The Geological Column...fact or fiction?
zoe_althrop
for myself a bigger picture. Maybe, in time, the zoom may return to
the isochron's place in this picture, but for now, I am interested in
the so-called geological column which I understand is vital to the
theory of evolution and the concept of fossil progression.
Allow me, then, to hereby bring to the geological table another
option.
As a creationist, how should I relate to the data that is used to
construct the geological column? Is the column fact or fiction...or
somewhere in between? Well, let's see...hmmmm...there does seem to be
some evidence of a general progression of lower, more simple life
forms to more developed life forms, if the textbooks are to be taken
at face value. But considering that correlation of cross sections is
the method used to create this column, I am hesitant to accept the
results as set in concrete. Especially as the same data can be
understood from a different point of view.
Keeping in mind that the geological column was constructed BEFORE the
advent of radioactive dating, and also bearing in mind that the
premise of evolutionary change is the touchstone for placing life
forms in sequence, even if found out of sequence, here is how I view
the data:
ONE, the geological column can form quickly, over a few thousand
years, not necessarily millions of years.
http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/fossilization.htm
"Under normal circumstances, leaves and other plant detritus are
colonized and decomposed by a variety of microorganisms and
macroinvertebrates. However, decay of whole plant organs such as
leaves can take as long as MONTHS (caps mine) to years, which provides
a window of time during which fossilization can occur. The caliber of
leaf fossils is greatly enhanced if mineralization can commence before
much decomposition can occur." (Dunn et al, 1997, p. 1119 )
http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache:tNtetvK42WsC:www.geology.yale.edu
"...Wollanke and Zimmerle (1990), that the fossilization involved fast
and complete embedding of the organisms..."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
TWO, evidence of a global flood (chiefly in the form of coal and oil)
lies at the bottom of the layers of the "geological column."
http://www.fortune.com/fortune/brainstorm/0,15704,419014,00.html
"...exploration companies are drilling more than a mile into solid
granite--so-called basement rock--for oil. That's a puzzle: Oil isn't
supposed to be found in basement rock, which never rose near the
surface of the earth where ancient plants grew and dinosaurs walked.
Yet oil is there."
Granted, coal and oil can also be found at higher levels of the
"geological column," (seepage or percolation upwards in the case of
oil), but later local floods could be the cause of later deposits, and
the presence of coal and oil higher in the "column" does not refute
the theory that evidence for the global flood lies at the bottom of
the column. As I see it so far, there should be NO fossils of
consequence preserved from the cataclysmic global flood, except for
the most powerful life forms (dinosaurs), which were able to last the
longest in the struggle to survive the cataclysm.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
THREE, many local floods that have followed the global flood have
served to fossilize life forms that existed at the various times, and
the increasing complexity would be an index into the spread of life
forms from a central location -- Mesopotamia/Iraq -- as the waters
receded over time.
http://www.bartleby.com/65/me/Mesopota.html
"(ms创pt磎) (KEY) [Gr.,=between rivers], ancient region of Asia, the
territory about the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, included in modern
Iraq. The region extends from the Persian Gulf north to the mountains
of Armenia and from the Zagros and Kurdish mountains on the east to
the Syrian Desert. From the mountainous north, Mesopotamia slopes down
through grassy steppes to a central alluvial plain, which was once
rendered exceedingly fertile by a network of canals."
I view this area as the beginning of civilization after the global
flood.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOUR, the approximate 900-1300 years discrepancy that throws Ussher's
dating off (3100-3500 B.C. dates for Sumerian records versus the
supposed date for creation) can be accounted for by overlap and even
duplication of dynasty records.
http://www.univer.omsk.su/foreign/fom/fom.htm
http://www.univer.omsk.su/foreign/fom/glob.
"To determine real chronology, one must be able to translate the data
in the ancient documents into the terminology and units of modern time
reckoning. Many historical conclusions and interpretations depend upon
what dates we ascribe to the events in a given ancient document."
http://www.univer.omsk.su/foreign/fom/moroz.htm
"About fifty years ago, N.A.Morozov found three pairs of ruling
ancient dynasties for which the sequences of lengths (periods) of
reign, represented visually on the time line, bore a striking
resemblance to one another. He suggested that in each case the two
dynasties are actually reflections of a single real dynasty which
"became multiplied" as a result of a mistaken dating of the different
texts describing the same events."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FIVE, igneous rock, which is the type of rock used for calculating
absolute age, is correlated with layers that contain fossils, but
since it is likely that the absolute ages reflect accumulated decay
product and not time since solidification, such correlation can be
misleading.
No cites given here since, apparently, I am the only person alive on
earth who thinks this way.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Using the above information, it is possible to develop a reasonable
theory of how an old earth with young life came to be what we see
today.
----
zoe
Bigdakine
>From: muz...@aol.com (zoe_althrop)
>Date: 2/15/03 6:46 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <3e4f069e...@news-server.cfl.rr.com>
>
>Okay, let me stagger back from the isochron a bit in order to paint
>for myself a bigger picture. Maybe, in time, the zoom may return to
>the isochron's place in this picture, but for now, I am interested in
>the so-called geological column which I understand is vital to the
>theory of evolution and the concept of fossil progression.
>
>Allow me, then, to hereby bring to the geological table another
>option.
>
>As a creationist, how should I relate to the data that is used to
>construct the geological column? Is the column fact or fiction...or
>somewhere in between? Well, let's see...hmmmm...there does seem to be
>some evidence of a general progression of lower, more simple life
>forms to more developed life forms, if the textbooks are to be taken
>at face value. But considering that correlation of cross sections is
>the method used to create this column, I am hesitant to accept the
>results as set in concrete. Especially as the same data can be
>understood from a different point of view.
>
>Keeping in mind that the geological column was constructed BEFORE the
>advent of radioactive dating,
And before the advent of evolution theory as well.
One wonders why you think the radioactive dating is germane to the construction
of the column.
What exactly about the column was change by radiometric age determinations?
and also bearing in mind that the
>premise of evolutionary change is the touchstone for placing life
>forms in sequence,
You're already wrong Zoe. In fact its rare that you get two sentences across
without making a mistake.
It was while the geologic column was being establshed that patterns in the
change of life were noticed which gave impetus to the concept of biological
evolution.
TO a stratigrapher, fossils are simply passive markers in rocks which can be
used to correlate strata found in different places.
You can be a competent stratigrapher and not know a bloody thing about
evolution.
Stuart
Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
"To err is human, but to really foul things up
requires a creationist"
Dana Tweedy
"zoe_althrop" <muz...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3e4f069e...@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
> Okay, let me stagger back from the isochron a bit in order to paint
> for myself a bigger picture. Maybe, in time, the zoom may return to
> the isochron's place in this picture, but for now, I am interested in
> the so-called geological column which I understand is vital to the
> theory of evolution and the concept of fossil progression.
"Fossil progression" probably should be more correctly termed "Fossil
succession". The geologic column is not itself vital to the the theory of
evolution. The fossils contained in that column do provide evidence.
>
> Allow me, then, to hereby bring to the geological table another
> option.
>
> As a creationist, how should I relate to the data that is used to
> construct the geological column?
As a creatonist your best option is to ignore, or deny the evidence. That's
what's most creationists do.
> Is the column fact or fiction...or
> somewhere in between?
It's fact, but that hasn't stopped you before.
Well, let's see...hmmmm...there does seem to be
> some evidence of a general progression of lower, more simple life
> forms to more developed life forms, if the textbooks are to be taken
> at face value. But considering that correlation of cross sections is
> the method used to create this column, I am hesitant to accept the
> results as set in concrete. Especially as the same data can be
> understood from a different point of view.
The results are literally set in stone. The data can be understood from a
different point of view, as long as that point of view is not scientific.
>
> Keeping in mind that the geological column was constructed BEFORE the
> advent of radioactive dating, and also bearing in mind that the
> premise of evolutionary change is the touchstone for placing life
> forms in sequence, even if found out of sequence, here is how I view
> the data:
Whoa.... Back up. The "premise of evolutionary change" is not the
"touchstone" for placing the forms in sequence. The sequence was developed
in the 18th and early 19th century, long before Darwin published his theory.
The sequence was worked out by direct observations of the fossils found in
certian layers. Early geologists, who for the most part believed in
creation, developed the sequence as a practical tool for study of the
landscape. The system of index fossils was not established by the premise
of evolutionary change.
>
> ONE, the geological column can form quickly, over a few thousand
> years, not necessarily millions of years.
That assertion has no support.
>
> http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/fossilization.htm
>
> "Under normal circumstances, leaves and other plant detritus are
> colonized and decomposed by a variety of microorganisms and
> macroinvertebrates. However, decay of whole plant organs such as
> leaves can take as long as MONTHS (caps mine) to years, which provides
> a window of time during which fossilization can occur. The caliber of
> leaf fossils is greatly enhanced if mineralization can commence before
> much decomposition can occur." (Dunn et al, 1997, p. 1119 )
This does not support your claim.
>
> http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache:tNtetvK42WsC:www.geology.yale.edu
>
> "...Wollanke and Zimmerle (1990), that the fossilization involved fast
> and complete embedding of the organisms..."
Again, that doesn't support your claim. It has to do with fossilization,
not the time in which the geologic column was laid down.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> TWO, evidence of a global flood (chiefly in the form of coal and oil)
> lies at the bottom of the layers of the "geological column."
Oil and coal do not lay at the bottom of the column. The bottom layers do
not contain any fossil fuels. Coal, and oil are found more towards the
middle of the column, and occur in different layers.
>
> http://www.fortune.com/fortune/brainstorm/0,15704,419014,00.html
>
> "...exploration companies are drilling more than a mile into solid
> granite--so-called basement rock--for oil. That's a puzzle: Oil isn't
> supposed to be found in basement rock, which never rose near the
> surface of the earth where ancient plants grew and dinosaurs walked.
> Yet oil is there."
How about a citation from a geology journal?
>
> Granted, coal and oil can also be found at higher levels of the
> "geological column," (seepage or percolation upwards in the case of
> oil), but later local floods could be the cause of later deposits, and
> the presence of coal and oil higher in the "column" does not refute
> the theory that evidence for the global flood lies at the bottom of
> the column.
Again, Zoe, coal and oil are not found in the bottom layers of the column.
The lowest layers don't have fossils of multicelluar life. Your above cited
source refers to the claims of Physicist Thomas Gold. Gold's idea is that
oil may be found in deep rocks, due to the existance of an underground "Hot
Deep Biosphere", and upwelling hydrocarbons from bacterial action. He does
not claim that it's from plant matter buried in a worldwide flood.
Mainstream geologists consider Gold to be a crackpot. At best it's
considered an unconventional theory. In any case, the major commercial oil
and coal fields are not found in the bottom layer of rock.
> As I see it so far, there should be NO fossils of
> consequence preserved from the cataclysmic global flood, except for
> the most powerful life forms (dinosaurs), which were able to last the
> longest in the struggle to survive the cataclysm.
Why are "dinosaurs" more powerful than, say, elephants? Why do dinosaurs
appear lower in the column than whales? Why are small, dinosaurs like
Coelophysis or Bambiraptor found in the same levels as "powerful" dinosuars
like Apatiosaurus, or Diplodocus? More telling, why do grasses appear
ABOVE most Dinosaur fossils? Can grass run faster than a dinosaur?
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> THREE, many local floods that have followed the global flood have
> served to fossilize life forms that existed at the various times, and
> the increasing complexity would be an index into the spread of life
> forms from a central location -- Mesopotamia/Iraq -- as the waters
> receded over time.
The evidence doesn't support such a claim.
>
> http://www.bartleby.com/65/me/Mesopota.html
>
> "(ms创pt磎) (KEY) [Gr.,=between rivers], ancient region of Asia, the
> territory about the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, included in modern
> Iraq. The region extends from the Persian Gulf north to the mountains
> of Armenia and from the Zagros and Kurdish mountains on the east to
> the Syrian Desert. From the mountainous north, Mesopotamia slopes down
> through grassy steppes to a central alluvial plain, which was once
> rendered exceedingly fertile by a network of canals."
This doesn't support your claim. The evidence from biogeography doesn't
support your claim. The evidence from geology, oceanography, biochemistry,
etc. doesn't support your claim.
>
> I view this area as the beginning of civilization after the global
> flood.
Where was the civiliation before the flood? What about China, India, Sahel
area of Africa, Mesoamerica, and other areas where civilization began
independently?
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> FOUR, the approximate 900-1300 years discrepancy that throws Ussher's
> dating off (3100-3500 B.C. dates for Sumerian records versus the
> supposed date for creation) can be accounted for by overlap and even
> duplication of dynasty records.
Or, it can be accounted for by simply understanding that the Bible isn't an
accurate historical/scientific account.
>
> http://www.univer.omsk.su/foreign/fom/fom.htm
> http://www.univer.omsk.su/foreign/fom/glob.
>
> "To determine real chronology, one must be able to translate the data
> in the ancient documents into the terminology and units of modern time
> reckoning. Many historical conclusions and interpretations depend upon
> what dates we ascribe to the events in a given ancient document."
>
> http://www.univer.omsk.su/foreign/fom/moroz.htm
>
> "About fifty years ago, N.A.Morozov found three pairs of ruling
> ancient dynasties for which the sequences of lengths (periods) of
> reign, represented visually on the time line, bore a striking
> resemblance to one another. He suggested that in each case the two
> dynasties are actually reflections of a single real dynasty which
> "became multiplied" as a result of a mistaken dating of the different
> texts describing the same events."
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> FIVE, igneous rock, which is the type of rock used for calculating
> absolute age, is correlated with layers that contain fossils, but
> since it is likely that the absolute ages reflect accumulated decay
> product and not time since solidification, such correlation can be
> misleading.
This is based entirely on your bullheaded refusal to understand the isochron
data.
>
> No cites given here since, apparently, I am the only person alive on
> earth who thinks this way.
Which should give you some indication that you are WRONG!
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Using the above information, it is possible to develop a reasonable
> theory of how an old earth with young life came to be what we see
> today.
Except for the part about "reasonable". You can come up with whatever off
the wall, ad hoc reasoning you want, but it's not a "reasonable" theory, or
a scientific theory.
DJT
Harlequin
server.cfl.rr.com:
[snip]
> Keeping in mind that the geological column was constructed BEFORE the
> advent of radioactive dating,
That is right. And guess what. Lets talk results of isochron dating.
Those results are in complete accord with the geologic column. The
geologic column and the radiometric dating are are indendent results
that happen to agree with each other.
I have repeated mentioned this during the isochron threads and
you have repeatedly ignored it. The only exception to this
that I recall is that you asked for proof I and Jon gave you examples
and then you ignored them.
> and also bearing in mind that the
> premise of evolutionary change is the touchstone for placing life
> forms in sequence,
This is a false statement. The geologic column was developed
by _creationists_ before Darwin wrote _The Origin of Species_.
> even if found out of sequence, here is how I view
> the data:
Care to give an example?
> ONE, the geological column can form quickly, over a few thousand
> years, not necessarily millions of years.
The geologic column form quickly? This makes me think you don't
understand that the column is an abstraction: a summary of what
we see the world over.
> http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/fossilization.htm
>
> "Under normal circumstances, leaves and other plant detritus are
> colonized and decomposed by a variety of microorganisms and
> macroinvertebrates. However, decay of whole plant organs such as
> leaves can take as long as MONTHS (caps mine) to years, which provides
> a window of time during which fossilization can occur. The caliber of
> leaf fossils is greatly enhanced if mineralization can commence before
> much decomposition can occur." (Dunn et al, 1997, p. 1119 )
If anyone else had written the above I would be right now be calling
them a liar since this is a _flagrant_ out-of-context quotation. Your
inability to understand basic English is showing again. That statement
is not saying that any geologic feature can form quickly.
Indeed it is arguing AGAINST rapid fossilization in this particular
case. Flood geology does not allow months, it demands it be SECONDS.
If this is not rapid fossilization then YEC/Flood "Geology" explanation
is disproven.
> http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache:tNtetvK42WsC:www.geology.yale.edu
>
> "...Wollanke and Zimmerle (1990), that the fossilization involved fast
> and complete embedding of the organisms..."
There are cases of rapid fossilization. How does that prove the the
"geological column" formed quickly? One fossil/one layer does not
a geologic column make.
> TWO, evidence of a global flood (chiefly in the form of coal and oil)
> lies at the bottom of the layers of the "geological column."
>
> http://www.fortune.com/fortune/brainstorm/0,15704,419014,00.html
_Fortune_ magazine, that great scientific journal. What is next Zoe?
Maybe you can start quoting _The National Enquirer_ as well.
[snip]
> FIVE, igneous rock, which is the type of rock used for calculating
> absolute age, is correlated with layers that contain fossils, but
> since it is likely that the absolute ages reflect accumulated decay
> product and not time since solidification, such correlation can be
> misleading.
>
> No cites given here since, apparently, I am the only person alive on
> earth who thinks this way.
That is because anyone with common sense knows this is nonsense.
Zoe the math of the isochron is inconsistent with the "accumulative
decay product" interpretation and no technobabble or ranting is going
to change that. And you have yet to address the issue that new rocks
give a date of zero other than to insinuate extreme dishonesty amoung
the people making the observations. Your ideas demand that new
rocks date to be extremely old when they come out to be zero which
is what science expects. That alone disproves everything you
have claimed in the isochron threads.
> Using the above information, it is possible to develop a reasonable
> theory of how an old earth with young life came to be what we see
> today.
I did not see any information consisten with your ideas. I saw a lot
of quote mining (an rather poor quote mining even by creationist
standards at that).
You need to read the relevant articles in the T.O. Archive.
In particular:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
--
Anti-spam: replace "usenet" with "harlequin2"
"...Everybody has opinions: I have them, you have them. And we are all
told from the moment we open our eyes, that everyone is entitled to
his or her opinion. Well, that's horsepuckey, of course. We are not
entitled to our opinions; we are entitled to our _informed_ opinions.
Without research, without background, without understanding, it's
nothing. It's just bibble-babble...."
- Harlan Ellison
Lane Lewis
> for myself a bigger picture. Maybe, in time, the zoom may return to
> the isochron's place in this picture, but for now, I am interested in
> the so-called geological column which I understand is vital to the
> theory of evolution and the concept of fossil progression.
>
> Allow me, then, to hereby bring to the geological table another
> option.
>
> As a creationist, how should I relate to the data that is used to
> construct the geological column?
[snip]
The geologic column is already constructed, has been for millions of
years.
The data is used to describe the column.
Then there's those pesky deserts that crop up right in the middle ever
so often.
Lane
Chris Ho-Stuart
[snip]
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> FIVE, igneous rock, which is the type of rock used for calculating
> absolute age, is correlated with layers that contain fossils, but
> since it is likely that the absolute ages reflect accumulated decay
> product and not time since solidification, such correlation can be
> misleading.
>
> No cites given here since, apparently, I am the only person alive on
> earth who thinks this way.
Right.
You would be able to raise yourself up to the level of normal
creationist pseudo-science if you actually tried to address a
couple of really simple questions, which you have been asked
frequently and continuously in the group.
Here are two samples from one rock.
Sample P D Di
A 3 2 1
B 2 4 2
What is the age calculated using the isochron for this data?
Sample P D Di
A 3 20000 1
B 2 40000 2
What is the age calculated using the isochron for this data?
Rather than wait for answers, I'll give you the correct answers
now.
In both cases, the age is calculated to be zero.
How can this be, given that the second sample has a thousand
times as much of the daughter isotope from the decay series?
Simple. The isochron method does not depend on total
decay product. That is something Zoe makes up because
she can't handle the maths of the isochron.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Using the above information, it is possible to develop a reasonable
> theory of how an old earth with young life came to be what we see
> today.
The term "information" is not appropriate as a reference
for assertions made from nothing, which are never defended
and which indicate a fairlure to even understand the terms
being used, like isochron.
Cheers -- Chris
Mark VandeWettering
[ Idiocy snipped ]
It's fact.
Nothing to see here folks, move along.
Mark
Frank J
> Okay, let me stagger back from the isochron a bit in order to paint
> for myself a bigger picture. Maybe, in time, the zoom may return to
> the isochron's place in this picture, but for now, I am interested in
> the so-called geological column which I understand is vital to the
> theory of evolution and the concept of fossil progression.
How convenient it would be if science worked like an informal
newsgroup: Avoid answering the the "peer-review" questions posed to
help one clarify one's assertions, and move instead to another topic,
with a "maybe someday I'll get around to answering those questions."
(snip)
zoe_althrop
(Bigdakine) wrote:
snip>
zoe wrote:
>>Keeping in mind that the geological column was constructed BEFORE the
>>advent of radioactive dating,
>
>And before the advent of evolution theory as well.
right.
>One wonders why you think the radioactive dating is germane to the construction
>of the column.
radioactive dating is not germane to the construction of the column. I
don't think I said that. Indeed, I emphasized that the column was
constructed BEFORE radioactive dating, so radioactive dating could NOT
have had anything to do with its construction, could it?
However, mention of radioactive dating is germane to recognizing how
the column's premise influences the need for absolute ages to
correlate to the column. The premise guides the conclusions. In
other words, if an igneous layer dates older than a layer below it,
rather than change the premise, this anomaly is explained in the light
of upthrusting, erosion, and other POSSIBLE reasons for the
out-of-sequence layer in the column.
of course, you would say there are no out-of-sequence layers in the
column, and I would say that that is because such layers have already
been explained in terms of upthrusts, erosion, et cetera.
>What exactly about the column was change by radiometric age determinations?
nothing was changed. The relative dating method guides the later
conclusions, including radiometric age application.
> and also bearing in mind that the
>>premise of evolutionary change is the touchstone for placing life
>>forms in sequence,
>
>You're already wrong Zoe. In fact its rare that you get two sentences across
>without making a mistake.
>
>It was while the geologic column was being establshed that patterns in the
>change of life were noticed which gave impetus to the concept of biological
>evolution.
it would help if you would reread the entire sentence, without
premature clipping. I said, "the premise of evolutionary change is
the touchstone for placing life forms in sequence, EVEN IF FOUND OUT
OF SEQUENCE...."
The premise says that all life forms appear in sequence in the earth's
crust, so when some life forms are found out of sequence, the premise
dictates that some reason must be found other than that the premise is
at fault. So reasons are found -- uplifts, erosion....
>TO a stratigrapher, fossils are simply passive markers in rocks which can be
>used to correlate strata found in different places.
yes, I've read that -- index fossils, right? The fossils are used to
date the rocks relatively, so that a cross-section from one part of
the world is correlated to a cross-section from another part of the
world, based entirely on the premise that fossils are arranged in
sequence everywhere.
>You can be a competent stratigrapher and not know a bloody thing about
>evolution.
I doubt that, based on the insistence of those on this forum that if
you don't know or understand the theory of evolution, you are, at
best, ignorant, and at worst, a fool. Stratigraphers are not ignorant,
nor are they fools, as far as I am concerned.
snip>
----
zoe
Jon Fleming
wrote:
>Okay, let me stagger back from the isochron a bit ...
As I thought ... you realize, consciously or subconsciously, that the
numbers you promised in <http://tinyurl.com/5hli> are hopelessly in
error, and the only result of posting them will be us pointing out
your errors ... and you certainly don'w want to know about you r
errors!
<snip>
--
Replace nospam with group to email
zoe_althrop
<twe...@cvn.net> wrote:
snip>
>"Fossil progression" probably should be more correctly termed "Fossil
>succession". The geologic column is not itself vital to the the theory of
>evolution. The fossils contained in that column do provide evidence.
the vast quantity of appeals that are made to the fossil record makes
me think that the geological column is indeed vital to the theory of
evolution.
snip>
>> As a creationist, how should I relate to the data that is used to
>> construct the geological column?
>
>As a creatonist your best option is to ignore, or deny the evidence. That's
>what's most creationists do.
have I ignored or denied any evidence in this thread so far, Dana? Is
there anything I have said so far in this thread that is false? If
so, please point it out so I can correct myself.
snip>
>> Keeping in mind that the geological column was constructed BEFORE the
>> advent of radioactive dating, and also bearing in mind that the
>> premise of evolutionary change is the touchstone for placing life
>> forms in sequence, even if found out of sequence, here is how I view
>> the data:
>
>Whoa.... Back up. The "premise of evolutionary change" is not the
>"touchstone" for placing the forms in sequence.
whoa....back up yourself. I never said that the premise of
evolutionary change is the touchstone for placing the forms in
sequence...PERIOD. You have cut off the ending of that sentence,
"EVEN IF FOUND OUT OF SEQUENCE." If a fossil is found out of
sequence, the "touchstone" is not questioned. Instead, other reasons
are suggested for the displacement.
> The sequence was developed
>in the 18th and early 19th century, long before Darwin published his theory.
>The sequence was worked out by direct observations of the fossils found in
>certian layers. Early geologists, who for the most part believed in
>creation, developed the sequence as a practical tool for study of the
>landscape. The system of index fossils was not established by the premise
>of evolutionary change.
a wasted argument, since I agree with you here, and understood this
even before I began the thread.
