: if the current world population is derived from four breeding pairs
oops... it is four pairs isn't it? I said eight in a previous post.
quote:
I mean, given the relatively short time span (4000 years or so), there should be evidence of a gigantic bottleneck in at least those species represented as "kinds" on the ark, no?
... which in fact should be every extant species, no?
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Quetzal, posted 08-05-2002 12:24 PM Quetzal has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3930 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 50 of 112 (14864)
08-05-2002 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Quetzal
08-05-2002 12:24 PM


[QUOTE][B]Moreover, where is the evidence of a genetic bottleneck of staggering proportions in even one non-human species alive today?[/QUOTE]
[/B]
California condors, Florida panthers and Bengal tigers don't count.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Quetzal, posted 08-05-2002 12:24 PM Quetzal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by blitz77, posted 08-06-2002 8:37 AM gene90 has replied

  
blitz77
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 112 (14894)
08-06-2002 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by gene90
08-05-2002 2:06 PM


Would you be talking about genetic diversity bottleneck or geological evidence for the bottleneck? Changes by microevolution occur rapidly in small populations, as you yourself should know. In large populations, diversification is a lot slower.
How about the interesting feature in the hominid fossil record for the abrupt disappearance of homo sapiens between 80 000 and 40 000 years ago (the dates are arbitrary.)? Incidentally, the other article I mentioned in "reordering of fossils" topic could use the Cambrian explosion as an example. The other model (I'm not saying that it's correct) explains the lack of larger animals by saying they were wiped out completely then (except for those on the ark) and all the fossil evidence for them before the flood. Thus, after they get off the ark, there is then fossil evidence for them.
Mitochondrial studies of women from around the world suggested that the last common ancestor of modern man (actually women) appeared within the last 200,000 years, which is much more recent than previously thought.
From the perspective of male genetics, scientists have examined a gene (ZFY), which being on the Y chromosome, is passed down only from father to son. 38 men were chosen from around the world. Scientists determined the actual genetic sequence in each man for this gene, which is 729 base pairs long. To their surprise, all men had identical genetic sequences (over 27,000 base pairs analyzed). Scientists have calculated the most probable date for the last common ancestor of modern man, given the sequence diversity from modern apes. Using two different models this date is either 270,000 or 27,000 years ago (note that these dates are the suggested maximum figures).
[This message has been edited by blitz77, 08-06-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by gene90, posted 08-05-2002 2:06 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by gene90, posted 08-06-2002 9:24 AM blitz77 has replied
 Message 54 by John, posted 08-06-2002 11:31 AM blitz77 has not replied
 Message 57 by Quetzal, posted 08-07-2002 7:08 AM blitz77 has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3930 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 52 of 112 (14896)
08-06-2002 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by blitz77
08-06-2002 8:37 AM


[QUOTE][B]How about the interesting feature in the hominid fossil record for the abrupt disappearance of homo sapiens between 80 000 and 40 000 years ago[/QUOTE]
[/B]
Disappearance?
[QUOTE][B]The other model (I'm not saying that it's correct) explains the lack of larger animals by saying they were wiped out completely then (except for those on the ark) and all the fossil evidence for them before the flood.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
YECs should agree on a common scenario. This version of the Flood destroys all fossils that existed prior to it?
[QUOTE][B]Mitochondrial studies of women from around the world [/QUOTE]
[/B]
Actually you can do mtDNA studies on men as well, everyone has mitochondrial DNA. However, it is always transmitted exclusively down by the mother.
[QUOTE][B]Using two different models this date is either 270,000 or 27,000 years ago[/QUOTE]
[/B]
Then more studies are needed until a date is more strongly supported by the evidence. That is, after all, how science works. Are we supposed to be troubled by the fact that there are two camps?
And by the way, either date rules out a young Earth. Why are you a YEC when you are aware of so much evidence against your beliefs?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by blitz77, posted 08-06-2002 8:37 AM blitz77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by John, posted 08-06-2002 11:10 AM gene90 has not replied
 Message 56 by blitz77, posted 08-07-2002 6:04 AM gene90 has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 112 (14902)
08-06-2002 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by gene90
08-06-2002 9:24 AM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
[QUOTE][B]How about the interesting feature in the hominid fossil record for the abrupt disappearance of homo sapiens between 80 000 and 40 000 years ago[/QUOTE]
[/B]
Disappearance?

