The flood meta-thread (from "A question for Jim Laramore") [Archive I]

Mageth

January 23, 2004, 04:32 PM

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
Actually, the flood model shows that people were around when pangea existed

Huh? Since when?

and the continental movement to its present postions is evidence to show mountain formation. We don't know what the mountain ranges were on pangea but its feasible that they were nothing like they are now and the world back then was relatively flat compared to today.

Research the Laurentian Mountain Range of Canada (formed @ 1 billion years ago) (you can read about it here (http://sts.gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/urban/his_precambrian.asp)) and Avalonia (http://www.jamestown-ri.info/geological_history.htm).

From the last page:

The Avalonian arc collided with Proto North America about 400 million years ago. The impact contributed most of the land that has become the New England states and created most of the northern Appalachians, as we know them. The Appalachians are actually a complex mix of mountains formed by a series of continental collisions, beginning with the (now heavily eroded and often buried) Grenville mountains (formed more than 1 billion years ago), the Taconic mountains (formed by another island chain collision about 50 million years prior to the collision with Avalonia) and newer mountains formed about 350 million years ago when North America and North Africa collided, raising portions to great heights. This collision was one of several that formed a supercontinent, Pangaea about 306 million years ago.

So it seems mountain ranges were definitely around back then.

Duck!

January 23, 2004, 05:15 PM

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
Actually, the flood model shows that people were around when pangea existed and the continental movement to its present postions is evidence to show mountain formation. [emphasis mine]

The flood model shows this or claims this? Does "the" flood model consist of anything other than asserting the truth of the Biblical story?

Jim Larmore

January 24, 2004, 08:47 PM

Originally posted by Duck of Death
The flood model shows this or claims this? Does "the" flood model consist of anything other than asserting the truth of the Biblical story?

Much of it is hypothesis just like many areas in science. The fossil record does show in many areas where huge and massive burials of animals took place and appear to have been deposited there by a flood of some kind. In stratigraphy we see this evidence in the North American continent in several places and some stratas leave off here and pick back up on the shores of England.

Sven

January 25, 2004, 08:28 AM

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
Much of it is hypothesis just like many areas in science. The fossil record does show in many areas where huge and massive burials of animals took place and appear to have been deposited there by a flood of some kind. In stratigraphy we see this evidence in the North American continent in several places and some stratas leave off here and pick back up on the shores of England.

AAAAARRRGGHHHH! How can anyone believe in a global flood in the 21th century?

Sorry, I just wanted to vent my anger. Please ignore this.

Jim, a global flood is contradicted by many areas of science. Please study this topic before claiming this garbage. For example, there's TO... and Jim, even if you think they omit something/many things - I just ask you to read it, I don't ask you to not read anything else. And again: Please point out what exactly the TO-FAQs omit.

For starters, an easy question: Why do humans appear very late in the fossil record? Where aren't any human fossils in >90% of the stratas below the ones in which human fossils are found?

BTW, as simian (?) has already pointed out to you, there is also a FAQ on the polonium (if I remember correctly, you claimed to be a chemist - why do you write palonium?) halos at TO. This "fact" is debunked very easily.

Edited to add: Have you ever heard of (large/catastrophic) local floods?

variant 13

January 25, 2004, 08:48 AM

Originally posted by Sven
. And again: Please point out what exactly the TO-FAQs omit.

That goddidit? :rolleyes:

rlogan

January 25, 2004, 11:08 AM

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
The fossil record does show in many areas where huge and massive burials of animals took place and appear to have been deposited there by a flood of some kind. In stratigraphy we see this evidence in the North American continent in several places and some stratas leave off here and pick back up on the shores of England.

OK, now you have to show the evidence. Just exactly where are these huge and massive burials that were deposited by a flood.

The second sentence seems to be an attempt to tie the continents into the same event. Is that what you are doing? Of course some of the stratigraphy matches. But you are invoking a match with flood stratigraphy.

I'm all ears...

Jim Larmore

January 26, 2004, 07:52 AM

Originally posted by rlogan
OK, now you have to show the evidence. Just exactly where are these huge and massive burials that were deposited by a flood.

The second sentence seems to be an attempt to tie the continents into the same event. Is that what you are doing? Of course some of the stratigraphy matches. But you are invoking a match with flood stratigraphy.

I'm all ears...

rlogan,

Aren't you studied up on these things? Some of Jack Horner's digs are huge massive burial sites and even he made a statement that there was a flood. He may not have meant a Biblical flood but indeed he says it took a huge flood to account for such a large collection of animals found in some of his sites.

A flood does well to account for these fossils. A massive kill without an immediate burial would not have allowed the preservation by fossilization. Liquifaction of the soil and gigantic forces to move these hundreds of thousands of animals to one area were no doubt of Biblical flood proportions.

Sven

January 26, 2004, 08:11 AM

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
Aren't you studied up on these things?
You dare to ask this?

Some of Jack Horner's digs are huge massive burial sites and even he made a statement that there was a flood. He may not have meant a Biblical flood but indeed he says it took a huge flood to account for such a large collection of animals found in some of his sites.

So what? No geologist would deny that there were catastrophic floods. But every geologist denies that there was a global flood - except the ones who have a preconceived belief to defend.

A flood does well to account for these fossils. A massive kill without an immediate burial would not have allowed the preservation by fossilization.
So far no creationist has managed to come up with a model which explains the order of the fossils. Thus a global flood doesn't account at all for "these fossils".

Liquifaction of the soil and gigantic forces to move these hundreds of thousands of animals to one area were no doubt of Biblical flood proportions.
This is your opinion. Have you calculated these forces? Have you calculated the amount of water which is necessary? If not, there is no basis for your claim

Sven

January 26, 2004, 08:23 AM

First I'd like to point out that this thread got far off topic - may I suggest to split it into one on flood geology?

From here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/2/part12.html):

Many evangelical Christians today suppose that Bible believers have always been in favor of a "young-universe" and "creationism." However, as any student of the history of geology (and religion) knows, by the 1850s all competent evangelical Christian geologists agreed that the earth must be extremely old, and that geological investigations did not support that the Flood "in the days of Noah" literally "covered the whole earth."

From the conclusion:

As explained in the paragraphs above, "Flood geology" had been seriously considered and rejected by devout Christian geologists before Darwin's book on evolution was published in 1859.

So, Jim, did you know this? Since you implicitly claimed to be "studied on the subject" I have to assume yes.

Jim Larmore

January 26, 2004, 04:16 PM

Originally posted by Sven
no[/i] creationist has managed to come up with a model which explains the order of the fossils. Thus a global flood doesn't account at all for "these fossils".

This is your opinion. Have you calculated these forces? Have you calculated the amount of water which is necessary? If not, there is no basis for your claim

You and your opinion seems to me to be a great example of totally accepting the status quo and what the established paradigm parades.This is exactly what I was talking about in our private e-mails.

Dr. Steve Austin, a geologist PhD has come to a different conclusion of stratigraphy based on his recent study of sedimentation layering and canyon formation at the Mr.St. Helens eruption site.

Seems the sedimental layering resembles those put down in the grand canyon almost to a tee, except they were made in hours or days not millions of years , also the erosional factors of sediments leave one to wonder how they could have been a product of long ages. Layers put down one upon another would exibit more evidence of errosion than what we see. Some layers are essentially prestine throughout.

There are many other aspects of geological evidence that doesn't jive with long periods of time to produce what we see.

variant 13

January 26, 2004, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
You and your opinion seems to me to be a great example of totally accepting the status quo and what the established paradigm parades.

Creationism was the old paradigm which was shot down in flames.

Majestyk

January 26, 2004, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
Dr. Steve Austin, a geologist PhD has come to a different conclusion of stratigraphy based on his recent study of sedimentation layering and canyon formation at the Mr.St. Helens eruption site. Talk Origins (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013_1.html) reviewed his findings and found his methodolgy lacking.

But then, that's the thing about science, a scientist properly applying their profession will go where the evidence leads them and not adjust the evidence to match their preconceptions. Granted not all scientists approach their work without bias but enough do so as to allow us to eventually weed out that which is inconsistent with reality. Peer review, gotta love it.

Sven

January 27, 2004, 03:56 AM

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
You and your opinion seems to me to be a great example of totally accepting the status quo and what the established paradigm parades.This is exactly what I was talking about in our private e-mails.

So, Jim, have you understood that Christians established this paradigm? That they found evidence falsifying a global flood? And that no one - except the ones who have a special, literal interpretation of the bible to defend - has came up with evidence to the contrary? I see no reason to change my view on this since there has been scientific consensus for over 150 years - all over the world, including people of all faiths.

[snipped stuff on Dr. Austin - see above about defending beliefs and the post of Majestyk]

There are many other aspects of geological evidence that doesn't jive with long periods of time to produce what we see.

Then please go on and present some research which has not been found lacking in methology - that is, something which has been published in peer reviewed geological journals. Hint: Bad methology can be determined objectively.

And please, don't start whining now about unfair treatment, a conspiracy against "honest" work from creationists etc.

Edited to add: I see you haven't answered my other post. When will you present a flood model which accounts for the order of the fossils? When will you present your calculations of the forces which were necessary? When will you present a scientific methology which is able to work with the explain-all explanation "goddit"?

Sven

January 27, 2004, 04:12 AM

Hello, Jim!

In case you don't want to go to TO any more, here (http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/mt_st_helens_dacite_kh.htm) is another (lenghty) article on Dr. Austins work.

And I wanted to ask: Have you researched the polonium halos by now? Do you have counter-arguments? Or will you just admit that Gentry apparently fitted evidence to his preconceived belief? (one could call this "lying for god", but I try to give creationists the benefit of the doubt)

If you find time, you can try to answer simian's posts, who also had some good points.

P.S.: I'm still waiting for you to point out what exactly TO omits.

Sven

January 27, 2004, 07:56 AM

I keep posting this, perhaps I get an answer eventually...

So, Jim:
If one accepts MACROEVOLUTION, can one believe in (a version of) the Christian God at the same time?

If no, why not?

If yes, why do you keep mentioning your "eternal fate" (I don't remember the exact woring) when discussing MACROEVOLUTION?

Is it because you think that one goes straight to hell after death for accepting MACROEVOLUTION?

Jim Larmore

January 27, 2004, 08:43 PM

Originally posted by Majestyk
Talk Origins (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013_1.html) reviewed his findings and found his methodolgy lacking.

But then, that's the thing about science, a scientist properly applying their profession will go where the evidence leads them and not adjust the evidence to match their preconceptions. Granted not all scientists approach their work without bias but enough do so as to allow us to eventually weed out that which is inconsistent with reality. Peer review, gotta love it.

Well, this articles content covered a different area of Dr. Austin's work than I have been talking about. The areas I was talking about was the stratigraphy and the sedimentation of the canyons and stratas built by the huge water/mud/lava push during the eruption of Mt. St. Helens.

I had heard about the dating of the lava some time ago but wasn't aware that Dr.Austin had done it. It would be interesting to see another dating done to see how it reads. Theres some other areas of strata study called cylothems thats very interesting and bring into focus the possiblity of a global flood.

You know your trumpeting the fact that the global flood was discounted 150 years ago is really insignificant as a convincing arguement for me. There were many who had a logical and convincing conclusion about the position of the earth in those days too. Bacteria and cells were at one time considered as inconsequential and uncomplex by those back then too . We used to think mercury was ok as a topical treatment for cuts and even took it orally back during the plague, ( I'm sure this made the people sicker for sure ).

Now today science has said they see absolutley no evidence for a global flood, in other words they haven't changed or refuted what was concluded by the same people who believed in geocentricity. Huh, well I have studied the evidence and based on what I see I can say the flood makes sense, not only from a logical point of view but from an empirical sense as well. I see first hand from field observation the apparent after math of massive forces on the crust of our planet. I see vastly scattered fossil beds of invertabrates and like I have mentioned earlier massive burial sites of vertabrates too. Now, if you think I believe the water covered the highest mountain your wrong. I don't believe the water had to do that. I don't believe our mountains was near that high back then. I believe plate techtonics ( ms) have been much much faster in the past and caused what we see now in our mountain ranges today. The Bible mentions the earth doing this in the days of "Peleg".

Like I said they have done studies on the volume of wate on our planet and have calculated that if you take the mountains and smooth out our planet the entire planet would be under water by several feet. The waters that flooded us long ago are still here in our oceans.

Jim Larmore

January 27, 2004, 08:50 PM

Originally posted by Sven
[

Then please go on and present some research which has not been found lacking in methology - that is, something which has been published in peer reviewed geological journals. Hint: Bad methology can be determined objectively

I'm currently studying some work being done on some stratas and liquifaction. Looks interesting , we'll see how it stacks up methodologically.:D

rlogan

January 28, 2004, 01:57 AM

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
rlogan,

Aren't you studied up on these things? Some of Jack Horner's digs are huge massive burial sites and even he made a statement that there was a flood. He may not have meant a Biblical flood but indeed he says it took a huge flood to account for such a large collection of animals found in some of his sites.

A flood does well to account for these fossils. A massive kill without an immediate burial would not have allowed the preservation by fossilization. Liquifaction of the soil and gigantic forces to move these hundreds of thousands of animals to one area were no doubt of Biblical flood proportions.

Now, now there Jim. Don't be trying to contort my question. I am completely unaware of any research supporting a global flood at all - let alone one tying fossil records into a global flood.

I still see no citation here and you can't make me chase down something you are claiming as a reference.

Floods happen all the time, Jim. Massive ones. But not Biblical proportions. I am going to bet the farm that Jack Horner absolutely did NOT say global flood. Don't be dissembling there with "may not" have meant global flood.

Boy, you threw out a bunch of stuff like Palonium, the flood model, Austin - and then don't want us to address them? Back to mars? naughty boy.

Sven

January 28, 2004, 03:59 AM

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
You know your trumpeting the fact that the global flood was discounted 150 years ago is really insignificant as a convincing arguement for me.
This is not my only argument. My argument is that there was enough evidence to conclude this 150 year ago and that in the past 150 years evidence has continued to accumulate that a global flood never happened.

There were many who had a logical and convincing conclusion about the position of the earth in those days too.
I don't know what you are talking about here. What was this conclusion? And on which evidence was it based on?

Bacteria and cells were at one time considered as inconsequential and uncomplex by those back then too.

So what? Did anybody claim back then that cells can not be complex?

We used to think mercury was ok as a topical treatment for cuts and even took it orally back during the plague, ( I'm sure this made the people sicker for sure ).

So what? Did anybody claim back then that it is certain that mercury can not have ill effects?

Now today science has said they see absolutley no evidence for a global flood

No, Jim, they say that they see evidence against a global flood. Please realize this. And the evidence against a global flood continued to accumulate for the past 150 years.

in other words they haven't changed or refuted what was concluded by the same people who believed in geocentricity.

What has geocentricity to do with a global flood?! Huh? Geocentricity was discarded much earlier than 1800! And it was discarded based on evidence.

Huh, well I have studied the evidence and based on what I see I can say the flood makes sense, not only from a logical point of view but from an empirical sense as well.

I'm still waiting for your model which explains the order of the fossils. Without such a model, your claims are totally baseless.

I see first hand from field observation the apparent after math of massive forces on the crust of our planet.

And this forces could only have been caused by a global flood? Perhaps you should discuss this with a geologists before drawing conclusions!

I see vastly scattered fossil beds of invertabrates and like I have mentioned earlier massive burial sites of vertabrates too.

So what? Rlogan and I have pointed to several large/catastrophic local floods - which are well established by geology, in contrast to one global flood.

Now, if you think I believe the water covered the highest mountain your wrong. I don't believe the water had to do that. I don't believe our mountains was near that high back then.

No, I didn't think this. I'm well aware that creationists realized long ago that it were impossible for Mount Everest (or even Mt. Ararat) to be covered with water.

I believe plate techtonics ( ms) have been much much faster in the past and caused what we see now in our mountain ranges today.

Another thing which you believe not only without evidence, but even with evidence to the contrary. Geologists know how to find evidence for such ridiculously fast plate tectonics - and they haven't found any.

The Bible mentions the earth doing this in the days of "Peleg".

I assume you refer to Gen 10:25
KJV: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided;
similar in NIV, NASB, NKJV

So, please, explain why "dividing the earth" means "rising up mountains". You have to push plates against each other for mountains to rise, not to tear them apart! Sounds like wishful thinking to me.

Like I said they have done studies on the volume of wate on our planet and have calculated that if you take the mountains and smooth out our planet the entire planet would be under water by several feet. The waters that flooded us long ago are still here in our oceans.
The only remaining thing to do is to find evidence for such a global flood... which (somehow) contradicts the findings of geologists working for 150 years.

I'm still waiting for answers to my question about the acceptance of evolution in relation to your eternal fate, about polonium halos, about specific examples what TO omits, and a scientific alternative to methodlogical naturalism. Looks a lot like you simply can not answer these.

Sven

January 28, 2004, 06:32 AM

I realized that you even contradict yourself:

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
I see first hand from field observation the apparent after math of massive forces on the crust of our planet.

Like I said they have done studies on the volume of wate on our planet and have calculated that if you take the mountains and smooth out our planet the entire planet would be under water by several feet. The waters that flooded us long ago are still here in our oceans.

So, Jim, which is it? Massive forces on the crust or only "several feet of water"?

I'm also curious why the world-changing event of parting continental plates, mountains rising up, massive vulcanic activity because of this, etc. etc. etc. is only mentioned in a subordinate clause (in passing) in the bible. And why this wasn't recorded by anyone else (Chinese, Egyptians, etc.). You are simply grasping at straws.

BTW, IIRC (I love abbreviations :) ) you claimed that predators only appeared after the flood (or was it another fundie?); perhaps you claimed this occured after the fall. Please explain why this isn't mentioned in a single sentence in the bible.

Duvenoy

January 28, 2004, 06:57 AM

At this point, I'll offer up yet again this cannonball:

First- the global flood supposedly (Scripturally) covered the planet, (see that, George? If so, why are you still being so stupid?) and Mount Everest is 8,848 meters tall. The diameter of the earth at the equator, on the other hand, is 12,756.8 km. All we have to do is calculate the volume of water to fill a sphere with a radius of the Earth + Mount Everest; then we subtract the volume of a sphere with a radius of the Earth. Now, I know this won't yield a perfect result, because the Earth isn't a perfect sphere, but it will serve to give a general idea about the amounts involved.

http://www.holysmoke.org/cretins/fludmath.htm

Dr. Leipzig has yet to be refuted, and I wish someone finally would for no better reason than the good Doctor's style bugs me.

This business of the shape of the earth/placement of the continents at the time of the alledged flood is no more than wishful speculation, unsupported by any geological evidence whatsoever. Can you imagine the incredable results of the Rockies and Everest, et al, rising to their current altitude(s) in only a few thousand years? We'd still be shakin' and bakin' today, assuming that Noah & Co. didn't drown (or boil) in the first 20 minutes, as seems most likely.

So, tear the math down if you can.

doov

Sven

January 28, 2004, 07:00 AM

Originally posted by Duvenoy
This business of the shape of the earth/placement of the continents at the time of the alledged flood is no more than wishful speculation, unsupported by any geological evidence whatsoever. Can you imagine the incredable results of the Rockies and Everest, et al, rising to their current altitude(s) in only a few thousand years? We'd still be shakin' and bakin' today, assuming that Noah & Co. didn't drown (or boil) in the first 20 minutes, as seems most likely.
So, tear the math down if you can.
doov

Thanks, Duvenoy. But as I demonstrated above, the bible itself is enough evidence to tear apart this argument. It is simply ridiculous that such earth-shaking events aren't worth several chapters or even only several verses.

lpetrich

January 28, 2004, 09:56 AM

Jim Larmore:
Actually, the flood model shows that people were around when pangea existed

Thus requiring superfast continental drift.

Why should the continents gallop to nearly their present locations, and then slow down to the sort of drift rates consistent with old-earthism?

And yes, Pangaea did have mountains, notably where Laurentia collided with Gondwana. Check out http://www.scotese.com

Sven

January 28, 2004, 10:23 AM

Hey Jim (or anyone else), if you want to see another creationist getting bashed for claiming that Noah's Flood was real, look at this thread (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?threadid=74496)

Also many good arguments there - but none which help your case.

lpetrich

January 28, 2004, 11:25 AM

Jim Larmore:
Much of it is hypothesis just like many areas in science. The fossil record does show in many areas where huge and massive burials of animals took place and appear to have been deposited there by a flood of some kind.

Or more likely, cumulative buildup, which can involve lots of local floods. Jim Larmore, think of yourself as you walk. Each step is a small distance, but the cumulative distance can be very large.

Furthermore, different "fossil graveyards" have different ages and different fauna. The La Brea Tar Pits has late-Pleistocene fauna, which is mostly familiar-looking, but with occasional exotica like sabertooth felines. Earlier ones look more and more exotic and less and less familiar. The Permo-Triassic Karroo fossil graveyard (http://www.museums.org.za/sam/resource/palaeo/cluver/index.html) in southern Africa is largely mammal-like reptiles.

You and your opinion seems to me to be a great example of totally accepting the status quo and what the established paradigm parades.

Established paradigms? Like belief in the literal truth of the Bible?

Dr. Steve Austin, a geologist PhD has come to a different conclusion of stratigraphy based on his recent study of sedimentation layering and canyon formation at the Mr.St. Helens eruption site.

Unconsolidated volcanic ash.

There are many other aspects of geological evidence that doesn't jive with long periods of time to produce what we see.

Like?

Theres some other areas of strata study called cylothems thats very interesting and bring into focus the possiblity of a global flood.

In what way?