>> ONE, the geological column can form quickly, over a few thousand
>> years, not necessarily millions of years.
>
>That assertion has no support.
Glenn Morton not good enough for you?
>> http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/fossilization.htm
>>
>> "Under normal circumstances, leaves and other plant detritus are
>> colonized and decomposed by a variety of microorganisms and
>> macroinvertebrates. However, decay of whole plant organs such as
>> leaves can take as long as MONTHS (caps mine) to years, which provides
>> a window of time during which fossilization can occur. The caliber of
>> leaf fossils is greatly enhanced if mineralization can commence before
>> much decomposition can occur." (Dunn et al, 1997, p. 1119 )
>
>
>This does not support your claim.
it most certainly does. If it takes mere months for leaves to
fossilize, then you don't need millions of years for the column to
form. It can form as a result of many local floods over a few
thousand years of time.
>> http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache:tNtetvK42WsC:www.geology.yale.edu
>>
>> "...Wollanke and Zimmerle (1990), that the fossilization involved fast
>> and complete embedding of the organisms..."
>
>
>Again, that doesn't support your claim. It has to do with fossilization,
>not the time in which the geologic column was laid down.
the geological column would be laid down synchronous with the fossils
within it, no? If the fossils can form quickly, then the layer in
which they are deposited would have had to have formed within the same
time frame, no? Why no?
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> TWO, evidence of a global flood (chiefly in the form of coal and oil)
>> lies at the bottom of the layers of the "geological column."
>
>Oil and coal do not lay at the bottom of the column. The bottom layers do
>not contain any fossil fuels. Coal, and oil are found more towards the
>middle of the column, and occur in different layers.
not according to the latest scientific findings. Of course, the
finding of oil in basement rock is leading some to speculate that
hydrocarbons do not have to come from fossils only, but this is an
attempt, imo, to keep the geological column's premise intact -- that
fossils were not present in the preCambrian layers.
>> http://www.fortune.com/fortune/brainstorm/0,15704,419014,00.html
>>
>> "...exploration companies are drilling more than a mile into solid
>> granite--so-called basement rock--for oil. That's a puzzle: Oil isn't
>> supposed to be found in basement rock, which never rose near the
>> surface of the earth where ancient plants grew and dinosaurs walked.
>> Yet oil is there."
>
>How about a citation from a geology journal?
journals are your only source of reliable news? Try:
http://www.apioil.net/s/SimilarProjects.asp
http://dimacs.rutgers.edu/TechnicalReports/abstracts/1999/99-03.html
http://www.geoscience.co.uk/geofrc/geobaserussia.html
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/asteroid_oil_991213.html
>> Granted, coal and oil can also be found at higher levels of the
>> "geological column," (seepage or percolation upwards in the case of
>> oil), but later local floods could be the cause of later deposits, and
>> the presence of coal and oil higher in the "column" does not refute
>> the theory that evidence for the global flood lies at the bottom of
>> the column.
>
>Again, Zoe, coal and oil are not found in the bottom layers of the column.
oil is, that's for sure.
>The lowest layers don't have fossils of multicelluar life.
note how the premise influences the data. The premise says that no
fossils of multicellular life existed in the lowest layers, therefore,
if fossil fuel is found in basement rock, it has to mean that the oil
comes from some other source, even though it is well known that oil is
a fossil fuel.
>Your above cited
>source refers to the claims of Physicist Thomas Gold. Gold's idea is that
>oil may be found in deep rocks, due to the existance of an underground "Hot
>Deep Biosphere", and upwelling hydrocarbons from bacterial action. He does
>not claim that it's from plant matter buried in a worldwide flood.
you are free to believe Gold's apologetics, if you wish. I see no
reason to do so. He is stretching to save a theory.
>Mainstream geologists consider Gold to be a crackpot. At best it's
>considered an unconventional theory. In any case, the major commercial oil
>and coal fields are not found in the bottom layer of rock.
see the additional links above.
>> As I see it so far, there should be NO fossils of
>> consequence preserved from the cataclysmic global flood, except for
>> the most powerful life forms (dinosaurs), which were able to last the
>> longest in the struggle to survive the cataclysm.
>
>Why are "dinosaurs" more powerful than, say, elephants?
elephants lumber. Dinosaurs are swifter, more agile. Who knows?
Don't expect me to have all the answers. But I have sufficient
reasonable answers to keep the theory on the table, imo.
>Why do dinosaurs
>appear lower in the column than whales?
depends on where the cross-sections were taken. Besides, there would
be many later local floods that could affect whales later, after the
dinosaurs were wiped out. And tell me, in those dry areas where
dinosaurs are being unearthed, how do you know that whale fossils
would have been above these dry-ground digs? They just eroded away --
conveniently? Or do you determine this from some cross-section
elsewhere in the world? The correlation seems to be hostage to the
premise here, imo.
>Why are small, dinosaurs like
>Coelophysis or Bambiraptor found in the same levels as "powerful" dinosuars
>like Apatiosaurus, or Diplodocus?
remember, now, I am questioning the continuity of the levels
themselves, since, imo, they are merely cross-sections that are
correlated. See:
http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:xdscebTVL9IC:www.geog.buffalo.edu
>More telling, why do grasses appear
>ABOVE most Dinosaur fossils?
this would be reason for me to question the validity of the integrity
of the layering, rather than to hang onto the premise of strictly
ordered layers. But to each his own, I guess.
snip unsupported assertions by Dana.>
>> I view this area as the beginning of civilization after the global
>> flood.
>
>Where was the civiliation before the flood?
totally annihilated, leaving hardly any evidence besides oil, coal,
and some number of LARGE dinosaurs.
>What about China, India, Sahel
>area of Africa, Mesoamerica, and other areas where civilization began
>independently?
all those civilizations grew out of the Sumerian beginnings. Each
group uses their own dating methods, so there would naturally be some
discrepancies, but when all the data is in and correlated, they all
should fit the timeline after the flood.
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> FOUR, the approximate 900-1300 years discrepancy that throws Ussher's
>> dating off (3100-3500 B.C. dates for Sumerian records versus the
>> supposed date for creation) can be accounted for by overlap and even
>> duplication of dynasty records.
>
>Or, it can be accounted for by simply understanding that the Bible isn't an
>accurate historical/scientific account.
that's an option.
snip>
----
zoe
zoe_althrop
<l...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
snip>
> The geologic column is already constructed, has been for millions of
>years.
assertion in regard to time.
>The data is used to describe the column.
>
>Then there's those pesky deserts that crop up right in the middle ever
>so often.
evidence of deserts is to be expected between local floods here and
there across the earth over time.
----
zoe
zoe_althrop
wrote:
>muz...@aol.com (zoe_althrop) wrote in news:3e4f069e.9453333@news-
>server.cfl.rr.com:
>
>
>[snip]
>> Keeping in mind that the geological column was constructed BEFORE the
>> advent of radioactive dating,
>
>That is right. And guess what. Lets talk results of isochron dating.
>Those results are in complete accord with the geologic column. The
>geologic column and the radiometric dating are are indendent results
>that happen to agree with each other.
Harlequin, I'm trying to paint the bigger picture for my own
satisfaction right now. Whatever issues remain unresolved with the
isochron will have to wait a bit, lest this thread becomes sidetracked
prematurely.
>I have repeated mentioned this during the isochron threads and
>you have repeatedly ignored it. The only exception to this
>that I recall is that you asked for proof I and Jon gave you examples
>and then you ignored them.
in time, I'll respond.
>> and also bearing in mind that the
>> premise of evolutionary change is the touchstone for placing life
>> forms in sequence,
>
>This is a false statement. The geologic column was developed
>by _creationists_ before Darwin wrote _The Origin of Species_.
this is becoming a trend here -- to cut off the clarifying part of a
sentence, and argue against the first part only. Lo, a strawman is
born.
>> even if found out of sequence, here is how I view
>> the data:
>
>Care to give an example?
I would if you want to take a firm stance that there are NO fossils
found out of sequence, EVER.
>> ONE, the geological column can form quickly, over a few thousand
>> years, not necessarily millions of years.
>
>
>The geologic column form quickly? This makes me think you don't
>understand that the column is an abstraction: a summary of what
>we see the world over.
thanks for the help. Yes, the geological column is indeed an
abstraction, an idea on paper.
>> http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/fossilization.htm
>>
>> "Under normal circumstances, leaves and other plant detritus are
>> colonized and decomposed by a variety of microorganisms and
>> macroinvertebrates. However, decay of whole plant organs such as
>> leaves can take as long as MONTHS (caps mine) to years, which provides
>> a window of time during which fossilization can occur. The caliber of
>> leaf fossils is greatly enhanced if mineralization can commence before
>> much decomposition can occur." (Dunn et al, 1997, p. 1119 )
>
>If anyone else had written the above I would be right now be calling
>them a liar since this is a _flagrant_ out-of-context quotation.
what is out of context about leaves taking months to form?
>Your
>inability to understand basic English is showing again. That statement
>is not saying that any geologic feature can form quickly.
what do you consider to be a geologic feature? What non-geologic
feature is this that surrounds a fossilized leaf that can take MONTHS
to form?
>Indeed it is arguing AGAINST rapid fossilization in this particular
>case.
I consider months to be rapid fossilization.
>Flood geology does not allow months, it demands it be SECONDS.
I am talking about fossilization that occurs AFTER the global flood.
If fossilization can occur in months, then the supposed geological
column that grew up after the global flood could grow up in a few
thousand years, not millions of years.
>If this is not rapid fossilization then YEC/Flood "Geology" explanation
>is disproven.
I think you're talking to the wrong person here.
>> http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache:tNtetvK42WsC:www.geology.yale.edu
>>
>> "...Wollanke and Zimmerle (1990), that the fossilization involved fast
>> and complete embedding of the organisms..."
>
>There are cases of rapid fossilization. How does that prove the the
>"geological column" formed quickly? One fossil/one layer does not
>a geologic column make.
many fossils, many layers, all formed relatively quickly, indeed do
make a geologic column.
>> TWO, evidence of a global flood (chiefly in the form of coal and oil)
>> lies at the bottom of the layers of the "geological column."
>>
>> http://www.fortune.com/fortune/brainstorm/0,15704,419014,00.html
>
>_Fortune_ magazine, that great scientific journal. What is next Zoe?
>Maybe you can start quoting _The National Enquirer_ as well.
don't like that news source? They're lying maybe? Okay, throw it out
then. How about these?
http://www.apioil.net/s/SimilarProjects.asp
http://dimacs.rutgers.edu/TechnicalReports/abstracts/1999/99-03.html
http://www.geoscience.co.uk/geofrc/geobaserussia.html
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/asteroid_oil_991213.html
snip>
----
zoe
zoe_althrop
<host...@sky.fit.qut.edu.au> wrote:
snip>
>You would be able to raise yourself up to the level of normal
>creationist pseudo-science if you actually tried to address a
>couple of really simple questions, which you have been asked
>frequently and continuously in the group.
shucks, I'm weakening and getting sucked into this sidetrack.
>
>Here are two samples from one rock.
> Sample P D Di
> A 3 2 1
> B 2 4 2
>What is the age calculated using the isochron for this data?
>
> Sample P D Di
> A 3 20000 1
> B 2 40000 2
>What is the age calculated using the isochron for this data?
>
>Rather than wait for answers, I'll give you the correct answers
>now.
>
>In both cases, the age is calculated to be zero.
and yet, if unknown oldD had been 5000 to 1 Di in sample A and 10000
to 2 Di in sample B (ratio of 5000), you would have no way of knowing
that, would you? The isochron would still give a zero age, based on
its total D, and it would be correct, according to your math; but yet,
in fact, newD would be present in this case, meaning that the age
really wasn't zero. Or again, if oldD had been 10000 to 1 in sample A
and 20000 to 2 in sample B (ratio of 10000), new D would still be
present, though less in this second case, making the age more than
zero.
but you are distracting me with the isochron when I am, for the
moment, trying to draw a bigger picture.
>How can this be, given that the second sample has a thousand
>times as much of the daughter isotope from the decay series?
apparently, an isochron can be acceptable, even when the unknown
premises have been unmet due to varying conditions.
>Simple. The isochron method does not depend on total
>decay product.
total decay product is ALL the isochron has to work with, along with
present P and Di.
> That is something Zoe makes up because
>she can't handle the maths of the isochron.
that's a new attribution...Zoe has made up the fantasy that isochrons
need and use (depend on) total D product in calculating slopes.
snip>
----
zoe
zoe_althrop
Mark, I didn't help to vote you in as T.O. cop, and I don't remember
any mandate being given you to perform these duties. Why have you
taken up the position of self-appointed policeman of T.O.? You stand
at the gate of ideas, waving your baton, hoping to shepherd the sheep
past the entrance, stifling inquiry as they go.
Are most people really willing to let you do their thinking for them?
----
zoe
John Harshman
muz...@aol.com (zoe_althrop) wrote:
> Okay, let me stagger back from the isochron a bit in order to paint
> for myself a bigger picture. Maybe, in time, the zoom may return to
> the isochron's place in this picture, but for now, I am interested in
> the so-called geological column which I understand is vital to the
> theory of evolution and the concept of fossil progression.
>
> Allow me, then, to hereby bring to the geological table another
> option.
>
> As a creationist, how should I relate to the data that is used to
> construct the geological column? Is the column fact or fiction...or
> somewhere in between? Well, let's see...hmmmm...there does seem to be
> some evidence of a general progression of lower, more simple life
> forms to more developed life forms, if the textbooks are to be taken
> at face value. But considering that correlation of cross sections is
> the method used to create this column, I am hesitant to accept the
> results as set in concrete. Especially as the same data can be
> understood from a different point of view.
>
> Keeping in mind that the geological column was constructed BEFORE the
> advent of radioactive dating, and also bearing in mind that the
> premise of evolutionary change is the touchstone for placing life
> forms in sequence, even if found out of sequence,
There's your first major error right there. All that follows that
depends on that assumption is garbage. Biostratigraphic correlation has
nothing to do with evolutionary progressions. It has to do with index
fossils. Index fossils are chosen because of their overlapping
stratigraphic ranges and wide distribution. They might as well be
distinctively shaped widgets; the fact that they are biological
organisms has nothing to do with their use, much less any potential to
evolve.
> here is how I view
> the data:
>
> ONE, the geological column can form quickly, over a few thousand
> years, not necessarily millions of years.
>
> http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/fossilization.htm
>
> "Under normal circumstances, leaves and other plant detritus are
> colonized and decomposed by a variety of microorganisms and
> macroinvertebrates. However, decay of whole plant organs such as
> leaves can take as long as MONTHS (caps mine) to years, which provides
> a window of time during which fossilization can occur. The caliber of
> leaf fossils is greatly enhanced if mineralization can commence before
> much decomposition can occur." (Dunn et al, 1997, p. 1119 )
That's talking about the speed with which fossilization can occur, and
has nothing to do with the formation of the geological column.
> http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache:tNtetvK42WsC:www.geology.yale.edu
>
> "...Wollanke and Zimmerle (1990), that the fossilization involved fast
> and complete embedding of the organisms..."
As does that. Both these articles refer to quick burial of particular
remains in particular circumstances. All of which forms part of the
standard geological model.
> TWO, evidence of a global flood (chiefly in the form of coal and oil)
> lies at the bottom of the layers of the "geological column."
How many times have you been corrected on this misconception?
> http://www.fortune.com/fortune/brainstorm/0,15704,419014,00.html
>
> "...exploration companies are drilling more than a mile into solid
> granite--so-called basement rock--for oil. That's a puzzle: Oil isn't
> supposed to be found in basement rock, which never rose near the
> surface of the earth where ancient plants grew and dinosaurs walked.
> Yet oil is there."
Again, granite is not basement rock. Some granites form fairly near the
surface, and are of all ages.
> Granted, coal and oil can also be found at higher levels of the
> "geological column," (seepage or percolation upwards in the case of
> oil),
I notice you have conveniently ignored any chance at explaining how the
coal got there.
> but later local floods could be the cause of later deposits,
Another problem for you: differentiating the Flood deposits from local
flood deposits. You have no criteria at all for dividing up the
geological column into different parts. Doesn't that disturb you at all?
It's impossible to outline many of the flaws in your model until you
actually have a model that divides the column by causes. If you account
for most coal by post-Flood events, then you must accept all sorts of
evolution to account for the changes in associated fossils. If you
account for most coal by the Flood, you have to explain the layering of
fossil types. But I can't tell which problems apply to your model until
you actually have one.
> and
> the presence of coal and oil higher in the "column" does not refute
> the theory that evidence for the global flood lies at the bottom of
> the column.
Where? What part?
> As I see it so far, there should be NO fossils of
> consequence preserved from the cataclysmic global flood, except for
> the most powerful life forms (dinosaurs), which were able to last the
> longest in the struggle to survive the cataclysm.
Ah, so the Flood sediments include the Mesozoic and below? Sorry, but
that's most of the fossil record, so your statement makes absolutely no
sense. It includes all sorts of organisms, not just the "most powerful",
including teeny little shrew-sized mammals. And of course it lacks the
largest (most powerful?) animals in history, the whales.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> THREE, many local floods that have followed the global flood have
> served to fossilize life forms that existed at the various times, and
> the increasing complexity would be an index into the spread of life
> forms from a central location -- Mesopotamia/Iraq -- as the waters
> receded over time.
Makes no sense from any perspective. There is no reason to suppose that
more complex life would spread more slowly than less complex life,
except that we would need plants before animals. There is no pattern of
spreading in the fossil record, as would be expected (first appearance
of all groups close to the middle east). And of course we still have no
idea of which sediments are pre-Flood, post-Flood, or Flood.
> http://www.bartleby.com/65/me/Mesopota.html
>
> "(ms创pt磎) (KEY) [Gr.,=between rivers], ancient region of Asia, the
> territory about the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, included in modern
> Iraq. The region extends from the Persian Gulf north to the mountains
> of Armenia and from the Zagros and Kurdish mountains on the east to
> the Syrian Desert. From the mountainous north, Mesopotamia slopes down
> through grassy steppes to a central alluvial plain, which was once
> rendered exceedingly fertile by a network of canals."
>
> I view this area as the beginning of civilization after the global
> flood.
You can view it as anything you want, but do you have any evidence?
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> FOUR, the approximate 900-1300 years discrepancy that throws Ussher's
> dating off (3100-3500 B.C. dates for Sumerian records versus the
> supposed date for creation) can be accounted for by overlap and even
> duplication of dynasty records.
How does this apply at all to the fossil record? Does it affect anything
other than fairly recent (by geological standards) human history?
> http://www.univer.omsk.su/foreign/fom/fom.htm
> http://www.univer.omsk.su/foreign/fom/glob.
>
> "To determine real chronology, one must be able to translate the data
> in the ancient documents into the terminology and units of modern time
> reckoning. Many historical conclusions and interpretations depend upon
> what dates we ascribe to the events in a given ancient document."
>
> http://www.univer.omsk.su/foreign/fom/moroz.htm
>
> "About fifty years ago, N.A.Morozov found three pairs of ruling
> ancient dynasties for which the sequences of lengths (periods) of
> reign, represented visually on the time line, bore a striking
> resemblance to one another. He suggested that in each case the two
> dynasties are actually reflections of a single real dynasty which
> "became multiplied" as a result of a mistaken dating of the different
> texts describing the same events."
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> FIVE, igneous rock, which is the type of rock used for calculating
> absolute age, is correlated with layers that contain fossils, but
> since it is likely that the absolute ages reflect accumulated decay
> product and not time since solidification, such correlation can be
> misleading.
Back to the isochron thread?
> No cites given here since, apparently, I am the only person alive on
> earth who thinks this way.
Have you ever wondered why that is so?
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Using the above information, it is possible to develop a reasonable
> theory of how an old earth with young life came to be what we see
> today.
So you say, but I have seen no evidence that such a theory is possible.
Were you intending to present some?
--
*Note the obvious spam-defeating modification
to my address if you reply by email.
John Harshman
muz...@aol.com (zoe_althrop) wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 05:06:34 +0000 (UTC), bigd...@aol.comGetaGrip
> (Bigdakine) wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> zoe wrote:
>
> >>Keeping in mind that the geological column was constructed BEFORE the
> >>advent of radioactive dating,
> >
> >And before the advent of evolution theory as well.
>
> right.
If you say "right" here, then how could you have said just recently that
evolution is a necessary assumption for stratigraphic correlation?
> >One wonders why you think the radioactive dating is germane to the
> >construction
> >of the column.
>
> radioactive dating is not germane to the construction of the column. I
> don't think I said that. Indeed, I emphasized that the column was
> constructed BEFORE radioactive dating, so radioactive dating could NOT
> have had anything to do with its construction, could it?
>
> However, mention of radioactive dating is germane to recognizing how
> the column's premise influences the need for absolute ages to
> correlate to the column. The premise guides the conclusions. In
> other words, if an igneous layer dates older than a layer below it,
> rather than change the premise, this anomaly is explained in the light
> of upthrusting, erosion, and other POSSIBLE reasons for the
> out-of-sequence layer in the column.
If you think that some particular strata are incorrectly placed, then
bring them up and argue about the evidence.
> of course, you would say there are no out-of-sequence layers in the
> column, and I would say that that is because such layers have already
> been explained in terms of upthrusts, erosion, et cetera.
What would you say? Bring up specific examples that you don't believe.
> >What exactly about the column was change by radiometric age determinations?
>
> nothing was changed. The relative dating method guides the later
> conclusions, including radiometric age application.
How does it happen, then, that the ordering of ages from radiometric
dating matches the ordering from stratigraphy? Why should this be the
case?
> > and also bearing in mind that the
> >>premise of evolutionary change is the touchstone for placing life
> >>forms in sequence,
> >
> >You're already wrong Zoe. In fact its rare that you get two sentences across
> >without making a mistake.
> >
> >It was while the geologic column was being establshed that patterns in the
> >change of life were noticed which gave impetus to the concept of biological
> >evolution.
>
> it would help if you would reread the entire sentence, without
> premature clipping. I said, "the premise of evolutionary change is
> the touchstone for placing life forms in sequence, EVEN IF FOUND OUT
> OF SEQUENCE...."
Yes, and that's wrong, like the man said. Evolutionary change has
nothing to do with it.
> The premise says that all life forms appear in sequence in the earth's
> crust, so when some life forms are found out of sequence, the premise
> dictates that some reason must be found other than that the premise is
> at fault. So reasons are found -- uplifts, erosion....
The premise is that a given species has a continuous stratigraphic
range, and that if the same species is found in two deposits, they are
approximately the same age. That's all. No evolution. (Index fossils are
chosen, among other things, for their fairly short stratigraphic ranges.
Long-lived species are excluded.)
> >TO a stratigrapher, fossils are simply passive markers in rocks which can be
> >used to correlate strata found in different places.
>
> yes, I've read that -- index fossils, right? The fossils are used to
> date the rocks relatively, so that a cross-section from one part of
> the world is correlated to a cross-section from another part of the
> world, based entirely on the premise that fossils are arranged in
> sequence everywhere.
Yes, but not the evolutionary sequence you are assuming. Merely a
sequence of overlapping species ranges. Index species could be different
colored marbles, if those marbles were distributed among rocks according
to age.
> >You can be a competent stratigrapher and not know a bloody thing about
> >evolution.
>
> I doubt that, based on the insistence of those on this forum that if
> you don't know or understand the theory of evolution, you are, at
> best, ignorant, and at worst, a fool. Stratigraphers are not ignorant,
> nor are they fools, as far as I am concerned.
If they aren't ignorant or fools, then why, according to you, are they
wrong about *everything*?
It's very unlikely that a stratigrapher today could be ignorant of
evolution, but the original stratigraphers (have you looked up "Strata"
Smith?) were not evolutionists, and if you went into a modern
stratigrapher's brain and erased all his evolutionary knowledge, he
would still be able to do his job just fine.
Robin Levett
> On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 06:27:10 +0000 (UTC), Harlequin
<use...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
> >muz...@aol.com (zoe_althrop) wrote in
news:3e4f069e.9453333@news-
> >server.cfl.rr.com:
> >
> >
> >[snip]
<snip zoe's misconceptions about the geological column,
fossilisation etc>
> >> TWO, evidence of a global flood (chiefly in the form of coal
and oil)
> >> lies at the bottom of the layers of the "geological column."
> >>
> >>
http://www.fortune.com/fortune/brainstorm/0,15704,419014,00.html
> >
> >_Fortune_ magazine, that great scientific journal. What is
next Zoe?
> >Maybe you can start quoting _The National Enquirer_ as well.
>
> don't like that news source? They're lying maybe? Okay, throw
it out
> then. How about these?
>
> http://www.apioil.net/s/SimilarProjects.asp
Claims that oil is often found in rocks where there can have been
no siginifcant biomass - doesn't help you.
>
http://dimacs.rutgers.edu/TechnicalReports/abstracts/1999/99-03.ht
ml
This is the only remotely scientific paper involved. It doesn't
support the suggestion that the gas and oil (not coal) at the
basement originated there; simply reading the abstract it is clear
that this is a study of basement structures that are likely to
hold oil and gas precisely because they are freactured, allowing
oil and gas to penetrate from other rocks.