I knew I wasn't supposed to be here!
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by gene90, posted 08-06-2002 9:24 AM gene90 has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 112 (14905)
08-06-2002 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by blitz77
08-06-2002 8:37 AM


quote:
Originally posted by blitz77:
Would you be talking about genetic diversity bottleneck or geological evidence for the bottleneck?
Either works for me, if the dates are right, thought the genetic evidence would pack more punch.
quote:
Changes by microevolution occur rapidly in small populations, as you yourself should know. In large populations, diversification is a lot slower.
But aren't we talking about a genetic bottleneck? The population is small by definition.
quote:
How about the interesting feature in the hominid fossil record for the abrupt disappearance of homo sapiens between 80 000 and 40 000 years ago (the dates are arbitrary.)?
Just a thought, but you mention the mDNA studies that suggest we all have a common ancestor aroung 200k ago. This indicates a genetic bottleneck and probably a severe one. Well... very few people == very few or zero fossils until the population rebounds sufficiently.
quote:
Incidentally, the other article I mentioned in "reordering of fossils" topic could use the Cambrian explosion as an example. The other model (I'm not saying that it's correct) explains the lack of larger animals by saying they were wiped out completely then (except for those on the ark) and all the fossil evidence for them before the flood. Thus, after they get off the ark, there is then fossil evidence for them.
But the flood carefully orders the bones of the dead critters. It doesn't wipe them out altogether. And what about pre-flood deposits?
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by blitz77, posted 08-06-2002 8:37 AM blitz77 has not replied

  
axial soliton
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 112 (14906)
08-06-2002 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by blitz77
08-04-2002 1:39 AM


quote:
And after the flood-
"1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.
quote:
Genesis 7:13 In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark;
There is one fundamental point at the genesis of the Noah scenario that is troubling. Is God actually telling the children of Shem, Ham, and Japheth to repopulate the Earth with each other? May we assume this includes cross-generational breeding, as well? Finally, 367 years later, all the people of Egypt, Mesopotamia, Africa, Europe, and all of Asia are descended from these three couples (plus any cross-generational breeding)?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by blitz77, posted 08-04-2002 1:39 AM blitz77 has not replied

  
blitz77
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 112 (14945)
08-07-2002 6:04 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by gene90
08-06-2002 9:24 AM


quote:
Disappearance?
quote:
Another interesting feature of the hominid fossil record is the apparent disappearance of Homo sapiens between 80,000 and 40,000 years ago. From an evolutionary perspective it has been proposed that Homo sapiens populations plummeted to near extinction and then for some unknown reason bounced back in full force about 40,000 years ago.64 This population bottleneck is viewed by evolutionary biologists as being responsible for the high degree of genetic uniformity among modern humans.
--Ross, 1993, p. 141
The information I posted to you before with those large dates were from evolutionist sources-so of course they would use those dates. I could have used creationist interpretations which would put them at a much younger date, but I didn't, because most likely you would put them off as balderdash.
And also, you didn't read what I wrote. It is the suggested MAXIMUM date. Since all of those thousands of bases are the same, it could mean a date of 5000 yrs ago there was a common ancestor.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by gene90, posted 08-06-2002 9:24 AM gene90 has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5979 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 57 of 112 (14947)
08-07-2002 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by blitz77
08-06-2002 8:37 AM