If anything, they suggest the exact opposite -- cycles of deposition of different materials.

You know your trumpeting the fact that the global flood was discounted 150 years ago is really insignificant as a convincing arguement for me.

Why not? It's a result that's stood the test of time.

There were many who had a logical and convincing conclusion about the position of the earth in those days too.

Heliocentrism had been widely accepted for at least two centuries before that.

Bacteria and cells were at one time considered as inconsequential and uncomplex by those back then too.

Because it was hard to see many details of them -- especially for bacteria.

Now today science has said they see absolutley no evidence for a global flood, in other words they haven't changed or refuted what was concluded by the same people who believed in geocentricity.

Jim Larmore has his history of science all mixed up.

(massive deposits of fossils)

Jim Larmore, what do you find unconvincing about the cumulative-deposition hypothesis?

Jim Larmore

January 28, 2004, 03:39 PM

The tar pits are an exception of deposition because they were there for a long period and they collected specimens over a long period. The nature of what they do and the way they do it is entirely different than the "replacing" aspect of fossilization. Most of the huge burial sites I've studied in the literature indicate a sudden massive burial of the specimens observed. Any other modality would have precluded them being there at all. Theres just too many forces at work to erase the evidence.

Jim Larmore

January 28, 2004, 03:54 PM

Originally posted by lpetrich
Jim Larmore:
Actually, the flood model shows that people were around when pangea existed

Thus requiring superfast continental drift.

Why should the continents gallop to nearly their present locations, and then slow down to the sort of drift rates consistent with old-earthism?

And yes, Pangaea did have mountains, notably where Laurentia collided with Gondwana. Check out http://www.scotese.com

Its speculation, I'll admit to that but so is much of what geologist say today. One scenario to answer your question is the initial forces that caused the earth to separate in the days of Peleg made them drift rapidly until they reached a state of equilibrium. The forces driving the continental drift now is slower because the plates are basically stable, i.e. they move inches a year not kilometers a year.

The facts of the drift is irrefutable. We see marine fossils all over our mountain tops even in the Hemalayas (ms) , this indicates the surfaces of our mountains used to be at or under sea level.

Laurentia colliding with Gondwana? Your ahead of me on this one but again if it happened the two peaks your talking about were probably very small compared to what we have today and thus could have been inundated by the global flood.

Mageth

January 28, 2004, 04:02 PM

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
Its speculation, I'll admit to that but so is much of what geologist say today. One scenario to answer your question is the initial forces that caused the earth to separate in the days of Peleg made them drift rapidly until they reached a state of equilibrium. The forces driving the continental drift now is slower because the plates are basically stable, i.e. they move inches a year not kilometers a year.

The facts of the drift is irrefutable. We see marine fossils all over our mountain tops even in the Hemalayas (ms) , this indicates the surfaces of our mountains used to be at or under sea level.

Laurentia colliding with Gondwana? Your ahead of me on this one but again if it happened the two peaks your talking about were probably very small compared to what we have today and thus could have been inundated by the global flood.

If you look at my post at the top of page 3, there are a couple of more links.

Some of the mountain ranges formed during those collisions were as high as any we have today, with little doubt.

lpetrich

January 28, 2004, 10:17 PM

Jim Larmore:
The tar pits are an exception of deposition because they were there for a long period and they collected specimens over a long period.

Judging from the geological record, I'd say that's typical.

The nature of what they do and the way they do it is entirely different than the "replacing" aspect of fossilization.

And how is that supposed to be the case?

Most of the huge burial sites I've studied in the literature indicate a sudden massive burial of the specimens observed.

What literature? The mainstream-paleontology literature or the creationist literature?

Any other modality would have precluded them being there at all.

How so?

Theres just too many forces at work to erase the evidence.

WHAT forces???

Sediment can accumulate bit by bit until it becomes a giant deposit.

Sven

January 29, 2004, 03:24 AM

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
Most of the huge burial sites I've studied in the literature indicate a sudden massive burial of the specimens observed.
Even if you are right (see the post of lpetrich): How does this fact excludes several local catastrophic floods? Could you eventually explain this? If you can not demonstrate that these burials occured at essentially the same time (one year), this simply isn't evidence for a global flood.

And you still have to explain all the other evidence away which contradicts a global flood - you haven't even attempted to do this. BTW, there are also a couple of other questions waiting to be answered...

lpetrich

January 29, 2004, 05:35 AM

Jim Larmore:
Its speculation, I'll admit to that but so is much of what geologist say today.

How is "much of what geologist say today" speculation?

Jim Larmore, you will have to justify the accusations that you make. Do you really think that mainstream geologists are nothing but crackpots?

One scenario to answer your question is the initial forces that caused the earth to separate in the days of Peleg made them drift rapidly until they reached a state of equilibrium. The forces driving the continental drift now is slower because the plates are basically stable, i.e. they move inches a year not kilometers a year.

Which leaves unexplained why the continents nowadays drift at old-Earth-expected rates.

The facts of the drift is irrefutable. We see marine fossils all over our mountain tops even in the Hemalayas (ms) , this indicates the surfaces of our mountains used to be at or under sea level.

Meaning that they were once continental shelf.

Laurentia colliding with Gondwana? Your ahead of me on this one but again if it happened the two peaks your talking about were probably very small compared to what we have today and thus could have been inundated by the global flood.

Jim Larmore, you have a lot to learn about continental drift.

It did NOT start with Pangaea -- it has been going on for as long as the Earth has had well-defined continents, which is around 4 billion years. Pangaea itself was formed by the collision of previous continents, notably Laurentia and Paleozoic Gondwana. Laurentia is essentially Paleozoic North America and Greenland.

Sven

January 29, 2004, 08:40 AM

Hey Jim, since you appear to understand the definition of "kind" much better than anyone else here (but nevertheless have not bothered to give us a definition), I think it would be a great idea if you answered the long post of Oolon Colluphid on page 16 of the thread "On providing data and ID".

Over there, you'll also find a post by Per Ahlberg on page 8 which he patiently is awaiting an answer for.

Jim Larmore

January 29, 2004, 09:54 AM

Originally posted by lpetrich
Jim Larmore:
Its speculation, I'll admit to that but so is much of what geologist say today.

How is "much of what geologist say today" speculation?

Jim Larmore, you will have to justify the accusations that you make. Do you really think that mainstream geologists are nothing but crackpots?

One scenario to answer your question is the initial forces that caused the earth to separate in the days of Peleg made them drift rapidly until they reached a state of equilibrium. The forces driving the continental drift now is slower because the plates are basically stable, i.e. they move inches a year not kilometers a year.

Which leaves unexplained why the continents nowadays drift at old-Earth-expected rates

I have never said today's geologists are a bunch of crack pots. I don't believe this !!!What I said is much of what they say is speculation . This speculation is based on present day measurements and observation. Not everyone has the same opinion of these varied speculations. Peer review is good in science like Sven says and it evens out the bumps in hypothesis', however when you look at all the information in science you get a "mean" opinion if you will of what "may" have happened. Theres no way of proving any of this for a certainty. Like your statement on continental drift being something that has always been going on. It makes sense that this is true however that statement is pure speculation based on what we see today, but this may not be what really has happened at all.

If a global flood did happen the way the Bible says it did and massive quantities of subterranean water came up to flood the surface this would have destabilized the continental plates and "possibly" caused them to shift very rapidly. Like I have said once they got to going the momentum could have carried them long distances until they reached a point of stasis. This hypothesis is not new and it has never been disproven either.

Its like the sedimentary layering I've already discussed. The research being done at the Mt.St. Helens eruption area is revealing similar sedimentary layers as we see in any cyclic sediments. The only difference is these sediments were laid down very rapidly and the erosional areas were cut rapidly. This discounts long ages for the same things we see like in the grand canyon or any other area where we see stratification. The stratifigraphy may be all messed up age wise. What has always been accepted as truth may not be true at all.

Now the tar pits use a continual supply of petroleum based chemicals to preserve the animals that fall into it. This process of preservation is entirely different than fossilization where the bone is replaced by the crystalline substrate the specimen is exposed to. You know,,, oil is one ,,,,soluable crystals is another. The mechanisms being different require a different scenario to explain the way they have collected their specimens. The huge massive burial sites indicate a rapid burial where preservation took place by preventing exposure to the elements which would irradicate them. The tar pits are just there and have been for mellinia catching unwary victims on a regular basis and as a matter of fact would do it today if one falls into it.

Sven

January 29, 2004, 10:30 AM

How often has this to be explained to you: If a global flood had occured, we (geologists) would expect to find loads of evidence for it. But nobody has found any of it. In the whole world, in the whole geological column, for almost 200 years. This means the flood didn't happen. Case closed.

And no, your "evidence" does not count because it is much more consistent with several local floods.

To be specific: If there was a global flood, there has to be a stratum which shows evidence for it all over the world. Since no such stratum was found, the flood didn't happen. The flood didn't happen. The flood didn't happen. The flood didn't happen. The flood didn't happen.

Got it?

Duvenoy

January 29, 2004, 12:08 PM

It is all really very simple. If there had been the described global flood, the fossil record would be a junbled mass of representives of virtually everything; humans, dinosaurs, forests, stromatolites, trilobites, well, everything. Rather, the fossil record presents itself in an orderly fashion, top to bottom, fore and aft, as the Theory of Evolution predicts.

I must agree with Sven.

doov

Jim Larmore

January 29, 2004, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by Sven
How often has this to be explained to you: If a global flood had occured, we (geologists) would expect to find loads of evidence for it. But nobody has found any of it. In the whole world, in the whole geological column, for almost 200 years. This means the flood didn't happen. Case closed.

And no, your "evidence" does not count because it is much more consistent with several local floods.

To be specific: If there was a global flood, there has to be a stratum which shows evidence for it all over the world. Since no such stratum was found, the flood didn't happen. The flood didn't happen. The flood didn't happen. The flood didn't happen. The flood didn't happen.

Got it?

Saying it a 'MILLION TIMES" won't make it true Sven. Have you ever considered the dynamic forces which shape our planetary crust?? Don't you think that evidence is destroyed over time or woiuld you at least consider this as a possibility? Have you ever done field research on your own to verify your peer review literature or do you just take them at their word?

Well, I've done some field work on my own and I can tell you there is evidence of the flood and I've seen it so you saying it doesn't exist is ludicrous to me. There is a stratum that covers at least two continents that shows evidence of the flood, in this stratum we see millions of fish fossils some with their gills distended as if they were gasping for oxygen, fish do this when the water they are caught in is laden with too much silt for good oxygen transferr. Flood waters are very heavy in silt most of the time. This stratum is seen in the and under the walnut shale near the puluxy river in Texas and can be seen all over the south eastern US it picks back up again at or around the white cliffs of Dover on the European western shore. Much of Great Brittain is setting on this stratum.

Mech Bliss

January 29, 2004, 01:21 PM

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
Seems the sedimental layering resembles those put down in the grand canyon almost to a tee...

Its like the sedimentary layering I've already discussed. The research being done at the Mt.St. Helens eruption area is revealing similar sedimentary layers as we see in any cyclic sediments. The only difference is these sediments were laid down very rapidly and the erosional areas were cut rapidly. This discounts long ages for the same things we see like in the grand canyon or any other area where we see stratification. The stratifigraphy may be all messed up age wise. What has always been accepted as truth may not be true at all.

This illustrates that you don't have a clue what you're talking about, quite frankly. Comparing lahar deposits around Mt. St. Helens to the Grand Canyon, which is obviously a more complex feature, requires that you ignore even the most superficial observations like color, texture, and rock type not to mention other features that are plainly obvious like the fact that the Grand Canyon has lithified sediment. Mt. St. Helens involves unconsolidated pyroclastics with mud and the "canyon" eroded was a result of human activity to avoid significant flooding of Spirit Lake and was not a natural occurrance. Creationists who claim this comparison are saying nothing more than the most superficial observation that "oh there's layering at Mt. St. Helens and there's layering at the Grand Canyon so they must be the same!" That's a terrible analysis.

Do we see the same things at Mt. St. Helens as we do at the Grand Canyon that makes the comparison "almost to a tee?" Hardly. Not even an introductory geology student would make such an outlandish claim.

Where are the following features that exist at the Grand Canyon at the Mt. St. Helens site:

Limestone that is several hundred feet thick like the Redwall Limestone at the GC?
Fossilized brachiopods and other marine creatures in the rocks?
Cross bedded quartz sandstone of a desert-like environment like the Coconino Sandstone at the GC?
Trace fossils such as tracks and burrows in the rocks?
Sharp meanders/goosenecks in the canyon from erosion by the Colorado river?
Interbedded shale and limestone like at the GC?
Angular unconformities like the Great Unconformity at the GC?
Other unconformities between sedimentary layers indicative of erosion and no deposition like at the GC?

You won't find any of these features. You won't even find the lahar deposits to be lithified either. They aren't even remotely comparable.

The only way to claim that the stratigraphy in the unconsolidated volcanic ash at Mt. St. Helens and the stratigraphy at the Grand Canyon are equivalent is if you ignore even the most basic things like rock type, scale, and parts of the GC stratigraphy that are not horizontal. That's just dishonest pseudoscience.

Jim Larmore

January 29, 2004, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by Mech Bliss
Do we see the same things at Mt. St. Helens as we do at the Grand Canyon that makes the comparison "almost to a tee?" Hardly. Not even an introductory geology student would make such an outlandish claim.

Limestone that is several hundred feet thick like the Redwall Limestone at the GC?
Fossilized brachiopods and other marine creatures in the rocks?
Cross bedded quartz sandstone of a desert-like environment like the Coconino Sandstone at the GC?
Trace fossils such as tracks and burrows in the rocks?
Sharp meanders/goosenecks in the canyon from erosion by the Colorado river?
Interbedded shale and limestone like at the GC?
Angular unconformities like the Great Unconformity at the GC?
Other unconformities between sedimentary layers indicative of erosion and no deposition like at the GC?

You won't find any of these features. You won't even find the lahar deposits to be lithified either. They aren't even remotely comparable.

The only way to claim that the stratigraphy in the unconsolidated volcanic ash at Mt. St. Helens and the stratigraphy at the Grand Canyon are equivalent is if you ignore even the most basic things like rock type, scale, and parts of the GC stratigraphy that are not horizontal. That's just dishonest pseudoscience.

Maybe you should discuss this with Steve Austin Ph.D its his work I've been referring too. One of the problems seen in the grand canyon is for it to be as old as it is you should see much more evidence of erosion in the stratas. Theres erosion there for sure but not near the level that should be there for the ages asserted to have been necessary for its deposition. Also, the observations of Mt. St. Helens is not all pyroclastic volcanic ash and mud, much of it is layed out in stratas much like we see in the much larger GC depositions. Maybe you should go there Mech Bliss or have you already been?

Mageth

January 29, 2004, 01:56 PM

One of the problems seen in the grand canyon is for it to be as old as it is you should see much more evidence of erosion in the stratas. Theres erosion there for sure but not near the level that should be there for the ages asserted to have been necessary for its deposition.

The strata of the Grand Canyon are chock full of evidence for erosion, for long ages of erosion. Study up on the unconformities that Mech Bliss mentioned.

Grand Canyon Unconformities (http://www.casdn.neu.edu/~geology/department/staff/naylor/geo1212/gc_unc.htm)

A quote:

The Vishnu schist and gneiss below this unconformity were deposited as sediments almost 2,000,000,000 years ago. Eventually these rocks found themselves deep in the roots of a mountain range and were metamorposed to schist and gneiss. Millions of years were then needed to erode the mountains and lift these rocks back to the surface. Then deposition resumed with the Bass limestone and higher rocks of the Unkar Group.

Duck!

January 29, 2004, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
One of the problems seen in the grand canyon is for it to be as old as it is you should see much more evidence of erosion in the stratas.

For it to be as old as it is? Surely you're not suggesting that the Grand Canyon isn't as old as the Grand Canyon is? ;)

Duck!

Tharmas

January 29, 2004, 02:18 PM

Originally posted by Jim Larmore

Well, I've done some field work on my own and I can tell you there is evidence of the flood and I've seen it so you saying it doesn't exist is ludicrous to me. There is a stratum that covers at least two continents that shows evidence of the flood, in this stratum we see millions of fish fossils some with their gills distended as if they were gasping for oxygen, fish do this when the water they are caught in is laden with too much silt for good oxygen transferr. Flood waters are very heavy in silt most of the time. This stratum is seen in the and under the walnut shale near the puluxy river in Texas and can be seen all over the south eastern US it picks back up again at or around the white cliffs of Dover on the European western shore. Much of Great Brittain is setting on this stratum.

I�m just dropping by quickly.

For those who want a quick reference to what Jim�s talking about with the �Walnut shale,� here�s a link to a chart that references the local names with the more accepted universal strata names.

http://www.cretaceousfossils.com/stratigraphy/stratigraphic_correlation_ae_large.htm

The Walnut is way down there corresponding to the Middle Albion. I know in Austin it�s about 25 meters think, total. Just above the Walnut is the Goodland, which I�ve spent many hours digging Amonites out of in west Fort Worth. I�ve personally lived in / walked / hunted this chalk-limestone landscape all my life. Never found a fish. I�ve found tons (probably literally) of calcified shells, dozens of shark�s teeth, and one Mosasaur vertebra, but that�s about it.

Now, I�ve known people to find fish, and in some cases almost complete calcified fossil skeletons. How you can tell what positions the gills were in I don�t know. But I�ve never found a fish myself.

Jim, if you know a spot around here, Texas or Oklahoma, where I could find �millions� of fossil fish please let me know. I can�t tell you how grateful the members of my paleo club would be.

Of course, all this chalk and limestone is itself composed of the bodies of microscopic critters, foraminifera; I�ve seen the electron microscope images. I forget the calculations about how many meters of sludge from the bottom of an ocean has to compress to make one meter of limestone or chalk.

And the funny thing is, all these critters, all the species of foraminifera in the chalk, all the species of fish, all the species of oysters and clams and crabs and ammonites, not to mention Mosasaurs, are all extinct. Not a single one of them is still around on the planet today.

It makes you think. At least, it makes me think. But not about Noah�s flood.

Mageth

January 29, 2004, 02:38 PM

Tharmas' post brings this up. Jim said:

fish do this when the water they are caught in is laden with too much silt for good oxygen transferr.

As, since Tharmas pointed out, the Walnut Shale is composed primarily of foraminifera, where's all that silt?

Mech Bliss

January 29, 2004, 02:47 PM

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
One of the problems seen in the grand canyon is for it to be as old as it is you should see much more evidence of erosion in the stratas.

That's what the angular unconformity and disconformities between the parallel strata are. They represent periods of erosion between strata.

Theres erosion there for sure but not near the level that should be there for the ages asserted to have been necessary for its deposition.

How do you know, or are you just pulling this out of your posterior (or rather Austin's)?

Also, the observations of Mt. St. Helens is not all pyroclastic volcanic ash and mud, much of it is layed out in stratas much like we see in the much larger GC depositions.

As I said before, this is just you saying "oh look, there's layering at Mt. St. Helens and there's layering at the Grand Canyon so they must be the same!" It's a ridiculous analysis that doesn't even take into account even the most superficial observations of rock type, color, and texture, not to mention the more specific observations of sedimentary structures like cross bedding, trace fossils, and unconformities.

Until you can show the features I listed in my previous post in the Mt. St. Helens example, your comparison is baseless. Unless you can show us the limestone or cross bedded sandstone in the Mt. St. Helens example, you're not going to convince anyone who has taken Geology 101 or read a basic geology textbook (much less others who have a degree(s) in the field).

The Mt. St. Helens example is obviously far less complex than the Grand Canyon and not an appropriate analogue, as I illustrated with my list of only some of the features that one had that the other did not.

Maybe you should go there Mech Bliss or have you already been?

I have been to the Grand Canyon and have seen pictures of the Mt. St. Helens area in question. How anyone could call them comparable is beyond me. The only reason I can see is a desperation to demonstrate the veracity of young earth creationism while throwing away all evidence that one doesn't like. It's dishonest.

Al Fresco

January 29, 2004, 03:07 PM

Jim, how does the Flood scenario account for the observations from studies of the fossil record and geological column listed here (http://www.televar.com/~jnj/challenge.htm)?

Jim Larmore

January 29, 2004, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by Mech Bliss

As I said before, this is just you saying "oh look, there's layering at Mt. St. Helens and there's layering at the Grand Canyon so they must be the same!" It's a ridiculous analysis that doesn't even take into account even the most superficial observations of rock type, color, and texture, not to mention the more specific observations of sedimentary structures like cross bedding, trace fossils, and unconformities.

The Mt. St. Helens example is obviously far less complex than the Grand Canyon and not an appropriate analogue, as I illustrated with my list of only some of the features that one had that the other did not.

I have been to the Grand Canyon and have seen pictures of the Mt. St. Helens area in question. How anyone could call them comparable is beyond me. The only reason I can see is a desperation to demonstrate the veracity of young earth creationism while throwing away all evidence that one doesn't like. It's dishonest.

You know Mech Bliss, I've not been anything but civil to you so why are you saying things like pulling things out of my you know what? :( Is what I'm saying hitting a nerve or something? Maybe you should chill out a little. The information I've gotten from my studies come from both the main stream and creationist sources. I'm not desparate to show anything, I've just observed some very interesting aspects of things that don't add up with the established conclusions.

I didn't say the Mt.St. Helens was anologous to the grand canyon I did say as has Dr. Autin is that it certainly shows how sedimentation and its associated layering can occurr very rapidly. This fact should make the time required of the stratas in the GC to become at least suspect. A true scientist should always be looking for new information to further enlighten himself with.