> http://www.geoscience.co.uk/geofrc/geobaserussia.html
Going back to the introduction of this compilation
(http://www.geoscience.co.uk/geofrc/geobasetop.html), you will
find the following comment:-
"All basement reservoirs underlie a regional unconformity and
almost all lie on an uplift or high. This uplift or high was
generally continuously uplifted for long periods of geologic time
and was subject to a long period of weathering and erosion.
Younger sediments, which act as hydrocarbon sources, either flank
or directly overlie basement providing the opportunity for
entrapment of oil in the basement rock."
You will also find:-
"Source of oil in basement reservoirs
There are many possible sources for the oil accumulations in
basement reservoirs, however, three sources are referenced most
commonly:
1. Overlying organic rock from which the oil was expelled downward
during compaction.
2. Lateral, off-the-basement but topographically lower, organic
rock from which oil was squeezed into an underlying carrier bed
through which it migrated updip into the basement rock.
3. Lower, lateral reservoirs from which earlier trapped oil was
spilled due to tilting or overfilling (Landes et al, 1960).
Mechanisms have been identified that could allow the downward
migration of oil into fractured basement when fracture dilation is
caused during shearing in an anisotropic stress field (Pine &
Batchelor, 1984). Dilatancy in the underlying reservoir rock
reduces hydrostatic pressures in local areas of deformation.
Pressure gradients are thereby established between the potential
basement reservoir rocks and the overlying source and carrier beds
containing oil, gas and water. Thus, a tendency to 'suck in'
fluids into the basement rocks will be created; this view is
supported by direct observation, McNaughton (1953) and McNaughton
& Garb (1975)."
There follows reference to:-
"Recent work by Kitchka (1998), supports the theory of an
inorganic mantle origin of petroleum. His paper introduces the
concept that petroleum represents a complex derivative of the
fluid inclusions saturated with hydrocarbons in crustal and mantle
minerals. He concludes that the multi-stage segregation and
migration of deep petroleum are realised by fracturing and
faulting. He cites a total of 370 oil and gas fields with
commercial productivity from crystalline basement. Other
hypotheses by Kropotkin (1986), Krishna (1988), Szatmari (1989),
Porfir'ev (1974), Hunt (1998), and Gold (1980 & 1985) also
consider the abiogenic/ mineral origin of petroleum.
A review of these more exotic prospects of oil accumulation in
deep basement is given by Harrelson (1989). He considers that
drilling for deep igneous and metamorphic prospects, which are
considered at or below economic basement or worse, should become
increasingly commercial as deep drilling technology progresses,
the current oil glut is eliminated and more exotic gas prospects
become accepted."
So your chosen source identifies basement oil and gas as having
migrated from younger sedimentary rocks, but also refers to
studies claiming that petroleum is of inorganic origin.
You do realise that in order to support your premise, the basement
oil and gas must both be organic in origin, and have been produced
there, don't you?
But I've left the best until last. What do you mean by "basement
rocks"? This source defines them as follows:-
"The definition of a 'basement rock' used for this work follows
that of Landes et al (1960). Here, basement rocks are considered
as any metamorphic or igneous rocks (regardless of age) which are
unconformably overlain by a sedimentary sequence. "
Note the words "regardless of age".
>
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/asteroid_oil_991
213.html
>
Again, argues that oil is of non-biological origin. This is of no
assistance for your claim that oil at basement levels supports
your flood speculation.
--
I don't trust camels - or anyone else that can go for a week
without a drink.
(Use rle...@ibmrlevett.uklinux.net - deleting big blue - for
email)
AC
> On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 06:47:21 +0000 (UTC), "Lane Lewis"
><l...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
<snip>
>>
>>Then there's those pesky deserts that crop up right in the middle ever
>>so often.
>
> evidence of deserts is to be expected between local floods here and
> there across the earth over time.
Please explain this conclusion and how came by it.
--
A. Clausen
MalumRegnat
but they were creationists. You seem to be trying to avoid the point that
the geological column was put together by men who did not 'believe in'
evolution.
--
Carpe noctem.
Malum Regnat-
---
"Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing." - Macbeth
Richard Uhrich
> Okay, let me stagger back from the isochron a bit in order to paint
> for myself a bigger picture. Maybe, in time, the zoom may return to
> the isochron's place in this picture, but for now, I am interested in
> the so-called geological column which I understand is vital to the
> theory of evolution and the concept of fossil progression.
>
> Allow me, then, to hereby bring to the geological table another
> option.
>
> As a creationist, how should I relate to the data that is used to
> construct the geological column? Is the column fact or fiction...or
> somewhere in between? Well, let's see...hmmmm...there does seem to be
> some evidence of a general progression of lower, more simple life
> forms to more developed life forms, if the textbooks are to be taken
> at face value. But considering that correlation of cross sections is
> the method used to create this column, I am hesitant to accept the
> results as set in concrete. Especially as the same data can be
> understood from a different point of view.
>
> Keeping in mind that the geological column was constructed BEFORE the
> advent of radioactive dating, and also bearing in mind that the
> premise of evolutionary change is the touchstone for placing life
> forms in sequence, even if found out of sequence, here is how I view
> the data:
<snip>
The following paragraph is from Amazon's review of "The Map That Changed
the World: William Smith and the Birth of Modern Geology" by Simon
Winchester, Soun Vannithone:
<quote>
Born to humble parents, Smith was also a child of the Industrial
Revolution (the year of his birth, 1769, also saw Josiah Wedgwood open
his great factory, Etruria, Richard Arkwright create his first
water-powered cotton-spinning frame, and James Watt receive the patent
for the first condensing steam engine). While working as surveyor in a
coal mine, Smith noticed the abrupt changes in the layers of rock as he
was lowered into the depths. He came to understand that the different
layers--in part as revealed by the fossils they contained--always
appeared in the same order, no matter where they were found. He also
realized that geology required a three-dimensional approach. Smith spent
the next 20 some years traveling throughout Britain, observing the land,
gathering data, and chattering away about his theories to those he met
along the way, thus acquiring the nickname "Strata Smith." In 1815 he
published his masterpiece: an 8.5- by 6-foot, hand-tinted map revealing
"A Delineation of the Strata of England and Wales."
</quote>
My point is that historically the correlation across all England between
certain fossils and geological strata, and their order with depth, was
noted by this man, the first geologist, nearly 100 years before Darwin
and Wallace's theory of evolution by natural selection. The work stands.
Isochron Zoe's assertion and starting premise, that "the premise of
evolutionary change is the touchstone for placing life forms in
sequence, even if found out of sequence," is her typical ignorant BS.
> ----
> zoe
>
>
--
Richard Uhrich
---
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. --
Charles Darwin
Robert Carroll
Evidence is also presented to support the hypothesized reasons: It may be
seen (for a specific example) that a number of strata are reversed in order
ABCDE ve EDCBA. Geologically disturbed regions may be seen--evidence of
fracture, strata significantly non-horizontal, erosion patterns that show
that horizontal erosion occurred after a upthrusted formation was created.
Some fossils that typically occur oriented to gravitational attraction may
be found--trilobites upside-down, footprint or worm casts upside-down,
fossilized mudcacks or raindrops similarly. The proposed inversion is
subject to experimental confirmatio. You really need to discuss specific
examples if you have an objection
Bob
Roy
zoe_althrop wrote:
> Okay, let me stagger back from the isochron a bit in order to paint
> for myself a bigger picture. Maybe, in time, the zoom may return to
> the isochron's place in this picture, but for now, I am interested in
> the so-called geological column which I understand is vital to the
> theory of evolution and the concept of fossil progression.
>
> Allow me, then, to hereby bring to the geological table another
> option.
>
> As a creationist, how should I relate to the data that is used to
> construct the geological column?
You should ignore it. Continued study may be hazardous to your beliefs.
> Is the column fact or fiction...or
> somewhere in between? Well, let's see...hmmmm...there does seem to be
> some evidence of a general progression of lower, more simple life
> forms to more developed life forms, if the textbooks are to be taken
> at face value. But considering that correlation of cross sections is
> the method used to create this column, I am hesitant to accept the
> results as set in concrete. Especially as the same data can be
> understood from a different point of view.
>
> Keeping in mind that the geological column was constructed BEFORE the
> advent of radioactive dating, and also bearing in mind that the
> premise of evolutionary change is the touchstone for placing life
> forms in sequence, even if found out of sequence, here is how I view
> the data:
Why bear in mind something that is manifestly false? The geological
column was also constructed before evolutionary theory, and was based
not on fossil contents but on superposition and other geological
sequence indicators.
>
> ONE, the geological column can form quickly, over a few thousand
> years, not necessarily millions of years.
This is false, and yuor cited quotes are not helpful since they are
talking about fossilizaion of individual organisms rather than the
construction of the entire column.
> TWO, evidence of a global flood (chiefly in the form of coal and oil)
> lies at the bottom of the layers of the "geological column."
This is also false. Most coal reserves are found in carboniferous rocks,
which are nowhere near the bottom of the column. Oil, being a liquid,
tends to seep into or be squeezed out of rocks and so its current
location is not necessarily related to its place of formation.
> THREE, many local floods that have followed the global flood have
> served to fossilize life forms that existed at the various times, and
> the increasing complexity would be an index into the spread of life
> forms from a central location -- Mesopotamia/Iraq -- as the waters
> receded over time.
Strike three. The life forms that existed in ancient Mesopotamis/Iraq
are not dissimilar to those living there today. There is no evidence of
different life forms having lived there in recent times. Furthermore,
increased biological complexity in higher rock strata is not compatible
with the spread of life from a central point - unless you believe that
all simpler life-forms can outrun all of the more complex ones.
Including, for instance, blue-green algae outsprinting cheetahs.
> FOUR, the approximate 900-1300 years discrepancy that throws Ussher's
> dating off (3100-3500 B.C. dates for Sumerian records versus the
> supposed date for creation) can be accounted for by overlap and even
> duplication of dynasty records.
There is no discrepancy. Ussher's dates are simply based on fictional
writings, and therefore do not need to match reality.
Your second quote seems to be truncated.
> FIVE, igneous rock, which is the type of rock used for calculating
> absolute age, is correlated with layers that contain fossils, but
> since it is likely that the absolute ages reflect accumulated decay
> product and not time since solidification, such correlation can be
> misleading.
Um, "acumulated decay product" and "time since solidification" both
represent the same thing.
> No cites given here since, apparently, I am the only person alive on
> earth who thinks this way.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Using the above information, it is possible to develop a reasonable
> theory of how an old earth with young life came to be what we see
> today.
Thus confirming that anything can be deduced if starting with false
premises.
Roy
Harlequin
server.cfl.rr.com:
There is no NewD in the above. Geez...
> but you are distracting me with the isochron when I am, for the
> moment, trying to draw a bigger picture.
No you are ignoring the picture. Isochrons are part of the whole.
[snip]
MalumRegnat
dishonest? The article does not say that leaves fossilize in a period of
months. The article says that, under normal circumstances, leaves decompose
in a matter of months. The article then describes how, under the right
circumstances, leaves may become encapsulated and preserved from decay so
that fossilization has time to occur. It says nothing about how long the
fossilization process takes.
Dana Tweedy
> On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 05:54:22 +0000 (UTC), "Dana Tweedy"
> <twe...@cvn.net> wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> >"Fossil progression" probably should be more correctly termed "Fossil
> >succession". The geologic column is not itself vital to the the theory
of
> >evolution. The fossils contained in that column do provide evidence.
>
> the vast quantity of appeals that are made to the fossil record makes
> me think that the geological column is indeed vital to the theory of
> evolution.
Again, please read carefully. The geologic column itself is not vital to
the theory of evolution. The fossils contained in that column give evidence
for evolution, but the column itself is not, in of itself vital to the
theory.
>
> snip>
>
> >> As a creationist, how should I relate to the data that is used to
> >> construct the geological column?
> >
> >As a creatonist your best option is to ignore, or deny the evidence.
That's
> >what's most creationists do.
>
> have I ignored or denied any evidence in this thread so far, Dana?
You have ignored the evidence that coal is not found in basement layers.
You have denied the evidence from isochron dating.
> Is
> there anything I have said so far in this thread that is false? If
> so, please point it out so I can correct myself.
Your claim below, that "the premise of evolutionary change is the touchstone
fore placing life forms in sequence" is entirely false.
>
> snip>
>
> >> Keeping in mind that the geological column was constructed BEFORE the
> >> advent of radioactive dating, and also bearing in mind that the
> >> premise of evolutionary change is the touchstone for placing life
> >> forms in sequence, even if found out of sequence, here is how I view
> >> the data:
> >
> >Whoa.... Back up. The "premise of evolutionary change" is not the
> >"touchstone" for placing the forms in sequence.
>
> whoa....back up yourself. I never said that the premise of
> evolutionary change is the touchstone for placing the forms in
> sequence...PERIOD. You have cut off the ending of that sentence,
> "EVEN IF FOUND OUT OF SEQUENCE." If a fossil is found out of
> sequence, the "touchstone" is not questioned. Instead, other reasons
> are suggested for the displacement.
Here is where you make a false statement. 1st, the law of faunal succession
does not depend on evolutionary change, just the observation that certian
layers always contain the same fossils. Sometimes geologic layers are found
out of sequence, due to geologic processes such as overthrust faulting, and
those areas are easily identifiable as being out of sequence. "Out of
sequence fossils" ie, fossils that don't fit the layers they are found in,
are primarily due to either intrusional burials, honest
misindenitifications, or outright fraud. No "out of sequence" fossils have
been found that hold up to critical scrutiny.
>
> > The sequence was developed
> >in the 18th and early 19th century, long before Darwin published his
theory.
> >The sequence was worked out by direct observations of the fossils found
in
> >certian layers. Early geologists, who for the most part believed in
> >creation, developed the sequence as a practical tool for study of the
> >landscape. The system of index fossils was not established by the
premise
> >of evolutionary change.
>
> a wasted argument, since I agree with you here, and understood this
> even before I began the thread.
Then why did you make such a foolish statement as "the
premise of evolutionary change is the touchstone for placing life
forms in sequence, even if found out of sequence," ?
>
> >> ONE, the geological column can form quickly, over a few thousand
> >> years, not necessarily millions of years.
> >
> >That assertion has no support.
>
> Glenn Morton not good enough for you?
As I pointed out below, that does not support your claim. Fosilization of
leaves does not support your claim that the geologic column could have
formed over a few thousand years.
>
> >> http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/fossilization.htm
> >>
> >> "Under normal circumstances, leaves and other plant detritus are
> >> colonized and decomposed by a variety of microorganisms and
> >> macroinvertebrates. However, decay of whole plant organs such as
> >> leaves can take as long as MONTHS (caps mine) to years, which provides
> >> a window of time during which fossilization can occur. The caliber of
> >> leaf fossils is greatly enhanced if mineralization can commence before
> >> much decomposition can occur." (Dunn et al, 1997, p. 1119 )
> >
> >
> >This does not support your claim.
>
> it most certainly does. If it takes mere months for leaves to
> fossilize, then you don't need millions of years for the column to
> form. It can form as a result of many local floods over a few
> thousand years of time.
No, Zoe. Fossilization and formation of the geologic column are two
entirely separate processes. Your concluson doesn't follow from your
premise.
>
> >> http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache:tNtetvK42WsC:www.geology.yale.edu
> >>
> >> "...Wollanke and Zimmerle (1990), that the fossilization involved fast
> >> and complete embedding of the organisms..."
> >
> >
> >Again, that doesn't support your claim. It has to do with fossilization,
> >not the time in which the geologic column was laid down.
>
> the geological column would be laid down synchronous with the fossils
> within it, no? If the fossils can form quickly, then the layer in
> which they are deposited would have had to have formed within the same
> time frame, no? Why no?
No. Because what the above quote is saying is that the organisms were
covered quickly, allowing them to be embedded in the rock. That doesn't
mean the process by which the silt layer was changed into rock took an
equally rapid course.
>
> >> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> TWO, evidence of a global flood (chiefly in the form of coal and oil)
> >> lies at the bottom of the layers of the "geological column."
> >
> >Oil and coal do not lay at the bottom of the column. The bottom layers
do
> >not contain any fossil fuels. Coal, and oil are found more towards the
> >middle of the column, and occur in different layers.
>
> not according to the latest scientific findings. Of course, the
> finding of oil in basement rock is leading some to speculate that
> hydrocarbons do not have to come from fossils only, but this is an
> attempt, imo, to keep the geological column's premise intact -- that
> fossils were not present in the preCambrian layers.
Why don't we find any multicelluar fossils in all but the upper layers of
PreCambrian strata then? The fidnings of oil in basement strata is
intriguing, but it still doesn't support your claims. If what you were
saying were true, the vast majority of coal and oil fields would be found in
basement rock. That is simply not the case.
>
> >> http://www.fortune.com/fortune/brainstorm/0,15704,419014,00.html
> >>
> >> "...exploration companies are drilling more than a mile into solid
> >> granite--so-called basement rock--for oil. That's a puzzle: Oil isn't
> >> supposed to be found in basement rock, which never rose near the
> >> surface of the earth where ancient plants grew and dinosaurs walked.
> >> Yet oil is there."
> >
> >How about a citation from a geology journal?
>
> journals are your only source of reliable news?
When it comes to scientific claims, yes.
Try:
>
> http://www.apioil.net/s/SimilarProjects.asp
> http://dimacs.rutgers.edu/TechnicalReports/abstracts/1999/99-03.html
> http://www.geoscience.co.uk/geofrc/geobaserussia.html
> http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/asteroid_oil_991213.html
Again, it's an interesting idea, but not well supported in the scientific
literature. Also, it still doens't support your claims. The vast majority
of commercialy important coal and oil fields are not found in basement
rocks. What we have here is an interesting anomaly, not evidence of a
global flood.
>
> >> Granted, coal and oil can also be found at higher levels of the
> >> "geological column," (seepage or percolation upwards in the case of
> >> oil), but later local floods could be the cause of later deposits, and
> >> the presence of coal and oil higher in the "column" does not refute
> >> the theory that evidence for the global flood lies at the bottom of
> >> the column.
> >
> >Again, Zoe, coal and oil are not found in the bottom layers of the
column.
>
> oil is, that's for sure.
But not coal, how could coal have moved up through the column? Why do we
find fossils in coal? Again, Zoe, you claim is not supported.
>
> >The lowest layers don't have fossils of multicelluar life.
>
> note how the premise influences the data.
No, I'm making a statement of fact. The lowest layers of the geologic
column do not have any fossils of multicelluar life.
> The premise says that no
> fossils of multicellular life existed in the lowest layers, therefore,
> if fossil fuel is found in basement rock, it has to mean that the oil
> comes from some other source, even though it is well known that oil is
> a fossil fuel.
Zoe, it's not the premise that says that, it's simple observation. No
fossils of multicelluar life have been found in the lowest layers of the
earth's geologic column. Therefore if oil is indeed found in those layers,
it has to have come from another process than the much greater reserves of
oil that are found in carboniferous layers.
>
> >Your above cited
> >source refers to the claims of Physicist Thomas Gold. Gold's idea is
that
> >oil may be found in deep rocks, due to the existance of an underground
"Hot
> >Deep Biosphere", and upwelling hydrocarbons from bacterial action. He
does
> >not claim that it's from plant matter buried in a worldwide flood.
>
> you are free to believe Gold's apologetics, if you wish. I see no
> reason to do so. He is stretching to save a theory.
Gold is trying to push his own theory, which would overturn much of known
geology. He's not "stretching to save a theory".
>
> >Mainstream geologists consider Gold to be a crackpot. At best it's
> >considered an unconventional theory. In any case, the major commercial
oil
> >and coal fields are not found in the bottom layer of rock.
>
> see the additional links above.
Again, the links above do not support your claims. The world's major
commerical oil and coal fields are not found in the bottom layer of rock.
>
> >> As I see it so far, there should be NO fossils of
> >> consequence preserved from the cataclysmic global flood, except for
> >> the most powerful life forms (dinosaurs), which were able to last the
> >> longest in the struggle to survive the cataclysm.
> >
> >Why are "dinosaurs" more powerful than, say, elephants?
>
> elephants lumber. Dinosaurs are swifter, more agile.
Really? Are you saying that Brachiosarurs was swifter, and more agile than
an african elephant? What evidence do you have of that.
> Who knows?
Anatomists, paleonologists, anyone who has studied the evidence. Why did
the "swift, agile" Diplodocus, not make it as far as the lumbering elephant?
> Don't expect me to have all the answers. But I have sufficient
> reasonable answers to keep the theory on the table, imo.
"Sufficient and reasonable", until someone starts asking questions. Your
opinion is highly biased, and not based on reality.
>
> >Why do dinosaurs
> >appear lower in the column than whales?
>
> depends on where the cross-sections were taken.
No, it's simply a statement of fact.
> Besides, there would
> be many later local floods that could affect whales later, after the
> dinosaurs were wiped out
How would local floods affect whales?
> And tell me, in those dry areas where
> dinosaurs are being unearthed, how do you know that whale fossils
> would have been above these dry-ground digs?
Because the fossils of dinosaur are found in older layers than the layers
that contain whales. The law of superposition tells us that younger layers
are higher than older layers. Also, whale fossils have never been found in
layers older and deeper than those containing dinosaurs.
> They just eroded away --
> conveniently?
The dinosaur bearing layers were brought to the surface by tectonic forces
in those areas. Please learn a little about geology before making silly
comments like that.
> Or do you determine this from some cross-section
> elsewhere in the world? The correlation seems to be hostage to the
> premise here, imo.
Here again, you make a false statement, and ignore the geologic evidence.
Your opinion is biased due to your religious beliefs, and does not reflect
reality.
>
> >Why are small, dinosaurs like
> >Coelophysis or Bambiraptor found in the same levels as "powerful"
dinosuars
> >like Apatiosaurus, or Diplodocus?
>
> remember, now, I am questioning the continuity of the levels
> themselves, since, imo, they are merely cross-sections that are
> correlated.
That doesn't come close to answering my question. Your claim is that
dinosarus are found where they are because they were "strong" and able to
get to higher ground. Why do we find the remains of big "strong" dinosaurs
in the same layers as small, "weak" dinosaurs?
Again, the above link doesn't support your claim. Why do keep referring to
sites that don't support you?
>
> >More telling, why do grasses appear
> >ABOVE most Dinosaur fossils?
>
> this would be reason for me to question the validity of the integrity
> of the layering, rather than to hang onto the premise of strictly
> ordered layers. But to each his own, I guess.
The only reason to question the validity of the "integrity of the layering"
you have is that the evidence contradicts your claims. Why not be honest
enough to admit that?
>
> snip unsupported assertions by Dana.>
Lets look at those "assertions" again.
You had asserted, without support, that:
> THREE, many local floods that have followed the global flood have
> served to fossilize life forms that existed at the various times, and
> the increasing complexity would be an index into the spread of life
> forms from a central location -- Mesopotamia/Iraq -- as the waters
> receded over time.
and gave this link, that didn't support any of this claim.
> http://www.bartleby.com/65/me/Mesopota.html
>
> "(ms创pt磎) (KEY) [Gr.,=between rivers], ancient region of Asia, the
> territory about the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, included in modern
> Iraq. The region extends from the Persian Gulf north to the mountains
> of Armenia and from the Zagros and Kurdish mountains on the east to
> the Syrian Desert. From the mountainous north, Mesopotamia slopes down
> through grassy steppes to a central alluvial plain, which was once
> rendered exceedingly fertile by a network of canals."
I pointed out that:
This doesn't support your claim. The evidence from biogeography doesn't
support your claim. The evidence from geology, oceanography, biochemistry,
etc. doesn't support your claim.
These are not mere assertions, they are statments of fact. There is no
evidence that shows that all living species radiated from Mesopotamia a few
thousand years ago. please see:
http://ripley.wo.sbc.edu/departmental/env-studies/geo/biogeogr.htm
population genetics don't support your claims:
http://arnica.csustan.edu/biol3020/population_genetics/population_genetics.h
tm
There is no support for a population bottleneck in all species a few
thousand years ago.
There is no evidence from oceanography that would support your claims:
http://www.tos.org/
http://aslo.org/
Geology doesn't support your claims
http://emerald.ucsc.edu/~jsr/EART10/
http://www.uh.edu/~jbutler/physical/physical.html
Biochemistry doesn't support your claims:
http://genesispanthesis.tripod.com/biology/
http://techcenter.davidson.k12.nc.us/spring026/biochem.html
Now, care to deal with the above, not ignore, and deny it?
>
> >> I view this area as the beginning of civilization after the global
> >> flood.
> >
> >Where was the civiliation before the flood?
>
> totally annihilated, leaving hardly any evidence besides oil, coal,
> and some number of LARGE dinosaurs.
Except, that 1. coal and significant oil fields are not found in basement
rock. 2. Large dinosaurs occur in the same strata as small, medium, and
tiny dinosaurs. Also, we find in the same strata remains of small mammals,
lizards, primitive birds, and other small critters. 3. Flowering plants
and grasses are primarily found ABOVE such layers, meaning they would have
had to have run faster than those large dinosaurs. 4. Large dinosaur
fossils are not found in basement rock either. 5. the earliest multicelluar
life we find are small, delicate invertibrates.