quote:
Originally posted by blitz77:
Would you be talking about genetic diversity bottleneck or geological evidence for the bottleneck? Changes by microevolution occur rapidly in small populations, as you yourself should know. In large populations, diversification is a lot slower.
Actually, I'm talking about the evidence that would be obvious in the genomes of every species alive today of either extreme polymorphism or extreme reduced polymorphism that occur in founder populations along the lines of what we observe in elephant seals and cheetahs (for example), or in isolated populations such as the Devils hole pupfish (Cyprinodon diabolis). Changes by "microevolution" may or may not be rapid - it depends on random chance and changes in the statistical frequency of alleles through genetic drift. Which, btw, could just as easily eliminate alleles as increase their frequency. Besides which, variability as you suggest - which depends on mutation rates - still has to become fixed. To get the incredible diversity of, for example, cat kinds from a single pair of "essential cats" would require not only a mutation rate thousands of times greater than is currently observed, but also true cladogenesis events occurring many orders of magnitude more often than can even be conceived. If things occurred that rapidly, we should be observing brand new species of vertebrates, for example, at the rate of dozens a year.
quote:
How about the interesting feature in the hominid fossil record for the abrupt disappearance of homo sapiens between 80 000 and 40 000 years ago (the dates are arbitrary.)? Incidentally, the other article I mentioned in "reordering of fossils" topic could use the Cambrian explosion as an example. The other model (I'm not saying that it's correct) explains the lack of larger animals by saying they were wiped out completely then (except for those on the ark) and all the fossil evidence for them before the flood. Thus, after they get off the ark, there is then fossil evidence for them.
I'll look at the other thread, but neither scenario makes any sense. In the first place, why do you claim the dates are "arbitrary"? In the second, it seems pretty convenient that all traces of "larger animals" were erased in the Cambrian Flood. If that's the case, and only those animals on the ark left to make fossils after debarking, what's the deal on amphibians in the Ordovician but not Cambrian (i.e., contiguous with the weird beasties that must have been on the ark as well in those layers), the first reptiles in the Pennsylvanian but not the Cambrian, the first mammals in the Triassic but not any of the lower levels. (Creationists really should use the Permian-Triassic extinction instead of the Cambrian radiation). Finally, the whole shebang begs the question of all those pre-Cambrian fossils (especially the Vendian fossilary, and those 3.5 gya stromatoliths).
quote:
Mitochondrial studies of women from around the world suggested that the last common ancestor of modern man (actually women) appeared within the last 200,000 years, which is much more recent than previously thought.
From the perspective of male genetics, scientists have examined a gene (ZFY), which being on the Y chromosome, is passed down only from father to son. 38 men were chosen from around the world. Scientists determined the actual genetic sequence in each man for this gene, which is 729 base pairs long. To their surprise, all men had identical genetic sequences (over 27,000 base pairs analyzed). Scientists have calculated the most probable date for the last common ancestor of modern man, given the sequence diversity from modern apes. Using two different models this date is either 270,000 or 27,000 years ago (note that these dates are the suggested maximum figures).
Okay, so we're somewhere around three quarters of a million years as the date of your flood? How does this square with the 4000 years the YECs keep babbling about?
How about the evidence for the bottleneck?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by blitz77, posted 08-06-2002 8:37 AM blitz77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by blitz77, posted 08-07-2002 7:18 AM Quetzal has replied

  
blitz77
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 112 (14948)
08-07-2002 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Quetzal
08-07-2002 7:08 AM


quote:
I'll look at the other thread, but neither scenario makes any sense. In the first place, why do you claim the dates are "arbitrary"? In the second, it seems pretty convenient that all traces of "larger animals" were erased in the Cambrian Flood. If that's the case, and only those animals on the ark left to make fossils after debarking, what's the deal on amphibians in the Ordovician but not Cambrian (i.e., contiguous with the weird beasties that must have been on the ark as well in those layers), the first reptiles in the Pennsylvanian but not the Cambrian, the first mammals in the Triassic but not any of the lower levels. (Creationists really should use the Permian-Triassic extinction instead of the Cambrian radiation). Finally, the whole shebang begs the question of all those pre-Cambrian fossils (especially the Vendian fossilary, and those 3.5 gya stromatoliths).
I'm not an anthropologist so don't ask me. You might prefer to read the article: -here
Possibly this quote has the solution to your question on amphibians
quote:
Coal - made up of carbonised plant and wood material - provides further evidence that the Flood was coming to an end in the Upper Palaeozoic. Coal first appears in the fossil record in the Upper Devonian, but is most abundant in the Upper Carboniferous on the northern continents, and in the Permian on the southern continents. Scheven J. (1996) has convincingly argued that the Upper Palaeozoic coals were formed from aquatic vegetation that grew in pre- Flood "floating forests". These forests were thick mats of vegetation, covering thousands of square miles, that floated on the margins of the shallow pre-Flood oceans. At the start of the Flood, these mats were dislodged and drifted, probably breaking up into separate parts. As the waters drained off the continents at the end of the Flood, the floating mats were grounded, and came to rest on top of one another. At the same time, sand and mud continued to be deposited with the result that the grounded vegetation mats became interbedded with other sediments, giving rise to successions of coal seams. The grounding of vegetation mats probably continued for some years into the immediate post-Flood period. Significantly, the first appearance of the tetrapod (four-footed) vertebrates in the fossil record coincides with the grounding of these mats. These were essentially aquatic amphibians and reptiles that survived on the floating mats during the Flood and subsequently became the first backboned animals to repopulate the land as the waters receded. As animals associated with an aquatic ecosystem these creatures were not taken on board the Ark and were not wiped out during the Flood with the terrestrial air-breathers. Indeed, some fossilised specimens of these creatures (e.g. Hylonomus and Paleothyris) are found preserved inside the hollow trunks of the lycopod trees that are associated with the Carboniferous coal.
quote:
Okay, so we're somewhere around three quarters of a million years as the date of your flood? How does this square with the 4000 years the YECs keep babbling about?
No those years are the statistical MAXIMUM, as those thousands of bases were identical. Since those dates are the maximum, it could easily be 5000 yrs.
[This message has been edited by blitz77, 08-07-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Quetzal, posted 08-07-2002 7:08 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Quetzal, posted 08-07-2002 9:43 AM blitz77 has not replied
 Message 60 by axial soliton, posted 08-07-2002 1:52 PM blitz77 has not replied
 Message 66 by gene90, posted 08-08-2002 10:56 AM blitz77 has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5979 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 59 of 112 (14954)
08-07-2002 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by blitz77
08-07-2002 7:18 AM