Of course this shouldn't be anything new to you if you are indeed a geologist. BTW,experiments were done on several occasions that showed different gradients of silt and substrates can layer out very rapidly and don't neccessarily require long ages to layer out. The size and type of rocks shown in the GC only demonstrate a larger scale occurrence not a long one. Those rocks were at one time in a liquid state and would conform to the laws that made the sediments at Mt. St. Helens layer out rapidly. Fossils embedded in the strata could have been carried with the depositing sediments. The erosional evidence is not near what it should be either.

budgie

January 29, 2004, 03:37 PM

Jim, I'm somewhat confused by your assertion, a la Austin, that Mt St Helen's silt is the same consistancy as Grand Canyon rocks.

Mageth

January 29, 2004, 03:42 PM

I didn't say the Mt.St. Helens was anologous to the grand canyon I did say as has Dr. Autin is that it certainly shows how sedimentation and its associated layering can occurr very rapidly. This fact should make the time required of the stratas in the GC to become at least suspect. A true scientist should always be looking for new information to further enlighten himself with.

I doubt if any geologists deny that sedimentation/layering can occur rapidly. However, it's also known that sedimentation/layering can, and does, occur very slowly, and at various rates between the two extremes.

And, as the process of sedimentation/layering observed at Mt. St. Helens is not at all the same as the processes that formed the strata of the GC, observations of that process do not cause the time required for the formation of strata of the GC to become "suspect".

The erosional evidence is not near what it should be either.

Since there is evidence in the GC of hundreds of millions of years of deposition and erosion, what the heck should it be?

Jim Larmore

January 29, 2004, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by Mageth
[b]I doubt if any geologists deny that sedimentation/layering can occur rapidly. However, it's also known that sedimentation/layering can, and does, occur very slowly, and at various rates between the two extremes.

Since there is evidence in the GC of hundreds of millions of years of deposition and erosion, what the heck should it be?

The evidence of erosion that I believe they are concerned about is the lack of it in the stratas themselves, its really not what extreme time deposits should show. There is evidence of this type of erosion in the oldest know rocks called the shinzu shist (ms)and this is apparent. This is old rock indeed.

MortalWombat

January 29, 2004, 04:15 PM

Jim, I was wondering if you would care to explain how what is observed in the Grand Canyon can occur rapidly:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-science/grand-canyon.gif

Namely, how can you get the following ordering of events in a rapid manner:
The blue layers are deposited.
The blue layers are tilted and eroded.
The green layers are deposited.
The canyon is cut into the green and blue layers.
The lava flows occur.
Particularly the part in bold.

(Picture taken from here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-science.html))

RufusAtticus

January 29, 2004, 04:27 PM

"Austin has confirmed what mainstream geologists have known all along: that the lithospheric mantle underlying the Grand Canyon must be older than the Cardenas Basalt." (Here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-science.html))

Jim Larmore

January 29, 2004, 07:00 PM

Originally posted by MortalWombat
Jim, I was wondering if you would care to explain how what is observed in the Grand Canyon can occur rapidly:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-science/grand-canyon.gif

Namely, how can you get the following ordering of events in a rapid manner:
The blue layers are deposited.
The blue layers are tilted and eroded.
The green layers are deposited.
The canyon is cut into the green and blue layers.
The lava flows occur.
Particularly the part in bold.

(Picture taken from here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-science.html))

Theres obviously been a lot of dynamic forces that have shaped the depositions we call the Grand Canyon. I saw a special on the Learning Channel that discussed the mechanisms they thought may have caused the canyon itself. They have concluded the erosional effect of the colorado river is far from the only shaping force that defines its existence. The surrounding ground has risen as the river cut and the two forces shaped the majority of what we see. I believe this is probably accurate but I question the amount of time they say it took for this to happen.

Indeed its the time factor that this discussion is really all about. The same forces that has been concluded to have caused the canyon could have occurred much more rapidly than its ascribed to have happened in. I've already shown how layering in sedimentation can occurr much more rapidly than we have previously thought. The mind boggling forces of a global flood could account for a rapid cutting/erosion of such a structure as the GC. The rapid techtonic movement of subteranean plates could account for the terrain rising up. Speculation? Yes, possible ? Yes.

Mech Bliss

January 29, 2004, 07:46 PM

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
You know Mech Bliss, I've not been anything but civil to you so why are you saying things like pulling things out of my you know what? :( Is what I'm saying hitting a nerve or something? Maybe you should chill out a little.

It's an expression and I'm simply calling you out on putting forth an assertion that you haven't backed up at all. You claim that there should be more erosion, but all you have is your say so to back it up. I've heard this assertion from creationists before and it's something they pull out of thin air (if you prefer that expression better).

I didn't say the Mt.St. Helens was anologous to the grand canyon I did say as has Dr. Autin is that it certainly shows how sedimentation and its associated layering can occurr very rapidly.

Geologists know that layering can occur quickly. The circumstances associated with Mt. St. Helens are completely different from the circumstances at the Grand Canyon. Austin's conclusion is an extremely superficial. As I said, he is merely stating that "look, there is layering at Mt. St. Helens and there is layering at the Grand Canyon so they are the same!" when they clearly are not. Austin makes superficial observations, draws a superficial conclusion, and neglects any real analysis here.

This fact should make the time required of the stratas in the GC to become at least suspect.

Yet now you are trying to draw a comparison between Mt. St. Helens and the Grand Canyon where one is not warrented. The fact that the layering that occurred at Mt. St. Helens was the result of a lahar does not bring into question the time it took for the formation of the strata of the Grand Canyon. They are completely different!

Again: Where at Mt. St. Helens did Austin observe a limestone forming rapidly like the Redwall Limestone? Where at Mt. St. Helens did Austin observe a cross bedded sandstone form rapidly like the Coconino Sandstone?

There are also things like fossils, trace fossils, and sedimentary structures that also indicate that the Mt. St. Helens example is IRRELEVANT. You have conveniently avoided those things I listed on the previous page every time even though they are relevant. The sedimentation at Mt. St. Helens is simple, that of the Grand Canyon is far more complex.

A true scientist should always be looking for new information to further enlighten himself with.

A true scientist should also abandon falsified explanations like a worldwide flood being able to produce the Grand Canyon because of superficial, flawed observations of the situation at Mt. St. Helens.

Of course this shouldn't be anything new to you if you are indeed a geologist. BTW,experiments were done on several occasions that showed different gradients of silt and substrates can layer out very rapidly and don't neccessarily require long ages to layer out.

I have read about this experiment on a creationist website involving silica dust and sand being fed into a stream of water by a person. This is irrelevant. It ignores other processes that occur such as erosion, precipitation of chemical sediments, critters, and tectonic activity that produces angular unconformities like at the GC.

The size and type of rocks shown in the GC only demonstrate a larger scale occurrence not a long one.

Demonstrate this, then.

Those rocks were at one time in a liquid state and would conform to the laws that made the sediments at Mt. St. Helens layer out rapidly.

No, not a liquid state, but rather in suspension. You are still resorting to a superficial view of the rocks of the Grand Canyon despite me pointing out that it is far more complex than you are making it out to be. The sediments at Mt. St. Helens are not comparable to the types of sediments at the Grand Canyon. Where is the limestone at Mt. St. Helens, for example? Limestones don't form the same way that sandstones do. That's an obvious error in this analysis.

Fossils embedded in the strata could have been carried with the depositing sediments.

Except in a limestone which is not a clastic deposit. You are also neglecting animal burrows and animal tracks. After all, vertebrates probably weren't walking around on dry sand in the middle of the flood and then having their tracks covered. Also I don't suppose sand dunes would be forming in a desert during a catastrophic flood either. Yet those features exist.

The Grand Canyon is actually an excellent example of a disproof of the biblical flood.

The erosional evidence is not near what it should be either.

You keep saying it, but you don't say why. It's a claim pulled out of thin air.

Jim Larmore

January 29, 2004, 08:59 PM

Calcium carbonate or lime can be formed via suspensions that can solidify very rapid and I can prove this in yours or anyones lab.

The statements concerning erosional concerns are ones of taking the literature at its word. I'll try to find the web site where I read this article that Dr. Austin made his statements about the lack of erosion in the stratas.

Tracks on the side of stratas only indicate to me that they were put there when the sediment was wet. After it solidified it could have been moved to a verticle plane via techtonic action.

rlogan

January 29, 2004, 10:11 PM

Originally posted by Jim Larmore

The statements concerning erosional concerns are ones of taking the literature at its word. I'll try to find the web site where I read this article that Dr. Austin made his statements about the lack of erosion in the stratas.

Well, we'd love to see the citations for all kinds of assertions that you've made.

Man, I'm clueless on so much of science. I can't imagine going on about stuff telling professionals my idle thoughts are at par with a decades of professional training and experience.

Hey you guys - if the stuff we find on Mars matches bacteria we find here that is not evidence of common origin. It's common design.

lpetrich

January 30, 2004, 12:50 AM

[Jim Larmore:
I have never said today's geologists are a bunch of crack pots. I don't believe this !!!What I said is much of what they say is speculation . This speculation is based on present day measurements and observation. Not everyone has the same opinion of these varied speculations. ...

Why are you so certain that many of present-day geologists' conclusions are nothing but speculation? That is a very serious accusation.

That young-earth Flood Geologists have different conclusions is a non-argument; a good reason must be based on the nature of mainstream geologists' arguments.

Would you quote geocentrists in order to demonstrate that heliocentrism is pure speculation?

Would you quote flat-earthers in order to demonstrate that round-earthism is pure speculation?

Would you quote four-elements "chemistry" in order to demonstrate that modern chemistr is pure speculation?

If a global flood did happen the way the Bible says it did and massive quantities of subterranean water came up to flood the surface this would have destabilized the continental plates and "possibly" caused them to shift very rapidly. Like I have said once they got to going the momentum could have carried them long distances until they reached a point of stasis. This hypothesis is not new and it has never been disproven either.

That scenario has serious holes, like what happens to water when heated to the temperatures of the Earth's interior. And how it is more likely to make cracks in the Earth's surface than lubricate the bases of continents.

And also the nature of continental drift itself. Continents do NOT travel on top of oceanic crust; they lie in the middle of oceanic crust, and travel with it. Oceanic crust is produced in mid-oceanic ridges and is consumed in subduction zones. But are those processes also supposed to have a million times faster at some time in the past?

Its like the sedimentary layering I've already discussed. The research being done at the Mt.St. Helens eruption area is revealing similar sedimentary layers as we see in any cyclic sediments.

Except that volcanic deposits are drastically different from continental-shelf sediments in other respects.

Have you ever considered the dynamic forces which shape our planetary crust?? Don't you think that evidence is destroyed over time or woiuld you at least consider this as a possibility?

Why would the evidence be eroded away *everywhere*?

And this argument essentially states that most rock strata are NOT due to Noah's Flood.

One of the problems seen in the grand canyon is for it to be as old as it is you should see much more evidence of erosion in the stratas.

How do you determine how much erosion it ought to have?

I did say as has Dr. Autin is that it certainly shows how sedimentation and its associated layering can occurr very rapidly.

A totally irrelevant result.

This fact should make the time required of the stratas in the GC to become at least suspect.

The Grand Canyon is NOT dated by estimates of deposition time, but by radioisotope dating and stratigraphic correlation.

Sven

January 30, 2004, 03:28 AM

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
Saying it a 'MILLION TIMES" won't make it true Sven.
Yes, you're right. I'm getting far to emotional sometimes - but I think this is at least understandable... Hint: Claiming that the flood was possible a dozen times also won't make it so.

Let me explain again:
Over 150 years ago, Christian geologists set out for proving Noah's flood. But they found nothing of the evidence which they expected - they rather found evidence that the flood didn't happen. Being good scientists, most of them accepted this. Case closed.

Jim, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of science. Once a theory is disproven, it is dead. Really dead. No resurrection here. Please give one example of a scientific theory (I mean modern science here, that is, approximately starting with Galileo) which was disproven by evidence and later revived. You don't realize this, but your argumentation for a global flood is equivalent to someone arguing that he found evidence that the sun revolves around the earth. I know you won't accept this, but your non-acceptance doesn't change this fact.

[snipped questions since others, who are much more knowledgeable, have dealt with them]

Have you ever done field research on your own to verify your peer review literature or do you just take them at their word?

Yes, I do. Why shouldn't I? I see peer review working in my field of science (chemistry), thus I see no reason why it shouldn't work in geology.

Well, I've done some field work on my own and I can tell you there is evidence of the flood and I've seen it so you saying it doesn't exist is ludicrous to me.

What is your education in geology? I just ask to verify the validity of this claim. Judging by the other posts in this thread, you seem to have no idea what you are talking about.

There is a stratum that covers at least two continents that shows evidence of the flood, in this stratum we see millions of fish fossils some with their gills distended as if they were gasping for oxygen, fish do this when the water they are caught in is laden with too much silt for good oxygen transferr.[...] This stratum is seen in the and under the walnut shale near the puluxy river in Texas and can be seen all over the south eastern US it picks back up again at or around the white cliffs of Dover on the European western shore. Much of Great Brittain is setting on this stratum.

Care to give a reference for this claim? Judging by the other posts in this thread, it seems to hold no water (pun intended).

Flood waters are very heavy in silt most of the time.

What leads to more questions...
(1) How do you know this also holds for Noah's flood? It was, after all, supernatural in origin.
(2) If you're right: How did any fish and all the other sea dwellers survive for about a year in water which is heavy in silt?

But you ignored so many questions in this (and other) thread - it'll be no problem for you to ignore these, too.

Sven

January 30, 2004, 03:41 AM

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
Have you ever considered the dynamic forces which shape our planetary crust?? Don't you think that evidence is destroyed over time or woiuld you at least consider this as a possibility?

I just wanted to add my 2 cents here.
Jim, do you realize that there is evidence in the geological column for many local (that is much smaller than global) floods? If geologists can find and identify this evidence, why on earth they shouldn't be able to find evidence for a global flood? For the evidence of a global flood to disappear so completely, this requires another miracle.

There are three options left:
(1) Most geologists are incompetent (hint: your "argument" about misidentification of evidence was already debunked)
(2) Your god doesn't want them to find evidence.
(3) The flood didn't happen.

Please decide for yourself which one is more likely - but you already seem to have concluded that (1) is true.

Sven

January 30, 2004, 04:46 AM

Hi Jim,

you repeatedly claimed that the evidence for creation, a flood, etc. is there, it is just misinterpreted. So, please, could you answer the following question honestly? I'm tempted to ask more specifically, but I wanted to keep the options as simple as possible.

Which is more likely to be misinterpreted?
(1) A few dozen verses out of an ancient book.
(2) Mountains of evidence from astronomy, geology, and biology.

Please think about this deeply before answering.

Sven

Oolon Colluphid

January 30, 2004, 05:38 AM

Just to make a couple of quick points:

1. Aren't we some way away from life on Mars now? Time for a new thread perhaps?

This occurred to me because of what I now want to ask Jim...

2. Jim, I�m now curious. You started just having concerns about abiogenesis, iirc. And now you�re sounding more like a full-blown creationist, with global floods and such. So, may I test just how �creationist� you are please? I�d like to know whether you consider, not only a global bible-style flood to be true, but also that living things were saved by being on board a big boat? Do you believe that too?

Cheers, Oolon

Sven

January 30, 2004, 06:32 AM

Hey Oolon, I already suggested a couple of posts ago that this thread should be splitted. But nothing happened up to now...?

Anyway, I just wanted to direct the attention over there (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1403771#post1403771), to a post by chapka in the other thread on the flood. Nice summary, IMHO.

hyzer

January 30, 2004, 07:48 AM

Jim:

I really like Sven�s question . . . . .

I would imagine that you put a lot of stock in the bible as the word of god. Of course, supposed divine intervention or not, would you agree that it was still written by men, fallible men?

And of course, your position is that god created the earth. So who is closer to ascertaining the verity of the earth�s history � those that read from a book written by fallible men or those that actually study the �god-created� earth?

(spelliung edit)

Sven

January 30, 2004, 09:09 AM

Originally posted by hyzer
(spelliung edit)
LOL

rlogan

January 30, 2004, 12:49 PM

I think by hanging out here, Jim you've missed another really beneficial part of IIDB. There are some very knowledgable people over in BC&H. Also a couple of die hard literalists.

When you've come to understand that the flood myth was adapted from the more ancient epic of Gilgamesh then it will lose it's value as a historical tract and take on what it is supposed to be - a lesson.

I would add to sven's question that there is plenty of evidence - clay cuniform tablets in particular - that gilgamesh came first and one has to do more than ignore geological evidence in order to put forward the Genesis flood as history. You have to ignore the physical as well as textual evidence that the two flood stories that are merged together in Genesis are myths.

MortalWombat

January 30, 2004, 01:40 PM

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
Indeed its the time factor that this discussion is really all about. The same forces that has been concluded to have caused the canyon could have occurred much more rapidly than its ascribed to have happened in. I've already shown how layering in sedimentation can occurr much more rapidly than we have previously thought. The mind boggling forces of a global flood could account for a rapid cutting/erosion of such a structure as the GC. The rapid techtonic movement of subteranean plates could account for the terrain rising up. Speculation? Yes, possible ? Yes.I noticed you forgot to address the erosion of the subterranean plates, followed by continued layering (at a different angle) over these tilted, eroded layers.

If you are going to convince people that a global flood is responsible for all of the features of the Grand Canyon, you must address how it could:
[list=1] Lay down some layers
Cause them to harden (this is important for the next two to occur)
Tilt them
Erode the edges of those layers at an angle
Overlay more layers at a different angle than the first layers
Cut through all of these layers
Allow lava to flow over the edge of the canyon, harden, and form dams in at least thirteen places, at different times (source (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=21407))
Then erode through these hardened lava dams[/list=1]

.... All in a short period of time

Mathetes

January 30, 2004, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by rlogan
I think by hanging out here, Jim you've missed another really beneficial part of IIDB. There are some very knowledgable people over in BC&H.

Actually, Jim has been active in that forum also for the past months, and most likely he has encountered the Gilgamesh legend. He seems still convinced that the Bible story has some possibility of being true, but he also seems to have a genuine interest in learning. To me he looks honest, which is much more than you can say of the average creationist.

He will see the light some day. ;)

Mech Bliss

January 30, 2004, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
Calcium carbonate or lime can be formed via suspensions that can solidify very rapid and I can prove this in yours or anyones lab.

This is just as irrelevant as your alluding to experiments by Batten and Berthault. Of course if you do something like, say, take a solution and load it with dissolved calcium carbonate and raise the temperature, the mineral will form. Of course this is also oversimplified because it neglects the biogenic precipitation of limestone and the fact that there are different types of limestones that form under different conditions in different depositional environments. We can look today at locations like the Bahama Banks and see limestone analogous to the limestones of the Grand Canyon and we observe them forming in a shallow shelf environment at a rate on the order of centimeters per year. It's not a very rapid process to create limestone formations hundreds of meters thick while also taking into account erosion.

Furthermore, your assertion, which lacks any serious analysis as many have pointed out, denies the data compiled from biostratigraphy and radiometric dating as well. We not only have evidence of a non-continuous deposition of the strata and evidence that these strata are deposited slowly rather than rapidly, we also have other lines of evidence that corroborate the fact that a worldwide flood is not responsible for such a feature.

The statements concerning erosional concerns are ones of taking the literature at its word. I'll try to find the web site where I read this article that Dr. Austin made his statements about the lack of erosion in the stratas.

So it is really a claim pulled out of thin air? How is one to know how much erosion there is supposed to be especially when there is evidence of a great deal of erosion between the deposition of the different strata (angular unconformities, disconformities).

If anything, this evidence demonstrates that the Grand Canyon is not a catastrophically created feature because the sedimentary deposition was not continuous for several reasons already discussed.

I would not take people like Austin for their word, however. I know that creationists believe what they want to hear, but a serious geologist looking for serious explanations with more than a very superficial analysis would NOT be looking at a lahar deposit to learn about a feature like the Grand Canyon. He and his ilk, such as the AiG/ICR geologists like Snelling, are intellectually dishonest people. They are required to suppress any data that contradicts the claim of a 6,000 year old earth and a global flood. They cannot even consider it. Besides, it was even you who earlier said: "A true scientist should always be looking for new information to further enlighten himself with." People like Austin aren't looking for new information in an honest fashion. They aren't true scientists both by your standard and by mine.

Tracks on the side of stratas only indicate to me that they were put there when the sediment was wet. After it solidified it could have been moved to a verticle plane via techtonic action.

That makes little sense, first of all. Second, the trace fossils I was talking about were in a sandstone whose formation would have occurred in a very dry environment. The tracks and burrows indicate organisms that are suited so such an environment as well (that is to say, they are not marine or coastal). They were put there when the sediment was unconsolidated and preserved via lithification. Either way, these tracks should not exist in the first place if the deposition of the sediment in the Grand Canyon was continuous.

Sven

January 30, 2004, 05:15 PM

Originally posted by Mathetes
he also seems to have a genuine interest in learning. To me he looks honest, which is much more than you can say of the average creationist.

Yes, but he also has the bad habit to dodge/ignore questions - like most other creationists. :(

I don't expect he'll anwser my question above... Hey Jim! Prove me wrong!

Roland98

January 31, 2004, 04:42 PM

This thread has been split from this thread (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=74185) about life on Mars.

Roland98
E/C mod

Asha'man

February 1, 2004, 07:56 AM

Jim, a couple of really quick questions:

How old do you think the earth is?

When in this timeframe do you think the flood happened?