> >What about China, India, Sahel
> >area of Africa, Mesoamerica, and other areas where civilization began
> >independently?
>
> all those civilizations grew out of the Sumerian beginnings.
The evidence doesn't support that claim:
See "Guns, Germs, and Steel", by Jared Diamond. Also see:
http://www.omnibusol.com/anegypt.html
http://eawc.evansville.edu/
Dana Tweedy
"Dana Tweedy" <twe...@cvn.net> wrote in message
news:b2olce$1e03rp$1...@ID-35161.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "zoe_althrop" <muz...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:3e4fb68a...@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
> > On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 05:54:22 +0000 (UTC),
Sorry, hit the send button too soon
Zoe said:
> Each
> > group uses their own dating methods, so there would naturally be some
> > discrepancies, but when all the data is in and correlated, they all
> > should fit the timeline after the flood.
All the data so far collected does not fit the timeline "after the flood",
and in fact does not support the existance of a global flood.
Snip the rest.
DJT
Chris Ho-Stuart
> On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 07:00:08 +0000 (UTC), Chris Ho-Stuart
> <host...@sky.fit.qut.edu.au> wrote:
>
> snip>
>
>>You would be able to raise yourself up to the level of normal
>>creationist pseudo-science if you actually tried to address a
>>couple of really simple questions, which you have been asked
>>frequently and continuously in the group.
>
> shucks, I'm weakening and getting sucked into this sidetrack.
Sorry about that... :-)
>>Here are two samples from one rock.
>> Sample P D Di
>> A 3 2 1
>> B 2 4 2
>>What is the age calculated using the isochron for this data?
>>
>> Sample P D Di
>> A 3 20000 1
>> B 2 40000 2
>>What is the age calculated using the isochron for this data?
>>
>>Rather than wait for answers, I'll give you the correct answers
>>now.
>>
>>In both cases, the age is calculated to be zero.
>
> and yet, if unknown oldD had been 5000 to 1 Di in sample A and 10000
> to 2 Di in sample B (ratio of 5000), you would have no way of knowing
> that, would you?
Irrelevant. The simple point which you still refuse to acknowledge
is that the age actually calculated in the isochron method is zero
in both cases, and there for this isochron calculated age (zero)
cannot be a reflection of total amounts of D.
Zero does not reflect the total D in these samples. Therefore the
isochron ages do not reflect total D.
And, by the way, on the assumptions of closed world and cogentic
origin and radioactive decay, we know for a fact that oldD was
not the values you propose; and without those assumptions, the
ages calculated by the isochron are meaningless and do not
reflect anything at all.
> The isochron would still give a zero age, based on
> its total D, and it would be correct, according to your math; but yet,
> in fact, newD would be present in this case, meaning that the age
> really wasn't zero. Or again, if oldD had been 10000 to 1 in sample A
> and 20000 to 2 in sample B (ratio of 10000), new D would still be
> present, though less in this second case, making the age more than
> zero.
Your proposals for newD and oldD are simply nonsense, and can
only occur if decay does not take place at the same rate in
the two samples, or if the samples did not start out as part of
the same melt, or if there was material wandering in of out of
the rock since its formation. And under those cases, any age
calculation is simply meaningless; it is STILL not a reflection
of "total accumulated decay product".
> but you are distracting me with the isochron when I am, for the
> moment, trying to draw a bigger picture.
You "bigger picture" is nonsense; because it is founded on
nonsense to start with.
You are taking stuff on which you are demonstrably incompetant
(that is not intended as a personal insult, but even if you
find it insulting that cannot be helped) and using that as the
foundation of your "bigger picture". That is destined to be
futile.
>>How can this be, given that the second sample has a thousand
>>times as much of the daughter isotope from the decay series?
>
> apparently, an isochron can be acceptable, even when the unknown
> premises have been unmet due to varying conditions.
Irrelevant.
Suppose that varying conditions violate the assumptions of
closed world or cogentic origin or radioactive decay.
How does that do anything to support your repeated claim
that ages reflect total decay product?
That is what you never ever explain, and apparently do not
even recognize the need for an explanation.
The fact is; you are wrong. Even if the preconditions of the isochron
fail, then the ages calculated by that method DO NOT reflect total
decay product, or age of the Earth or anything meaningful at all.
You have never ever given the conditions or model or assumptions
which would permit an clear association between isochon ages and
"total accumulated decay product". It is just something you made
up out of thin air.
>>Simple. The isochron method does not depend on total
>>decay product.
>
> total decay product is ALL the isochron has to work with, along with
> present P and Di.
Sorry. I should have said that the isochron method does
not REFLECT the total decay product (which was your incorrect
claim). The facts have been spelt out now for years; but what
the hey. Here it is again.
You can have any total amount of D you like in the rock.
The age you calculate depends on how it is distributed
within the rock; and not how much of it there is in total.
Another way of looking at it. Take set of sample data you like.
Now add as much decay product to the samples as you like, but
proportionally with Di. That is, for every unit of Di, add some
given amount of exrta D.
You will find that the age calculated by the isochron remains
unchanged.
>> That is something Zoe makes up because
>>she can't handle the maths of the isochron.
>
> that's a new attribution...Zoe has made up the fantasy that isochrons
> need and use (depend on) total D product in calculating slopes.
Quoted from your previous posting:
"... it is likely that the absolute ages reflect accumulated
decay product and not time since solidification..."
That is not anything you have read anywhere, and it is not something
you for which you have ever given a coherent explanation. You just
made it up.
This is not a "new attribution". It has been pointed out many
times that this is nonsense, that it is not taken from any
source either creationist or mainstream, and that it has not
ever been defended with a coherent model. It has been pointed out,
many times, that you just made it up.
Cheers -- Chris
darth_versive
> for myself a bigger picture. Maybe, in time, the zoom may return to
> the isochron's place in this picture, but for now, I am interested in
> the so-called geological column which I understand is vital to the
> theory of evolution and the concept of fossil progression.
>
> Allow me, then, to hereby bring to the geological table another
> option.
>
> somewhere in between?
<snip>
Zoe,
Well, as you say that you are a creationist, I would suggest that you
relate to the data that is used to construct the geological column as
fiction. Pure fiction. That way, you could say that the column
itself is just a figment of the imagination. And any particular
section of the column that you would happen to run across in real
life, like on the highway, could just be counted as evidence for a
worldwide flood, pure and simple.
I think it would be much easier for you this way.
But if you simply *must* maintain a semblance of verisimilitude in
your own mind, then I would suggest that you relate to the data as
being somewhere between fact and fiction. That would enable you to
twist the data in your own mind, insert spurious facts when needed,
and ignore pesky facts that get in the way of the view you wish to
hold about the geological column, all the while allowing yourself to
believe that you were being diligent and thorough and scientific about
the matter, at least to your own satisfaction.
One thing you must *not* do, under any circumstances, is relate to
this data as being anywhere close to purely factual. This would be
fatal to your creationist views.
I hope this helps. ;)
DV
Harlequin
news:3e4fb816...@news-server.cfl.rr.com:
> On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 06:27:10 +0000 (UTC), Harlequin <use...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>>muz...@aol.com (zoe_althrop) wrote in news:3e4f069e.9453333@news-
>>server.cfl.rr.com:
>>
>>
>>[snip]
>>> Keeping in mind that the geological column was constructed BEFORE
>>> the advent of radioactive dating,
>>
>>That is right. And guess what. Lets talk results of isochron dating.
>>Those results are in complete accord with the geologic column. The
>>geologic column and the radiometric dating are are indendent results
>>that happen to agree with each other.
>
> Harlequin, I'm trying to paint the bigger picture for my own
> satisfaction right now. Whatever issues remain unresolved with the
> isochron will have to wait a bit, lest this thread becomes sidetracked
> prematurely.
Isochrons are part of that picture since they provide direct
evidence for their reality. To ignore this fact is to ignore the
bigger picture.
>>I have repeated mentioned this during the isochron threads and
>>you have repeatedly ignored it. The only exception to this
>>that I recall is that you asked for proof I and Jon gave you examples
>>and then you ignored them.
>
> in time, I'll respond.
When? When Hell freezes over?
>>> and also bearing in mind that the
>>> premise of evolutionary change is the touchstone for placing life
>>> forms in sequence,
>>
>>This is a false statement. The geologic column was developed
>>by _creationists_ before Darwin wrote _The Origin of Species_.
>
> this is becoming a trend here -- to cut off the clarifying part of a
> sentence, and argue against the first part only. Lo, a strawman is
> born.
Zoe you are being dishonest here. Your sentence was reproduced in
full and the fragment of it that is below does not change
the fact that the statement above is false. Cry all you want,
but I will not back off insistence that history not be ignored.
You are the one who is saying the you want the larger picture.
Well that larger picture includes the fact the geologic
column was developed pre-_Origin_ by creationist geologists.
The geologic column does not assume evolution though it
deos provide evidence for it. It is our side that insists that
you not look at facts in isolation but as a whole. That is
why I pestered you in the isochron thread that isochron data
was consistent with the geologic column, etc.
>>> even if found out of sequence, here is how I view
>>> the data:
>>
>>Care to give an example?
>
> I would if you want to take a firm stance that there are NO fossils
> found out of sequence, EVER.
Give me an example, where there is no orogeny, faulting,
or other tectonic activity.
>>> ONE, the geological column can form quickly, over a few thousand
>>> years, not necessarily millions of years.
>>
>>
>>The geologic column form quickly? This makes me think you don't
>>understand that the column is an abstraction: a summary of what
>>we see the world over.
>
> thanks for the help. Yes, the geological column is indeed an
> abstraction, an idea on paper.
An abstraction that represents reality. A timeline in a history
book is an abstraction as well.
>>> http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/fossilization.htm
>>>
>>> "Under normal circumstances, leaves and other plant detritus are
>>> colonized and decomposed by a variety of microorganisms and
>>> macroinvertebrates. However, decay of whole plant organs such as
>>> leaves can take as long as MONTHS (caps mine) to years, which
>>> provides a window of time during which fossilization can occur. The
>>> caliber of leaf fossils is greatly enhanced if mineralization can
>>> commence before much decomposition can occur." (Dunn et al, 1997, p.
>>> 1119 )
>>
>>If anyone else had written the above I would be right now be calling
>>them a liar since this is a _flagrant_ out-of-context quotation.
>
> what is out of context about leaves taking months to form?
Zoe, the above is evidence that the geologic column take MILLIONS of
years to form. Look at the big picture and not at a single
layer. That "MONTHS" was for a single layer with strata above and
below it that need to form as well. Flood geology requires
that those layer formed instantly. If individual layers have
any part of them that take months then the Flood is disproven.
That you completely reversed the meaning of what Dunn et al. and
Morton were trying to say makes it out of context. Indeed it is
out of context because you are reading a phrase giving a meaning
without considering the whole. You are ignoring the bigger picture.
You always ignore the "bigger picture" just as you always ignore
the "real world" dispite your belief that is what you are looking at.
>>Your
>>inability to understand basic English is showing again. That
>>statement is not saying that any geologic feature can form quickly.
>
> what do you consider to be a geologic feature? What non-geologic
> feature is this that surrounds a fossilized leaf that can take MONTHS
> to form?
I was not talking about non-geologic features. I was talking about
geologic features. You need to consider strata above and below.
>>Indeed it is arguing AGAINST rapid fossilization in this particular
>>case.
>
> I consider months to be rapid fossilization.
Months is not rapid fossilization in the context of Flood Geology.
It is extremely slow fossilization.
>>Flood geology does not allow months, it demands it be SECONDS.
>
> I am talking about fossilization that occurs AFTER the global flood.
Of course you now are demanding that thousands of feet of strata
be formed AFTER the Flood and they all take MONTHS to form.
Gee and I thought Flood Geology was stupid. Zoe geology makes
Hovind seem sane.
> If fossilization can occur in months, then the supposed geological
> column that grew up after the global flood could grow up in a few
> thousand years, not millions of years.
If fossilization occurs in months than the geologic column that occured
after the "global flood" took millions of years.
>>If this is not rapid fossilization then YEC/Flood "Geology"
>>explanation is disproven.
>
> I think you're talking to the wrong person here.
Yeah, you need to find people who are uneducated, lack common sense,
who have not any much time around real rocks and real strata, who insist
on ignoring the bigger picture while saying that they want it.
>>> http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache:tNtetvK42WsC:www.geology.yale.ed
>>> u
>>>
>>> "...Wollanke and Zimmerle (1990), that the fossilization involved
>>> fast and complete embedding of the organisms..."
>>
>>There are cases of rapid fossilization. How does that prove the the
>>"geological column" formed quickly? One fossil/one layer does not
>>a geologic column make.
>
> many fossils, many layers, all formed relatively quickly, indeed do
> make a geologic column.
Gee if a single layer takes months to form do the following.
For purposed of argument you must estimate how many layers you
need to form and multiply it by those months. Then you must
estimate what percent of time no layers are forming and
adjust the estimate accordingly. And you must consider that
part of the time layers were not being formed but instead being
eroded. This is not an assumption on my part. I have been
to the Grand Canyon. The Great Unconformity is not part of
the imagination of geologists. And yet it clearly shows that there
was a time which statra was being eroded away.
>>> TWO, evidence of a global flood (chiefly in the form of coal and
>>> oil) lies at the bottom of the layers of the "geological column."
>>>
>>> http://www.fortune.com/fortune/brainstorm/0,15704,419014,00.html
>>
>>_Fortune_ magazine, that great scientific journal. What is next Zoe?
>>Maybe you can start quoting _The National Enquirer_ as well.
>
> don't like that news source? They're lying maybe?
For shame Zoe. I did not say that they were lying and I did in any
way insinuate it. If you claim that I did then you are lying.
What I did say is that you cited a source that is simply not
credible source for geology. You are going to have to learn to
figure out what is a credible and uncredible source. You cited a
profoundly uncredible source.
[snip -- Zoes new sources]
Others have demonstrated your misreading of your other sources.
Andrew Arensburger
> The following paragraph is from Amazon's review of "The Map That Changed
> the World: William Smith and the Birth of Modern Geology" by Simon
> Winchester, Soun Vannithone:
> <quote>
[...]
> While working as surveyor in a
> coal mine, Smith noticed the abrupt changes in the layers of rock as he
> was lowered into the depths. He came to understand that the different
> layers--in part as revealed by the fossils they contained--always
> appeared in the same order, no matter where they were found.
[...]
> </quote>
[...]
> My point is that historically the correlation across all England between
> certain fossils and geological strata, and their order with depth, was
> noted by this man, the first geologist, nearly 100 years before Darwin
> and Wallace's theory of evolution by natural selection. The work stands.
I can heartily recommend "The Map That Changed the World." If
nothing else, the hardback edition has a rather clever dust jacket
that doubles as a reproduction of the map in question. Quite cool,
IMHO.
But just to expand on the Richard Uhrich's point: according to
the book, Smith first noticed that similar geological strata appear in
the same order everywhere when he worked as a coal mine surveyor. He
suspected that these layers extended horizontally across England, so
that the red rock that he saw here was the same red rock that he saw
over there, but the miners disagreed, perhaps because they weren't as
familiar with other mines as they were with their own
Smith later worked on digging several canals. Since this
boiled down to cutting a groove through the English countryside, he
was able to confirm empirically that strata are indeed continuous, and
that fossils do a good job of indicating precisely which stratum one
is looking at.
This is 200-year-old science. I believe some additional work
may have been done since then.
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-...@glue.umd.edu Office of Information Technology
May cause excitability, especially in children.
Bigdakine
>From: muz...@aol.com (zoe_althrop)
>Date: 2/16/03 6:03 AM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <3e4fb8ad...@news-server.cfl.rr.com>
>
>On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 06:47:21 +0000 (UTC), "Lane Lewis"
><l...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>snip>
>
>> The geologic column is already constructed, has been for millions of
>>years.
>
>assertion in regard to time.
Not an assertion Zoe. ITs a conclusion based on mountains of evidence.
Your claims are *assetions* Zoe; none of which are backed up by any evidence
what so ever.
Stuart
Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
"To err is human, but to really foul things up
requires a creationist"
Bigdakine
>Message-id: <3e4fbcf3...@news-server.cfl.rr.com>
>
>On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 08:07:42 +0000 (UTC), Mark VandeWettering
><wett...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <3e4f069e...@news-server.cfl.rr.com>, zoe_althrop wrote:
>>
>>[ Idiocy snipped ]
>>
>>It's fact.
>>
>>Nothing to see here folks, move along.
>
>Mark, I didn't help to vote you in as T.O. cop, and I don't remember
>any mandate being given you to perform these duties. Why have you
>taken up the position of self-appointed policeman of T.O.? You stand
>at the gate of ideas, waving your baton, hoping to shepherd the sheep
>past the entrance, stifling inquiry as they go.
Zoe, you are representative of the sheep.
John Drayton
> On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 05:06:34 +0000 (UTC), bigd...@aol.comGetaGrip
> (Bigdakine) wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> zoe wrote:
<snip>
> The premise says that all life forms appear in sequence in the earth's
> crust, so when some life forms are found out of sequence, the premise
> dictates that some reason must be found other than that the premise is
> at fault. So reasons are found -- uplifts, erosion....
Why do you think that fossil sequence is a premise?
Do you believe that fosils are not found in sequence?
Do you think "evolutionists" have made this up?
> >TO a stratigrapher, fossils are simply passive markers in rocks which can be
> >used to correlate strata found in different places.
>
> yes, I've read that -- index fossils, right? The fossils are used to
> date the rocks relatively, so that a cross-section from one part of
> the world is correlated to a cross-section from another part of the
> world, based entirely on the premise that fossils are arranged in
> sequence everywhere.
>
> >You can be a competent stratigrapher and not know a bloody thing about
> >evolution.
>
> I doubt that, based on the insistence of those on this forum that if
> you don't know or understand the theory of evolution, you are, at
> best, ignorant, and at worst, a fool.
Not at all. Some creationists are quite intelligent. I have
a good creationist friend who is quite intelligent. Criticising
something that you don't understand can make you look like a
fool.
The reason why people called *you* a fool is that you spent
more than a year claiming to have found a fault in something
that you don't understand.
You repeatedly demonstrated that you didn't understand many
of the basic tools and concepts of isochron dating, and yet
kept insisting that you had found a basic flaw that everyone
else (scientists, mathematicians, other creationsts) had
overlooked.
You couldn't demonstrate this "flaw" mathematically,
numerically, or graphically, and couldn't describe it
coherantly.
Looks like you're about to start again with a differnt topic.
> Stratigraphers are not ignorant,
> nor are they fools, as far as I am concerned.
>
> snip>
>
> ----
> zoe
--
John Drayton
Robert Carroll
> On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 07:00:08 +0000 (UTC), Chris Ho-Stuart
> <host...@sky.fit.qut.edu.au> wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> >You would be able to raise yourself up to the level of normal
> >creationist pseudo-science if you actually tried to address a
> >couple of really simple questions, which you have been asked
> >frequently and continuously in the group.
>
> shucks, I'm weakening and getting sucked into this sidetrack.
My take on this is that you well may welcome the distraction. In your
discussions of the isochron, it seems to me that many of those who disagreed
with you were somewhat sympathetic, assuming that you were having
difficulties with the math. We are seeing here consistent refusal to accept
well established observations, where no math is involved. Your rejection of
reason is much more blatant. People ask you reasonable questions and you
ignore them.
Bob
Richard Uhrich
I might add, in case Zoe missed the point or chooses to ignore it (as
usual), that Smith first observed and established the simple fact that
there *is* a natural geological sequence. If this sequence appears
disrupted, geologists get interested and look for geological
explanations. Her assertion that
> "the
> premise of evolutionary change is the touchstone for placing life
> forms in sequence, even if found out of sequence,"
is described by the name of the new Penn & Teller Show.
Cubist
on the premise that 1 + 1 = 3, calling that theory utter nonsense
would not be "stifling inquiry" -- instead, it would be a simple
statement of fact.
Now, in the post with which you opened this particular thread, you
explicitly stated that "the premise of evolutionary change is the
touchstone for placing life forms in sequence". Given that the
sequence in which we place these lifeforms was, in fact, determined
wholly *by direct observation of what fossils occured in which
layers*, and that the original observations from which this sequence
was determined were made *decades before Darwin published _Origin of
Species_*, it follows that ascribing this sequence to "the premise of
evolutionary change", as you just did, is just stoopid. Apparently,
Darwin's unGodly ideas were so powerfully insidious that they were
able to contaminate people's minds decades before Darwin actually
conceived said unGodly ideas...
Jon Fleming
wrote:
>On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 07:00:08 +0000 (UTC), Chris Ho-Stuart
><host...@sky.fit.qut.edu.au> wrote:
>
>snip>
>
>>You would be able to raise yourself up to the level of normal
>>creationist pseudo-science if you actually tried to address a
>>couple of really simple questions, which you have been asked
>>frequently and continuously in the group.
>
>shucks, I'm weakening and getting sucked into this sidetrack.
>
>>
>>Here are two samples from one rock.
>> Sample P D Di
>> A 3 2 1
>> B 2 4 2
>>What is the age calculated using the isochron for this data?
>>
>> Sample P D Di
>> A 3 20000 1
>> B 2 40000 2
>>What is the age calculated using the isochron for this data?
>>
>>Rather than wait for answers, I'll give you the correct answers
>>now.
>>
>>In both cases, the age is calculated to be zero.
>
>and yet, if unknown oldD had been 5000 to 1 Di in sample A and 10000
>to 2 Di in sample B (ratio of 5000), you would have no way of knowing
>that, would you?
And do you know of any physically possible and reasonably probable way
that could have happened?
Until you present a possible and probable mechanism, you're just
writing meaningless numbers.
<snip>
--
Replace nospam with group to email
Andrew Arensburger
> On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 07:00:08 +0000 (UTC), Chris Ho-Stuart
> <host...@sky.fit.qut.edu.au> wrote:
>> Sample P D Di
>> A 3 20000 1
>> B 2 40000 2
>>What is the age calculated using the isochron for this data?
> and yet, if unknown oldD had been 5000 to 1 Di in sample A and 10000
> to 2 Di in sample B (ratio of 5000), you would have no way of knowing
> that, would you?
For a rock to start at your numbers and end up at Chris's,
different proportions of P would have had to decay in samples A and B,
which violates the law of radioactive decay. How do you propose that
that might have happened?
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-...@glue.umd.edu Office of Information Technology
An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it.
Cubist
[snippy-ki-yay]
> to 2 Di in sample B (ratio of 5000), you would have no way of knowing
> that, would you?
Himself, in a frisky mood, decided to undetectably screw around with
the isotopic composition of the rock we're attempting to date... you
are 100% correct. We don't. But in the absence of an omnipotent
practical joker, we may presume that any changes in the quantity of D
are the result of normal physical processes operating in accordance
the Universe's physical laws, and therefore we can look for evidence
that indicates *which* physical processes did, or did not, affect the
quantity of D.
Unless you are proposing that the consistent results of isochron
dating are attributable to an omnipotent practical joker's
overextended jape, I do not see how you can justify your implicit
presumption that an arbitrary change in the quantity of D *can* occur
without any accompanying signs of *how* that change occured.
Von Smith
> On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 08:07:42 +0000 (UTC), Mark VandeWettering
> <wett...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <3e4f069e...@news-server.cfl.rr.com>, zoe_althrop wrote:
> >
> >[ Idiocy snipped ]
> >
> >It's fact.
> >
> >Nothing to see here folks, move along.
>
> Mark, I didn't help to vote you in as T.O. cop, and I don't remember
> any mandate being given you to perform these duties. Why have you
> taken up the position of self-appointed policeman of T.O.? You stand
> at the gate of ideas, waving your baton, hoping to shepherd the sheep
> past the entrance, stifling inquiry as they go.
>
A person engaged in inquiry would not declare out of the blue that the
ozone layer contained no nitrogen and then stubbornly maintain this
absurd position in the face of weeks of correction before finally,
grudgingly, admitting error. A person engaged in inquiry would have
done her homework first.
A call to your local meteorolgist, a visit to your library, or even an
email to the author of one of the web-sites you claimed supported your
position: any of these would have cleared the matter up nicely, and
would have been more consistent with the behavior of someone who is
actually making a serious and honest attempt to learn and understand.
Yet in the end, it was your interlocutors who had to do all this for
you.
A person engaged in inquiry would not declare out of the blue that
5/0=5, and then stubbornly maintain this absurd position in the face
of weeks of correction. A person engaged in inquiry would have done
her homework first.
A person engaged in inquiry would not still be ignorant about the
basics of chemistry, geology, measurements and statistics, or the
terminology used in graphing data onto a set of co-ordinates more than
a year after boldly declaring that isochrons must be flawed.
As always, your rhetoric about "inquiry" and how people are stifling
yours is a sham. You are not engaged in any inquiry. You are engaged
in taking a position about subjects about which you are ignorant, and
then refusing to learn anything that might lead you to admit that you
were mistaken.