Oh well, as long as all we're doing is quoting somebody else's website, try this as a rebuttal to your amen.org citation:
quote:
Coal: In Place or Transported?
While modern geology recognizes both in place (autochthonous) and transported (allochthonous) coals, the conclusion shared by all diluvial "models" of coal formation is that all coals originated from vegetation that was transported via floodwaters from the place where it grew to the place where it was buried. Obviously there is not enought time during the one year-flood for peat to accumulate autochthonously, which in the modern world happens at a rates of only a few mm/yr.
However, careful observation of the root systems and attached rootlets ('stigmaria') attached to upright lycopod trunks at the base of many Carboniferous (and later) coals show that they grew on site and were not "washed into place" from some other location (Gastaldo 1984, 1999). In situ trunks and deep root traces are known from the Devonian (Driese et al. 1997; Retallack 1997) and all subsequent geologic periods, but not from earlier periods. Several multi-level buried 'fossil forests' have been documented also, some of which are associated with coals and some which are not. Some examples include 3 sand-buried Eospermatopteris stump horizons with roots penetrating underlying mudstones documented in the Devonian Catskill 'delta' in eastern New York (Banks et al. 1985, p. 133), 10 successive conifer forests from the mid-Jurassic of Curio Bay New Zealand (Pole 2001) and several others from Kawhia Harbour (Thorn 2001), a buried Cretaceous conifer/angiosperm forest with roots penetrating underlying paleosols from Alexander Island, Antarctica (e.g. Cantrill and Lang 2001).
The root system of the lycopod trees which are the dominant trees in most paleozoic coals consisted of four main axes which departed the base of the trunk and dichotomozed several times. These root systems intertwined with the root systems of other trees, forming a giant network of roots. The underground portion of the roots bear helically-arranged "rootlets," giving stigmaria a bottle-brush-like 3-dimensional structure. In many cases, these root systems can be seen branching outward from upright trunks, and the delicate appendages extend outward from these roots into the surrounding sediments. Gastaldo (1984) states "The proximal axial systems may depart the base at angles up to 30 degrees and the more distal axes commonly cross-cut bedding at angles of 10 degrees or more. This provides for an intertwining of axes at multiple levels, rather than the generally viewed concept of intertwining along a single plane or adjacent planes. The appendages ('rootlets') develop perpendicular to the main axial system and also cross-cut bedding where bedding is preserved." These lycopod trees in Carboniferous coals typically occur alongside plants such as the sphenopsids (Calamites, for instace), pteropsids (which includes true ferns and pteridosperms, an extinct form of seed fern), and Cordaitales. In situ Calamites have been documented in association with lycopods.
Gastaldo (1984) evaluated the "floating forest" hypothesis favored by YECs such as Scheven, Wieland (1996), and others, and found it wanting. For instance, their is no evidence of soft-sediment deformation that would be expected if the root systems sank into the freshly-deposited underlying sediment. The delicate rootlets are spread outward in a radial pattern, cross-cutting the encasing lithology and bedding (where preserved) rather than deformed around the larger root axes. Nor are their any flame casts or mud diapers in the base of the coal which would occur as the floating mats sank onto the underlying sediments. Gastaldo's (1984) review concluded:
"That the stigmarian axial systems embedded within the underclays (paleosols) of coals represent stands of lycopods in non-peat and peat accumulating environments is unquestionable. The assertion that these lycopods were abiotically, vertically emplaced from a floating habit cannot be supported by the disposition of the axial systems or the sedimentary structures accompanying them."
Gastaldo (1999) critiques other evidence offered in support of allochthony, and presents further evidence for autochthony :
"When evaluating both Mesozoic and Cenozoic coals, particularly lignites or brown coals, ample empirical evidence has been presented not only for root penetration within the weakly developed soil beneath the coal, but also for extensive, in situ, standing forests within the coals (e.g. Mossbrugger et al., 1994). The distribution of these trees (below, within and above coal seams) . . . is another criterion for recognizing autochthonous coals. Paleoecological studies from Carboniferous strata also have demonstrated that such assemblages conform to expected tree distributions in modern forests [refs omitted -ps]. In addition, the presence of multiple, stratified standing forests within coal-bearing sequences, one atop another, each with its own incipient soil horizon penetrated by underground stigmarian axes at the same site, provides unequivocal evidence for their autochthonous nature" (p. 148-149).
Quoted section from Coal deposits: evidence for the Noah's Flood "model"? Citations referenced can be found at the bottom of the article. Thanks Patrick!
Basically, your floating mat theory doesn't hold water (sorry, couldn't resist the pun) because of other associated features present in almost every coal bed in the world. Some of the features are geologic, some represent bioturbation, cross-bedded fossils like trees, existing paleosols below and between beds, and numerous other features.
Now that we've gotten that out of the way, would you care to answer my question? Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by blitz77, posted 08-07-2002 7:18 AM blitz77 has not replied