Sven

February 2, 2004, 03:50 AM

Jim Larmore

February 2, 2004, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by Sven
Hi Jim,

you repeatedly claimed that the evidence for creation, a flood, etc. is there, it is just misinterpreted. So, please, could you answer the following question honestly? I'm tempted to ask more specifically, but I wanted to keep the options as simple as possible.

Which is more likely to be misinterpreted?
(1) A few dozen verses out of an ancient book.
(2) Mountains of evidence from astronomy, geology, and biology.

Please think about this deeply before answering.

Sven

I think both you and I know the answer that is obvious here. Its much easier to "misrepresent" a few Bible verses than it is a mountain of latent physical evidence. However ,the Bible speaks of a world wide flood and it says it in a way to be taken literally. Now, the accusation of men writing the Bible and making mistakes is well taken, except for the fact that Jesus Christ Himself spoke of the flood as a fact.

I haven't gone out on my field research work to look for evidence to proove or disproove the flood. I let the rocks say what they say. I am not a geologist but I've done some study on it specifically in the area of stratigraphy. I've seen pictures of polystrate fossils that have stratas intersecting at or near 90 degree angles indicating a rapid sedimentation of the layers. I've seen the same thing in a picture of a whale standing on its tail and personally a few very large beavers and some bones that are vertabrate but I'm not sure of the species yet. I've seen and collected more invertabrate fossils than you can imagine.

It appears to me that the fossil record indicates a world wide spreading of aquatic life forms with rare but adequate number of vertabrates to show massive burials. I haven't found hardly any place on this planet that I couldn't find fossils, they're every where. This tells me the whole globe was under water at one time. I have found in the austin chalk formation evidence of cretacous fossils and this strata goes clear to the east coast and then takes back up at the white cliffs of Dover, then down to northern Africa, this shows continental envolvement of this flood. I don't understand how we could be saying there is NO evidence for a global flood.

I don't understand why I see evidence of intentionally covering up or discrediting evidence for the sake of a theory. For instance, ( you asked for honesty did you not? ) in the puluxy river basin there is a ton of evidence that humans lived contemporaneously with the dinos , but if you look on the internet you will find scientific evidence that refutes and is discrediting. Some even accuse the creationist of carving some of these footprints in the river bed. You'll see where even the people that live in the area say they are faked and not real.

I've been there and looked at the prints myself. Some of them are hard to say if they are human or not but some are very obvious, they have the filangies trench the great toe the medial arch, to me they look just like real foot prints. Heck on some you can even see mud push up on the heel areas. I've seen where they did a cross section on the prints. The ones I've seen show lamination lines where pressure was applied. You won't get laminations in a carved print. All of this evidence is discredited however by main stream science.

I started out as an agnostic. I used to look at the world as a natural accident that just happens to have miraculous aspects to it. The holes in the theory have always been there and I have wondered about the inconsistencies in what I was seeing for a long time. When I was taking Chemistry and Physics in college I never questioned science at all but when I started studying the cell and how complicated life really is I started to really question how all of this could have occurred accidentally by fortuitous means with no intelligent input.

Theres a lot I don't know thats for sure. I can't answer many of your questions, you can call it dodging or what ever you want. I consider myself a scientist and I still wonder at all of God's creation, but I can't go about my life trying to make what I see fit into a theory that won't explain what I'm seeing for myself. If the evidence is there its there. Much of what the theory says does indeed show evidence to back it up but there is a "reasonable" amount of counter evidence to show its not all inclusive in explaning everything. If you want to say ok Jim your just saying God did it then thats ok, I don't mind, that won't take away my curiosity like many in science says it will. I think this is just an excuse to keep God out of the equation no matter how much we have to bend the rules.

Jim Larmore

February 2, 2004, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by hyzer
Jim:

I really like Sven�s question . . . . .

I would imagine that you put a lot of stock in the bible as the word of god. Of course, supposed divine intervention or not, would you agree that it was still written by men, fallible men?

And of course, your position is that god created the earth. So who is closer to ascertaining the verity of the earth�s history � those that read from a book written by fallible men or those that actually study the �god-created� earth?

(spelliung edit)

You know hyzer, I have to admit I see evidence of metaphyics on both sides of this thing. Anytime you have ad hoc tactics used by both sides who refuse to see whats real and is verifiable then you have a metaphysic indeed. Now I'll admit based on what I've seen it appears theres more manipulation on the creationist side than the other way around but both sides are guilty.

In answer to your question. I have never said I believe the Bible is inerrent. Its obvious its not , however I do see it as the inspired word of God and even though its not perfect its all we have outside of direct devine communication.

The last part of your question to me should be obvious, but it isn't. I would hope that the observers of this world would use empirical evidence only and be the guardians of knowledge. I believe for the most part this is true , however there are some instances that it isn't.

Karalora

February 2, 2004, 02:34 PM

However ,the Bible speaks of a world wide flood and it says it in a way to be taken literally. Now, the accusation of men writing the Bible and making mistakes is well taken, except for the fact that Jesus Christ Himself spoke of the flood as a fact.

How do you know Jesus spoke of the flood as a fact? The only Biblical accounts of his life and his words are the Gospels, which were written by men as fallible as any other. Is it not possible that they misrecorded or misrepresented what Jesus said?

I've seen pictures of polystrate fossils that have stratas intersecting at or near 90 degree angles indicating a rapid sedimentation of the layers.

Of course rapid burial can occur; no one is denying that. That doesn't mean that every fossil we observe today was buried rapidly in a single worldwide flooding event.

I haven't found hardly any place on this planet that I couldn't find fossils, they're every where. This tells me the whole globe was under water at one time.

It tells me that every spot of land on Earth has been underwater at one time or another. That doesn't mean that the whole planet was underwater at the same time. (Actually, it probably was at one point, but if you found any fossils at all dating that far back, they certainly wouldn't be vertebrate fossils!)

Happy Wonderer

February 2, 2004, 02:42 PM

Originally posted by Jim Larmore

It appears to me that the fossil record indicates a world wide spreading of aquatic life forms with rare but adequate number of vertabrates to show massive burials. I haven't found hardly any place on this planet that I couldn't find fossils, they're every where. This tells me the whole globe was under water at one time. I have found in the austin chalk formation evidence of cretacous fossils and this strata goes clear to the east coast and then takes back up at the white cliffs of Dover, then down to northern Africa, this shows continental envolvement of this flood. I don't understand how we could be saying there is NO evidence for a global flood.

What is chalk? (http://www.chichester.gov.uk/museum/tl0100.htm)

Chalk is a very pure form of limestone composed of countless millions of the minute calcareous skeletons of coccoliths, a form of algae.

So is a fossil 'buried' in chalk evidence of a sudden flood?

hw

Jim Larmore

February 2, 2004, 03:18 PM

Originally posted by Karalora
How do you know Jesus spoke of the flood as a fact? The only Biblical accounts of his life and his words are the Gospels, which were written by men as fallible as any other. Is it not possible that they misrecorded or misrepresented what Jesus said?

BASED ON WHAT I'VE STUDIED THE ACCEPTED STANCE IS THAT THE GOSPELS ARE AS CLOSE TO WHAT HE ACTUALLY SAID AS WE HAVE, MOST SCHOLARS BELIEVE THE HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF THE BIBLE. THIS IS WHY MANY ARCHEOLOGIST USE THE BIBLE TO HELP THEM DECIDE WHERE TO MAKE A DIG. ASIDE FROM THAT YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER THE GOSPELS WERE WRITTEN AT A TIME WHEN MANY PEOPLE OF THE DAY WERE ALIVE WHEN THE ACCOUNT OF WHAT HAPPENED OCCURRED. IF IT WAS IN ERROR THEY WOULD HAVE POINTED IT OUT. I BELIEVE JESUS SAID WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS HE SAID ABOUT THE FLOOD.

Of course rapid burial can occur; no one is denying that. That doesn't mean that every fossil we observe today was buried rapidly in a single worldwide flooding event.

THE EVIDENCE SHOWS WHAT IT SHOWS, HAVE YOU EVER BEEN TO THE PETRIFIED FORREST IN ARIZONA? HAVE YOU EVER BEEN ON A DIG WHERE THERE WERE A LARGE AMOUNT OF FOSSILS BURIED? EVERY TIME I SEE THESE THINGS I THINK OF WHAT I SEE RIGHT AFTER A FLOOD. GO ON TOP OF ABOUT ANY MOUNTAIN AND LOOK AROUND, IF THERE ARE A LOT OF FOSSILS THERE LOOK AT HOW THEY ARE LYING AROUND, HOW THEY ARE PLACED, I KNOW MANY THINGS HAVE HAPPENED SINCE THEY WERE DEPOSITED TO MOVE THEM AROUND LIKE PLATE TECHTONICS ETC. BUT YOU CAN SEE THE SCATTERING EFFECT OF MANY FORCES. THINK BACK TO WHEN YOU LAST OBSERVED A MODERN FLOOD'S AFTERMATH. INTERPRET THE EVIDENCE FOR YOURSELF DON'T TAKE WHAT YOU READ OUT OF A BOOK AS THE LAST WORD. DO YOUR OWN THINKING AND ANALYZING, YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A PHD IN GEOLOGY TO LOGICALLY FIGURE OUT WHAT IS IN FRONT OF YOU.

It tells me that every spot of land on Earth has been underwater at one time or another. That doesn't mean that the whole planet was underwater at the same time. (Actually, it probably was at one point, but if you found any fossils at all dating that far back, they certainly wouldn't be vertebrate fossils!)

THERE IS FEASIBILITY ON BOTH SIDES AND EVIDENCE FOR BOTH SIDES. I JUST CAN'T FIGURE OUT WHAT IS MEANT BY THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR A GLOBAL FLOOD WHEN WE CAN OBSERVE FLOOD LIKE DEBRIS LOOKING FOSSILS ALL OVER OUR PLANET.

hyzer

February 2, 2004, 03:33 PM

Jim:

There is lots of geological evidence for floods. There is zero evidence for a global flood.

If there had been a global flood we should see a massive jumble of fossils of ALL species in the exact same location in the geological column at all locations. We don�t. Compare this with the thin line of iridium from the meteor that (most likely) ended the run of the dinosaurs. Thin line of iridium in the exact same place in the geological column � yes, found all around the globe. Massive jumble of fossils in the exact same place in the geographic column � never found.

Fossils of sea creatures on mountain tops is evidence of plate tectonics, not a global flood.

Paleontologists have never found human fossils with dinosaur fossils � why do you think that is? In fact, fossils beds are amazing (unless acted upon by plate tectonics) the older fossils are ALWAYS deeper than the younger fossils.

(edit to change geographic to geological)

Karalora

February 2, 2004, 03:47 PM

BASED ON WHAT I'VE STUDIED THE ACCEPTED STANCE IS THAT THE GOSPELS ARE AS CLOSE TO WHAT HE ACTUALLY SAID AS WE HAVE, MOST SCHOLARS BELIEVE THE HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF THE BIBLE.

Which historical account of Jesus' life do the scholars believe? The Gospel authors disagree on several points, especially the details of Jesus' birth and death. If they can't even agree on landmark events like that, I see no reason to consider them accurate historians.

EVERY TIME I SEE THESE THINGS I THINK OF WHAT I SEE RIGHT AFTER A FLOOD.

No shit, Sherlock--floods happen. (There's one happening in my apartment as I type this, although it is unlikely to result in many fossils as it is localized to the bathroom plumbing.) A damn lot of the fossils we observe are the result of floods swamping and burying animal and plant life. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY WERE ALL THE RESULT OF A SINGULAR WORLDWIDE EVENT. GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEAD. (Two can play at the all-caps game.)

I JUST CAN'T FIGURE OUT WHAT IS MEANT BY THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR A GLOBAL FLOOD WHEN WE CAN OBSERVE FLOOD LIKE DEBRIS LOOKING FOSSILS ALL OVER OUR PLANET.

The flooding evidences in different areas are not contemporaneous with each other. If New York hospital records show an unusually high number of influenza cases in 1950 but those from London and Beijing do not, and London hospital records show an unusually high number of influenza cases in 1970 but those from New York and Beijing do not, and Beijing hospital records show an unusually high number of influenza cases in 1990 bit those from New York and London do not, we can safely conclude that there was no worldwide influenza epidemic in any of those three years--only a localized epidemic for each.

RufusAtticus

February 2, 2004, 04:09 PM

Mod Message:

Damn it, people, quit shouting and behave!

budgie

February 2, 2004, 04:19 PM

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
Aside from that you have to remember the gospels were written at a time when many people of the day were alive when the account of what happened occurred.

Only as early as 70 years after Jesus died. Not even the same generation. But this belongs in BCH.

The global flood of Noah never occurredd. That conclusion was definately decided over 300 years ago. By a christian.

-jim

simian

February 2, 2004, 04:25 PM

Jim,

This is a serious question, and one I ask of all who state what is in the bible is literal truth:

Presumably what is recorded in the bible as happening to Jesus is literally true. Jesus, as the main character (from the Christian viewpoint), is the one whom the truth must be told about. The things that happened to him must be literally true. You seem willing to believe that Jesus believed in a world-wide flood.

In that light please explain Matthew 4:8-9
Again, the devil taketh him unto an exceeding high mountain, and showeth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; and he said unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.

Jesus is taken to a high mountain and is shown all the kingdoms of the world. Modern science says there are kingdoms beyond the horizon. Is science wrong and the world really either flat or bowl shaped?

Please, no "adding to or taking away from" the words of the bible.

Simian

Jim Larmore

February 2, 2004, 04:56 PM

Originally posted by Karalora
Which historical account of Jesus' life do the scholars believe? The Gospel authors disagree on several points, especially the details of Jesus' birth and death. If they can't even agree on landmark events like that, I see no reason to consider them accurate historians.

THERE ARE A FEW DIFFERING ACCOUNTS BUT THEY DO NOT NECESSARILY CONTRADICT EACH OTHER. ITS LIKE YOU AND I SEEING THE SAME ACCIDENT FROM DIFFERENT SIDES OF THE STREET (THIS GOES BACK TO MY COP DAYS ) YOU MAY HAVE A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE OF THE SAME ACCIDENT LIKE WHO ENTERED THE INTERSECTION FIRST ETC. BUT THE JEST OF IT IS THE SAME. ITS THE SAME WITH THE GOSPELS. BTW, IF YOU DON'T SEE THEM AS ACCURATE HISTORIANS THEN YOU'D BE IN A MINORITY WHEN IT COMES TO ARCHEOLOGIST.

No shit, Sherlock--floods happen. (There's one happening in my apartment as I type this, although it is unlikely to result in many fossils as it is localized to the bathroom plumbing.) A damn lot of the fossils we observe are the result of floods swamping and burying animal and plant life. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY WERE ALL THE RESULT OF A SINGULAR WORLDWIDE EVENT. GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEAD. (Two can play at the all-caps game.)

IT DOESN'T MEAN THEY WERE'T EITHER. AS FAR AS STRATAS GO THERES IS EVIDENCE TO SHOW IT DID HAPPEN,

The flooding evidences in different areas are not contemporaneous with each other. If New York hospital records show an unusually high number of influenza cases in 1950 but those from London and Beijing do not, and London hospital records show an unusually high number of influenza cases in 1970 but those from New York and Beijing do not, and Beijing hospital records show an unusually high number of influenza cases in 1990 bit those from New York and London do not, we can safely conclude that there was no worldwide influenza epidemic in any of those three years--only a localized epidemic for each.

THE FACTS ARE THE ENTIRE WORLD SHOWS EVIDENCE OF A COVERING OF WATER THAT CAN'T BE DENIED, WHETHER IT HAPPENED AT THE SAME TIME OR NOT IS DEBATEABLE. I THINK IT DID, YOU DON'T , YOU CAN'T PROOVE THE EVIDENCE IS NOT CONTEMPORANEOUS BASED ON THE OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE. DATING ROCKS IS NOT A GOOD SCIENCE, THE ROCKS ARE DATED BY THE FOSSILS THEY CONTAIN AND THE FOSSILS ARE DATED BY THE ROCKS THEY ARE F0UND IN. SOUNDS CIRCULAR TO ME AND NOT A GOOD WAY TO PROOVE ANYTHING AT ALL. NOW YOU TELL ME BASED ON THIS FACT HOW YOU CAN SAY THEY ARE NOT CONTEMPORANEOUS.

rlogan

February 2, 2004, 05:40 PM

Originally posted by Jim Larmore DATING ROCKS IS NOT A GOOD SCIENCE, THE ROCKS ARE DATED BY THE FOSSILS THEY CONTAIN AND THE FOSSILS ARE DATED BY THE ROCKS THEY ARE F0UND IN. SOUNDS CIRCULAR TO ME AND NOT A GOOD WAY TO PROOVE ANYTHING AT ALL. NOW YOU TELL ME BASED ON THIS FACT HOW YOU CAN SAY THEY ARE NOT CONTEMPORANEOUS

Now there, Jim. You know very well that radiometric dating is used to date rocks. Here is a little piece by the U.S. Geologic survey that contains the relationship between radioactive decay and geologic time:

USGS Radiometric Tme Scale (http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/radiometric.html)

I believe this has been pointed out to you before. It is patently false to say what you have said here about the circularity of dating rocks and fossils.

I've noticed a complete lack of citations in your postings Jim, even where you are backing yourself up with the Bible. Matthew 24:37-39 is probably what you are referring to. He does not say that the flood is literally true. No more so than when one refers to the goose that laid the golden eggs. You really have to strain to take that out of context and distort things to pretend he is saying the flood is literally true.

Al Fresco

February 2, 2004, 07:49 PM

Jim, how does the Flood scenario account for the observations from fossil record, geologic column, biogeographic, and age dating studies presented here (http://www.televar.com/~jnj/challenge.htm)?

Sven

February 3, 2004, 03:55 AM

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
I think both you and I know the answer that is obvious here. Its much easier to "misrepresent" a few Bible verses than it is a mountain of latent physical evidence.

And from your other post:

I have never said I believe the Bible is inerrent. Its obvious its not

At least there's something we can agree on! :)
You only have to go one step further and accept that the bible is totally unreliable as a science book.

However ,the Bible speaks of a world wide flood and it says it in a way to be taken literally.

How you determine this? And even if you're right - there's always the very likely scenario that the men who wrote the flood story didn't know what they were talking about.

Now, the accusation of men writing the Bible and making mistakes is well taken, except for the fact that Jesus Christ Himself spoke of the flood as a fact.

Jim, this is far from being a fact. Even if we concede your point below in (the following) post that "most scholars believe the historical account of the bible" - this has nothing today with what Jesus said. Or do "your" scholars also believe that his sayings are recorded perfectly in every instance?

BTW, could you (or someone else) please point me to the verse in which Jesus talks about the flood?

I've seen pictures of polystrate fossils that have stratas intersecting at or near 90 degree angles indicating a rapid sedimentation of the layers. I've seen the same thing in a picture of a whale standing on its tail

May I point you at these two FAQs (
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate.html); one of these examines exactly this whale.

I haven't found hardly any place on this planet that I couldn't find fossils, they're every where. This tells me the whole globe was under water at one time.

Does at "one time" mean simultaneously (I have some comprehension problems here)? If yes, how to you came to this conclusion?

I have found in the austin chalk formation evidence of cretacous fossils and this strata goes clear to the east coast and then takes back up at the white cliffs of Dover, then down to northern Africa, this shows continental envolvement of this flood. I don't understand how we could be saying there is NO evidence for a global flood.

Concerning this formation I let the expert have a say on this. Only a small question: How do you know that this is the same stratum? And may I point out: This is indeed no evidence for a global flood, as long as you haven't demostrated that this stratum is also there in whole Europe, Asia, Africa, and Australia.

I don't understand why I see evidence of intentionally covering up or discrediting evidence for the sake of a theory. For instance, ( you asked for honesty did you not? ) in the puluxy river basin there is a ton of evidence that humans lived contemporaneously with the dinos , but if you look on the internet you will find scientific evidence that refutes and is discrediting.

Are you making a bad joke? You really think that the Paluxy man tracks are genuine??? Sorry, then you are perhaps beyond hope...

From this article (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/onheel.html)

Ironically, a creationist team from Loma Linda University who studied the tracks about the same time as Taylor came to very different conclusions. Based largely on field work in 1970, the Loma Linda team (consisting of Berney Neufeld, Leonard Brand, and Art Chadwick), pointed out that the alleged human footprints on the Taylor Site (which they called "Series 2") and nearby original McFall Site (their "Series 1") showed indications of tridactyl, dinosaurian digits.
The workers were puzzled by the elongate shapes of the tracks at the Taylor and McFall sites, which they tentatively attributed to erosion acting on typical bipedal dinosaur tracks. They noted, however, that the tridactyl traces at the anteriors undoubtedly indicated a dinosaurian, not a human, trackmaker. They concluded that the "man tracks" at the State Park Shelf were not tracks of any kind, but merely erosional markings that had been selectively highlighted with water or oil to appear more humanlike. The team also examined and cross sectioned several "man tracks" on loose blocks, and concluded that they were probable carvings, based on anatomic errors, problematic subsurface features, and the knowledge that such tracks had been carved in Glen Rose. The Loma Linda team?s overall conclusion was that there the Paluxy did not provide valid evidence for the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs (Neufeld, 1975, p. 75).

and

Morris and Taylor expressed concern that they had made serious errors in the past. Taylor stated that he would stop circulating Footprints in Stone, and Morris indicated that he would probably stop selling his book. [...] I then asked Taylor and Morris if they could point to any markings, anywhere in the Paluxy, which they still believed to be human or even probable human footprints. They could not.

and

In more recent years most creationists have largely abandoned the Paluxy "man track" claims

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
Some even accuse the creationist of carving some of these footprints in the river bed.