Von Smith
Fortuna nimis dat multis, satis nulli.
Jon Fleming
<arensb.no-...@glue.umd.edu> wrote:
>zoe_althrop <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 07:00:08 +0000 (UTC), Chris Ho-Stuart
>> <host...@sky.fit.qut.edu.au> wrote:
>>> Sample P D Di
>>> A 3 20000 1
>>> B 2 40000 2
>>>What is the age calculated using the isochron for this data?
>
>> and yet, if unknown oldD had been 5000 to 1 Di in sample A and 10000
>> to 2 Di in sample B (ratio of 5000), you would have no way of knowing
>> that, would you?
>
> For a rock to start at your numbers and end up at Chris's,
>different proportions of P would have had to decay in samples A and B,
Er, not absolutely true. It is true that for the rock to start at her
numbers and end at Chris's numbers then one or more of the premises of
isochron dating must be violated. It could be radioactive decay, it
could be closed world (addition or removal of material), or it could
be both.
I think I've been guilty of the same oversimplification, but now that
Zoe is actually getting around to challenging the premises (even if
she doesn't realize that's what she's doing), I think it's important
to be as correct as possible and reasonable.
>which violates the law of radioactive decay. How do you propose that
>that might have happened?
Ah there's the key question, which she's been avoiding (in many ways)
since she first started on this tack.
howard hershey
> Okay, let me stagger back from the isochron a bit in order to paint
> for myself a bigger picture.
Well, not really. The geological column derived by the fossil record
came first and gives a qualitative description of geologic time. The
order of index fossils can be used to identify where a layer is in
qualitative time -- this layer formed before that layer, this layer
older (or younger) than that layer. Embedded in these layers are
igneous layers that are useful for isochron or radioactive dating.
This *independent, embedded* evidence gives a second qualitiative
ordering of layers as well as quantitative estimate of age.
> Maybe, in time, the zoom may return to
> the isochron's place in this picture, but for now, I am interested in
> the so-called geological column which I understand is vital to the
> theory of evolution and the concept of fossil progression.
The geological column, as has been pointed out by others, was derived
before and independent of the theory of evolution and the concept of
fossil progression (common descent). That the pattern of fossil
changes seen in the geological column is consistent with evolutionary
or historical (common descent) mechanisms and is inconsistent with
global flood mechanisms is evidence for the former.
>
> Allow me, then, to hereby bring to the geological table another
> option.
>
> As a creationist, how should I relate to the data that is used to
> construct the geological column? Is the column fact or fiction...or
> somewhere in between? Well, let's see...hmmmm...there does seem to be
> some evidence of a general progression of lower, more simple life
> forms to more developed life forms, if the textbooks are to be taken
> at face value. But considering that correlation of cross sections is
> the method used to create this column, I am hesitant to accept the
> results as set in concrete. Especially as the same data can be
> understood from a different point of view.
Which is?
>
> Keeping in mind that the geological column was constructed BEFORE the
> advent of radioactive dating,
And before evolution by common descent was accepted or even widely
considered. The geological column was (at that time) equally
consistent with Cuvier's ideas of multiple global catastrophes, of
which Noah's flood was only the most recent.
> and also bearing in mind that the
> premise of evolutionary change is the touchstone for placing life
> forms in sequence, even if found out of sequence, here is how I view
> the data:
>
> ONE, the geological column can form quickly, over a few thousand
> years, not necessarily millions of years.
Only if one engages in hand-waving and positing miracle after miracle.
Specifically, multiple miracle would be required to explain the
differences in the fossils from one layer to the next if all those
organisms shared the same planet at the same time.
>
> http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/fossilization.htm
>
> "Under normal circumstances, leaves and other plant detritus are
> colonized and decomposed by a variety of microorganisms and
> macroinvertebrates. However, decay of whole plant organs such as
> leaves can take as long as MONTHS (caps mine) to years, which provides
> a window of time during which fossilization can occur. The caliber of
> leaf fossils is greatly enhanced if mineralization can commence before
> much decomposition can occur." (Dunn et al, 1997, p. 1119 )
>
> http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache:tNtetvK42WsC:www.geology.yale.edu
>
> "...Wollanke and Zimmerle (1990), that the fossilization involved fast
> and complete embedding of the organisms..."
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
The rate of fossilization is irrelevant wrt *what* gets fossilized in
a particular layer. Besides, even though *some* mechanisms of
fossilization can occur quickly, that is hardly evidence that *all*
mechanisms of fossilization occur quickly.
>
>[snip oil nonsense, well covered by others]
> THREE, many local floods that have followed the global flood have
> served to fossilize life forms that existed at the various times, and
> the increasing complexity would be an index into the spread of life
> forms from a central location -- Mesopotamia/Iraq -- as the waters
> receded over time.
>
> http://www.bartleby.com/65/me/Mesopota.html
>
> "(ms创pt磎) (KEY) [Gr.,=between rivers], ancient region of Asia, the
> territory about the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, included in modern
> Iraq. The region extends from the Persian Gulf north to the mountains
> of Armenia and from the Zagros and Kurdish mountains on the east to
> the Syrian Desert. From the mountainous north, Mesopotamia slopes down
> through grassy steppes to a central alluvial plain, which was once
> rendered exceedingly fertile by a network of canals."
>
> I view this area as the beginning of civilization after the global
> flood.
This is hand-waving male bovine excrement. There is not the slightest
evidence that life has gotten more complex as a function of time and
distance from the Euphrates. Besides, the clear evidence is that
human civilization is a harbinger of the loss of biological
complexity, not of increased complexity and diversity.
>
[snip ridiculous excursion into the correctness or not of Ussher's
chronology, which would add no where near enough years to any
scientific evaluation of time]
>
> FIVE, igneous rock, which is the type of rock used for calculating
> absolute age, is correlated with layers that contain fossils, but
> since it is likely that the absolute ages reflect accumulated decay
> product and not time since solidification, such correlation can be
> misleading.
I.e., zoe has been completely unable to justify this lie that isochron
ages represent anything but time since solidification of the rocks.
Yet here she goes re-asserting it as if she has some evidence to
support this lie. *Even if* she had some basis for asserting that the
quantitative analysis of isochron dating were incorrect, that would
not obviate the fact that the qualitative order of such dates is
entirely consistent and independently supports the relative ages of
different geological strata.
>
> No cites given here since, apparently, I am the only person alive on
> earth who thinks this way.
You know you are the only person alive on earth who thinks this way.
You know that the only way you can make your points about it is to
make up bogus numbers. You know you have severe difficulty in
understanding even the simplest mathematical concepts, like "line" and
"y-intercept" and "slope", which are intimately associated with
isochrons. You know that *everytime* you try to present what you mean
it is clearly and unequivokably shown that you are wrong and that what
you presented is nonsense. Now, a person of 'normal intelligence'
might at this point, reconsider his or her position and think that
maybe they might be wrong.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Using the above information, it is possible to develop a reasonable
> theory of how an old earth with young life came to be what we see
> today.
That would be interesting to see. Let me know when you have something
intelligent and logically consistent to say.
>
> ----
> zoe
At this point, I will add the 'geological column' intelligence test,
using letters as 'observed data'.
The following represents observed data at ten different points on the
globe. You are to use this data to construct a hypothetical
'geological column' which contains all the letters seen in sequence
order. Keep in mind that, because of the assumption that not every
part of the globe is going to have sedimentary deposits at every time
and that some parts are going to have sediments being removed, that
one does not expect to see the same sequence at particular points on
the globe, as one would expect if these layers were due to a single
*global* phenomenon.
TOP BOTTOM
1. ABCFGHIJKLMNOPQRSYZ
2. ABCDEHIJKLMNOPQRSTUV
3. ABCDEFGHILMNOPQRSVWXYZ
4. ADEFGHIJKNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
5. ABCDMNOPQRSTUVW
6. DEFGHIJKLMNQRSTUXYZ
7. ABCHIJOPQRSTUYZ
8. ABCDELMNOPQRSTUVWX
9. ACDFGIJLNOPQRSTVWYZ
10.ADEFGHIQRSYZ
Note that not a single one of these sequences has all possible
letters.
Now, let's say that you have 100 such sequences. Among these 100, you
find the following two that do not 'fit' the 'simple' hypothetical
geological column I would expect a person who is not "learning
challenged" to come up with. They represent anomolies that probe or
test the idea of a geological column:
47. ABCFGHIJKLMN[NMLLM]OPQRSYZ
The brackets indicate the unusual sequence. But you also notice that
the NML in the bracketed layers are 'upside down' wrt such features as
wave ripples and tunnels made by organisms and coral reefs, etc.
72. ABCDEFGHILMNOPQ[OPQ]RSVWXYZ
The brackets indicate the unusual sequence that does not 'fit' the
simple model of the geological column. But you notice that there is
evidence of sliding and grinding between the first layer Q and the [O
of the bracketed letters.
It is your job now to come up with mechanisms that would explain these
occasional anomolies and would still be consistent with the
explanation you gave for the 'order' in this data and what you would
expect to find in other nearby sites if your explanation for these
anomolies were correct.
Oh, I almost forgot to add the *independent* quantitative evidence
from radiodating the embedded igneous rocks at different points on the
globe. In some cases it is possible to use two different radiodating
methods using different radioisotopes to determine "age since
solidification" or your "accumulated age product". When that is
possible, both numbers are given.
TOP BOTTOM
8
3 8 15
| | |
1. ABCFGHIJKLMNOPQRSYZ
5.1 21
5 13 21
| | |
2. ABCDEHIJKLMNOPQRSTUV
6.9 25.1
2 7 16 25
| | | |
3. ABCDEFGHILMNOPQRSVWXYZ
3.9 8 11
4 8 11 17 24
| | | | |
4. ADEFGHIJKNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
14 22.8
4 14 18 23
| | | |
5. ABCDMNOPQRSTUVW
I will leave off adding the radiodating data here (as most people that
are not "learning challenged" have caught on to the order that this
data presents) and go directly to adding radiodating data to the
"anomolous" cases. I will only include those that say something
significant about the anomoly.
13 13 13 15.9
11 13 13 13 16
| | | | |
47. ABCFGHIJKLMN[NMLLM]OPQRSYZ
9 16 16 22
| | | |
72. ABCDEFGHILMNOPQ[OPQ]RSVWXYZ
The above (both the order of letters and the order of the numbers,
including the anomolies) is what your alternative theory needs to
explain. Not only the relative order of the geological record derived
from the letters. Not only the relative order of the radioisotopic
dating that, qualitatively, matches the ordering of the geologic
record. But also the consistency of the quantitative datings of
different radioisotopic methods.
If you have an alternative natural explanation that differs from what
standard geology would propose for all of these (including the
anomolies 47. and 72.) -- one that can explain the observations of
different strata using index fossils in sedimentary layers as markers
*and* that can explain both the qualitative and quantitative
consistency of that explanation with radiodating of embedded igneous
layers, please present it. Standard geology has an explanation that
works quite well. Can you guess what that explanation involves?
Ferrous Patella
(zoe_althrop):
> On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 05:06:34 +0000 (UTC), bigd...@aol.comGetaGrip
> (Bigdakine) wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> zoe wrote:
>
>>>Keeping in mind that the geological column was constructed BEFORE the
>>>advent of radioactive dating,
>>
>>And before the advent of evolution theory as well.
>
> right.
>
>>One wonders why you think the radioactive dating is germane to the
>>construction of the column.
>
> radioactive dating is not germane to the construction of the column. I
> don't think I said that. Indeed, I emphasized that the column was
> constructed BEFORE radioactive dating, so radioactive dating could NOT
> have had anything to do with its construction, could it?
>
Which is why radioactive dating makes such a great _independent_ cross
check for the geological column.
--
Ferrous Patella
"Four out of five dentists recommend the Theory of Evolution."
John Wilkins
Ferrous Patella
(zoe_althrop):
> As a creationist, how should I relate to the data that is used to
> construct the geological column? Is the column fact or fiction...or
> somewhere in between? Well, let's see...hmmmm...there does seem to be
> some evidence of a general progression of lower, more simple life
> forms to more developed life forms, if the textbooks are to be taken
> at face value. But considering that correlation of cross sections is
> the method used to create this column, I am hesitant to accept the
> results as set in concrete. Especially as the same data can be
> understood from a different point of view.
>
> Keeping in mind that the geological column was constructed BEFORE the
> advent of radioactive dating, and also bearing in mind that the
> premise of evolutionary change is the touchstone for placing life
> forms in sequence, even if found out of sequence, here is how I view
> the data:
>
> ONE, the geological column can form quickly, over a few thousand
> years, not necessarily millions of years.
>
> http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/fossilization.htm
>
That same site has a page
http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/geo.htm
which describes a complete geological column of about 15,000 feet. No
reconstruction, layers from Pre-Cambrian to Tertiary, undisturbed, all in
the same order as the _reconstructed_ GCs. Coincidence?
Steve A
>
> Zoe, you are representative of the sheep.
>
> Stuart
The way I see it is that you and your T.O. buddies happen to be just
as much sheep as any person with a Creationist mindset. The big
question here is this: What shepherd are you following? In your case--
as it is with all evolutionists-- the shepherd is grounded in
naturalism and the miraculous ability of random mutations (culled by
N.S. of course) to build organisms (taking them from worms to
extremely complex organisms like-- say-- people).
Steve A.
Steve A
> Now, in the post with which you opened this particular thread, you
> explicitly stated that "the premise of evolutionary change is the
> touchstone for placing life forms in sequence". Given that the
> sequence in which we place these lifeforms was, in fact, determined
> wholly *by direct observation of what fossils occured in which
Here's the problem: The premise of evolutionary change being in the GC
sequence isn't what has been found in the fossil record (except for in
some controversial examples such as the reptiles-to-mammals,
ungulate/whale sequence, or maybe the horse sequence).
It's well over a been a hundred years since Darwin's ideas were
proposed, and no one seems to have established a firm "sequence" for
the coming about of numerous kinds of animals including trilobites,
jellyfish, cephalopods like squids or the Nautilus, sea horses,
dragonflies, wasps, pterodactyls, Allosaurus's, Stegasaurus's,
Archaeoptrix (the first feathered creature of flight), Saber tooth
tigers, Wooly mammoths (or Elephants in general), Stingrays, bats,
Platypuses, Camels, Kangaroos, Giraffes, etc. . .
You're pretending that evolutionists have all the answers (thanks to
the fossil record), and the truth of the matter is that it is a weak
hypothesis of origins hinged on controversial examples which have been
pieced together from the fossil record.
Steve A.
Steve A
> In article <3e4fb8ad...@news-server.cfl.rr.com>, zoe_althrop wrote:
> > On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 06:47:21 +0000 (UTC), "Lane Lewis"
> ><l...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >>
> >>so often.
> >
> > evidence of deserts is to be expected between local floods here and
> > there across the earth over time.
>
> Please explain this conclusion and how came by it.
Read through points 34 to 40 in this write-up:
http://www.sedin.org/PDFS/final125.pdf
Steve A.
Bigdakine
>Date: 2/17/03 11:13 AM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <92c76e71.03021...@posting.google.com>
>
>> bigd...@aol.comGetaGrip (Bigdakine) wrote in message news:
>>
>> Zoe, you are representative of the sheep.
>>
>> Stuart
>
>The way I see it is that you and your T.O. buddies happen to be just
>as much sheep as any person with a Creationist mindset.
The way I see it, Steve, is that your as much of a sheep as Zoe. As we'll see
below.
The big
>question here is this: What shepherd are you following? In your case--
>as it is with all evolutionists-- the shepherd is grounded in
>naturalism
and the miraculous ability of random mutations (culled by
>N.S. of course) to build organisms (taking them from worms to
>extremely complex organisms like-- say-- people).
Consdering I routinely use random mutations to solve certain wave-form seismic
inverse problems more efficiently or at least as efficiently as traditional
inverse methods, I hardly find it surprising that random mutations and NS can
solve problems faced by biological organisms. In my view complexity is simply a
natural consequence of such a process. That mechnisms which can add DNA to the
genome are well-known and well established and that genes can be constructed
out of non-coding DNA on the fly like T-urf13 only confirms my lack of
surprise. Clearly creationists would have a leg to stand on, if in fact no
such mechanisms were known. OTOH, my ill-informed, confident to the nth degree
while going down in flames faster than a P-40 in a vertical dive, friend, has
nothing to offer in the way of rebuttal other than his personal incredulousness
and his pedantic and pathetic bleatings so obviously designed to prop up an
outmoded belief system. Moreover, when it comes to explaining natural
phenomena, naturalism works. It has explained all sorts of things leading to
new knowledge. Only sheep argue with success.
Steve, give us one example where a non-naturalistic explanation has yielded
intellectual fruit. THis is commonly asked of our ID opponents, and we are not
given answers. And then you can explain why there are no creationist oil
companies.
Considering your personal definiton of evolution was satisfied by C. Vulgaris,
you have a lot of gall.
Most, if not, all people understand there is a difference between solitary
cells and cell clusters. But rather than accept the obvious, you simply move
the goal posts. In short you're claiming that because the cell clusters are
composed of cells the same as the solitary ones, they are the same structure or
same complexity
Some people say topologists don't know the difference between a doughnut and a
coffee cup. But you obviously can't tell the difference between a brick and a
building.
And won't you please comment on the difference in morphology between chimps and
humans?
Steve A
> > muz...@aol.com (zoe_althrop) wrote in news: >snip<
>
> >>> TWO, evidence of a global flood (chiefly in the form of coal and
> >>> oil) lies at the bottom of the layers of the "geological column."
> >>>
> >>> http://www.fortune.com/fortune/brainstorm/0,15704,419014,00.html
> >>
> >>_Fortune_ magazine, that great scientific journal. What is next Zoe?
> >>Maybe you can start quoting _The National Enquirer_ as well.
> >
> > don't like that news source? They're lying maybe?
>
> For shame Zoe. I did not say that they were lying and I did in any
> way insinuate it.
You made the Fortune magazine citation out to be disreputable, and
thus likely to contain falsehoods. For shame Harlequin.
> If you claim that I did then you are lying.
Zoe has totally nailed you, and it's quite apparent that it's you, not
Zoe who's trying to misrepresent things around here. . .
> What I did say is that you cited a source that is simply not
> credible source for geology. You are going to have to learn to
> figure out what is a credible and uncredible source. You cited a
> profoundly uncredible source.
The word "Uncredible" leads one to believe that the source contains
falsehoods and has been known in the past to promote lies. What
evidence do you have that Fortune magazine has a history of standing
for falsehoods???
> [snip -- Zoes new sources]
>
> Others have demonstrated your misreading of your other sources.
You have not even read the article which Zoe brought forward here.
What gives you the right to discount it when you haven't checked it
out?!
Steve A.
Steve A
> in the scientific literature. Also, it still doens't
> support your claims. The vast majority of commercialy
> important coal and oil fields are not found in basement
> rocks. What we have here is an interesting anomaly,
> not evidence of a global flood.
All it takes is just one interesting anomaly like this to completely
and utterly topple the evolutionists' ideas of how it takes millions
of years for the geological column to form. If it can be verifiably
shown that these "anomalies" of proterozoic or Cambrian/Ordovician oil
deposits are derived from living matter-- and that the oil didn't
leak down from a higher layer, then Evolutionists will have to concede
defeat.
Steve A.
Steve A
> > "Dana Tweedy" <twe...@cvn.net> wrote in message
> >
>
>
> Zoe said:
> > Each
> > > group uses their own dating methods, so there would naturally be some
> > > discrepancies, but when all the data is in and correlated, they all
> > > should fit the timeline after the flood.
>
> All the data so far collected does not fit the timeline "after the flood",
> and in fact does not support the existance of a global flood.
It's funny how scientists say this about the largely water-covered
Earth, and then turn around and point to Mars (a planet which doesn't
appear to have much H2O on it at all) and claim that catastrophic
floods caused much of its surface erosion. . .
How ironic.
Steve A.
Jason Cortina
You really haven't clue 1 about how science works and advances, do you?
If the current view of evolution is wrong in any serious way, what will
replace it will be a theory (or set of theories) which explains ALL the
information which current theory does and also explains any anomalies.
Just like Newton's work couldn't explain the ANOMOLY of Mercury's motion
and was 'displaced' by relativity. But wait! We still use Newton's
equations all the time. You see Newton wasn't REPLACED, his work was
subsumed; it became a subset of its successor.
As the creation anti-scientists have nothing which actually explains, there
is not a chance that it will become the accepted SCIENTIFIC view.
--
Jason A Cortina
"Everything has a natural explanation. The moon is
not a god but a great rock and the sun a hot rock."
-- Anaxagorus, ca. 475 BC
TomS
<g3v25v07bqkgcclfl...@4ax.com>, Jason stated..."
[...snip...]
>You really haven't clue 1 about how science works and advances, do you?
>
>If the current view of evolution is wrong in any serious way, what will
>replace it will be a theory (or set of theories) which explains ALL the
>information which current theory does and also explains any anomalies.
>
>Just like Newton's work couldn't explain the ANOMOLY of Mercury's motion
>and was 'displaced' by relativity. But wait! We still use Newton's
>equations all the time. You see Newton wasn't REPLACED, his work was
>subsumed; it became a subset of its successor.
>
>As the creation anti-scientists have nothing which actually explains, there
>is not a chance that it will become the accepted SCIENTIFIC view.
Can anyone think of a case in the history of science,
where a scientific theory was discarded without being
replaced by another theory? That is, a case which follows
the hope of the creationists, that somehow, somewhere,
something is wrong with evolution, without there being
another explanation?
And, we should alert those that hope that there will
be a replacement for evolution, that whatever might replace
it might be even more disturbing.
Tom S.
Harlequin
news:92c76e71.03021...@posting.google.com:
>> Harlequin <use...@cox.net> wrote in message news:
>> > muz...@aol.com (zoe_althrop) wrote in news: >snip<
>>
>> >>> TWO, evidence of a global flood (chiefly in the form of coal and
>> >>> oil) lies at the bottom of the layers of the "geological column."
>> >>>
>> >>> http://www.fortune.com/fortune/brainstorm/0,15704,419014,00.html
>> >>
>> >>_Fortune_ magazine, that great scientific journal. What is next Zoe?
>> >>Maybe you can start quoting _The National Enquirer_ as well.
>> >
>> > don't like that news source? They're lying maybe?
>>
>> For shame Zoe. I did not say that they were lying and I did in any
>> way insinuate it.
>
> You made the Fortune magazine citation out to be disreputable, and
> thus likely to contain falsehoods. For shame Harlequin.
I did not say that _Fortune_ is disreputable. It is a
a prefectly good source of information on investing. But
it is not a good source of information about scientific information.
Only an idiot would cite _Fortune_ as a source on science,
medicine, how to play golf, etc. Just as one would be an
idiot if one considered _Science_ and _Nature_ to be
good sources to go to if one wanted to know the best
strategy to invest money. One must always seek
appropriate sources of information.
>> If you claim that I did then you are lying.
>
> Zoe has totally nailed you, and it's quite apparent that it's you, not
> Zoe who's trying to misrepresent things around here. . .
Ms 5/0=5 has not nailed anyone on anything in this newsgroup
as far as I am aware of.
>> What I did say is that you cited a source that is simply not
>> credible source for geology. You are going to have to learn to
>> figure out what is a credible and uncredible source. You cited a
>> profoundly uncredible source.
>
> The word "Uncredible" leads one to believe that the source contains
> falsehoods and has been known in the past to promote lies. What
> evidence do you have that Fortune magazine has a history of standing
> for falsehoods???
Non-science sources have a long history of complete lack
of understanding the basics of science. And for the record I
have not in any way accused _Fortune_ of lying. That is just
your inablity to read. What is your evidence that finance
reporters know much about science?
>> [snip -- Zoes new sources]
>>
>> Others have demonstrated your misreading of your other sources.
>
> You have not even read the article which Zoe brought forward here.
> What gives you the right to discount it when you haven't checked it
> out?!
I looked as one of her sources. It turned out that she
misrepresented what it said. This is not the first time
for Zoe. She has a track record of not comprehending what
she reads: to the degree that she often gets it 180 degrees
wrong. She repeately does this. Are you saying that
I cannot take in consideration the track-record of
a poster?
David Jensen
<92c76e71.03021...@posting.google.com>:
There is a competing scientific hypothesis about the origins of
petroleum that does not require any life to have been present. It
appears to be a bit better than crackpot, but not widely regarded.
<http://www.gasresources.net/energy_resources.htm> presents an overview.
Even if the Russian hypothesis were correct, it would not need to be the
exclusive source of petroleum.
David Jensen
>> "Dana Tweedy" <twe...@cvn.net> wrote in message news:
Hasn't all of the earth been under water at some time or another?
Richard Uhrich
It must take an awful lot of dull-wittedness to see irony in this. Like
looking up at the night sky, grasping the magnitude of the Milky Way
galaxy, glimpsing the Andromeda Galaxy, understanding that billions of
other galaxies exist, as saying, "Yup, 4th day. To provide signs. Yup."
Richard Uhrich
And that's why the oil companies hire only Creationist geologists.