  
axial soliton
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 112 (14972)
08-07-2002 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by blitz77
08-07-2002 7:18 AM


This thread has grown beyond the Egyptians. The way that creationists argue their points needs to be elucidated because it highlights shortcomings in their story and their attack on the scientific record. For example, in the link pointed out by blitz77, http://www.amen.org.uk/eh/science/flodpg/flodpg3.htm , the author, Paul Garner, quotes only Genesis 7:4, 11, 21-23 for all the scientific details he tries to bring to bear. Of 8,565 words in his discourse, 136 are from the Bible, 8,429 are facts, scientific observations, and scientific-sounding analysis. This is not balanced. Shouldn't there be much more text taken from the bible and used in this article to support the creationist position on this crucial flooding event? None of the science and none of Garner's analysis is from the Bible. What Garner is trying to do is to select from a group of facts and observations developed by scientists, to show there are holes in what science knows, therefore creation must be true. That line of reasoning is insubstantial and illogical because it can be used to pretend-prove absolutely anything.
Here are Garner's only quotes from the Bible:
quote:
In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened." (Genesis 7:11)
"For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth." (Genesis 7:4)
"And all flesh died that moved upon the earth....All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth...." (Genesis 7:21-23)
There is nothing in these Biblical passages about superheated water, magma, fossils, "vast underground water sources beneath the pre-Flood continents", dinosaurs, trilobites, on and on. The Bible is a fixed story, while science is growing in its facts and observations hour-by-hour. Yet Garner tries to graft creation onto science by selectively ignoring facts and observations. He is trying to use certain facts and observations from science, while ignoring others, to show that technologically, creation must be true. Take a look at the text of the Bible and the text of his scientific-sounding discourse. How are we supposed to logically trace from the generality of the Biblical passages to the specificity of the scientific record? Maybe the better question is why?
Nothing of the facts and observations known to science today were deemed relevant to include in the Bible by God, or the writers of the Bible. So, why try to do it now? The record of science is directly and fundamentally connected to what we can touch and measure around us. Maybe God or the writers of the Bible did not know what science knows today. Anyway, that large discrepancy is the problem of creationists, not technology. Shouldn't it be obvious that there is a chasm-sized disparity between the fixed Bible story and science that evolves as more facts and ovservations are recorded and integrated?
For a set of observations to be reliable and accurate, they have to be repeatable. For example, a farmer has to know a series of steps to execute resulting from environmental factors that he has measured, to grow food for us. Here is a series of steps that highlight something Garner did not intend:
quote:
Many professional geologists now recognise the impressive evidence for catastrophism in the geological record, although most of them still believe that the earth is over four-and-a-half billion years old because of radiometric dating methods. But this leaves them with a big problem. If the rocks were often laid down rapidly, then where are the missing millions of years?
...
If the idea that the earth is billions of years old is to have any credibility, then the missing millions of years must be in the gaps. But does this idea stand up to scientific examination?
...
Many young-earth creationist geologists have become convinced that the problems with the ecological zonation model are so overwhelming that an entirely new explanation is needed. A group of European creationists has argued that the geological record from the Late Carboniferous to the Pleistocene was not laid down during the Flood, but during the turbulent centuries after the Flood.
Let's forgive him for mistakenly using the word "rocks" to describe the sediments that suddenly buried the life in different periods of Earth history. Falling rocks would have crushed the life before it fossilized, rather than preserve them. We establish that radiometric dating puts an age on the Earth of 4.5 billion years. The rate of radioactive decay is measured precisely in the lab, so it is unnecessary to discuss its accuracy or its relevance. Note that isotope ratios are one of the relevant facts missing from creationist arguments.
In the first passage from Garner- introduction of a 4.5 year-old date of the earth by scientists, introduction of radiometric dating methods which demonstrate ancient origins of sedimentary layers, mention of a "big problem", mis-use of the word "rocks" in describing the sediments that suddenly buried trilobites, and other life in different eras and periods, and finally, "missing millions of years". There is no logical connection proceeding from 4.5 billion years old, through sudden burials, to missing millions of years. The crucial thesis of his discourse is crossed in the second statement. Put plainly, there is no series of steps that take one from 4.5 billion years old, to "missing millions of years" that allow for creation 5,000 years ago. He is actually claiming the loss of Billions of years, not "millions of years". An honest mistake? Totally illogical, but Garner introduces radiological dating of 4.5 Billion years, radiological dating of sedimentary layers containing fossils of 100's of millions of years to show the "flood" was 5,000 years ago. How can the "flood" be 5,000 years ago when mammal fossils are 5,000 times older than that?
In the third passage where Garner attempts to graft creationism to the scientific record, the logic is incomprehensible. By incomprehensible, I mean that you cannot write down the proviso-facts he presents and the steps of his presentation and connect them together like dots. In a true scientific analysis, this is exactly what you can do. Garner says that he and other creationists have a problem that the "geological record" of the 286,000,000 years between the late Carboniferous to the Pleistocene periods. That the 286,000,000-year-old geological record was laid down "during the turbulent centuries after the Flood" of 5,000 years ago. It even sounds incomprehensible to try and repeat what the man said. Nowhere in the Biblical passages is there any discussion pertaining to this. So, what is the purpose behind generating an unanchored speculation that is internally incomprehensible?
A recommendation
Science provides the technology for all people, everywhere, to live, prosper, and enrich their minds. Science does not provide a roadmap for philosophy. Humans need a strong institution from which to draw their thinking on morality, integrity, etc. Why can't religion settle for that job?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by blitz77, posted 08-07-2002 7:18 AM blitz77 has not replied