Reading the quotes above, it looks like that these accusation (also) came from other creationists...

I've been there and looked at the prints myself.

[snipped details]
You seem to see a lot of things which experts (even creationists) in the field aren't able to see.

All of this evidence is discredited however by main stream science.

And by most creationists (see above)...

the world as a natural accident that just happens to have miraculous aspects to it.

Sounds like a "fine-tuning argument" to me - have you educated yourself about this?

The holes in the theory have always been there

If you mean gaps - so what?

and I have wondered about the inconsistencies in what I was seeing for a long time.

We are all still waiting for you pointing out these inconsistencies. So far, you have only presented "facts" from creationists which were disproven long ago - some even by other creationists.

started studying the cell and how complicated life really is I started to really question how all of this could have occurred accidentally by fortuitous means with no intelligent input.

Why are back at your personal incredulity. Remember my example of Newton?

I can't answer many of your questions, you can call it dodging or what ever you want.

No. I call it dodging when you refuse to substantiate your claims. For example your claim that TO omits many things. I also call it "dodging" when you won't even acknowledge that I asked something and admit that you can't answer it, but instead simply ignore the question. If you admitted that you can not answer a question, I surely won't call it "dodging".

but there is a "reasonable" amount of counter evidence to show its not all inclusive in explaning everything

Then please, please, please, please, please, please present this counter evidence...

If you want to say ok Jim your just saying God did it then thats ok, I don't mind, that won't take away my curiosity like many in science says it will. I think this is just an excuse to keep God out of the equation no matter how much we have to bend the rules.
Please, please, please, please, please, please explain who one can do science if one includes an omnipotent being as an explanation...

Sven

February 3, 2004, 04:07 AM

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
ASIDE FROM THAT YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER THE GOSPELS WERE WRITTEN AT A TIME WHEN MANY PEOPLE OF THE DAY WERE ALIVE WHEN THE ACCOUNT OF WHAT HAPPENED OCCURRED. IF IT WAS IN ERROR THEY WOULD HAVE POINTED IT OUT. I BELIEVE JESUS SAID WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS HE SAID ABOUT THE FLOOD.
Hey, Jim, what's wrong with your "Caps lock" key?
This is a topic for BC&H, but may I point out that most scholars won't agree with you here? Most scholars know that the gospels were written several decades after Jesus lived. And, more importantly, they were not written in Israel; thus no one would have been able to point out errors before the documents reached Israel.

HAVE YOU EVER BEEN ON A DIG WHERE THERE WERE A LARGE AMOUNT OF FOSSILS BURIED? EVERY TIME I SEE THESE THINGS I THINK OF WHAT I SEE RIGHT AFTER A FLOOD. GO ON TOP OF ABOUT ANY MOUNTAIN AND LOOK AROUND, IF THERE ARE A LOT OF FOSSILS THERE LOOK AT HOW THEY ARE LYING AROUND, HOW THEY ARE PLACED, I KNOW MANY THINGS HAVE HAPPENED SINCE THEY WERE DEPOSITED TO MOVE THEM AROUND LIKE PLATE TECHTONICS ETC. BUT YOU CAN SEE THE SCATTERING EFFECT OF MANY FORCES. THINK BACK TO WHEN YOU LAST OBSERVED A MODERN FLOOD'S AFTERMATH. INTERPRET THE EVIDENCE FOR YOURSELF [...] DO YOUR OWN THINKING AND ANALYZING, YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A PHD IN GEOLOGY TO LOGICALLY FIGURE OUT WHAT IS IN FRONT OF YOU.

No, but you need a basic education in geology at least. It is simply a fact that layman often interpret something wrong.

DON'T TAKE WHAT YOU READ OUT OF A BOOK AS THE LAST WORD

Now I understand the comments from others about exploding irony meters...

I JUST CAN'T FIGURE OUT WHAT IS MEANT BY THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR A GLOBAL FLOOD WHEN WE CAN OBSERVE FLOOD LIKE DEBRIS LOOKING FOSSILS ALL OVER OUR PLANET.

It's very, very simple, Jim. You only have to show that this evidence of several floods really comes from one global flood.

Sven

February 3, 2004, 04:14 AM

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
BTW, IF YOU DON'T SEE THEM AS ACCURATE HISTORIANS THEN YOU'D BE IN A MINORITY WHEN IT COMES TO ARCHEOLOGIST.
Hey, Jim, care to contribute to this thread (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=74880)?

THE FACTS ARE THE ENTIRE WORLD SHOWS EVIDENCE OF A COVERING OF WATER THAT CAN'T BE DENIED, WHETHER IT HAPPENED AT THE SAME TIME OR NOT IS DEBATEABLE.

No, it's not debatable. It was disproven in the early 19th century by christian geologists who wanted to prove it.

And, Jim, you definitely need to educate yourself on radiometric dating.

Jack the Bodiless

February 3, 2004, 05:57 AM

Jim:
I haven't gone out on my field research work to look for evidence to proove or disproove the flood. I let the rocks say what they say. I am not a geologist but I've done some study on it specifically in the area of stratigraphy. I've seen pictures of polystrate fossils that have stratas intersecting at or near 90 degree angles indicating a rapid sedimentation of the layers.
You seem to be mixing up two different things here.

Polystrate fossils (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html) aren't a problem. But "stratas intersecting at or near 90 degree angles" wouldn't indicate rapid sedimentation: in fact, it indicates two periods of sedimentation separated by a period of tilting of the strata by geological forces.
I've seen the same thing in a picture of a whale standing on its tail...
I presume you mean a sketch by a creationist, not a photograph?

A Whale of a Tale (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/whale.html)
I have found in the austin chalk formation evidence of cretacous fossils and this strata goes clear to the east coast and then takes back up at the white cliffs of Dover, then down to northern Africa, this shows continental envolvement of this flood.
...Um, you are aware of plate tectonics, yes?

There was once no Atlantic Ocean. Continuity of strata on both sides of it isn't a mystery.
I don't understand why I see evidence of intentionally covering up or discrediting evidence for the sake of a theory. For instance, ( you asked for honesty did you not? ) in the puluxy river basin there is a ton of evidence that humans lived contemporaneously with the dinos , but if you look on the internet you will find scientific evidence that refutes and is discrediting. Some even accuse the creationist of carving some of these footprints in the river bed. You'll see where even the people that live in the area say they are faked and not real.
...Including those who know exactly who carved them. Like George Adams, for instance.

gregor

February 3, 2004, 08:11 AM

Mr. Larmore

I appreciate your willingness to engage the difficult questions presented herein. But, your evidentiary supports for a global flood are not strong.

So you've been to the Paluxy River basin and dinosaur state park, and presumably visited the "Creation Evidences Museum."
As we both know from personal visits, the trailer house that passes for a museum is not the most compelling scientific venue. The presentations and arguments for "man tracks", "embedded hammer" and other claims are poorly presented and far from persuasive.

Sven

February 3, 2004, 08:13 AM

I think it would be interesting for Jim to read Glenn Morton's story (http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm). It demonstrates nicely that it isn't possible to be knowledgeable in geology and to believe in a global flood at the same time. It also demonstrates nicely how (some) creationists react when they are confronted with this fact.

Roland98

February 3, 2004, 08:18 AM

Edited--related to previous flood thread, which has been merged with this one.

Jim Larmore

February 3, 2004, 08:56 AM

Originally posted by gregor
Mr. Larmore

I appreciate your willingness to engage the difficult questions presented herein. But, your evidentiary supports for a global flood are not strong.

So you've been to the Paluxy River basin and dinosaur state park, and presumably visited the "Creation Evidences Museum."
As we both know from personal visits, the trailer house that passes for a museum is not the most compelling scientific venue. The presentations and arguments for "man tracks", "embedded hammer" and other claims are poorly presented and far from persuasive.

I appreciate your candor here, but quite frankly the fact that the creation evidences museum is an expanded trailor house had nothing to do with what I think of their evidence for creation. The evidence they present after-all was found outside under God's blue sky initially:D . I understand since I was there that they have done some expansion work and have a "building" now. I guess what I'm saying is the quality of the structure should not be a reliable gauge for determining the validity of what they are saying. The truth is the truth no matter if its spoken by a three year old or famous PhD.

As far as the evidential aspect of what they show, like I said I've done some digging around in the puluxy. I 've seen the prints myself. The main areas that the majority of the people go is not where the most compelling human tracks are found. I've also done some assisting on some digs there in the area. When I first say my first dino track I was less than impressed. As a matter of fact I turned to my wife and "Yeah right". The more I explored the area and got into the investigative work I found some that really were good to say the least. Its amazing how intact some of these dino tracks are and definitely shows a rapid preservation modality for them to even be there at all.

With that being said and if you have been there you know that some of them ( the tracks ) are a "stretch" to say the least but some are great. Its the same with the human tracks. I'm a vietnam vet with infantry training. I was trained to do tracking in the army and during that training we were taught several methods of determining the quality of tracks in different mediums. We got proficient enough to track anyone anywhere. As a matter of fact today if you have me on your trail in the woods or anywhere you'd better be real good as counter-tracking work or I'll find you by what you've left behind you. One of the trails we looked at waa very typical of what you'd see today in a muddy creek or river bank and they went right up under an overlying shelf of rock and loamy soil. Once this stuff was removed they found the rest of the tracks. Pretty impressive stuff, and again the laminations shown from the cross sectional cuts also convinced me of the authenticity too.

Jim Larmore

February 3, 2004, 09:07 AM

Originally posted by Roland98
I'll also note that there's a flood thread already in progress here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=75016), just to keep this from careening into another one.

Roland,
Sven started this thead to continue a discussion about my beliefs in the flood. If you want me to confine my posts to the other thread I will just let me know. You be da boss maaammm;)

Roland98

February 3, 2004, 09:12 AM

I'll merge them--I just don't want 2 ongoing flood threads (and most of the flood posts are from yesterday/this morning on this one). Give me a sec.

Edit: merged "Mars flood derailment" and "A question for Jim Laramore" into single thread--Roland98.

Oolon Colluphid

February 3, 2004, 09:12 AM

Bloody hell Jim! I�m really impressed!

I honestly ask this without the slightest sarcasm, I promise: when can we expect your paper to appear in Nature? I�d guess you�d go for them, cos they have a good track record for publishing palaeontology papers (so Per tells me, and he should know). If not Nature, then where and when can we read about these truly momentous discoveries in more detail?

Well okay, a little sarcasm did slip in. Sorry! But the question is entirely serious. If you have palaeontology-shattering, Nobel-prize-winning evidence, please don't hide your light under a bushel!

Cheers, Oolon

Joe Meert

February 3, 2004, 09:22 AM

Jim,

I noticed early in the thread that you accept the notion that the decay of Polonium is constant. Do you think that is true for all radioactive isotopes or just the ones that seem to help your argument? If decay rates could speed up, is it also possible that they could slow down or vary from fast to slow? Why, or why not?

Cheers

Joe Meert

PS: Pet peeve, it's spelled 'tectonic' not 'techtonic'.

Sven

February 3, 2004, 10:17 AM

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
like I said I've done some digging around in the puluxy.

If you really did so much work at paluxy, I wonder why you constantly don't seem to notice that you spell it wrong? Or is this an alternative spelling? Hmm, this isn't likely: google gives 17.500 results for "paluxy" and mere 29 results for "puluxy"...

Jim Larmore

February 3, 2004, 10:26 AM

Originally posted by Joe Meert
Jim,

I noticed early in the thread that you accept the notion that the decay of Polonium is constant. Do you think that is true for all radioactive isotopes or just the ones that seem to help your argument? If decay rates could speed up, is it also possible that they could slow down or vary from fast to slow? Why, or why not?

Cheers

Joe Meert

PS: Pet peeve, it's spelled 'tectonic' not 'techtonic'.

Sorry, I have a bad problem with spelling for the last few years. I used to have great spelling skills, I could actually see the word in my minds eye but lately the picture is getting blurred if you know what I mean:) . I do believe the radio active decay for most isotopes is constant and this is shown in the lab. The thing about palonium is even at its longest half life its only what 27 minutes, the fact that it is in close proximity to uranium doesn't invalidate the evidence of its decay to me. You'd have to demonstrate the effect the uranium would have on the decay of palonium and the heat ratios etc. associated with the medium at the time.

The halos that Dr. Gentry has observed at all depths so far are essentially like a bubble of gas except the energy is entirely different. The fact that the mica ( ms) shows them indicates a short time span for the granites comming out of suspension into a solid state to trap them and preserve them. Or at least this is the obvious hypothesis, whats your opinion? I probably need to do some more study on this.

Sven

February 3, 2004, 10:31 AM

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
Sorry, I have a bad problem with spelling for the last few years. I used to have great spelling skills, I could actually see the word in my minds eye but lately the picture is getting blurred if you know what I mean:)

Then I apologize for my post above. Nevertheless, would you mind if we correct you occasionally? I simply can not stand to read "palonium" from a chemist, sorry.

I do believe the radio active decay for most isotopes is constant and this is shown in the lab.

Then it's simply beyond me how you can refuse to accept the fact that the earth is 4.55 billion years old.

The thing about palonium is [...]
I probably need to do some more study on this.
You could start with the two TO-FAQs which have been pointed out to you.

Sven

February 3, 2004, 10:44 AM

From Answers in Genesis at this site (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp):

arguments for creation that should not be used:
[...]
`Paluxy tracks prove that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.'

Even the "great" Jonathan Sarfati shares (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1021re2.asp) this opinion.

Jim Larmore

February 3, 2004, 11:00 AM

Originally posted by Oolon Colluphid
Bloody hell Jim! I�m really impressed!

I honestly ask this without the slightest sarcasm, I promise: when can we expect your paper to appear in Nature? I�d guess you�d go for them, cos they have a good track record for publishing palaeontology papers (so Per tells me, and he should know). If not Nature, then where and when can we read about these truly momentous discoveries in more detail?

Well okay, a little sarcasm did slip in. Sorry! But the question is entirely serious. If you have palaeontology-shattering, Nobel-prize-winning evidence, please don't hide your light under a bushel!

Cheers, Oolon

I think the evidence has already been presented fairly well and like I said its been invalidated by mainstream science. Now we can look at this fact and say, well this human footprint thing is a bunch of hooey or we can go look for ourselves and make our own decisions. I've done this. I know your in Great Brittain so it may be hard for you to come over here to verify this but I must say I'd welcome you to come make a discovery dig with me or go see whats already uncovered. You make the decision.

Think about it Oolon, if mainstream science had to admitt that man and the dinos lived contemporaneously it would totally destroy the theory of macro-evolution as we know it today. They are not going to do that no matter how good the evidence looks. If they can get some to say they are not valid,if theyget some of the tracks that are not so good and say "see these are really dino tracks that have eroded to look human" the problem is some of these supposed dino tracks have a great toe and medial arch, a philangies trench etc. , strange huh? I think it was Richard Dawkins who said" If a single, well verified mammal skull were to turn up in 500 million year old rocks, our whole modern theory of evolution would be utterly destroyed" The blind watchmaker, 1986 p.225

Theres other evidence man and dinos lived at the same time. They have found "modern looking" fossilized human bones in the Dakota Sandstone in a copper mine in Utah. This strata is cretacous so this shows contemporaneous existence. Some scientist have said the bones must be modern man who after death fell into a sand pit and became part of the formation but there is no evidence to support this claim. The bones are fossilized with malachite and turquoise. Some of the miners who found the bones say the bones were part of an area they were excavating for copper ore and no voids or caves were detected in the area.

The Turkmenian plateau contains more than three thousand footprints with bare human foot prints in the same strata same area. We have the malachite man and the indian petroglyphs showing man and dinos interacting. We have ancient inca burial stones of pictures of dinos and man together. We have ancient Mexican figurines that look very much like dinos.

I'd say we have more than just a little evidence to look at.

Jack the Bodiless

February 3, 2004, 11:10 AM

...Oh, dear.

Jim, you seem determined to repeat long-debunked creationist myths.

No, we DON'T have "modern humans in Cretaceous sandstone". We have modern humans (Native Americans) in SAND.

The Life and Death of Malachite Man (http://members.aol.com/gkuban/moab.htm)

Mageth

February 3, 2004, 11:22 AM

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
Theres other evidence man and dinos lived at the same time. They have found "modern looking" fossilized human bones in the Dakota Sandstone in a copper mine in Utah. This strata is cretacous so this shows contemporaneous existence. Some scientist have said the bones must be modern man who after death fell into a sand pit and became part of the formation but there is no evidence to support this claim. The bones are fossilized with malachite and turquoise. Some of the miners who found the bones say the bones were part of an area they were excavating for copper ore and no voids or caves were detected in the area.

You might want to read this (http://members.aol.com/gkuban/moab.htm) very revealing article about your claim.

[edited to add: heck! Jack beat me to it...]

A few things to note:

1) the bones were not "fossilized".
2) the bones have been dated at a few hundred years old.
3) there is evidence of intrusion
4) the same bones have been found twice! (In 1971 and 1995)

Al Fresco

February 3, 2004, 11:38 AM

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
Theres other evidence man and dinos lived at the same time.

If that is the case, then how do you account for the following facts:

The only mammals buried in the same layers with the dinosaurs were the small primitive eutherians. How could dinosaurs have lived together with humans, horses, cows, elephants, and rats, and yet the only mammals to be buried in the same strata with them are these small transitional eutherians?

Not a single human artifact (tool, eating utensil, wheel, spear, arrow head, piece of pottery, coin, building block, piece of furniture etc.) has ever been found buried in the same strata as that of the dinosaurs. If humans and dinosaurs coexisted as the YEC model contends, how can this complete failure to find any human artifacts in conjunction with dinosaur remains be accounted for?

lpetrich

February 3, 2004, 12:01 PM

Jim Larmore:
I think both you and I know the answer that is obvious here. Its much easier to "misrepresent" a few Bible verses than it is a mountain of latent physical evidence.

Or interpret them in some chosen fashion.

However ,the Bible speaks of a world wide flood and it says it in a way to be taken literally.

Tell that to those who believe that Noah's Flood was only a local flood -- and who claim that their position is 100% consistent with the Bible. Hugh Ross, for example.

Now, the accusation of men writing the Bible and making mistakes is well taken, except for the fact that Jesus Christ Himself spoke of the flood as a fact.

However, Jesus Christ had this habit of speaking in parables:
Matthew 13:10
Mark 4:34
and he may have regarded Noah's Flood as one of those.

I've seen pictures of polystrate fossils that have stratas intersecting at or near 90 degree angles indicating a rapid sedimentation of the layers.

HOW rapid? Seems to me like these were tree trunks and tree snags in swamps that did not decay because of the anoxic conditions -- and were subsequently buried.

I've seen the same thing in a picture of a whale standing on its tail

WHERE????

and personally a few very large beavers and some bones that are vertabrate but I'm not sure of the species yet. I've seen and collected more invertabrate fossils than you can imagine.

But consider their stratigraphic distribution. Why do we find trilobite fossils only in the Paleozoic? And why were brachiopods much more abundant in the Paleozoic than later? And why are there no ammonites after the Mesozoic? Getting down to individual species reveals much finer resolution -- and something contrary to the one-big-flood model of geology.

I haven't found hardly any place on this planet that I couldn't find fossils, they're every where. This tells me the whole globe was under water at one time.

Jumping to conclusions. Different land areas can be submerged at different times.

I started out as an agnostic. I used to look at the world as a natural accident that just happens to have miraculous aspects to it.

"And then a miracle happens" can account for anything.

... but when I started studying the cell and how complicated life really is I started to really question how all of this could have occurred accidentally by fortuitous means with no intelligent input.

So little elves did it, right?

I think this is just an excuse to keep God out of the equation no matter how much we have to bend the rules.

Would you like it if someone introduced the deities of some other religions? Like claiming that rain is Zeus pissing through a sieve?

Jim Larmore:
MOST SCHOLARS BELIEVE THE HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF THE BIBLE.

Except that the Patriarchs, the Exodus, and the Conquest are nowadays usually considered mythical, and David and Solomon semi-mythical -- at best. The Dual Monarchy and afterwards, however, does seem to be legitimate history, even if the Biblical account is rather slanted.

YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER THE GOSPELS WERE WRITTEN AT A TIME WHEN MANY PEOPLE OF THE DAY WERE ALIVE WHEN THE ACCOUNT OF WHAT HAPPENED OCCURRED. IF IT WAS IN ERROR THEY WOULD HAVE POINTED IT OUT.

Such skepticism has NEVER stopped religious movements. It certainly has not stopped numerous end-of-the-world predictors whose predictions had been falsified.

HAVE YOU EVER BEEN ON A DIG WHERE THERE WERE A LARGE AMOUNT OF FOSSILS BURIED?

Jim Larmore, you don't get the point. Why do you believe that EVERY such burial is due to one and only one big flood? There is strong evidence, like stratigraphic correlation and radiometric dating, that indicate that these burials are separate events.

I JUST CAN'T FIGURE OUT WHAT IS MEANT BY THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR A GLOBAL FLOOD WHEN WE CAN OBSERVE FLOOD LIKE DEBRIS LOOKING FOSSILS ALL OVER OUR PLANET.

If different parts get submerged at different times, then eventually all of it will have been submerged at one time or another -- and not necessarily simultaneously.