Ann Broomhead
Oh, bother. Another pimp for Jesus.
Nothing like sticking in a few libellously false adjectives to a true
statement to try and talk yourself into disbelieving it, is there?
Try this instead: "the acceptance of evolution is based on the
understanding of the observed ability of random mutations,
demonstrateably directed by natural selection, to modify organisms to
become more fit residents of their environment (as measured by their
increase in progeny)."
And I have no idea why you don't think any worms are complex.
Pfusand
That which does not destroy us
has made its last mistake.
-- Unspoken motto of the pantope crew
Dana Tweedy
"Steve A" <av...@doctor.com> wrote in message
news:92c76e71.0302...@posting.google.com...
> > cub...@aol.com (Cubist) wrote in message news:
> > Now, in the post with which you opened this particular thread, you
> > explicitly stated that "the premise of evolutionary change is the
> > touchstone for placing life forms in sequence". Given that the
> > sequence in which we place these lifeforms was, in fact, determined
> > wholly *by direct observation of what fossils occured in which
> > layers. . .
>
> Here's the problem: The premise of evolutionary change being in the GC
> sequence isn't what has been found in the fossil record (except for in
> some controversial examples such as the reptiles-to-mammals,
> ungulate/whale sequence, or maybe the horse sequence).
Of course Steve is wrong. There are many more examples of evolutionary
change in the fossil record, and the examples he gives are hardly
"controversial". They are well established, and well supported.
Furthermore, how many transitional sequences does it take to refute the
claim that there are no transitional sequences?
>
> It's well over a been a hundred years since Darwin's ideas were
> proposed, and no one seems to have established a firm "sequence" for
> the coming about of numerous kinds of animals including trilobites,
> jellyfish, cephalopods like squids or the Nautilus, sea horses,
> dragonflies, wasps, pterodactyls, Allosaurus's, Stegasaurus's,
> Archaeoptrix (the first feathered creature of flight), Saber tooth
> tigers, Wooly mammoths (or Elephants in general), Stingrays, bats,
> Platypuses, Camels, Kangaroos, Giraffes, etc. . .
Big deal, it's hardly a secret the the fossil record is not complete. We
don't expect to have a "firm" sequence (whatever definition of "firm" Steve
may choose) for every living thing. We do have fossil precoursers for many
of the examples given here, even if we don't have a full sequence of
fossils. Steve is arguing from his personal ignorance.
>
> You're pretending that evolutionists have all the answers (thanks to
> the fossil record),
No one is pretending that science has all the answers. However that doesn't
mean we have NO answers. The fossil record gives good evidence for
evolution, and is not the only source of evidence, nor even the best
evidence.
>and the truth of the matter is that it is a weak
> hypothesis of origins hinged on controversial examples which have been
> pieced together from the fossil record.
The truth of the matter is Steve makes an arguement from personal ignorance.
The only "controversy" about those examples is exactly where to place
individual fossils in the sequence. The sequences themselves are not
considered controversial.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
Why is this "funny"? The evidence indicates that many of the surface
features of Mars indicate flowing water. Much of that water may be contained
in polar icecaps. Earth may have plenty of water, but the evidence of
the geologic column indicates that at no time was there a single global
flood.
>
> How ironic.
I fail to see the irony here. The presence of water on earth does not
indicate a global flood, any more than a puddle of water in your front yard
indicates your house was flooded.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
> >
> > Again, it's an interesting idea, but not well supported
> > in the scientific literature. Also, it still doens't
> > support your claims. The vast majority of commercialy
> > important coal and oil fields are not found in basement
> > rocks. What we have here is an interesting anomaly,
> > not evidence of a global flood.
>
> All it takes is just one interesting anomaly like this to completely
> and utterly topple the evolutionists' ideas of how it takes millions
> of years for the geological column to form.
Not really. There is still plenty of evidence that the geologic column took
millions of years to form. All that evidence must be explained if you wish
to claim that it only took a few thousand years. The geologic column simply
doesn't support the idea of rapid deposition.
> If it can be verifiably
> shown that these "anomalies" of proterozoic or Cambrian/Ordovician oil
> deposits are derived from living matter-- and that the oil didn't
> leak down from a higher layer, then Evolutionists will have to concede
> defeat.
The first evidence of life dates back to 3.5 billion years. If it were
shown that that oil were the result of bacterial processes, that is not a
problem for conventional time lines, as bacterial life was known to exist in
Cambrian and pre-Cambrian eras. So far there is no evidence that the oil in
those strata was the remains of the same type of organic matter that
produced the commercial oil fields.
DJT
Cubist
> > cub...@aol.com (Cubist) wrote in message news:
> > Now, in the post with which you opened this particular thread, you
> > explicitly stated that "the premise of evolutionary change is the
> > touchstone for placing life forms in sequence". Given that the
> > sequence in which we place these lifeforms was, in fact, determined
> > wholly *by direct observation of what fossils occured in which
> > layers. . .
>
> Here's the problem: The premise of evolutionary change being in the GC
> sequence isn't what has been found in the fossil record (except for in
> some controversial examples such as the reptiles-to-mammals,
> ungulate/whale sequence, or maybe the horse sequence).
my message which you made a clandestine snip of.
[begin repost, including restoration of unmarked snip]
Now, in the post with which you opened this particular thread, you
explicitly stated that "the premise of evolutionary change is the
touchstone for placing life forms in sequence". Given that the
sequence in which we place these lifeforms was, in fact, determined
wholly *by direct observation of what fossils occured in which
layers*, and that the original observations from which this sequence
was determined were made *decades before Darwin published _Origin of
Species_*, it follows that ascribing this sequence to "the premise of
evolutionary change", as you just did, is just stoopid. Apparently,
Darwin's unGodly ideas were so powerfully insidious that they were
able to contaminate people's minds decades before Darwin actually
conceived said unGodly ideas...
[end repost, including restoration of unmarked snip]
> It's well over a been a hundred years since Darwin's ideas were
> proposed, and no one seems to have established a firm "sequence" for
> the coming about of numerous kinds of animals including trilobites,
> jellyfish, cephalopods like squids or the Nautilus, sea horses,
> dragonflies, wasps, pterodactyls...
[snip]
Exactly what does this have to do with the ability of pre-Darwin
observers to look at which strata are found above/below which others,
notice that certain kinds of fossils are found in specific strata, and
associate specific kinds of fossils with specific strata? Zoe's claim,
that the sequence into which we put fossils is determined by the
premise of evolutioanry change, requires that pre-Darwin observers did
not have any such ability. Do you agree with her? And if so, on what
grounds do you base your agreement?
> You're pretending that evolutionists have all the answers (thanks to
> the fossil record), and the truth of the matter is that it is a weak
> hypothesis of origins hinged on controversial examples which have been
> pieced together from the fossil record.
Exactly what does the ability of pre-Darwin observers to look at
which strata are found above/below which others, notice that certain
kinds of fossils are found in specific strata, and associate specific
kinds of fossils with specific strata, have to do with contemporary
scientists who accept the contemporary theory of evolution?
Do you, in fact, have any observation or argument to make which is
actually pertinent to the point I was addressing? If so, please
present it.
Mike Dunford
I'm very impressed. I've been referred to many pages in my time here,
but none that I can think of has been as comprehensively wrong as
this one. For convienience (mine) I will indent the quoted material,
and use the normal margins for my own comments. As you will see, I
read a bit beyond Steve's recommendation, but I will try to limit the
sections I comment on a bit.
For reference, the title and author information for the paper Steve
refers us to is:
DECISION TIME: HOW DID IT REALLY HAPPEN?
SCANNING WELL OVER ONE HUNDRED TWENTY FIVE DIRECT
CORRELATIONS BETWEEN THE PHYSICAL RECORD OF THE
ROCKS AND THE BIBLICAL RECORD
Bernard E. Northrup Th.D. 8/25/99
[...]
(Interestingly enough, the document contains a very brief
introduction, a conclusion, and 124 numbered sections detailing the
"correlations".)
17. The Paleozoic deposits lie unconformably on the
Proterozoic surfaces wherever both exist. According
to Genesis 5-7, the Noahic flood event series was
preceded by an interval of between 1,500 years (Heb.)
and 2,000 years (LXX) between the creation week and
the flood. The great unconformity represents this
quiet period of Biblical history. [...]
Wrong. See, for example, the Global Stratotype section in
Newfoundland. (http://micropress.org/stratigraphy/procam.htm).
19. The Cambrian deposits are filled with calcium
deposits. These are the deposits left quietly lying on
the ocean bottom during the 1,500 to 2,000 years (LXX)
of the life and death of boundless numbers of marine
calcium gathering creatures that lived in the sea
between Adam and Noah. [...]
In point 17, which is quoted above, the author claims that the 1,500
to 2,000 years are represented by the great unconformity. In point
19, he claims that the same 1,500 to 2,000 years is represented by
the "calcium deposits" which occurred in the Cambrian, _after_ the
great unconformity.
21. Bottom, rather immobile life forms dominate the
Cambrian deposits. The creationist should expect this,
for these are the first creatures overwhelmed in the
very beginning of the Noahic flood by the violence of
the eruption of the fountains of the deep (Gen.7:11). [...]
Funny, but when somebody says "rather immobile life forms", things
like coral (and trees) tend to pop into my mind before trilobites do.
22. There are indications of glaciation found in some
continental Ordovician deposits. [...]
Which lie above the Cambrian deposits which we learned just
above "contain the remains of the first creatures overwhelmed in the
very beginning of the Noahic flood".
"32. The predominance of calcium deposits continue to
dominate the Paleozoic Devonian deposits. Wherever I
have been able to examine the Devonian deposits, I have
found strong indication of quieting waters that
displayed considerable evidence of quiet oscillation.
This seemed to be very characteristic of those seen in
New York and Pennsylvania. I insist that this represents
deposits laid down near the middle of the 150 days of
universality of the Noahic flood as described in Genesis
7:18-24." [...]
My geological field experience is admittedly very limited, but most
of it has been with the Devonian of New York, Pennsylvania, and
Maryland. During the mapping that I have done in those areas, I have
noted a number of pretty large storm deposits. There are certainly
some sections that exhibited quiet deposition, but there are a good
number of fossiliferous beds that represent what I would call really
bad Devonian days. That's in the Devonian limestones, which are
mostly lower to middle Devonian. After that, you start getting into
the Catskill Delta material, which is not typically carbonate, and is
frequently not marine.
"34. The Paleozoic marine deposits are found on most
of earth’s surfaces. An evolutionary writer that I have
read marvels that they are unable to find continental
deposits of this period in Europe. But this is precisely
what should be expected in the universal stage of the
Noahic flood. [...]
There are Paleozoic continental deposits in Europe -- the author,
and/or his unnamed and perhaps immaginary "evolutionary writer" are
incorrect on that point. There is certainly no shortage of
terrestrial deposits of Paleozoic age in the US or elsewhere, either.
In fact, the Supai Group, which the author discusses in the next few
points after this one is itself Paleozoic (the Mississippian is a
subdivision of the Paleozoic) -- and let's not forget the Ordovician
continental deposits the author mentioned in #22.
36. Raindrop prints and mud cracks on the shores left
by the oscillating Supai Assemblage also point to the
initiation of the early retreat stage of the waters.
This formation plainly records the aeolian deposition
of the iron oxide stained materials in a humid,
oscillating, shoreline environment. These materials fell
in or near the water, to be sorted by the many fairly
quiet marine intrusions that mark its layers. [...] This
further confirms the initiation of the retreat of the
Noahic flood. [...]
41. A major characteristic of the Pennsylvanian “Epoch”
in many places is its great coal beds. In 1968 I proposed
the “vegetation raft theory of coal deposit,” suggesting
that great rafts of antediluvian vegetation carried on
the Noahic flood waters began to be driven ashore and
buried by the powerful tsunamis of the retreating Noahic
flood waters. [...]
Here, we find the author arguing that the retreat of the flood waters
was "fairly quiet" durring the Mississippian, and that there were
"powerful tsunamis" of the same retreating flood waters during the
Pennsylvanian. This is interesting, since the Pennsylvanian is the
period which _followed_ the Mississippian.
I'll stop there, even though I didn't even begin to scratch the
surface when it comes to identifying errors in this paper. About the
best thing I can say for this one is that the author seems to have
entirely escaped the grasp of the hobgoblin of foolish consistency.
--Mike Dunford
--
Great is the power of steady misrepresentation; but the history of
science shows that fortunately this power does not long endure.
--Charles Darwin
Jason Cortina
<mdun...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> av...@doctor.com (Steve A) wrote in
> news:92c76e71.03021...@posting.google.com:
>
> > AC <sp...@nospam.com.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:<slrnb4vhv...@ts1.alberni.net>...
> >> In article <3e4fb8ad...@news-server.cfl.rr.com>,
> >> zoe_althrop wrote:
> >> > On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 06:47:21 +0000 (UTC), "Lane Lewis"
> >> ><l...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> >>Then there's those pesky deserts that crop up right in the
> >> >>middle ever so often.
> >> >
> >> > evidence of deserts is to be expected between local floods
> >> > here and there across the earth over time.
> >>
> >> Please explain this conclusion and how came by it.
> >
> > Read through points 34 to 40 in this write-up:
> > http://www.sedin.org/PDFS/final125.pdf
>
[snip]
>
> I'll stop there, even though I didn't even begin to scratch the
> surface when it comes to identifying errors in this paper. About the
> best thing I can say for this one is that the author seems to have
> entirely escaped the grasp of the hobgoblin of foolish consistency.
>
Awww. You forgot to mention the (normally) shoreline dwelling reptiles
which had to have tread water for a year (with *what* to eat or drink?)
before coming ashore to make the footprints.
--
Jason A Cortina
"I regret to say that we of the F.B.I. are powerless to act
in cases of oral-genital intimacy, unless it has in some
way obstructed interstate commerce."
-- J. Edgar Hoover
Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue
Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 22:22:22 +0000 (UTC), av...@doctor.com (Steve A)
wrote:
>> Harlequin <use...@cox.net> wrote in message news:
>> > muz...@aol.com (zoe_althrop) wrote in news: >snip<
>>
>> >>> TWO, evidence of a global flood (chiefly in the form of coal and
>> >>> oil) lies at the bottom of the layers of the "geological column."
>> >>>
>> >>> http://www.fortune.com/fortune/brainstorm/0,15704,419014,00.html
>> >>
>> >>_Fortune_ magazine, that great scientific journal. What is next Zoe?
>> >>Maybe you can start quoting _The National Enquirer_ as well.
>> >
>> > don't like that news source? They're lying maybe?
>>
>> For shame Zoe. I did not say that they were lying and I did in any
>> way insinuate it.
>
>You made the Fortune magazine citation out to be disreputable, and
>thus likely to contain falsehoods. For shame Harlequin.
While we are on the subject of misrepresentation, I take it your
multiple postings here and your silence on the contents of posts
Message-ID: <np9f4vgaitp9u0b58...@4ax.com>
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3570290574d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=np9f4vgaitp9u0b5803id3eo482lqsieg6%404ax.com
(URL may wrap and need reassembly)
Message-ID: <tivv4v41orrepbp5i...@4ax.com>
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=haldane+group:talk.origins+author:musgrave&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=tivv4v41orrepbp5i86d7k9966nf3gdl7b%404ax.com&rnum=1
(URL may wrap and need reassembly)
means that you agree that ReMine misrepresented Haldane, and doesn't
understand the dilemma.
Cheers! Ian
=====================================================
Ian Musgrave Peta O'Donohue,Jack Francis and Michael James Musgrave
reyn...@werple.mira.net.au http://werple.mira.net.au/~reynella/
Southern Sky Watch http://www.abc.net.au/science/space/default.htm
howard hershey
Given the number of genes (coding seqeunces) it takes to construct a
rather simple round worm (Caenhorrabditis elegans) and the number of
genes (coding sequences) that it is estimated to take to build
extremely complex organisms like -- say -- people, I would say that
the worms are not that much less complex. Would you like to guess (or
better yet, research and find out) how many more coding sequences are
present in humans than in C. elegans? And then explain your position
using real numbers rather than anthropocentric bias.
>
> Steve A.
Thomas H. Faller
>ONE, the geological column can form quickly, over a few thousand
>years, not necessarily millions of years.
Absolutely impossible, just from the volume of organisms represented
in the geologic column that still exists. To give you an idea,
from just one formation in the Dakotas, representing just one
layer of the geologic column, there are enough crinoids
to cover the world three inches deep.
>TWO, evidence of a global flood (chiefly in the form of coal and oil)
>lies at the bottom of the layers of the "geological column."
This is not evidence for the Flood. The Forbes article is not
accurate, nor a balanced view of abiogenic oil, nor is it
necessarily an accurate picture of what's going on in the White
Tiger field. I'm a former oil exploration geophysicist, working
for Exxon in the 80's. There are plenty of explanations for Gold's
results which do not invalidate biogenic theories, and there
are mountains of evidence that show biogenic theories are correct,
particularly in their predictive value.
Oil does not mature in thousands of years. We have plenty of
examples of fields too young for oil, but still biogenically
active. We have sequences of young to old oil-bearing strata
that correlate with the age of the oil in them (determined by
the fractions of volatiles and other products). And we have
plenty of hydrocarbon-bearing strata that is too old for
production - the oil has gone to tars. Wells are drilled where
strata show a source, a pourous reservoir, and a trapping
structure for hydrocarbons. The Forbes article fails to address
how these are present at "half a mile through solid granite".
It is likely that the author doesn't understand what he's
writing about. This happens in Forbes (and other magazines)
regularly - I've read other examples in Forbes on other subjects.
Finally, there is no reasonable way that oil-producing organisms
should be deposited below bedrock in the Flood and not evenly
throughout the rest of the geologic column instead of the way
we actually see oil strata occurring - which is highly correlated
with specific environments occuring over millions of years
instead of a single flood.
>THREE, many local floods that have followed the global flood have
>served to fossilize life forms that existed at the various times,
...
This has no relation to what is actually observed, both in the
fossil record and in the history of civilizations.
>FOUR, the approximate 900-1300 years discrepancy that throws Ussher's
>dating off (3100-3500 B.C. dates for Sumerian records versus the
>supposed date for creation) can be accounted for by overlap and even
>duplication of dynasty records.
This is complete garbage. It ignores most of the historical record
in the Middle East, as well as ignoring all of the records outside
of the Middle East. Cherry-picking at its finest.
>FIVE, igneous rock, which is the type of rock used for calculating
>absolute age, is correlated with layers that contain fossils, but
>since it is likely that the absolute ages reflect accumulated decay
>product and not time since solidification, such correlation can be
>misleading.
You may be the only person in the known universe who feels this way.
Tom Faller
Raymond P. Freeman-Lynde
[snip]
> Using the above information, it is possible to develop a reasonable
> theory of how an old earth with young life came to be what we see
> today.
>
> ----
> zoe
So if this is true, please explain how *geophysists* in the late 1960's
were able to predict the microfossil assemblages that would be found in the
sediment immediately over the oceanic crust in cores recovered during Leg 3
of the Deep Sea Drilling Project in the South Atlantic, based on distance
from the Mid-Ocean Ridge crest.
Ray Freeman-Lynde
Department of Geology
University of Georgia
Harlequin
news:3E527D33...@arches.uga.edu:
> zoe_althrop wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> Using the above information, it is possible to develop a reasonable
>> theory of how an old earth with young life came to be what we see
>> today.
>
> So if this is true, please explain how *geophysists* in the late
> 1960's were able to predict the microfossil assemblages that would be
> found in the sediment immediately over the oceanic crust in cores
> recovered during Leg 3 of the Deep Sea Drilling Project in the South
> Atlantic, based on distance from the Mid-Ocean Ridge crest.
Hey that sounds interesting. Though I had
not heard of this before, it is immediately obvious that could
have been done and that the predictions would be obvious. Was
it the forams that were used? In any event, Zoe has
another confirmation to ignore.
I bet this could make a killer article to help show the geologic
column is useful and based on reality that almost anyone
who is not dogmatically holding on the YEC timeframe could
grasp.
R. Tang
Steve A <av...@doctor.com> wrote:
>It's funny how scientists say this about the largely water-covered
>Earth, and then turn around and point to Mars (a planet which doesn't
>appear to have much H2O on it at all) and claim that catastrophic
>floods caused much of its surface erosion. . .
Not really,.
>How ironic.
Only if you're profoundly ignorant.
>
>Steve A.
>
--
-
-Roger Tang, gwan...@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
- Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue [NEW URL][Yes, it IS new]
- http://www.aatrevue.com
Raymond P. Freeman-Lynde
> "Raymond P. Freeman-Lynde" <rfre...@arches.uga.edu> wrote in
> news:3E527D33...@arches.uga.edu:
>
> > zoe_althrop wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >> Using the above information, it is possible to develop a reasonable
> >> theory of how an old earth with young life came to be what we see
> >> today.
> >
> > So if this is true, please explain how *geophysists* in the late
> > 1960's were able to predict the microfossil assemblages that would be
> > found in the sediment immediately over the oceanic crust in cores
> > recovered during Leg 3 of the Deep Sea Drilling Project in the South
> > Atlantic, based on distance from the Mid-Ocean Ridge crest.
>
> Hey that sounds interesting. Though I had
> not heard of this before, it is immediately obvious that could
> have been done and that the predictions would be obvious. Was
> it the forams that were used? In any event, Zoe has
> another confirmation to ignore.
>
> I bet this could make a killer article to help show the geologic
> column is useful and based on reality that almost anyone
> who is not dogmatically holding on the YEC timeframe could
> grasp.
>
I don't know if it's worth an article, but I had a more extensive
discussion of this with Elzie Kai in November 2001 that you can read at
http://makeashorterlink.com/?E5B211483.
Harlequin
> Harlequin wrote:
>
>> "Raymond P. Freeman-Lynde" <rfre...@arches.uga.edu> wrote in
>> news:3E527D33...@arches.uga.edu:
>>
[snipping Zoe]
>> > So if this is true, please explain how *geophysists* in the late
>> > 1960's were able to predict the microfossil assemblages that would be
>> > found in the sediment immediately over the oceanic crust in cores
>> > recovered during Leg 3 of the Deep Sea Drilling Project in the South
>> > Atlantic, based on distance from the Mid-Ocean Ridge crest.
>>
>> Hey that sounds interesting. Though I had
>> not heard of this before, it is immediately obvious that could
>> have been done and that the predictions would be obvious. Was
>> it the forams that were used? In any event, Zoe has
>> another confirmation to ignore.
>>
>> I bet this could make a killer article to help show the geologic
>> column is useful and based on reality that almost anyone
>> who is not dogmatically holding on the YEC timeframe could
>> grasp.
>
> I don't know if it's worth an article, but I had a more extensive
> discussion of this with Elzie Kai in November 2001 that you can read at
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?E5B211483.
Thanks. I must have missed your post. If I had seen it I would have
been nominating you for PotM.
Zoe, you really need to read that article. It is something that
could not be true if the geologic column did not reflect reality
is true.
In concluding paragraph:
> Think about that - paleomagnetisists who knew nothing about
> microfossils could go into the literature, find out what specific
> species of forams and coccoliths lived 10 million or 20 million or 40
> million or 80 millions years ago, and tell the micropaleontologists
> what they would find before the ship even sailed!
This is the use of the geologic column and its agreement with
both evolution, radiometric dating, and plate tectonics in
action.
Andrew Arensburger
> looking up at the night sky, grasping the magnitude of the Milky Way
> galaxy, glimpsing the Andromeda Galaxy, understanding that billions of
> other galaxies exist, as saying, "Yup, 4th day. To provide signs. Yup."
Whenever I see this argument, I want to ask about the >90% of
the universe that isn't visible from Earth with the naked eye, and is
therefore useless for indicating the seasons.
(Aside: in order to build a telescope that tracks the sky
accurately, presumably you need to be able to build an accurate clock.
Hence, presumably, by the time your technology has advanced to the
point where you can look at distant stars for signs and seasons, you
no longer need the stars anyway.)
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-...@glue.umd.edu Office of Information Technology
Learn from the mistakes of others.
You won't live long enough to make all of them yourself.
Steve A
> Hasn't all of the earth been under water at some time or another?
David, I think you're just now starting to see the truth.
Steve A.
David Jensen
>> David Jensen <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
>>
>> Hasn't all of the earth been under water at some time or another?
>
>David, I think you're just now starting to see the truth.
Which truth would that be?
We also know that all of it has never been under water at the same time.
Jason Cortina
That being that ALL evidence indicates that at no time was
ALL of the earth under water at the SAME time and that much
that currently is above water has been so for many millions
of years.
--
Jason A Cortina
"The wireless telegraph is not difficult to understand.
The ordinary telegraph is like a very long cat.
You pull the tail in New York, and it meows in Los Angeles.
The wireless is the same, only without the cat."
-- Albert Einstein
Steve A
>
> Can anyone think of a case in the history of science,
> where a scientific theory was discarded without being
> replaced by another theory?