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 112 (15011)
08-08-2002 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by blitz77
08-05-2002 10:19 AM


quote:
Originally posted by blitz77:
So you expect the bible to have pi to whatever number of digits? Anyway, we ourselves use just 1 letter- pi! Whatever happened to rounding off anyway-scientists use rounding off a lot.
This isn't one which the vast majority of people will lose any sleep over , except perpaps the biblical literalists who seem to work overtime tying themselves in knots trying to reconcile biblical inerrancy and biblical literalism
"And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about."
1 Kings 7:23 KJV
Incidentally, I'm not sure why biblical literalists seem to prefer the King James version. Is it easier to determine the correct meaning of a version written in a language 400 years old?
So, using blitz77's logic, does the story mean than the diameter was inerrantly 10 cubits and the circumference was rounded off to 30 cubits? Wouldn't 31 be a better rounding off? Or, was the circumference inerrantly 30 cubits and the diameter rounded up to 10 cubits? Or should we read the literal meaning of the verse that the circumference was 30 cubits and the diameter 10 cubits and therefore pi has to be wrong because the bible says so!
Using blitz's same rationalisation, was it 6 days of creation or maybe 5 and a bit, or did the divinity slip in some overtime on the sixth evening? Did it rain for 40 days and 40 nights, or was it approximately 5 weeks with some light showers preceding it? Was it inerrantly 7 pairs of clean animals or approximately?
"22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died." Genesis 6 KJV
Or approximately everything died? Maybe a few got through?
I'll leave blitz to give us the rounded off inerrent answers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by blitz77, posted 08-05-2002 10:19 AM blitz77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-08-2002 1:18 AM wj has replied
 Message 63 by blitz77, posted 08-08-2002 4:16 AM wj 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