THERE ARE A FEW DIFFERING ACCOUNTS BUT THEY DO NOT NECESSARILY CONTRADICT EACH OTHER. ITS LIKE YOU AND I SEEING THE SAME ACCIDENT FROM DIFFERENT SIDES OF THE STREET (THIS GOES BACK TO MY COP DAYS )

The contradictions are MUCH worse than that, but that's for BC&H.

YOU CAN'T PROOVE THE EVIDENCE IS NOT CONTEMPORANEOUS BASED ON THE OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE.

Stratigraphic correlation.
Radiometric dating.

DATING ROCKS IS NOT A GOOD SCIENCE, THE ROCKS ARE DATED BY THE FOSSILS THEY CONTAIN AND THE FOSSILS ARE DATED BY THE ROCKS THEY ARE F0UND IN. SOUNDS CIRCULAR TO ME AND NOT A GOOD WAY TO PROOVE ANYTHING AT ALL.

Jim Larmore, your only source on how rocks are dated seems to be creationist publications. That's because mainstream geologists have ways of avoiding this circularity like the Law of Superposition and radiometric dating.

The Law of Superposition can even be tested by examining fossils of footprints, mudcracks, and the like -- they always have the "right" orientation.

Think about it Oolon, if mainstream science had to admitt that man and the dinos lived contemporaneously it would totally destroy the theory of macro-evolution as we know it today.

Except that there is not a shred of evidence for that -- where are the contemporaneous fossils?

We have the malachite man and the indian petroglyphs showing man and dinos interacting.

What petroglyphs?

We have ancient inca burial stones of pictures of dinos and man together.

Some of those stones are modern hoaxes. Erich von D�niken was also fooled by them.

We have ancient Mexican figurines that look very much like dinos.

Which ones?

But where are the contemporaneous dinosaur bones? They all date from the Mesozoic.

Dinosaurs being non-avian here, of course -- birds are clearly descended from dinosaurs.

Asha'man

February 3, 2004, 12:15 PM

Jim, you may have missed this when the threads got merged, but I have two really quick simple questions for you:

How old do you think the earth is?

When in that span do you think the great flood happened?

Mageth

February 3, 2004, 12:24 PM

Jim said:
I've seen the same thing in a picture of a whale standing on its tail

lpetrich asked: WHERE????

talkorigins article (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/whale.html) covering the amazing "polystrate whale".

Jim Larmore

February 3, 2004, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by Mageth
Jim said:
I've seen the same thing in a picture of a whale standing on its tail

lpetrich asked: WHERE????

talkorigins article (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/whale.html) covering the amazing "polystrate whale".

This is an interesting article. The picture I saw was not exactly verticle either so it may be the same one mentioned here , however the sedimentation did NOT look paralell to me at all. This was the thing I was really looking for. Now we could say the photo was "doctored" up and this is entirely possible. I'd love to go and see this fossil for myself. This would make a good vacation trip to california excuse:D

Mageth

February 3, 2004, 01:05 PM

It wasn't this picture, was it? (from a YEC site):

http://www.creationism.org/ackerman/AckermanYoungWorldChap09a.jpg

Jim Larmore

February 3, 2004, 01:39 PM

Originally posted by Asha'man
Jim, you may have missed this when the threads got merged, but I have two really quick simple questions for you:

How old do you think the earth is?

When in that span do you think the great flood happened?

How old do I think the earth is? Good question. I really don't know. I look up and see an infinite number of stars that have millions of light years of time between us and them. This tells me the age of the universe is obviously extremely old. I don't really have a big problem with saying the earth itself is very ancient and may have been here for millions of years. The amount of time life has been here is a different story. Based on the Biblical story it appears the life we see is somewhere around 10,000 or less.

There are varied amounts of evidence which shows much longer time frames for life on this planet and I'm aware of these. Many of them can be explained . The main thing we need to keep in mind is the age of the earth in some cases is a mental abstraction because theres really no absolute way of dating it. Theres many thesis' on how old it is and how they arrive at the age but to be honest its very hard to do it and know for sure. Steve Stanley said in the book "Physical Geology" p.181 "Because we cannot find sedimentary rocks representing all of earth time neatly in one convenient area, we must piece together the rock sequence from locality to locality. this process of tying one rock sequence in one place to another in some other place is known as correlation, from the latin for 'together' plus 'relate'. In some cases this practice to me approaches speculation for sure. "Derek Ager past pres. of the British Geological Association. said, " Fossils have been and still are the best and most accurate method of dating and correlating the rocks in which they occurr.. Later he said " I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils." New Scientist 1982 p.425.

Nicholas Steno the father of modern statigraphy drew some important conclusions about our strata and how they occurred. He gave us some very profound axioms to go by. Most people don't realize he was really a creationist and believed in a global flood based on what he saw in the earth's crust. Granted he wrote all of his work in the 19th century.

Last question:
Based on the Bible I believe the flood probably occurred around 4 to 5 thousand years ago. If the massive tectonic plate movement spoken of in the days of Peleg made as big of an impact as I believe it could have it could explain why we don't see a common strata all over the planet. We do see some commonality in the Austin Chalk like I mentioned earlier and I suspect more could be found if we continue to search.

Jim Larmore

February 3, 2004, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by Al Fresco
If that is the case, then how do you account for the following facts:

The only mammals buried in the same layers with the dinosaurs were the small primitive eutherians. How could dinosaurs have lived together with humans, horses, cows, elephants, and rats, and yet the only mammals to be buried in the same strata with them are these small transitional eutherians?

Not a single human artifact (tool, eating utensil, wheel, spear, arrow head, piece of pottery, coin, building block, piece of furniture etc.) has ever been found buried in the same strata as that of the dinosaurs. If humans and dinosaurs coexisted as the YEC model contends, how can this complete failure to find any human artifacts in conjunction with dinosaur remains be accounted for?

But we have found very large mammals in the same cretacous stratas that these dino fossils are found in, maybe not in the same burial site but in the same strata. The walnut shale is one of them. Some of these are mammals like large beavers , large cat tracks, a huge bison skull was found in Texas near London. I think its just a matter of time until we find just what you are talking about. Some explanations are that the dinos stayed together and the mammals did too, so they obviously were not found together in the same burial sites.

MortalWombat

February 3, 2004, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
But we have found very large mammals in the same cretacous stratas that these dino fossils are found in, maybe not in the same burial site but in the same strata. The walnut shale is one of them. Some of these are mammals like large beavers , large cat tracks, a huge bison skull was found in Texas near London. I think its just a matter of time until we find just what you are talking about. Some explanations are that the dinos stayed together and the mammals did too, so they obviously were not found together in the same burial sites. Do you have a source for this?

Curiously, if you enter "walnut shale" into Google, you only get three hits back, two of them having nothing to do with geology or paleontology. The third, however, is a PDF of a transcript from a tape by Carl Baugh. Mr. Baugh is so far out there that even Answers in Genesis thinks he is nuts. You can learn a little more about Baugh here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/whatbau.html).

From that link:
Baugh is perhaps best known for his claims about "man tracks" and other "out-of-order" fossils from the Paluxy Riverbed of Glen Rose, Texas. Such claims have not stood up to close scientific scrutiny, and in recent years have been largely abandoned even by most creationists. Baugh's Paluxy claims have been among the least credible and most problematic, involving many ambigous and doctored markings promoted as clear human prints. He also has actively promoted several loose carvings as genuine prints, including The Burdick Print (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/wilker5.html) , which was featured in the recent NBC TV show. Detailed articles on the Paluxy controversy are found at:

http://members.aol.com/paluxy2/paluxy.htm

Roland98

February 3, 2004, 02:17 PM

Since Jim seems to be fond of Baugh's Paluxy tracks, it wouldn't be surprising if it were from the same source.

Al Fresco

February 3, 2004, 02:36 PM

rlogan

February 3, 2004, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by Jim Larmore

Steve Stanley said in the book "Physical Geology" p.181 "Because we cannot find sedimentary rocks representing all of earth time neatly in one convenient area, we must piece together the rock sequence from locality to locality. this process of tying one rock sequence in one place to another in some other place is known as correlation, from the latin for 'together' plus 'relate'. In some cases this practice to me approaches speculation for sure. "

Derek Ager past pres. of the British Geological Association. said, " Fossils have been and still are the best and most accurate method of dating and correlating the rocks in which they occurr.. Later he said " I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils." New Scientist 1982 p.425.

So Jim - there's at least some "progress" here in that you finally started giving some citations. However -

It's a certainty in my mind that you did not have this book Physical Geology and this article from New Scientist '82 in front of you when you wrote this.

These were taken from another article that referenced them, weren't they? I wonder now if you would mind citing your source material as apposed to the citations within your sorce material. That would be the honest thing to do, Jim.

simian

February 3, 2004, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by Jim Larmore

There are varied amounts of evidence which shows much longer time frames for life on this planet and I'm aware of these. Many of them can be explained . The main thing we need to keep in mind is the age of the earth in some cases is a mental abstraction because theres really no absolute way of dating it. Theres many thesis' on how old it is and how they arrive at the age but to be honest its very hard to do it and know for sure. Steve Stanley said in the book "Physical Geology" p.181 "Because we cannot find sedimentary rocks representing all of earth time neatly in one convenient area, we must piece together the rock sequence from locality to locality. this process of tying one rock sequence in one place to another in some other place is known as correlation, from the latin for 'together' plus 'relate'. In some cases this practice to me approaches speculation for sure. "Derek Ager past pres. of the British Geological Association. said, " Fossils have been and still are the best and most accurate method of dating and correlating the rocks in which they occurr.. Later he said " I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils." New Scientist 1982 p.425.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/

I suppose then I don't live in the state of ND, as it does not exist? A state with a location that does have a complete geologic column?

Simian

Mageth

February 3, 2004, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
a huge bison skull was found in Texas near London.

I think Jim may be mixing up some of Baugh's incredible claims.

See here (http://www.voice.com.au/resources/09%20Dinosaurs.pdf) ("Dinosaur", by Baugh and Clifford Wilson), in which the terms "bison" and "London, Texas" both appear, but not for the same artifact:

The sedimentary rocks of Texas indeed tell a strange and intriguing story, supporting the biblical record of a worldwide flood in Noah's time (Gen. 6-9). An artifact was found in Ordovician strata near London, Texas. The stone, according to evolutionists, is over four hundred million years old yet the artifact is an iron hammer, clearly man-made. How could a man-made object have been made four hundred million years ago? What buried it in sedimentary strata deep in the heart of Texas? (See photo page "Q".)

rlogan

February 3, 2004, 03:32 PM

OK Jim, I think I've zeroed in on your source:

Is this it? (http://www.bible.ca/tracks/dp-geol-column.htm)

Several circumstantial pieces of evidence lead me to this conclusion. First, because this site really promotes the Man/Dino track material. Secondly, your quote mining seems to match well:

__________________________________________
The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks

"The end product of correlation is a mental abstraction called the geological column."

...Turkmenian plateau contains more than three thousand footprints! ...But the most mysterious fact is that among the footprints of dinosaurs, footprints of bare human feet were found!" (from Russian) Komsomolskaya Pravda, 1/ 31/1995

Richard Dawkins, Oxford, "If a single, well verified mammal skull were to turn up in 500 million year old rocks, our whole modern theory of evolution would be utterly destroyed.

Derek Ager (Past Pres., British Geol. Asso.) "...fossils have been and still are the best and most accurate method of dating and correlating the rocks in which they occur ...I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils.", New Scientist, 11/10/82, p.425

Because we cannot find sedimentary rocks representing all of earth time neatly in one convenient area, we must piece together the rock sequence from locality to locality. This process of tying one rock sequence in one place to another in some other place is known as correlation, from the Latin for 'together' plus 'relate.'" Physical Geology, p.181

NICHOLAS STENO (Father of Modern Statigraphy), Dott & Batten, "Besides correctly interpreting fossils, Steno drew some even more important conclusions about the strata in which they occur. The result was formulation of most basic principles for analysis of earth history. Steno showed great insight...Steno's axioms provide the ultimate basis of practically all interpretation of earth history, so their importance can hardly be overemphasized."
________________________________

There were more in there, but I think this was sufficient to demonstrate my point.

Jim - even if you did not cut and paste from this source, it is obviously a collection of ready-made creato pseudo-science.

You got really mad at me before when I suggested this was what you were doing.

You should be honest about what you are doing and cite the material you are actually reading instead of lifting things from it.

When you cut and paste it gives the appearance that you have read the article to which you are referring and have given it due study and reflection. I don't think that is the case, Jim.

Jim Larmore

February 3, 2004, 04:13 PM

Originally posted by Mageth
It wasn't this picture, was it? (from a YEC site):

http://www.creationism.org/ackerman/AckermanYoungWorldChap09a.jpg

Nope that isn't it:D , I think my 12 year old could have done a better job of drawing than that. The picture I saw was an actual photograph. Its been awhile back, I'll have to look for it.

Jim Larmore

February 3, 2004, 04:20 PM

Originally posted by rlogan
So Jim - there's at least some "progress" here in that you finally started giving some citations. However -

It's a certainty in my mind that you did not have this book Physical Geology and this article from New Scientist '82 in front of you when you wrote this.

These were taken from another article that referenced them, weren't they? I wonder now if you would mind citing your source material as apposed to the citations within your sorce material. That would be the honest thing to do, Jim.

I have done quote mining if you thats what you want to call it rlogan. I won't deny that. I guess I should have just given the url and pointed everyone to the site I was looking at would that have made you happier? The facts are still there though.

chapka

February 3, 2004, 04:32 PM

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
Think about it Oolon, if mainstream science had to admitt that man and the dinos lived contemporaneously it would totally destroy the theory of macro-evolution as we know it today. They are not going to do that no matter how good the evidence looks.

First of all, the "theory of macro-evolution" is a strawman used by creationists when you present them with ironclad proof that evolution happens. There is no such theory. Natural selection leads to speciation through genetically small changes. Over time, these small changes build up, so that two species that divided a very long time ago will look very different. Nobody has yet been able to explain to me exactly where "microevolution" stopped and "macroevolution" started (except on Noah's Ark, of course, and if you buy that one...)

Secondly, you're understating your case here, and I hope you'll take a step back and think about what your argument implies. Discovering that life on earth was only about 6000 years old (and that continuous life on earth only about 4500 years old) would totally invalidate all of modern:

Paleontology
Biology
Medicine
Chemistry
Physics
Archaeology
History
Linguistics
Psychology
Zoology
Geology
Vulcanology
Astronomy

And those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head. Can you honestly say you think that all of the brilliant minds who've studied all of those disciplines were either (1) members of a vast conspiracy of silence or (2) completely wrong and you're right? What's the third option?

Jim Larmore

February 3, 2004, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by chapka
First of all, the "theory of macro-evolution" is a strawman used by creationists when you present them with ironclad proof that evolution happens. There is no such theory. Natural selection leads to speciation through genetically small changes. Over time, these small changes build up, so that two species that divided a very long time ago will look very different. Nobody has yet been able to explain to me exactly where "microevolution" stopped and "macroevolution" started (except on Noah's Ark, of course, and if you buy that one...)

Secondly, you're understating your case here, and I hope you'll take a step back and think about what your argument implies. Discovering that life on earth was only about 6000 years old (and that continuous life on earth only about 4500 years old) would totally invalidate all of modern:

Paleontology
Biology
Medicine
Chemistry
Physics
Archaeology
History
Linguistics
Psychology
Zoology
Geology
Vulcanology
Astronomy

And those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head. Can you honestly say you think that all of the brilliant minds who've studied all of those disciplines were either (1) members of a vast conspiracy of silence or (2) completely wrong and you're right? What's the third option?

I disagree , I don't think it would invalidate anything but the areas of the studies above you mentioned that metaphysically cling onto a false modality. True science embraces the truth, we need to find the truth and only the truth. Sometimes what appears to be the truth is not. Like I've said before, the most powerfull deception is one that contains 90% or more truth and 10% or less falsehood. This is true in any metaphysical thing be it science or religion.

Jim Larmore

February 3, 2004, 04:54 PM

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
...Oh, dear.

Jim, you seem determined to repeat long-debunked creationist myths.

No, we DON'T have "modern humans in Cretaceous sandstone". We have modern humans (Native Americans) in SAND.

The Life and Death of Malachite Man (http://members.aol.com/gkuban/moab.htm)

I read this article and I must admitt if its true the evidence found there is suspect for sure. I want to go there and see this for my self this summer. I'm reading several creationist web-sites that claim its a genuine find one of them even shows a picture of the man who found the bones. Then in the article refuting the evidence they make several statements that they claim they can't find the man who found them. I see on the creationist site a picture showing articulated bones appearing to washed in, then on the refuting web-site article I see where they show the moab man skeleton and the present find skeletons looking like the same find or same skeleton bones. This is all very confusing to say the least. Like I said I need to go and see this evidence for myself.

chapka

February 3, 2004, 05:50 PM

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
I disagree , I don't think it would invalidate anything but the areas of the studies above you mentioned that metaphysically cling onto a false modality.

I don't understand what you're saying here at all. Which "areas" of archaeology do you think "metaphysically cling onto a false modality" and can be neatly separated out? There are none. If you were to establish as a fact that all life is only 6,000 years old, the entire discipline would collapse. The same is true for biology, physics, chemistry, linguistics, history, psychology, vulcanology, and geology. Any one of these would set up a domino effect which would set science back hundreds of years.

Creationists will try to tell you that the old or young earth is just a question of geology or "evolutionary science" being wrong. Any scientist or social scientist in just about any discipline will disagree. Science isn't neatly divided; each discipline not only builds upon but checks and corrects the others. Can you tell me one thing that would remain plausible in geology, for example, if the young-earth global-flood hypothesis were true? Biology? You really can't fit the data into the new framework. The debate here isn't between creation and evolution; it's between creationism and science.

rlogan

February 3, 2004, 06:24 PM

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
I have done quote mining if you thats what you want to call it rlogan. I won't deny that. I guess I should have just given the url and pointed everyone to the site I was looking at would that have made you happier? The facts are still there though.

Would it have made me happier?

For you to be forthright?

Yes. But its more about you being honest than me being happy.

Just a moment ago you were talking about going out and collecting evidence for yourself. Here you've just cut and pasted some stuff from a kooky source but gave the impression that you were reading geology texts and refereed Journal articles.

I should clarify that "quote mining" is taking quotes out of context. Your source has definately done that. As talk origins has pointed out, it is "dishonest".

Are we having "discussions" with thoughtless strings clipped from dishonest creationist web sites, or is there someone who wants to engage in meaningful and forthright dialogue?

Would you be willing to go back and look at the actual sources to see how this guy took them out of context? That would demonstrate to me a little integrity. You keep reminding us about honest science.

lpetrich

February 3, 2004, 07:47 PM

Jim Larmore:
How old do I think the earth is? Good question. I really don't know. ... The amount of time life has been here is a different story. Based on the Biblical story it appears the life we see is somewhere around 10,000 or less.

However, radioisotope dating shows that the Earth has been inhabited by primitive organisms at least 2.5 billion years ago.

The main thing we need to keep in mind is the age of the earth in some cases is a mental abstraction because theres really no absolute way of dating it.

I disagree. I suggest performing a thought experiment. Constructing a time machine and going back in time. What would you expect to see?

Steve Stanley said in the book "Physical Geology" p.181 "Because we cannot find sedimentary rocks representing all of earth time neatly in one convenient area, we must piece together the rock sequence from locality to locality. this process of tying one rock sequence in one place to another in some other place is known as correlation, from the latin for 'together' plus 'relate'. In some cases this practice to me approaches speculation for sure. "

Do you know what the context of that statement was? Can you state the sentences immediately preceding and following that statement?

Derek Ager past pres. of the British Geological Association. said, " Fossils have been and still are the best and most accurate method of dating and correlating the rocks in which they occurr.. Later he said " I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils." New Scientist 1982 p.425.

Again, can you tell us the sentences just before and after these ones?

It looks suspiciously like quote-mining to me, because radioisotope dating is the only known reliable source of absolute dates over geological time. However, they are directly available only for igneous rocks, and for sedimentary rocks, one must look for nearby lava flows to date them.

Nicholas Steno the father of modern statigraphy drew some important conclusions about our strata and how they occurred. He gave us some very profound axioms to go by. Most people don't realize he was really a creationist and believed in a global flood based on what he saw in the earth's crust. Granted he wrote all of his work in the 19th century.

Seventeenth century. Sheesh. And he may have considered Noah's Flood one of several such calamities to befall the Earth.

But we have found very large mammals in the same cretacous stratas that these dino fossils are found in, maybe not in the same burial site but in the same strata.

That's news to me. Are you sure that they aren't in Pleistocene deposits in caves?

Jim Larmore

February 3, 2004, 09:00 PM

Originally posted by rlogan
Would it have made me happier?

For you to be forthright?

Yes. But its more about you being honest than me being happy.

Just a moment ago you were talking about going out and collecting evidence for yourself. Here you've just cut and pasted some stuff from a kooky source but gave the impression that you were reading geology texts and refereed Journal articles.

I should clarify that "quote mining" is taking quotes out of context. Your source has definately done that. As talk origins has pointed out, it is "dishonest".

Are we having "discussions" with thoughtless strings clipped from dishonest creationist web sites, or is there someone who wants to engage in meaningful and forthright dialogue?

Would you be willing to go back and look at the actual sources to see how this guy took them out of context? That would demonstrate to me a little integrity. You keep reminding us about honest science.

I've never intentionally used a quote I knew was out of context rlogan and for you to accuse me of this is a real insult to me and my character. I thought quote mining was just quoting someone off of a web-site to make a point, I never knew it was intentionally taken out of context. I'm kinda new to this debate think anyway.