The "Theory of Evolution" shouldn't even be a theory because it's
based on a thesis statement which is nothing but a tautology:
"Survival of the fittest". (Who are the fittest? The survivors of
course. . .) Survivor of the survivors-- Now what is this really
communicating to us? Anything meaningful?
> That is, a case which follows
> the hope of the creationists, that somehow, somewhere,
> something is wrong with evolution, without there being
> another explanation?
When it comes to origins, we are dealing with the past. It would take
a time machine to observe the past scientifically and confirm whether
or not microevolution truly should be extrapolated into goo-to-you
evolution (macro-scale building of purposeful morphology over eons of
time).
Should there be a "scientific theory" on origins without the invention
of a means of this observation (a time machine)? I think not. This
applies to creationism (which I call a concept) just as much as it
applies to the concept of evolutionism.
Origins ideas cannot be truly confirmed without observations, and it's
observation that the scientific method has as its basis.
> And, we should alert those that hope that there will
> be a replacement for evolution, that whatever might replace
> it might be even more disturbing.
It would only disturb me that another set of origins ideas are being
called "scientific theory" without that time machine.
Steve A.
Dana Tweedy
> >
> > Can anyone think of a case in the history of science,
> > where a scientific theory was discarded without being
> > replaced by another theory?
>
> The "Theory of Evolution" shouldn't even be a theory because it's
> based on a thesis statement which is nothing but a tautology:
> "Survival of the fittest". (Who are the fittest? The survivors of
> course. . .) Survivor of the survivors-- Now what is this really
> communicating to us? Anything meaningful?
Come on Steve, this is one of the oldest, lamest creationists cliches. As
you are undoubtedly quite aware, "survival of the fittest" is not a "thesis
statement" of evolution, and was not Darwin's phrase. The basis of
evolution is differential reproductive success, not mere survival.
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/tautology.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html
http://www4.d25.k12.id.us/phs/biology/evol1.html
>
> > That is, a case which follows
> > the hope of the creationists, that somehow, somewhere,
> > something is wrong with evolution, without there being
> > another explanation?
>
> When it comes to origins, we are dealing with the past.
yes, and there are ways of investigating past events. Or do you feel that
forensic science is worthless in solving crimes?
> It would take
> a time machine to observe the past scientifically and confirm whether
> or not microevolution truly should be extrapolated into goo-to-you
> evolution (macro-scale building of purposeful morphology over eons of
> time).
Or, one could take the path the science does, and observe the evidence left
behind by the events. One hardly needs a time machine to observe the
evidence that exists today.
>
> Should there be a "scientific theory" on origins without the invention
> of a means of this observation (a time machine)? I think not.
Why do we need a time machine, when we can observe the evidence?
> This
> applies to creationism (which I call a concept) just as much as it
> applies to the concept of evolutionism.
Creationism is a religious belief. "Evolutionism" is a label Creationists
use when they try to equivocate their religous belief with scientific
inquiry. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory, not a religious or
philosophic concept.
>
> Origins ideas cannot be truly confirmed without observations, and it's
> observation that the scientific method has as its basis.
And observation need not be direct. Indirect observation is commonly used
in all diciplines of science. Astronomers need not recreate supernovae in
their labs to observe them. Atomic physicists need not directly observe
atoms to investigate their behavior. Why require biologists to have a "time
machine" to observe evolutionary history?
>
> > And, we should alert those that hope that there will
> > be a replacement for evolution, that whatever might replace
> > it might be even more disturbing.
>
> It would only disturb me that another set of origins ideas are being
> called "scientific theory" without that time machine.
A time machine is not needed. We can observe the evidence at will.
DJT
Tracy P. Hamilton
turn on. av...@doctor.com (Steve A) said:
>> TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:
>>
>> Can anyone think of a case in the history of science,
>> where a scientific theory was discarded without being
>> replaced by another theory?
>
>The "Theory of Evolution" shouldn't even be a theory because it's
>based on a thesis statement which is nothing but a tautology:
>"Survival of the fittest". (Who are the fittest? The survivors of
>course. . .) Survivor of the survivors-- Now what is this really
>communicating to us? Anything meaningful?
Darwinism is an explanation. Without any facts mentioned
to explain, no, it doesn't tell you much.
But once you input say, X moths (versus Y) are more easily seen
by the birds that eat them, then one can predict what will happen,
and explain it when it does happen. One can even compute
some numbers. Now, where is the tautology there?
Your complaint seems to have the following analogue:
The Atomic Theory shouldn't even be a theory because it was
based on a thesis statement which is nothing but a tautology:
"Everything is made of atoms". (What are atoms? The smallest
components of everything. What is everything made up of? Atoms.)
Now what does that tell us? Anything meaningful?
>> That is, a case which follows
>> the hope of the creationists, that somehow, somewhere,
>> something is wrong with evolution, without there being
>> another explanation?
>
>When it comes to origins, we are dealing with the past. It would take
>a time machine to observe the past scientifically and confirm whether
>or not microevolution truly should be extrapolated into goo-to-you
>evolution (macro-scale building of purposeful morphology over eons of
>time).
A murder defense lawyer just loves the kind of stuff you are
peddling here. Forget theose fingerprints! Nobody saw
them actually get put there by the defendant! That is
just extrapolation!
>Should there be a "scientific theory" on origins without the invention
>of a means of this observation (a time machine)? I think not. This
>applies to creationism (which I call a concept) just as much as it
>applies to the concept of evolutionism.
Do you also think there should be no Atomic Theory on atoms that
can't be seen?
>Origins ideas cannot be truly confirmed without observations, and it's
>observation that the scientific method has as its basis.
>
>> And, we should alert those that hope that there will
>> be a replacement for evolution, that whatever might replace
>> it might be even more disturbing.
>
>It would only disturb me that another set of origins ideas are being
>called "scientific theory" without that time machine.
Scientists are far cleverer than you are. I can imagine the
Creationist Puzzle Book solution to the logic problems
(you know the type: Bob only wears red shirts on
days that start with S, George only wears blue to
football games, etc) In the back it would say "You would
need a time machine to be sure of the answer. However,
we know that Lydia was a maker of purple, even though
that was in the past."
Tracy P. Hamilton
Building Manager, Alco Hall
University of Ediacara
Lenny Flank
wrote:
>> "Dana Tweedy" <twe...@cvn.net> wrote in message news:
>> > "Dana Tweedy" <twe...@cvn.net> wrote in message
>> >
>>
>> Sorry, hit the send button too soon
>>
>> Zoe said:
>> > Each
>> > > group uses their own dating methods, so there would naturally be some
>> > > discrepancies, but when all the data is in and correlated, they all
>> > > should fit the timeline after the flood.
>>
>> All the data so far collected does not fit the timeline "after the flood",
>> and in fact does not support the existance of a global flood.
>
>It's funny how scientists say this about the largely water-covered
>Earth, and then turn around and point to Mars (a planet which doesn't
>appear to have much H2O on it at all) and claim that catastrophic
>floods caused much of its surface erosion. . .
>
>How ironic.
>
Ummm, I don't recall ANYONE saying that "much of its surface erosion"
is the result of "catastrophic flooding". What I *do* hear them say
is that it was caused by "running qater", the same sort we have on
earth now.
But please, by all means, I'd like to hear from some "flood geologist"
how to apply "flood geology" to Mars.
=================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
Lenny Flank's Reptile Page
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html
Lenny Flank
Smith) wrote:
<snip>
>As always, your rhetoric about "inquiry" and how people are stifling
>yours is a sham.
<snip>
Indeed. No one can prevent Zoe (or anyone else) from learning
anything and everything that she 9or he) wants to learn. As long as
Zoe is capable of reading, she (or anyone else) can go to a library
(that's the big building with all the books in it) and learn anything
and everything she wants. And no one can stop her.
Except herself.
Lenny Flank
On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 04:46:43 +0000 (UTC), muz...@aol.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:
>Okay, let me stagger back from the isochron a bit in order to paint
>for myself a bigger picture. Maybe, in time, the zoom may return to
>the isochron's place in this picture, but for now, I am interested in
>the so-called geological column which I understand is vital to the
>theory of evolution and the concept of fossil progression.
>
Ummm, perhaps you are not aware that both the order of the geological
column and the relatively great age of the earth were determined
before Darwin ever wrote a single word, by geologists who were all,
without exception, creationists who did not accept evolution.
>As a creationist, how should I relate to the data that is used to
>construct the geological column? Is the column fact or fiction...or
>somewhere in between? Well, let's see...hmmmm...there does seem to be
>some evidence of a general progression of lower, more simple life
>forms to more developed life forms, if the textbooks are to be taken
>at face value. But considering that correlation of cross sections is
>the method used to create this column, I am hesitant to accept the
>results as set in concrete. Especially as the same data can be
>understood from a different point of view.
That's nice. Show us how. Show us your scientific theory of creation
and tell us how to test it using the scientific method.
>Keeping in mind that the geological column was constructed BEFORE the
>advent of radioactive dating
And BEFORE evolutionary theory was set out . . . .
<snip drivel>
Lenny Flank
wrote:
>You have not even read the article which Zoe brought forward here.
Neither have you, of course. And neither has Zoe. She's just
regurgiquoting from some creationsit crapsite.
Again.
Chris Ho-Stuart
> On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 22:57:36 +0000 (UTC), av...@doctor.com (Steve A)
> wrote:
>>It's funny how scientists say this about the largely water-covered
>>Earth, and then turn around and point to Mars (a planet which doesn't
>>appear to have much H2O on it at all) and claim that catastrophic
>>floods caused much of its surface erosion. . .
>>
>>How ironic.
>
> Ummm, I don't recall ANYONE saying that "much of its surface erosion"
> is the result of "catastrophic flooding". What I *do* hear them say
> is that it was caused by "running qater", the same sort we have on
> earth now.
>
> But please, by all means, I'd like to hear from some "flood geologist"
> how to apply "flood geology" to Mars.
Not flood geologists; mainstream science is seriously considering
"catastrophic flooding" and a kind of flood geology for Mars.
See "Catastrophic Flooding on Mars" from "Science fronties online"
<http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf076/sf076a04.htm>
See also a NASA news release last year
"Evidence found of lake, catastrophic flood on Mars"
<http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0206/23marslake/>
There is a heap more all over the web. The floods proposed are
enormous; larger than anything on Earth; but not global.
There are also interesting alternatives; see "White Mars"
<http://www.earthsci.unimelb.edu.au/mars/Enter.html>
Cheers -- Chris
Steve A
> in message news:<c9c45v8nue8s5jqk3...@4ax.com>...
> G'Day All
> While we are on the subject of misrepresentation, I take it your
> multiple postings here and your silence on the contents of posts
>
> Message-ID: <np9f4vgaitp9u0b58...@4ax.com>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3570290574d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=np9f4vgaitp9u0b5803id3eo482lqsieg6%404ax.com
> (URL may wrap and need reassembly)
> Message-ID: <tivv4v41orrepbp5i...@4ax.com>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=haldane+group:talk.origins+author:musgrave&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=tivv4v41orrepbp5i86d7k9966nf3gdl7b%404ax.com&rnum=1
> (URL may wrap and need reassembly)
>
> means that you agree that ReMine misrepresented Haldane, and doesn't
> understand the dilemma.
>
> Cheers! Ian
You should know better than to call an ending-of-responding a
capitulation. Check out what you did to much of a message which I had
written on January 28th: http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1D812883
(Here's the January 28th message I had written:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?E12A25883 )
Ian, here's a quote from the message you wrote: "megasnip"
Now don't try to pretend that you didn't ignore much of what I had
written, because I repeatedly mentioned the megasnip to you
afterwards, but you just told me that you're a busy guy and that
offering your response was something you weren't interested in doing.
If your "megasnip" isn't a capitulation to what I've brought forward
(and I'm sure you would protest against any accusation of
capitulation), then my ending of responding to you should be taken not
as a capitulation, but as a "I think I've made all the comments I
think are worth making, and valuable time is being wasted while other
issues need to be attended to". . . I am, after all-- like you-- a
man of finite time, and there are many, many people around here who
are vying for my attention in responses to various threads.
'Til next time,
Steve A.
TomS
<3e539d18....@maze.dpo.uab.edu>, hami...@uab.edu stated..."
>
>On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 05:08:48 +0000 (UTC), We get signal. Main screen
>turn on. av...@doctor.com (Steve A) said:
>
>>> TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:
>>>
>>> Can anyone think of a case in the history of science,
>>> where a scientific theory was discarded without being
>>> replaced by another theory?
>>
>>The "Theory of Evolution" shouldn't even be a theory because it's
>>based on a thesis statement which is nothing but a tautology:
>>"Survival of the fittest". (Who are the fittest? The survivors of
>>course. . .) Survivor of the survivors-- Now what is this really
>>communicating to us? Anything meaningful?
I wonder whether this same reasoning doesn't apply with at least
as much force to "Irreducible Complexity" or "Intelligent Design"
or "Somehow, Somewhere, Something Has To Be Wrong With Evolutionary
Biology, Please". Oh, I know, creationists don't feel the need to
examine their own speculations, or to be consistent.
Anyway, this "tautology" thing goes back at least as far as
Newton's laws of motion. The old saw has it that "F = m a is a
tautology, because that's how force and mass are defined."
There are these ways of approaching the tautology charge, with
respect to evolutionary biology:
* "Survival Of The Fittest" is not an adequate representation of
evolutionary biology. After all, Darwin himself found that there
had to be at least one other machanism, other than "natural
selection", to account for the variety of life, namely "sexual
selection". And plenty of other people have found only-selection
to be unsatisfying, and have appealed to "inheritance of acquired
characteristics". This is not the mark of a tautology.
* Tautologies *can* explain things. There are plenty of examples
from mathematics, and applied mathematics. One example: Why is a
three-legged stool more stable than a four-legged stool? Because
three points determine a plane.
* And then there are Tracy's well-put points:
>
>Darwinism is an explanation. Without any facts mentioned
>to explain, no, it doesn't tell you much.
>
>But once you input say, X moths (versus Y) are more easily seen
>by the birds that eat them, then one can predict what will happen,
>and explain it when it does happen. One can even compute
>some numbers. Now, where is the tautology there?
>
>Your complaint seems to have the following analogue:
>The Atomic Theory shouldn't even be a theory because it was
>based on a thesis statement which is nothing but a tautology:
>"Everything is made of atoms". (What are atoms? The smallest
>components of everything. What is everything made up of? Atoms.)
>Now what does that tell us? Anything meaningful?
>
>>> That is, a case which follows
>>> the hope of the creationists, that somehow, somewhere,
>>> something is wrong with evolution, without there being
>>> another explanation?
>>
>>When it comes to origins, we are dealing with the past. It would take
>>a time machine to observe the past scientifically and confirm whether
>>or not microevolution truly should be extrapolated into goo-to-you
>>evolution (macro-scale building of purposeful morphology over eons of
>>time).
I love this argument. Because it is telling us that the
creationists are throwing in the towel. Evolutionary biology, so
they tell us, is so well established by the evidence that to deny
evolutionary biology, the creationists have to deny vast amounts
of common-sense knowledge. So, my simple response to this is:
Thank You.
Once again, Newton's theories come to mind. Did you know that
Newton didn't travel to the sun, moon and planets to measure
gravity? Would anyone think of saying, before the age of
solar-system exploration, that "It would take a space machine to
observe the distant scientifically and confirm whether or not
microgravity (that gravity which makes apples fall) truly should
be extrapolated into macrogravity (macro-scale motions of the
planets)"?
I love this analogy, Tracy, and I intend to steal it right
away. (Seriously, with your permission and with appropriate
citation.) Maybe we can find one of those puzzle-pictures in
the "Sesame Street" website ("arrange the pictures in the order
in which things happened") or one of those puzzle books for
kids that you find in doctors' waiting rooms.
Tom S.
Fluffy
> Okay, let me stagger back from the isochron a bit in order to paint
> for myself a bigger picture. Maybe, in time, the zoom may return to
> the isochron's place in this picture, but for now, I am interested in
> the so-called geological column which I understand is vital to the
> theory of evolution and the concept of fossil progression.
>
> option.
>
> As a creationist, how should I relate to the data that is used to
> construct the geological column? Is the column fact or fiction...or
> somewhere in between? Well, let's see...hmmmm...there does seem to be
> some evidence of a general progression of lower, more simple life
> forms to more developed life forms, if the textbooks are to be taken
> at face value. But considering that correlation of cross sections is
> the method used to create this column, I am hesitant to accept the
> results as set in concrete. Especially as the same data can be
> understood from a different point of view.
>
> premise of evolutionary change is the touchstone for placing life
> the data:
Perhaps you should keep in mind that the geological column was
constructed by people who would now be called creationists, and it was
they who realised that it could not be accounted for by a global
flood.
>
> ONE, the geological column can form quickly, over a few thousand
> years, not necessarily millions of years.
No. Individual layers in a geological column can form quickly. On
the other hand, deposits such as carbonate hardgrounds take a very
long time to form. On yet another hand, how would you explain rocks
that show concrete evidence of metamorphism and deformation at a depth
of several kilometers, have then been uplifted, had the overlying
rocks eroded off, and had now rocks deposited on top?
[Snip out of context quotations]
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> TWO, evidence of a global flood (chiefly in the form of coal and oil)
> lies at the bottom of the layers of the "geological column."
>
> http://www.fortune.com/fortune/brainstorm/0,15704,419014,00.html
>
> "...exploration companies are drilling more than a mile into solid
> granite--so-called basement rock--for oil. That's a puzzle: Oil isn't
> supposed to be found in basement rock, which never rose near the
> surface of the earth where ancient plants grew and dinosaurs walked.
> Yet oil is there."
Oh dear. Thomas 'no such thing as plate tectonics' Gold at it again..
Oil and gas will migrate from the source rocks that generate them;
this migration is driven by the shape of the sealing surface above
them (Think of it like an underground river, but flowing uphill).
Local pressure gradients also affect the flow, even to the extent of
oil moving downwards, as in the North sea Brent field. So if a
basement rock is sufficiently porous and permeable, it can both act as
a reservoir and recieve a charge of oil/gas.
>
> Granted, coal and oil can also be found at higher levels of the
> "geological column," (seepage or percolation upwards in the case of
> oil),
'can be found' = 99% of the oil in the planet..
Out of interest, how does the presence of coal and oil give evidence
for a global flood? Heating oil source rocks up by thermal diffusion
takes millions of years, even if their burial was instant; good
quality coal requires pretty much the same. A decent coal field will
have many - 10s or more - seams; does each one represent another
global flood, or what?
> but later local floods could be the cause of later deposits,
We call this 'sedimentation'. Do you count a river as 'a very
localised flood'?
> and
> the presence of coal and oil higher in the "column" does not refute
> the theory that evidence for the global flood lies at the bottom of
> the column.
No, it refutes a global flood full stop.
> As I see it so far, there should be NO fossils of
> consequence preserved from the cataclysmic global flood, except for
> the most powerful life forms (dinosaurs), which were able to last the
> longest in the struggle to survive the cataclysm.
>
But there are, although I'd like to know exactly where in the column
you put the flood.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> THREE, many local floods that have followed the global flood have
> served to fossilize life forms that existed at the various times, and
> the increasing complexity would be an index into the spread of life
> forms from a central location -- Mesopotamia/Iraq -- as the waters
> receded over time.
There is no evidence of this. Mesopotamia is not far above sea level
now; surely it'd be hard to start civilisation under several thousand
meters of water?
>
> http://www.bartleby.com/65/me/Mesopota.html
>
> "(ms创pt磎) (KEY) [Gr.,=between rivers], ancient region of Asia, the
> territory about the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, included in modern
> Iraq. The region extends from the Persian Gulf north to the mountains
> of Armenia and from the Zagros and Kurdish mountains on the east to
> the Syrian Desert. From the mountainous north, Mesopotamia slopes down
> through grassy steppes to a central alluvial plain, which was once
> rendered exceedingly fertile by a network of canals."
>
> I view this area as the beginning of civilization after the global
> flood.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> FOUR, the approximate 900-1300 years discrepancy that throws Ussher's
> dating off (3100-3500 B.C. dates for Sumerian records versus the
> supposed date for creation) can be accounted for by overlap and even
> duplication of dynasty records.
>
[Snip non-solution to non-problem]
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> FIVE, igneous rock, which is the type of rock used for calculating
> absolute age, is correlated with layers that contain fossils, but
> since it is likely that the absolute ages reflect accumulated decay
> product and not time since solidification, such correlation can be
> misleading.
>
> No cites given here since, apparently, I am the only person alive on
> earth who thinks this way.
Yes, and the implication that the geochemists who spend years working
on improving the accuracy of radiometric dating are in fact lazy and
ignorant is noted.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Using the above information, it is possible to develop a reasonable
> theory of how an old earth with young life came to be what we see
> today.
No. You are starting with fixed ideas and desparately trying to
shoehorn the data to fit.
>
> ----
> zoe
Tracy P. Hamilton
turn on. TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> said:
>"On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 15:12:20 +0000 (UTC), in article
><3e539d18....@maze.dpo.uab.edu>, hami...@uab.edu stated..."
>>
>>On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 05:08:48 +0000 (UTC), We get signal. Main screen
>>turn on. av...@doctor.com (Steve A) said:
>>
>>>> TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:
>>>>
>>>> Can anyone think of a case in the history of science,
>>>> where a scientific theory was discarded without being
>>>> replaced by another theory?
>>>
>>>The "Theory of Evolution" shouldn't even be a theory because it's
>>>based on a thesis statement which is nothing but a tautology:
>>>"Survival of the fittest". (Who are the fittest? The survivors of
>>>course. . .) Survivor of the survivors-- Now what is this really
>>>communicating to us? Anything meaningful?
[snip]
>* Tautologies *can* explain things. There are plenty of examples
>from mathematics, and applied mathematics. One example: Why is a
>three-legged stool more stable than a four-legged stool? Because
>three points determine a plane.
[snip]
>>>When it comes to origins, we are dealing with the past. It would take
>>>a time machine to observe the past scientifically and confirm whether
>>>or not microevolution truly should be extrapolated into goo-to-you
>>>evolution (macro-scale building of purposeful morphology over eons of
>>>time).
>
> I love this argument. Because it is telling us that the
>creationists are throwing in the towel. Evolutionary biology, so
>they tell us, is so well established by the evidence that to deny
>evolutionary biology, the creationists have to deny vast amounts
>of common-sense knowledge. So, my simple response to this is:
>Thank You.
>
> Once again, Newton's theories come to mind. Did you know that
>Newton didn't travel to the sun, moon and planets to measure
>gravity? Would anyone think of saying, before the age of
>solar-system exploration, that "It would take a space machine to
>observe the distant scientifically and confirm whether or not
>microgravity (that gravity which makes apples fall) truly should
>be extrapolated into macrogravity (macro-scale motions of the
>planets)"?
I can imagine an Aristotelian arguing just that! After all, the
reason that rocks fell to the ground was because that is where
they belonged. And that was why the planets did not fall
to the ground. They could keep their belief structure from
falling by pointing out this "weakness" of extrapolation.
[snip]
>>Scientists are far cleverer than you are. I can imagine the
>>Creationist Puzzle Book solution to the logic problems
>>(you know the type: Bob only wears red shirts on
>>days that start with S, George only wears blue to
>>football games, etc) In the back it would say "You would
>>need a time machine to be sure of the answer. However,
>>we know that Lydia was a maker of purple, even though
>>that was in the past."
>
> I love this analogy, Tracy, and I intend to steal it right
>away. (Seriously, with your permission and with appropriate
>citation.) Maybe we can find one of those puzzle-pictures in
>the "Sesame Street" website ("arrange the pictures in the order
>in which things happened") or one of those puzzle books for
>kids that you find in doctors' waiting rooms.
Steal away!
Von Smith
> > Harlequin <use...@cox.net> wrote in message news:
> > > muz...@aol.com (zoe_althrop) wrote in news: >snip<
>
> > >>> oil) lies at the bottom of the layers of the "geological column."
> > >>>
> > >>> http://www.fortune.com/fortune/brainstorm/0,15704,419014,00.html
> > >>
> > >>Maybe you can start quoting _The National Enquirer_ as well.
> > >
> > > don't like that news source? They're lying maybe?
> >
> > For shame Zoe. I did not say that they were lying and I did in any
> > way insinuate it.
>
> You made the Fortune magazine citation out to be disreputable, and
> thus likely to contain falsehoods. For shame Harlequin.
>
Not disreputable. Just an inappropriate source for science
information. A "gee-whiz" article in a business magazine probably
isn't a good source for reviewing the evidence of an offbeat
geochemical theory.
> > If you claim that I did then you are lying.
>
> Zoe has totally nailed you, and it's quite apparent that it's you, not
> Zoe who's trying to misrepresent things around here. . .
>
That's not apparent to me at all, and I've been following this thread.
Could you perhaps explain what makes it so apparent?
> > What I did say is that you cited a source that is simply not
> > credible source for geology. You are going to have to learn to
> > figure out what is a credible and uncredible source. You cited a
> > profoundly uncredible source.
>
> The word "Uncredible" leads one to believe that the source contains
> falsehoods and has been known in the past to promote lies.
No. It leads one to believe that business journals aren't especially
trustworthy sources for information on subjects in which their writers
and editors have little education and less experience. There are
other reasons a source can lack credibility besides outright lying,
especially on technical subjects.
What
> evidence do you have that Fortune magazine has a history of standing
> for falsehoods???
>
> > [snip -- Zoes new sources]
> >
> > Others have demonstrated your misreading of your other sources.
>
> You have not even read the article which Zoe brought forward here.
> What gives you the right to discount it when you haven't checked it
> out?!
>
I have read the article, and if Harlequin hasn't, he isn't missing
much. It's pretty much exactly what you'd expect: a "gee-wizz"
article that lacks any depth or insight into the underlying science.
Von Smith
Fortuna nimis dat multis, satis nulli.
Lenny Flank
(Fluffy) wrote:
<snip>
>
>Perhaps you should keep in mind that the geological column was
>constructed by people who would now be called creationists, and it was
>they who realised that it could not be accounted for by a global
>flood.
>>
<snip>
Indeed. Creationists seem to be as utterly pig-ignorant about the
history of science as they are about . . . well . . . virtually
everything else.
R. Tang
>>
>> Can anyone think of a case in the history of science,
>> where a scientific theory was discarded without being
>> replaced by another theory?
>
>The "Theory of Evolution" shouldn't even be a theory because it's
>based on a thesis statement which is nothing but a tautology:
>"Survival of the fittest".
As you have been told many times, this is incorrect.
(Who are the fittest? The survivors of
>course. . .) Survivor of the survivors-- Now what is this really
>communicating to us? Anything meaningful?
Yes, but you continue to refuse to listen.
Fitness is a relative term, specific to an environment. Not that,
for a minute, you'll remember it; you'll just spew this same argumenta
gain six months down the line.
>
>> That is, a case which follows
>> the hope of the creationists, that somehow, somewhere,
>> something is wrong with evolution, without there being
>> another explanation?
>
>When it comes to origins, we are dealing with the past. It would take
>a time machine to observe the past scientifically and confirm whether
>or not microevolution truly should be extrapolated into goo-to-you
>evolution (macro-scale building of purposeful morphology over eons of
>time).
>
>Should there be a "scientific theory" on origins without the invention
>of a means of this observation (a time machine)? I think not. This
>applies to creationism (which I call a concept) just as much as it
>applies to the concept of evolutionism.
>
>Origins ideas cannot be truly confirmed without observations, and it's
>observation that the scientific method has as its basis.
>
>> And, we should alert those that hope that there will
>> be a replacement for evolution, that whatever might replace
>> it might be even more disturbing.
>
>It would only disturb me that another set of origins ideas are being
>called "scientific theory" without that time machine.
>
>Steve A.
>
Bjoern Feuerbacher
A heap of ignorance...
muz...@aol.com (zoe_althrop) wrote in message news:<3e4f069e...@news-server.cfl.rr.com>...
> Okay, let me stagger back from the isochron a bit in order to paint
> for myself a bigger picture. Maybe, in time, the zoom may return to
> the isochron's place in this picture, but for now, I am interested in
> the so-called geological column which I understand is vital to the
> theory of evolution and the concept of fossil progression.
>
> Allow me, then, to hereby bring to the geological table another
> option.
Why don't you get a basic education first? So that you would
understand what yo uare talking about???
> As a creationist, how should I relate to the data that is used to
> construct the geological column?
Learn geology and then look at it again.
Zoe, I've told you several times that the geologists in the 19th
century believed in a young earth and in a global flood. The data they
gathered forced them to accept that their beliefs were wrong.
This doesn't stop creation "scientists" (and laywomen like you) to
claim that the earth is indeed young and the global flood happened.
The geologists back then were competent and honest; creationists today
aren't.
> Is the column fact or fiction...
Fact.
> or somewhere in between?
Huh?
> Well, let's see...hmmmm...there does seem to be
> some evidence of a general progression of lower, more simple life
> forms to more developed life forms,
"Some"????? What about "lots"? Or "an overwhelming amount"?
> if the textbooks are to be taken at face value.
"if"? Do you think they could be reporting the facts wrong?
> But considering that correlation of cross sections is
> the method used to create this column, I am hesitant to accept the
> results as set in concrete.
Read: "I don't understand what they are doing there, but the results
conflict with my weird interpretation of the Bible, hence they are
obviously wrong."
> Especially as the same data can be
> understood from a different point of view.
>
> Keeping in mind that the geological column was constructed BEFORE the
> advent of radioactive dating,
...and was confirmed by radioactive dating later...
> and also bearing in mind that the
> premise of evolutionary change is the touchstone for placing life
> forms in sequence, even if found out of sequence, here is how I view
> the data:
>
> ONE, the geological column can form quickly, over a few thousand
> years, not necessarily millions of years.
>
> http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/fossilization.htm
>
> "Under normal circumstances, leaves and other plant detritus are
> colonized and decomposed by a variety of microorganisms and
> macroinvertebrates. However, decay of whole plant organs such as
> leaves can take as long as MONTHS (caps mine) to years, which provides
> a window of time during which fossilization can occur. The caliber of
> leaf fossils is greatly enhanced if mineralization can commence before
> much decomposition can occur." (Dunn et al, 1997, p. 1119 )
Err, how does this imply to you that the geologic column can form in
only a few thousand years?
I notice that you, apparently, finally found Glenn Morton's pages. But
instead of studying what he writes and understanding it, you engage in
picking and choosing what you like, as usual.
Zoe, *please* read *everything* Glenn wrote there - and try to
understand it!!!
> http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache:tNtetvK42WsC:www.geology.yale.edu
>
> "...Wollanke and Zimmerle (1990), that the fossilization involved fast
> and complete embedding of the organisms..."
So what? What means "fast" here?
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> TWO, evidence of a global flood (chiefly in the form of coal and oil)
Why is this evidence of a global flood?
IIRC, you claim that coal and oil are the remains of the animals and
plants which were killed in the flood. It doesn't disturb you in the
least that the chemical composition of coal and oil don't fit this
hypothesis....
[snip]
> Granted, coal and oil can also be found at higher levels of the
> "geological column," (seepage or percolation upwards in the case of
> oil), but later local floods could be the cause of later deposits, and
> the presence of coal and oil higher in the "column" does not refute
> the theory that evidence for the global flood lies at the bottom of
> the column.
Nice. Now, please explain to us how coal and oil can form in only a
few thousand years, please.
> As I see it so far, there should be NO fossils of
> consequence preserved from the cataclysmic global flood,
But a wooden boat survived this cataclysm? Amazing.
If you now claim that it was protected by God from this cataclysm,
please explain why Noah even had to build this boat, and God didn't
simply put a force field or something like that around him and the
animals. Or even simpler, why didn't God simply kill the evil humans
directly instead of using a flood.
> except for
> the most powerful life forms (dinosaurs), which were able to last the
> longest in the struggle to survive the cataclysm.
And again, your ignorance shows through. Dinosaurs weren't all big and
powerful; there were lots of small dinosaurs, too. And these are found
in the same layers as the big ones. Kind of destroys your
hypothesis...
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> THREE, many local floods that have followed the global flood have
> served to fossilize life forms that existed at the various times, and
> the increasing complexity would be an index into the spread of life
> forms from a central location -- Mesopotamia/Iraq -- as the waters
> receded over time.
If all life forms would have spread from Mesopotamia, this would be
easy to see in the fossil record. One doesn't see this.
[snip]
> I view this area as the beginning of civilization after the global
> flood.
What about China?
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> FOUR, the approximate 900-1300 years discrepancy that throws Ussher's
> dating off (3100-3500 B.C. dates for Sumerian records versus the
> supposed date for creation) can be accounted for by overlap and even
> duplication of dynasty records.
>
> http://www.univer.omsk.su/foreign/fom/fom.htm
> http://www.univer.omsk.su/foreign/fom/glob.
>
> "To determine real chronology, one must be able to translate the data
> in the ancient documents into the terminology and units of modern time
> reckoning. Many historical conclusions and interpretations depend upon
> what dates we ascribe to the events in a given ancient document."
>
> http://www.univer.omsk.su/foreign/fom/moroz.htm
>
> "About fifty years ago, N.A.Morozov found three pairs of ruling
> ancient dynasties for which the sequences of lengths (periods) of
> reign, represented visually on the time line, bore a striking
> resemblance to one another. He suggested that in each case the two
> dynasties are actually reflections of a single real dynasty which
> "became multiplied" as a result of a mistaken dating of the different
> texts describing the same events."
Could be, yes. What you conveniently ignore is that dates obtained
from dynasties can be checked by other methods (dendrochronology, C14
dating, astronimal events, and so on). And the dates obtained by
different methods agree in general.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> FIVE, igneous rock, which is the type of rock used for calculating
> absolute age, is correlated with layers that contain fossils, but
> since it is likely that the absolute ages reflect accumulated decay
> product and not time since solidification, such correlation can be
> misleading.
Zoe, drop the rhetoric and give an example.
1) Start with a rock at solidification. (D/Di the same everywhere)
2) Let it age for 4.5 billion years.
3) Let it melt and resolidify. (D/Di again the same everywhere)
4) Let it age for 4500 years more.
5) Plot the isochron and tell us how one can see the "accumulated
decay product" in the graph.
How long do you plan to ignore this challenge? This is about the 30th
time I asked you for this!!!
> No cites given here since, apparently, I am the only person alive on
> earth who thinks this way.
*sigh*
No comment.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Using the above information, it is possible to develop a reasonable
> theory of how an old earth with young life came to be what we see
> today.
Replace "reasonable theory" with "wild fantasy".
Greetings,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 05:06:34 +0000 (UTC), bigd...@aol.comGetaGrip
> (Bigdakine) wrote:
>
[snip]
> >One wonders why you think the radioactive dating is germane to the
> >construction of the column.
>
> radioactive dating is not germane to the construction of the column. I
> don't think I said that. Indeed, I emphasized that the column was
> constructed BEFORE radioactive dating, so radioactive dating could NOT
> have had anything to do with its construction, could it?
>
> However, mention of radioactive dating is germane to recognizing how
> the column's premise
What is this "premise"?
> influences the need for absolute ages to correlate to the column.
Huh?
Do you claim that people who date rocks somehow massage their data so
that their results agree with the order of the geologic column? Or
what?
> The premise guides the conclusions.
In what way?
> In other words, if an igneous layer dates older than a layer below it,
> rather than change the premise, this anomaly is explained in the light
> of upthrusting, erosion, and other POSSIBLE reasons for the
> out-of-sequence layer in the column.
Zoe, stop lying. Something like this doesn't happen in geology.
Upthrusting can easily be detected. One doesn't invoke it simply to
explain anomalies without any evidence that it happens.
You portray geologists as incompetent and even deceiving people here
who invoke excuses out of thin air in order to save their preconceived
ideas. Hint: science doesn't work like that. I think this could be
projecting - that is exactly *your* behaviour.
> of course, you would say there are no out-of-sequence layers in the
> column,
There are, and they are easily detected and explained.
> and I would say that that is because such layers have already
> been explained in terms of upthrusts, erosion, et cetera.
With good reasons do to this. These explanations aren't invented out
of thin air in order to save the "premise".
> >What exactly about the column was change by radiometric age determinations?
>
> nothing was changed. The relative dating method guides the later
> conclusions, including radiometric age application.
In what way were the later conclusions "guided"?
AFAIK, the people in the lab doing the dating usually aren't told from
which layer the rocks they date come - so how could they be
influenced?
> > and also bearing in mind that the
> >>premise of evolutionary change is the touchstone for placing life
> >>forms in sequence,
> >
> >You're already wrong Zoe. In fact its rare that you get two sentences across
> >without making a mistake.
> >
> >It was while the geologic column was being establshed that patterns in the
> >change of life were noticed which gave impetus to the concept of biological
> >evolution.
>
> it would help if you would reread the entire sentence, without
> premature clipping. I said, "the premise of evolutionary change is
> the touchstone for placing life forms in sequence, EVEN IF FOUND OUT
> OF SEQUENCE...."
>
> The premise says that all life forms appear in sequence in the earth's
> crust,
Err, that's not a "premise". That's an observation.
> so when some life forms are found out of sequence, the premise
> dictates that some reason must be found other than that the premise is
> at fault. So reasons are found -- uplifts, erosion....
Stop lying. Uplifts aren't postulated simply as excuses for anomalies,
without any evidence that they really happened.
[snip]
> >You can be a competent stratigrapher and not know a bloody thing about
> >evolution.
>
> I doubt that,
And you are wrong again.
> based on the insistence of those on this forum that if
> you don't know or understand the theory of evolution, you are, at
> best, ignorant, and at worst, a fool.
Huh? Who said this, please?
> Stratigraphers are not ignorant,
> nor are they fools, as far as I am concerned.
You are attacking a straw man - as usual.
And you *are* implying that stratigraphers are ignorant or fools - you
say that dates are influenced by preconceived ideas, and that
"excuses" like upthrusts are inventend out of thin air, without any
evidence that they really happened, in order to explain away
anomalies. If this would really happen, this would be a sign of gross
incompetence of the stratigraphers!!!
Greetings,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> Richard Uhrich <uhr...@san.rr.com> wrote:
> > looking up at the night sky, grasping the magnitude of the Milky Way
> > galaxy, glimpsing the Andromeda Galaxy, understanding that billions of
> > other galaxies exist, as saying, "Yup, 4th day. To provide signs. Yup."
>
> Whenever I see this argument, I want to ask about the >90% of
> the universe that isn't visible from Earth with the naked eye, and is
> therefore useless for indicating the seasons.
Make this 99.99999999999999%. At least.
(there are at least 10^22 stars in the universe; with the naked eye,
one can see a few thousands...)
[snip rest]
Greetings,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 06:27:10 +0000 (UTC), Harlequin <use...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
> >muz...@aol.com (zoe_althrop) wrote in news:3e4f069e.9453333@news-
> >server.cfl.rr.com:
> >
> >
> >[snip]
> >> Keeping in mind that the geological column was constructed BEFORE the
> >> advent of radioactive dating,
> >
> >Those results are in complete accord with the geologic column. The
> >geologic column and the radiometric dating are are indendent results
> >that happen to agree with each other.
>
> Harlequin, I'm trying to paint the bigger picture for my own
> satisfaction right now. Whatever issues remain unresolved with the
> isochron will have to wait a bit, lest this thread becomes sidetracked
> prematurely.
Err, you mentioned radioactive dating above yourself, so don't be
amazed that we follow up on this.
And I notice that you still ignore that isochron dating is an
*independent* check of the geologic column. You claim that the one
somehow influences the other, without giving any evidence for this and
without even explaining how this should work.
> >I have repeated mentioned this during the isochron threads and
> >you have repeatedly ignored it. The only exception to this
> >that I recall is that you asked for proof I and Jon gave you examples
> >and then you ignored them.
>
> in time, I'll respond.
I doubt that.
> >> and also bearing in mind that the
> >> premise of evolutionary change is the touchstone for placing life
> >> forms in sequence,
> >
> >This is a false statement. The geologic column was developed
> >by _creationists_ before Darwin wrote _The Origin of Species_.
>
> this is becoming a trend here -- to cut off the clarifying part of a
> sentence, and argue against the first part only. Lo, a strawman is
> born.
The second part of the statement doesn't change it's meaning.
> >> even if found out of sequence, here is how I view
> >> the data:
> >
> >Care to give an example?
>
> I would if you want to take a firm stance that there are NO fossils
> found out of sequence, EVER.
Err, Zoe, Harlequin asked for an example for your assertion that "the
premise of evolutionary change is the touchstone for placing life
forms in sequence, even if found out of sequence". He didn't claim
that there are no fossils out of sequences. We all know fairly well
that such fossils exist.
Now, what about an example for your assertion?
[snip]
> >> http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/fossilization.htm
> >>
> >> "Under normal circumstances, leaves and other plant detritus are
> >> colonized and decomposed by a variety of microorganisms and
> >> macroinvertebrates. However, decay of whole plant organs such as
> >> leaves can take as long as MONTHS (caps mine) to years, which provides
> >> a window of time during which fossilization can occur. The caliber of
> >> leaf fossils is greatly enhanced if mineralization can commence before
> >> much decomposition can occur." (Dunn et al, 1997, p. 1119 )
> >
> >If anyone else had written the above I would be right now be calling
> >them a liar since this is a _flagrant_ out-of-context quotation.
>
> what is out of context about leaves taking months to form?
*sigh* Thanks for showing that you didn't understand the quote above.
It doesn't say that fossilization occurs in months. It says that
*decay* of leaves takes months or even years, and during that time,
the fossilization *starts*. It isn't completed in that time!!!
> >Your
> >inability to understand basic English is showing again. That statement
> >is not saying that any geologic feature can form quickly.
>
> what do you consider to be a geologic feature?
Err, a rock???
> What non-geologic
> feature is this that surrounds a fossilized leaf that can take MONTHS
> to form?
The quote above doesn't say that fossilization occurs in months. Read
it again and this time, try to understand it.
And while you are on Glenn Morton's pages, try reading all his
arguments *against* a global flood. And try understanding them.
[snip]
> >Flood geology does not allow months, it demands it be SECONDS.
>
> I am talking about fossilization that occurs AFTER the global flood.
> If fossilization can occur in months, then the supposed geological
> column that grew up after the global flood could grow up in a few
> thousand years, not millions of years.
AFAIK, even a few thousand years is far too short for complete
fossilization.
[snip]
> >> http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache:tNtetvK42WsC:www.geology.yale.edu
> >>
> >> "...Wollanke and Zimmerle (1990), that the fossilization involved fast
> >> and complete embedding of the organisms..."
> >
> >There are cases of rapid fossilization. How does that prove the the
> >"geological column" formed quickly? One fossil/one layer does not
> >a geologic column make.
>
> many fossils, many layers, all formed relatively quickly,
> indeed do make a geologic column.
1) What does "fast" mean in the quote above?
2) How is evidence that a layer *can* form fadt evidence that *all*
layers *did* form fast?
> >> TWO, evidence of a global flood (chiefly in the form of coal and oil)
> >> lies at the bottom of the layers of the "geological column."
> >>
> >> http://www.fortune.com/fortune/brainstorm/0,15704,419014,00.html
> >
> >_Fortune_ magazine, that great scientific journal. What is next Zoe?
> >Maybe you can start quoting _The National Enquirer_ as well.
>
> don't like that news source? They're lying maybe?
Not intentionally, but I've noticed that pop science accounts often
get things wrong.
> Okay, throw it out then. How about these?
>
> http://www.apioil.net/s/SimilarProjects.asp
> http://dimacs.rutgers.edu/TechnicalReports/abstracts/1999/99-03.html
> http://www.geoscience.co.uk/geofrc/geobaserussia.html
> http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/asteroid_oil_991213.html
These don't look like scientific journals to me, too.
Greetings,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 07:00:08 +0000 (UTC), Chris Ho-Stuart
> <host...@sky.fit.qut.edu.au> wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> >You would be able to raise yourself up to the level of normal
> >creationist pseudo-science if you actually tried to address a
> >couple of really simple questions, which you have been asked
> >frequently and continuously in the group.
>
> shucks, I'm weakening and getting sucked into this sidetrack.
Nice. Fro a change, you actually answer questions from a topic you
already abandoned.
> >Here are two samples from one rock.
> > Sample P D Di
> > A 3 2 1
> > B 2 4 2
> >What is the age calculated using the isochron for this data?
> >
> > Sample P D Di
> > A 3 20000 1
> > B 2 40000 2
> >What is the age calculated using the isochron for this data?
> >
> >Rather than wait for answers, I'll give you the correct answers
> >now.
> >
> >In both cases, the age is calculated to be zero.
>
> and yet, if unknown oldD had been 5000 to 1 Di in sample A and 10000
> to 2 Di in sample B (ratio of 5000), you would have no way of knowing
> that, would you?
Right. So what?
> The isochron would still give a zero age, based on
> its total D, and it would be correct,
Right. So what?
> according to your math; but yet,
> in fact, newD would be present in this case,
Huh? Do you claim that newD = 15000 in sample A and newD = 35000 in
sample B???
Could you please explain how this is supposed to work??? In light of
the fact that P is 3 and 2, respectively?
Zoe, making up numbers isn't sufficient to "disprove" the isochron
method. You have to explain how these numbers can occur *in the real
world*.
> meaning that the age
> really wasn't zero.
*IF* these numbers could occur in the real world, right. Please
explain how this could happen!
> Or again, if oldD had been 10000 to 1 in sample A
> and 20000 to 2 in sample B (ratio of 10000), new D would still be
> present, though less in this second case, making the age more than
> zero.
Same question.
Stop making up numbers out of thin air and start explaining how these
numbers could occur in the real world!!!
> but you are distracting me with the isochron when I am, for the
> moment, trying to draw a bigger picture.
Err, the isochron is part of this picture.
> >How can this be, given that the second sample has a thousand
> >times as much of the daughter isotope from the decay series?
>
> apparently, an isochron can be acceptable, even when the unknown
> premises
"unknown premises"? Huh? The premises are well known.
> have been unmet due to varying conditions.
Right. What you still ignore is that
1) This is rare, not common.
2) Usually this can be detected.
> >Simple. The isochron method does not depend on total
> >decay product.
>
> total decay product is ALL the isochron has to work with, along with
> present P and Di.
Right. But nevertheless, its result doesn't depend on it.
[snip rest]
Greetings,
Bjoern
Lenny Flank
wrote:
>> bigd...@aol.comGetaGrip (Bigdakine) wrote in message news:
>>
>> Zoe, you are representative of the sheep.
>>
>> Stuart
>
>The way I see it is that you and your T.O. buddies happen to be just
>as much sheep as any person with a Creationist mindset. The big
>question here is this: What shepherd are you following? In your case--
>as it is with all evolutionists-- the shepherd is grounded in
>naturalism and the miraculous ability of random mutations (culled by
>N.S. of course) to build organisms (taking them from worms to
>extremely complex organisms like-- say-- people).
>
<yawn>
You seem to be under the ignorant delusion that evolutionary biology
is somehow anti-god or anti-religion. It isn't. Evolutionary biology
is no more "atheistic" than is mathematics, economics, or the rules of
baseball. That's why most biologists in the US identify themselves as
Christians. That's why all but two of the 14 plaintiffs who filed
lawsuit in Arkansas to have creation "science" kicked out of public
schools were ministers, clergymen and representatives of religious
orders and denominations. That's why every mainstream Protestant
denomination on earth accepts ALL of modern science, including
evolutionary biology, and sees no conflict between it and Christian
faith. In fact, the vast majority of Christians view creationists as
doing tremendous HARM to Christianity, by making Christianity look
silly, stupid, backwards, ignorant, uneducated and simple-minded.
Every time some fundamentalist fruitcake screams "science is
atheistic!!!!" at the top of his lungs, he merely reinforces the
popular stereotype that people have of "Christians" as half-educated
backwoods redneck hicks who live in trailer parks in small southern
towns and who probably married a close relative in a ceremony led by
Reverend Billy Joe Bob.
If your religion says life doesn't evolve, then your religion is
wrong. Just as it was wrong when it said the earth doesn't move.
<shrug> Of course, there are still Christians who refuse to accept
that the earth DOES move, since their idol-worship of the Bible
compels them too to reject all of modern science. Just as you make
the claim that a "True Christian<tm>" can't accept evolution because
it conflicts with the Bible, THEY make the claim that a "True
Christian<tm>" can't accept a moving earth because THAT conflicts with
the Bible. Both creationists and geocentrists do nothing more than
make "Christianity" look stupid and silly. (We won't even bring up
the Flat Earth Society, which also claims to be "The True
Christians<tm>".)
I do not know ANYBODY who was won to Christianity as a result of
creation "science". Even the leading creationists all became
creationists as a result of their religious conversion, not the other
way around. But I do know personally at least six educated people who
were driven AWAY from Christianity as a result of the silly things
that creationists try to pass off on people. If "the tree is known by
its fruits", then it must be said that creationism seems to be one of
the most effective tools that Satan has to drive educated people away
from Christianity.
It took some Christians four centuries to accept the fact that
Copernicus and Galileo were right, and the earth moves around the sun
-- and Christianity didn't collapse as a result. Apparently, it will
take another four centuries for certain "Christians" to accept that
Darwin was right too, and life evolves. And once again I doubt that
Christianity will collapse as a result.
Stop making Christianity look silly and stupid. Stop driving educated
people away from Christianity.
I am asking this as an ordained minister.
Jack Dominey
<snip>
> The "Theory of Evolution" shouldn't even be a theory because it's
> based on a thesis statement which is nothing but a tautology:
> "Survival of the fittest".
The following is offered purely as an exercise in parallelism.
***The "Christian Religion" shouldn't even be a religion because it's
based on a thesis statement which is nothing but a general statement
of ethics: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."***
My made-up sentence has just as much to do with Christianity as Steve
A's has to do with evolution. Either argument betrays profound
ignorance of the subject matter. But ignorance and arrogance often go
hand in hand.
Jack Dominey
elvon is a spamtrap
jack_dominey (at) email (dot) com