I have done exactly what I have said I've done but you know I don't much feel like I need to repeat this to you because you're going to believe what you want anyway.

To answer your question yes I would be more than happy to go back and look at the original text to see just how much out of context it actually is. I'll have to go to the library to do it but what the heck thats no biggy.

You may not believe this but I am an honest man:rolleyes: I haven't always been one but for the last 10 years I am proud to say I am.

rlogan

February 3, 2004, 10:13 PM

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
I've never intentionally used a quote I knew was out of context rlogan and for you to accuse me of this is a real insult to me and my character.

I think I'm pretty clear on what you did, and it would be really nice to see you stop. When you get stuff off your creationist websites, just admit so. Don't pretend you are reading primary source literature.

When we pull stuff off talk origins or whatever we give you the link. Is that so hard?

Your response is a bit melodramatic. You've been here long enough to know about the quote mine project at talk origins. Creationists have made an industry in out of context quote mining.

To answer your question yes I would be more than happy to go back and look at the original text to see just how much out of context it actually is. I'll have to go to the library to do it but what the heck thats no biggy.

That would be nice. I already tried to get the New Science Article that Agar was quoted from and I can only get articles from 1987 onward. Here is a quote from him though so I think you can anticipate the result:

"I get rather tired of these things.... It is true I have been clasped to the fundamentalists' Californian bosoms because of things which I have written about evolution and about the stratigraphical record. Of course they have misunderstood and misrepresented me (and in some cases taken my perhaps overfacetious nature too seriously)."

I dug this quote out of a Gish debate in the Archive here:

Agar Quote mining (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ken_saladin/saladin-gish2/saladin2.html)

Ipetrich identified the top quotes of concern. That was one of them. The other is from the geology book. Is Stanley saying geology is pure speculation? No way.

lpetrich

February 4, 2004, 12:14 AM

Also, Derek Ager seems to be describing the practice of stratigraphic correlation, of using fossils to correlate strata. This is done because fossil species have well-defined lifetimes that come in well-defined relative orders. This has nothing to do with evolution, nothing to do with what is descended from what -- that's an entirely separate question.

The ordering of fossils is derived from the Law of Superposition, which can be applied wherever one has well-preserved sequences, like tall cliffs. And it has been abundantly confirmed by radioisotope dating.

Jim Larmore, I hope that you realize that there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in creationist quotebooks.

Cutter

February 4, 2004, 02:41 AM

if mainstream science had to admitt that man and the dinos lived contemporaneously it would totally destroy the theory of macro-evolution as we know it today. They are not going to do that no matter how good the evidence looks.

As others have pointed out in posts past, this is bull. If someone could conclusively prove evolution to be false, they'd be showered with accolades and awards. Not to mention that they would make a stonking FORTUNE touring the States (and the world) giving lectures, etc, to all the creationists, telling them how they were right all along about how 'evilution' was false.

Drop the Evil Atheist Conspiracy(TM) line Jim, it's gotten old.

We have ancient inca burial stones of pictures of dinos and man together.

Aside from lpetrich pointing out that these could be fakes, I'm reminded of when a similair discussion cropped up on FARK. Tell me Jim, do you seriously believe that the only peoples in history to have any sort of imagination and storytelling ability are those from the 20th century onwards? Do you think no-one ever came up with stories about men fighting giant lizards until Godzilla came along?

And as one Farker (can't remember who) said (and I'm paraphrasing here):

"If Incan pottery with pictures of men and giant lizards is proof that men and dinosaurs once lived together, fuck knows what future archaeologists are going to think when they find my robot tentacle hentai".

Sven

February 4, 2004, 06:51 AM

Originally posted by lpetrich
there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in creationist quotebooks.
:D I like this one!

Jim, may I suggest that before posting something here which you think is evidence against evolution / for creationism, you should check two points:

(1) if there is already a rebuttal at TO (they have a nice search function (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/search.html)) - you can of course rebut the rebuttal if you think it's wrong or omits something (BTW, I'm still waiting for you to point out anything which is omitted at TO)

(2) if your point is one of those on AIG's-list of arguments which creationist should not use (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp)

If you still think your point is valid after checking these websites, you are of course welcome to post it here.

But I think we can all agree that it's simply useless and boring if you continue to rehash long-refuted creationist claims and about a dozen people then jump at you refuting it for the 10001th time and point you at the rebuttals which you could have found yourself using the two links above.

Joe Meert

February 4, 2004, 08:15 AM

Originally posted by Sven
[B]:D I like this one!

JM: I think it's from a play (Blithe Spirit?)......well with a word change or two.

Cheers

Joe Meert

Jim Larmore

February 4, 2004, 08:27 AM

Originally posted by lpetrich
Also, Derek Ager seems to be describing the practice of stratigraphic correlation, of using fossils to correlate strata. This is done because fossil species have well-defined lifetimes that come in well-defined relative orders. This has nothing to do with evolution, nothing to do with what is descended from what -- that's an entirely separate question.

The ordering of fossils is derived from the Law of Superposition, which can be applied wherever one has well-preserved sequences, like tall cliffs. And it has been abundantly confirmed by radioisotope dating.

Jim Larmore, I hope that you realize that there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in creationist quotebooks.

I appreciate your responce above , however I've been reading some things and since you are obviously an expert in this I have a question for you. Why has there been no appreciable/ observable major changes in the biota since the cambrian exposion? Why do we see this vast "explosion" of the biota in the cambrian era and no where else? How is the time adequate to explain this?

Jack the Bodiless

February 4, 2004, 08:36 AM

Jim, surely you're not suggesting that the Cambrian Explosion produced mammals, reptiles, birds, amphibians, fish...

...So what do you mean by "no major changes in the biota"?

Joe Meert

February 4, 2004, 08:49 AM

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
I appreciate your responce above , however I've been reading some things and since you are obviously an expert in this I have a question for you. Why has there been no appreciable/ observable major changes in the biota since the cambrian exposion? Why do we see this vast "explosion" of the biota in the cambrian era and no where else? How is the time adequate to explain this?

JM: I would ask what you mean by 'explosion'. What we know for sure is that the fossil record becomes richer in Tommotian-Toyonian time (e.g. 530-510 Ma).

http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/jmeert/cambrianc.jpg

The question is whether or not this represents a true 'explosion' in life or a slow burn leading up to organisms will preservable parts. There is some debate about how deep the roots are to the Cambrian explosion, but certainly the Ediacaran fauna and phylogenetic studies suggest roots back to 650 Ma (or more). An even more interesting question is 'how do creationists explain this part of the fossil record?

Cheers

Joe Meert

Jim Larmore

February 4, 2004, 08:50 AM

Originally posted by Cutter
As others have pointed out in posts past, this is bull. If someone could conclusively prove evolution to be false, they'd be showered with accolades and awards. Not to mention that they would make a stonking FORTUNE touring the States (and the world) giving lectures, etc, to all the creationists, telling them how they were right all along about how 'evilution' was false.

WELL YOU HAVE YOUR OPINION. FROM WHAT I'VE SEEN IT APPEARS TO ME THEY TAKE GOOD EVIDENCE THATS VERIFIABLE AND INVALIDATE IT WITH MADE UP ACCUSATIONS AND FALSE REPORTS.

Drop the Evil Atheist Conspiracy(TM) line Jim, it's gotten old.

WAIT A MINUTE , OLD? I HAVEN'T BEEN TRUMPETING AN EVIL ATHEIST CONSPIRACY LINE IN MY POSTS. THIS IS THE ONLY TIME I'VE EVEN SAID ANYTHING ABOUT THIS POSSIBILITY AND I BELIEVE WITH SOME JUSTIFICATION, HOWEVER I HAVEN'T BEEN MAKING THIS A PART OF WHAT I'VE USED AS A REFUTATION OR COUNTER ARGUEMENT AT ALL.

Aside from lpetrich pointing out that these could be fakes, I'm reminded of when a similair discussion cropped up on FARK. Tell me Jim, do you seriously believe that the only peoples in history to have any sort of imagination and storytelling ability are those from the 20th century onwards? Do you think no-one ever came up with stories about men fighting giant lizards until Godzilla came along?

ITS A STRANGE THING THAT THE DRAWINGS LOOK JUST LIKE THE MODELS WE HAVE,,,,DON'T YOU THINK? CO-INCIDENCE? COULD BE BUT THE NUMBER OF THEM THAT LOOK THE SAME AS OUR MODELS AND COME FROM DIFFERENT AREAS MAKES ME BELIEVE THEY PROBABLY SAW THESE CREATURES. ITS NOT REASONABLE TO BELIEVE THE INCAS SAW THE DRAWINGS THE NORTH AMERICAN INDIANS MADE ON THE CLIFF DWELLING WALLS.

I DON'T BUY INTO SOMETHING AT A WHIM. YOU MAY BE RIGHT HERE, ITS SOMETHING I HAVE TO CHECK OUT FURTHER,I USE SOME OF THESE CREATIONIST ARTICLE ITEMS AS A REBUTALL FOR THE DISCUSSION BUT I'M NOT SURE YET UNTIL I SEE FOR MYSELF, LIKE THE HUMAN FOOT PRINTS, I'VE SEEN THEM PERSONALLY. THIS OTHER STUFF MAY BE CRAP I DON'T KNOW. BUT I BET YOU'VE ALREADY DISMISSED IT AS NOTHING. THIS MAKES YOU AND MANY LIKE YOU VERY PREDJUDICIAL TOWARDS THE THEORY YOU HOLD ONTO. YOU READ A MAINSTREAM ARTICLE THAT INVALIDATES IT AND YOU ACCEPT IT AS GOSPEL AND DISMISS IT. I DON'T DISMISS ANYTHING UNTIL I SEE IT FOR MYSELF. I GUESS I'VE GOTTEN TO THE PLACE I DON'T TRUST CREATIONIST OR EVOLUTIONIST AT THEIR LITERARY WORD ANYMORE.

And as one Farker (can't remember who) said (and I'm paraphrasing here):

"If Incan pottery with pictures of men and giant lizards is proof that men and dinosaurs once lived together, fuck knows what future archaeologists are going to think when they find my robot tentacle hentai"

THIS IS A TYPICAL STATEMENT OF SOME ON THIS FORUM TOO. ITS FASCITIOUS AND UNCALLED FOR IN MY OPINION. # 1 IT USES THE "F" WORD WHICH IS VULGAR AND SHOWS A LACK OF VOCABULARY #2 IT DISMISSES POTENTIAL EVIDENCE AS NOTHING.#3 ITS UNPRODUCTIVE DIALOG IN ANY INTELLIGENT INTERCHANGE.
.

Jim Larmore

February 4, 2004, 09:03 AM

Originally posted by rlogan
I think I'm pretty clear on what you did, and it would be really nice to see you stop. When you get stuff off your creationist websites, just admit so. Don't pretend you are reading primary source literature.

When we pull stuff off talk origins or whatever we give you the link. Is that so hard?

YOU MAY THINK I'M BLOWING SMOKE HERE I REALLY DON'T CARE, BUT I REALLY DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WAS MEANT BY "QUOTE MINING" UNTIL YESTERDAY. LIKE I SAID I JUST THOUGHT IT WAS PULLING A QUOTE FROM AN ARTICLE TO PROOVE A POINT. I KNEW IN MY MIND THAT THERE MAY BE SOME CONTEXTUAL COMPROMISE THERE BUT I NEVER INTENTIONALLY DID THIS KNOWING IT WAS OUT OF CONTEXT. I HAVE NEVER READ THE ARTICLE ON THE TO ON THIS.

Your response is a bit melodramatic. You've been here long enough to know about the quote mine project at talk origins. Creationists have made an industry in out of context quote mining.

I THINK THIS HAS PROBABLY BEEN DONE ON BOTH SIDES OF THESE ISSUES. MELODRAMATIC ???, WELL THANKYOU RLOGAN, I'LL TAKE THAT AS A COMPLIMENT I DIDN'T THINK YOU WOULD THINK I WAS CAPABLE OF BEING "MELODRAMATIC"

That would be nice. I already tried to get the New Science Article that Agar was quoted from and I can only get articles from 1987 onward. Here is a quote from him though so I think you can anticipate the result:

"I get rather tired of these things.... It is true I have been clasped to the fundamentalists' Californian bosoms because of things which I have written about evolution and about the stratigraphical record. Of course they have misunderstood and misrepresented me (and in some cases taken my perhaps overfacetious nature too seriously)."

I dug this quote out of a Gish debate in the Archive here:

Agar Quote mining (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ken_saladin/saladin-gish2/saladin2.html)

I'VE READ THIS AND I'LL HAVE TO SEE HOW MUCH OF IT IS OUT OF CONTEXT TOO. IF YOU'RE RIGHT ABOUT THESE GUYS THEN I'LL DISCONTINUE TO CONSIDER THEM AS A RELIABLE SOURCE OF INFORMATION ON THESE ISSUES.

Ipetrich identified the top quotes of concern. That was one of them. The other is from the geology book. Is Stanley saying geology is pure speculation? No way.

NO, NO , NO THAT SPECULATION STATEMENT WAS MINE NOT STANLEY, I PROBABLY DIDN'T END THE QUOTE PROPERLY. I ADDED THIS IN TO MAKE A POINT THAT I FELT WHAT HE WAS SAYING WAS SPECULATION , STANLEY DIDN'T SAY THIS.

Jack the Bodiless

February 4, 2004, 09:39 AM

...Ack. Why are you SHOUTING again?

Sven

February 4, 2004, 09:42 AM

Originally posted by Joe Meert
I think it's from a play (Blithe Spirit?)......well with a word change or two.

It's actually from Shakespeare, "Hamlet":
Act 1, Scene 5 (http://www.online-literature.com/shakespeare/hamlet/6)
Hamlet: There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

That's the reason why I liked your version so much.

JonF

February 4, 2004, 09:44 AM

Originally posted by Joe Meert
JM: I think it's from a play (Blithe Spirit?)......well with a word change or two.
Shakespeare.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.'

Hamlet, Act 1 scene 5.

Sheesh. What are they teaching you kids these days? :D :D

Oolon Colluphid

February 4, 2004, 09:54 AM

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
...Ack. Why are you SHOUTING again?
That's the funny thing about Jim. I think he's deteriorating. He started off sounding fairly sensible, with just abiogenesis bothering him. Then it was some evolution, then it seems he believes in Noah's Ark... and now he's turned total creationist with their mandatory inability to use UBB code and to turn off the caps lock. I predict it'll be his grammar and spelling that go next , and there'll be proliferation of exclamation marks.

Sven

February 4, 2004, 10:01 AM

Hey, Jim, you definitely have to fix your keyboard! ;)

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
WELL YOU HAVE YOUR OPINION. FROM WHAT I'VE SEEN IT APPEARS TO ME THEY TAKE GOOD EVIDENCE THATS VERIFIABLE AND INVALIDATE IT WITH MADE UP ACCUSATIONS AND FALSE REPORTS.
We are all still waiting for examples which substantiate your accusation.

[i]Originally posted by Cutter[i]
Drop the Evil Atheist Conspiracy(TM) line Jim, it's gotten old.

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
WAIT A MINUTE , OLD? I HAVEN'T BEEN TRUMPETING AN EVIL ATHEIST CONSPIRACY LINE IN MY POSTS. THIS IS THE ONLY TIME I'VE EVEN SAID ANYTHING ABOUT THIS POSSIBILITY AND I BELIEVE WITH SOME JUSTIFICATION, HOWEVER I HAVEN'T BEEN MAKING THIS A PART OF WHAT I'VE USED AS A REFUTATION OR COUNTER ARGUEMENT AT ALL.
Cutter nowhere suggested that you did use this argument. His point simply is that we heard this argument many times from others - this is the reason why "it's gotten old". Regarding "I BELIEVE WITH SOME JUSTIFICATION": see above.

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
NO, NO , NO THAT SPECULATION STATEMENT WAS MINE NOT STANLEY, I PROBABLY DIDN'T END THE QUOTE PROPERLY. I ADDED THIS IN TO MAKE A POINT THAT I FELT WHAT HE WAS SAYING WAS SPECULATION , STANLEY DIDN'T SAY THIS.

Yes, the quotation marks ending the quote were after the sentence about speculation. OK, Jim, could you please explain in which cases this correlation process "approaches speculation"? And, as simian pointed out, Stanley seems to be wrong since there are several places in the world were one can find the whole geologic column.

Sven

February 4, 2004, 10:03 AM

Originally posted by JonF
Shakespeare.[...]

I Beat you! :D

Joe Meert

February 4, 2004, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by Sven
It's actually from Shakespeare, "Hamlet":
Act 1, Scene 5 (http://www.online-literature.com/shakespeare/hamlet/6)
Hamlet: There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

That's the reason why I liked your version so much.

JM: Thanks, I knew it was in theatre somewhere! FYI: The line was also uttered by Madame Arcati in Noel Coward's 'Blithe Spirit' and perhaps other plays I am not aware of.

Cheers

Joe Meert

MortalWombat

February 4, 2004, 10:58 AM

Originally posted by Joe Meert
JM: Thanks, I knew it was in theatre somewhere! FYI: The line was also uttered by Madame Arcati in Noel Coward's 'Blithe Spirit' and perhaps other plays I am not aware of.It was also used (at least the "There are more things in heaven and earth" part) in an episode of Barney Miller, if I remember correctly.

Roland98

February 4, 2004, 12:00 PM

Jim--

I've asked you before, now please,

Stop Shouting!

It will be appreciated by all.

-Roland98

Jim Larmore

February 4, 2004, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by Oolon Colluphid
That's the funny thing about Jim. I think he's deteriorating. He started off sounding fairly sensible, with just abiogenesis bothering him. Then it was some evolution, then it seems he believes in Noah's Ark... and now he's turned total creationist with their mandatory inability to use UBB code and to turn off the caps lock. I predict it'll be his grammar and spelling that go next , and there'll be proliferation of exclamation marks.

Oolon,
I have never really figured out how to do the quote command properly. I did the few posts this way so I could respond right under the part I wanted to respond to. You guys think I'm kidding about this cut and paste thing, I'm not. I read up on the instructions on how to do what I just discussed above and it says you have to cut and paste your quotes and responces. I don't know how to do this.

Other than that Oolon I believe you are probably correct on the deterioration part. I can't spell worth a darn anymore and I know it. The only thing I can do is apologise I guess. If you guys can't figure out what I'm writing let me know and I'll try to do better.:D

Jim Larmore

February 4, 2004, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by Sven
. Regarding "I BELIEVE WITH SOME JUSTIFICATION": see above.

Yes, the quotation marks ending the quote were after the sentence about speculation. OK, Jim, could you please explain in which cases this correlation process "approaches speculation"? And, as simian pointed out, Stanley seems to be wrong since there are several places in the world were one can find the whole geologic column. [/B]

I believe Stanley is accurate in his statement. I know I haven't been all over the world but I have never seen an area that has the entire geological column. The GC approches it but I don't even think the Grand Canyon has it all. Maybe you can give me an example of some where the entire geological column is represented in one place.

BTW, I appologise for the mistake in the quotation marks not being applied in the rigth place. It was definately my boo boo.

Jim Larmore

February 4, 2004, 12:30 PM

Originally posted by Roland98
Jim--

I've asked you before, now please,

Stop Shouting!

It will be appreciated by all.

-Roland98

Sorry, I'll go back to the way I was doing it before.

Joe Meert

February 4, 2004, 12:38 PM

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
I believe Stanley is accurate in his statement. I know I haven't been all over the world but I have never seen an area that has the entire geological column. The GC approches it but I don't even think the Grand Canyon has it all. Maybe you can give me an example of some where the entire geological column is represented in one place.

BTW, I appologise for the mistake in the quotation marks not being applied in the rigth place. It was definately my boo boo.

JM: Why is it important to have the entire geological column in one place? For example, in the Grand Canyon one can move up from the Precambrian basement into the Phanerozoic sedimentary sequence beginning with the Cambrian-age Tapeats sandstone. If my memory is correct the Ordovician or Silurian is absent in the Grand Canyon, but the section continues upward to the Kaibab limestone at the top. This unit can be traced laterally to Zion Canyon-Cedar City area where you can continue upward through the Triassic-Jurassic-Creataceous and Cenozoic section. I believe (from field camp memory) you can even trace the Cretaceous in the Zion Canyon region to Bryce Canyon-Kanab to a nice exposure of the Cenozoic. I'm sorry but I just don't understand the need or importance of finding the entire column in one place. If the earth is 4.5 billion years old and erosion has taken place along with topographic changes (e.g. sources) it would be surprising to find the entire column in one place. Creationists try to make this into something important, but it actually has no relevance that I can see.

Cheers

Joe Meert

Jet Black

February 4, 2004, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
I believe Stanley is accurate in his statement. I know I haven't been all over the world but I have never seen an area that has the entire geological column. The GC approches it but I don't even think the Grand Canyon has it all. Maybe you can give me an example of some where the entire geological column is represented in one place.

just to make a brief interlude and analogy here. The geological column (put simply, I am ignoring things like local cataclysms such as volcanoes etc) is like a bunch of randomly torn up copies of the same edition of a newspaper, with some of the copies missing pieces. by looking at the pieces and putting them together, you can work out which pieces came from the same newspaper, however you will still have holes in the individual newspapers. However by looking at overlapping sections of different newspapers, you can piece the whole thing back together again, and see that you did actually have a complete newspaper to start with, and you can work out the whole stories, where before you might not have been able to.

The analogy is not perfect, but the newspapers copies could represent local areas, and the missing bits could represent erosion. From these you can see that there is no need to have a whole newspaper in one place to see what happened that day.

Mageth

February 4, 2004, 12:57 PM

Maybe you can give me an example of some where the entire geological column is represented in one place.

Jim, here's one such example (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/).

Al Fresco

February 4, 2004, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
I think its just a matter of time until we find just what you are talking about.

Creationists commonly argue that, because so much time has been spent looking for fossils, there should be no �gaps� in the fossil record if evolution has occurred. The fact that there are �gaps,� they say, is proof that it has not occurred.

However, when creationists are confronted with gaping holes in there own data base, they insist that all they need is more time to fill them. Who can fail to see the hypocrisy when creationists deny evolutionists the same line of argumentation that they, themselves, are so fond of using? How about you, Jim?

Angrillori

February 4, 2004, 01:21 PM

Here's an interesting experiment to get a good feel for putting together a geologic column.

Get an 8,9, or 10-digit display calculator.

Divide 1 by 17. Write down the digits you can see on the screen.
Divide 2 by 17. Write down the digits you can see on the screen.
Divide 3 by 17. Write down the digits you can see on the screen.

Repeat up to 16 divided by 17.

Using the numbers you wrote down you CAN assemble the entire repeating part of the 1/17 decimal. Look for overlapping parts and string them together.

Interestingly enough, similar techniques are used in genetics as well.

Anyways. That's all.

Edit to add: I remember doing this for most low denominator repeating fractions, in high school calc. heh. Thought I made a great discovery.

Joe Meert

February 4, 2004, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by Mageth
Maybe you can give me an example of some where the entire geological column is represented in one place.

Jim, here's one such example (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/).

JM: Actually, the location Morton speaks of has rocks from each of the 11 periods, but that is not necessarily the same thing as the entire geologic column unless one chooses to define the 'the geologic column' as one that has rocks from each of the periods. Once again I ask, why would this present a problem for old earth evolution?

Cheers

Joe Meert

lpetrich

February 4, 2004, 02:32 PM

Jim Larmore:

Like how? These are very serious accusations. Jim Larmore, would you enjoy having unsupported accusations and false reports made about you?

Cutter:
[b]Tell me Jim, do you seriously believe that the only peoples in history to have any sort of imagination and storytelling ability are those from the 20th century onwards? Do you think no-one ever came up with stories about men fighting giant lizards until Godzilla came along?

Jim Larmore:
ITS A STRANGE THING THAT THE DRAWINGS LOOK JUST LIKE THE MODELS WE HAVE,,,,DON'T YOU THINK? CO-INCIDENCE? COULD BE BUT THE NUMBER OF THEM THAT LOOK THE SAME AS OUR MODELS AND COME FROM DIFFERENT AREAS MAKES ME BELIEVE THEY PROBABLY SAW THESE CREATURES.

Show us some pictures so that we can see for ourselves. Those could be drawings of purely imaginary beasts.

ITS NOT REASONABLE TO BELIEVE THE INCAS SAW THE DRAWINGS THE NORTH AMERICAN INDIANS MADE ON THE CLIFF DWELLING WALLS.

As I'd pointed out earlier, those "Inca stones" are probably fakes. I remember a documentary on Erich von D�niken and his theories in which it was pointed out that there was a present-day maker of "Inca stones". And that von D�niken swallowed these stones whole (metaphorically, of course).

I GUESS I'VE GOTTEN TO THE PLACE I DON'T TRUST CREATIONIST OR EVOLUTIONIST AT THEIR LITERARY WORD ANYMORE.

Please be specific about creationist claims you consider unsupportable.

Cutter:
And as one Farker (can't remember who) said (and I'm paraphrasing here):

"If Incan pottery with pictures of men and giant lizards is proof that men and dinosaurs once lived together, fuck knows what future archaeologists are going to think when they find my robot tentacle hentai"

Jim Larmore:
THIS IS A TYPICAL STATEMENT OF SOME ON THIS FORUM TOO. ITS FASCITIOUS AND UNCALLED FOR IN MY OPINION. # 1 IT USES THE "F" WORD WHICH IS VULGAR AND SHOWS A LACK OF VOCABULARY #2 IT DISMISSES POTENTIAL EVIDENCE AS NOTHING.#3 ITS UNPRODUCTIVE DIALOG IN ANY INTELLIGENT INTERCHANGE.

Jim Larmore, you have to avoid being too literal-minded. Why don't you look at some classical-Greek vase painting some time? You'll find lots of bizarre monsters in it, like centaurs, cyclopes, satyrs, gorgons, a three-headed dog, a winged horse, the Minotaur ...

Biff the unclean

February 4, 2004, 03:12 PM

Sorry to pipe in but that Inca drawing of "Man with Dinosaur" has been posted several times already (of course I can't find it at the moment) and every time it gets a good laugh because it's a crude drawing of a guy with a chicken.

But I have a Creationist question about the Cambrian Explosion. Why do Creationists stop in the middle of their arguments that all fossils came from Noah's flood and then try to make some vague point from the Cambrian Explosion? You really have to chose one or the other. Fossils either show the chronological order of life, or they don't. Trying to use both tosses the baby out with the flood water

Joe Meert

February 4, 2004, 04:04 PM

[i]
But I have a Creationist question about the Cambrian Explosion. Why do Creationists stop in the middle of their arguments that all fossils came from Noah's flood and then try to make some vague point from the Cambrian Explosion? You really have to chose one or the other. Fossils either show the chronological order of life, or they don't. Trying to use both tosses the baby out with the flood water [/B]

JM: Obviously, the Cambrian explosion cannot represent sudden creation by divine fiat unless God killed them all off at the same time. I'm with you, I think some creationist dreamt this up as a problem and no one since bothered to think about why it might be a problem.

Cheers

Joe Meert

Jim Larmore

February 4, 2004, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by Angrillori
Here's an interesting experiment to get a good feel for putting together a geologic column.

Get an 8,9, or 10-digit display calculator.

Divide 1 by 17. Write down the digits you can see on the screen.
Divide 2 by 17. Write down the digits you can see on the screen.
Divide 3 by 17. Write down the digits you can see on the screen.

Repeat up to 16 divided by 17.

Using the numbers you wrote down you CAN assemble the entire repeating part of the 1/17 decimal. Look for overlapping parts and string them together.

Interestingly enough, similar techniques are used in genetics as well.

Anyways. That's all.

Edit to add: I remember doing this for most low denominator repeating fractions, in high school calc. heh. Thought I made a great discovery.

This is cool but what does it have to with the geological column? Maybe I'm dense or maybe I'm missing the point here. Explain please.:)

Joe Meert

February 4, 2004, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
This is cool but what does it have to with the geological column? Maybe I'm dense or maybe I'm missing the point here. Explain please.:)

JM: What does the geologic column have to do with your argument?

Cheers

Joe Meert

Jim Larmore

February 4, 2004, 04:22 PM

Originally posted by Al Fresco
Creationists commonly argue that, because so much time has been spent looking for fossils, there should be no �gaps� in the fossil record if evolution has occurred. The fact that there are �gaps,� they say, is proof that it has not occurred.

However, when creationists are confronted with gaping holes in there own data base, they insist that all they need is more time to fill them. Who can fail to see the hypocrisy when creationists deny evolutionists the same line of argumentation that they, themselves, are so fond of using? How about you, Jim?

Your point is well taken Al Fresco and I agree. We as creationist need to apply the same standard as we expect from evolutionist.

One of the points of rebuttal if you will on finding dinos and large mammals together is that they were probably natural enemies in the biota and would not gravitate towards each other at all. So it makes sense you wouldn't find them in the same burial sites . On the other hand huge burial sites should contain large mammals and dinos together if they were in the same general area ( say one mile or so ) because what ever precipitated the fossils to be an aggregate would have gathered all the biota into one place , ie whirlpools, rip tides impacting mountain drifts etc..

My big concern is we as creationist expect several million or even a few billion antidilluvian (ms ) homo sapiens to have existed before the flood . So far except for some foot prints we haven't found much evidence of these people in the fossil record. I would expect to have found huge burial sites with at least a few hundred human fossils that appear as a wash in like the Malachite man is supposed to be. We should be finding these all over the planet in my opinion, but so far they are just not there. I want to go and investigate the malichite man site in Utah and evaluate it the best I can this summer.

Jim Larmore

February 4, 2004, 04:29 PM

Originally posted by Jet Black
The analogy is not perfect, but the newspapers copies could represent local areas, and the missing bits could represent erosion. From these you can see that there is no need to have a whole newspaper in one place to see what happened that day.

This is essentially the "correlation" that Stanley was talking about isn't it? I agree its exactly the way you describe it Jet. As a matter of fact in my own field studies I can see this from one area to another and I find the same kind of invertabrates in each of these stratas from one area to another. I just feel like there is some speculation that may be a stretch to assume where the gaps are will be what they say. If its not there empirically to analyze then your hypothesizing , right?

Jim Larmore

February 4, 2004, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by Joe Meert
JM: What does the geologic column have to do with your argument?

Cheers

Joe Meert

This all started with the misquote I made about Stanley's statement concerning the gaps in the geological column. Gaps are a fact and these are one of the issues brought up in creationist/evolutionist debates . I wasn't argueing either way on this I was just trying to make statements about what I have observed in the field. I have observed some continuity in some stratas over a large area of ours and other continents.

The math experiment above was where I was asking how it applied to the geological column. I didn't understand what was implied by the experiment.

lpetrich

February 4, 2004, 05:00 PM

Jim Larmore :
One of the points of rebuttal if you will on finding dinos and large mammals together is that they were probably natural enemies in the biota and would not gravitate towards each other at all.

Separate herds need not be a result of being natural enemies.

However, stratigraphy clearly indicates that large dinos and large mammals had not coexisted; the first large mammals are always above the last large dinosaurs -- and the last of any non-avian dinosaur.

My big concern is we as creationist expect several million or even a few billion antidilluvian (ms ) homo sapiens to have existed before the flood . ...

Good that you saw that. In fact, stratigraphic sequencing is often remarkably good, applying to many other species.

Al Fresco

February 4, 2004, 05:21 PM

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
Your point is well taken Al Fresco and I agree. We as creationist need to apply the same standard as we expect from evolutionist.
I commend you for your evenhanded approach. Most creationists do not share your sense of fair play.

One of the points of rebuttal if you will on finding dinos and large mammals together is that they were probably natural enemies in the biota and would not gravitate towards each other at all.
Wouldn't you think that large predacious dinosaurs would "gravitate" to large mammals since they would value them as a food source? What would lead you to believe that T. rex would not have an appetite for elephants or bison, for example?

There is not a single authenticated case where remains of such creatures have been found in the same strata, let alone the same location. Doesn't that seem rather incongruous if they were supposed to have been living at the same time?

We should be finding these all over the planet in my opinion, but so far they are just not there.

Are you beginning to see why the Flood scenario doesn't hold any water, so to speak? Do you seriously think that, with all the excavation work that has been done for centuries all over the world, human graves in Cretaceous sediments could have been completely missed if they would have been as widespread as the biblical story would indicate?

Biff the unclean

February 4, 2004, 06:17 PM

One of the points of rebuttal if you will on finding dinos and large mammals together is that they were probably natural enemies in the biota and would not gravitate towards each other at all. So it makes sense you wouldn't find them in the same burial sites . On the other hand huge burial sites should contain large mammals and dinos together if they were in the same general area ( say one mile or so ) because what ever precipitated the fossils to be an aggregate would have gathered all the biota into one place , ie whirlpools, rip tides impacting mountain drifts etc..

Sorry to interrupt again but I'm a big Bob Bakker fan and I can't help but notice that you are in the habit of leaving a word or two out of your descriptions.
For instance the huge burial sites you keep mentioning all are the results of floods. But you keep leaving out that they are all the result of flooded rivers and herds of migrating animals trying to cross them. And every last one of these huge burial sites is found at a bend in a prehistoric river. But with Noah's flood there were no rivers to have bends in them.
Also you seem to be forgetting that animals that are herbivores are not the natural enemies of each other, despite being different species. And you are forgetting that mammals are found with dinosaurs. Tiny little mousey mammals. Some of them found in the dino's bellies so being natural enemies does not keep critters segregated; far from it.

Cutter

February 4, 2004, 07:17 PM

ITS A STRANGE THING THAT THE DRAWINGS LOOK JUST LIKE THE MODELS WE HAVE,,,,DON'T YOU THINK? CO-INCIDENCE? COULD BE BUT THE NUMBER OF THEM THAT LOOK THE SAME AS OUR MODELS AND COME FROM DIFFERENT AREAS MAKES ME BELIEVE THEY PROBABLY SAW THESE CREATURES.

OK Jim, let me try again. Is it your contention that only peoples from the 19th/20th/21st century are capable of digging up dino bones, drawing sketches and making models of what they think they looked like, and subsequently making stories up about them? Do you think that the Incas, or any other ancient civilisation, were utterly incapable of doing that? If so, why?

If there were genuine ancient artifacts depicting dinos, and those dinos looked quite similair to the ones we know of today, then as far as I'm concerned it seems fairly logical to assume that they happened to dig up some dino bones and drew pictures of what they thought they looked like.

Biff the unclean

February 4, 2004, 08:32 PM

Originally posted by Cutter
If there were genuine ancient artifacts depicting dinos, and those dinos looked quite similair to the ones we know of today, then as far as I'm concerned it seems fairly logical to assume that they happened to dig up some dino bones and drew pictures of what they thought they looked like.

Cutter do a goggle search of Man and dinosaur. You'll get a bunch of Creationist sites. You'll see a drawing of a chicken, "ancient Inca" pottery found in Mexico in the 1930's that has scenes from King Kong drawn on them. But the best is a cave painting of a man and around the corner from it, below waist level a "drawing of a brontosaurs" which they outline in photoshop for you. It's a pee stain.

Cutter

February 5, 2004, 12:08 AM

Biff, note I said 'if there were', I'm not conceding that any such thing exists. What I am trying to get is some sort of statement from Jim to see if he think Incas and other ancient civilisations lacked imagination. :)

Biff the unclean

February 5, 2004, 12:42 AM

Originally posted by Cutter
Biff, note I said 'if there were', I'm not conceding that any such thing exists. What I am trying to get is some sort of statement from Jim to see if he think Incas and other ancient civilisations lacked imagination. :)

I understand, but I think Jim let the Creationist's motivation slip out a few pages ago, and it would explain why imagination isn't considered.

Jesus said the flood actually happened. The evidence says it didn't. That would mean that Jesus is wrong. Jesus being wrong about anything carries a lot of baggage with it. But Jesus being wrong about this means the ballgame is over, because Jesus is the one who caused the flood (or at least a close personal friend of the Flooder) to begin with.

All the facts say the flood never happened. So all the facts must be discarded by the faithful. And if it means calling a pee stain a cave drawing, saying modern Mexican children's toys are ancient artifacts or chiseling footprints in the banks of the Paluxy River then they will do it. Because admitting the truth is too painful for them to even consider.

Oolon Colluphid

February 5, 2004, 03:48 AM

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
Oolon,
I have never really figured out how to do the quote command properly. I did the few posts this way so I could respond right under the part I wanted to respond to. You guys think I'm kidding about this cut and paste thing, I'm not. I read up on the instructions on how to do what I just discussed above and it says you have to cut and paste your quotes and responces. I don't know how to do this.

Other than that Oolon I believe you are probably correct on the deterioration part. I can't spell worth a darn anymore and I know it. The only thing I can do is apologise I guess. If you guys can't figure out what I'm writing let me know and I'll try to do better.:D
Hi Jim!

On the quoting matter...

What I do is type my replies in Word, then copy them into the post window. (That�s why my quote marks and apostrophes are all curly -- can�t be bothered to set Word to not give me �smart quotes� or whatever, it�s useful the rest of the time, like when I�m... working!) This should work the same for any WP package.

So I c&p the initial quote from the window you get when you hit �reply� into Word, then split up what I�m replying to, then copy the code each place it�s then needed. And the code is...

{quote} text here {/quote}, but using [ ] brackets instead of the curlies. Similarly, a bold quote is {quote}{b} text here {/b}{/quote}, italics are with an {i} {/i} and so on. (As with html, a �/� works as an off switch.) Thus:

{quote}{i}Oolon Colluphid said:{/i}
{b}This is how you do quotes etc!{/b}{/quote}

...using square brackets, becomes:
Oolon Colluphid said:
This is how you do quotes etc!

It�s just some straightforward code that tells the software what you want. You�ll see most of the code anyway in the reply window.

While I�m at it, links are done with {url=http://www.thefullurlhere.com}Call it what you want here{/url}, and pictures are the url of the actual picture file (in Windows, right-click on it, pick �properties�, and you can copy the pic�s url and paste it), enclosed within {img}image, yeah?{/img}.

Some other boards make the code-putting-in easier in the reply window. EZ boards such as The Meme Machine (http://pub157.ezboard.com/bmememachineforum) ( = {url=http://pub157.ezboard.com/bmememachineforum}The Meme Machine{/url}, yeah? ) let you just highlight the text and click a button for what you want to do with it, as you might in a WP. Others such as the estimable EvC Forum (http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/Ultimate.cgi) use an easier-to-type system for quotes. But it�s all the same principle of turning on and turning off. It does get fiddly, which is why I do it in Word rather than (what I find) and awkward little box.

Using a WP also has the advantage of spell-checking what you write for you. (Though my basic new doc template doesn�t spellcheck mine for some reason, so I�m just as prine too tyops as amyone!)

Hope that helps.

On the main matter, it seems that the more we question you, the more you retreat into the dafter bywaters (aka the more ardently you paddle up the shit creek) of creationism. Why? I�m not meaning to psychoanalyse (no spellcheck -- is that right?!); rather, trying to help. You�re leaving yourself more and more open to easier and easier refutations. What next? The Second Law of Thermodynamics, perhaps? If you�re struggling on the harder (for us) to explain stuff like abiogenesis, why go on to the ground where we�re even stronger? Does it feel safer? :eek:

Cheers, Oolon

Sven

February 5, 2004, 04:38 AM

Hey, guys, I hate this! ;)

Every time I return at the computer in the morning, all of you have written such nice posts making very good points - and there's (almost) nothing left to say for me! It's a big disadvantage living in Europe - sometimes (most of the time it's great! :) )

I'd like to add: I was totally baffled the first time I heard that there are still some creationists in the world - and that they even get attention! And now I'm actually discussing with some...

Jim Larmore

February 5, 2004, 08:18 AM

Originally posted by Cutter
OK Jim, let me try again. Is it your contention that only peoples from the 19th/20th/21st century are capable of digging up dino bones, drawing sketches and making models of what they think they looked like, and subsequently making stories up about them? Do you think that the Incas, or any other ancient civilisation, were utterly incapable of doing that? If so, why?

If there were genuine ancient artifacts depicting dinos, and those dinos looked quite similair to the ones we know of today, then as far as I'm concerned it seems fairly logical to assume that they happened to dig up some dino bones and drew pictures of what they thought they looked like.

Your point is well taken Cutter, however based on what I know of the cultures and historical evidence of the way the Incas/north american indian etc. lived its a big stretch to "assume"they did excavations for the purpose of digging up bones. Now I know they dug for some gold thats obvious but if they found some bones in the process they would more than likely dismiss them off hand as something in their way to get to the gold. These were not scientifically oriented people and left no clue for us to conclude they had any geological interest. They were great fans of cosmology and star study but I don't believe they considered what was beneath their feet as an element of study.

Now if we found some cave drawings or burial stones or pottery that showed them digging a hole and then finding some bones and then drawing the animal I'd say your contention would be very accurate. However, I don't think we have this anywhere.

Jim Larmore

February 5, 2004, 08:32 AM

Originally posted by Al Fresco
I commend you for your evenhanded approach. Most creationists do not share your sense of fair play.

Wouldn't you think that large predacious dinosaurs would "gravitate" to large mammals since they would value them as a food source? What would lead you to believe that T. rex would not have an appetite for elephants or bison, for example?

There is not a single authenticated case where remains of such creatures have been found in the same strata, let alone the same location. Doesn't that seem rather incongruous if they were supposed to have been living at the same time?

Are you beginning to see why the Flood scenario doesn't hold any water, so to speak? Do you seriously think that, with all the excavation work that has been done for centuries all over the world, human graves in Cretaceous sediments could have been completely missed if they would have been as widespread as the biblical story would indicate?

As I said this has been a concern for me for a long time, I have just admitted here on the forum but it became an issue with me several years ago when I started doing a little study and some field research.

I'm still hoping to find some evidence of their existence. If you destroy the flood legend you destroy much of what makes my faith real. Jesus Christ Himself mentioned it. Theres evidence for a global flood but theres also evidence that it may not have been world wide at the same time. I am a scientist and I must look at what the evidence tells me but I am also a christian.

The way I look at it at this time is that theres been so much happened to our crust since the flood happened in the form of tectonic action, massive earth quakes etc . Even the Bible mentions this happening right after the flood , God did this to bury all the dead bodies to keep from contaminating the atmosphere, you can read it in the flood account. We may never find this evidence. When God does something He does it right. I am sure going to continue to look though and hope like double hockey sticks we find it someday so the Bible can be verified on this episode of earths history.:)

Jim Larmore

February 5, 2004, 08:46 AM

Originally posted by Biff the unclean
[BSorry to interrupt again but I'm a big Bob Bakker fan and I can't help but notice that you are in the habit of leaving a word or two out of your descriptions.
For instance the huge burial sites you keep mentioning all are the results of floods. But you keep leaving out that they are all the result of flooded rivers and herds of migrating animals trying to cross them. And every last one of these huge burial sites is found at a bend in a prehistoric river. But with Noah's flood there were no rivers to have bends in them.
Also you seem to be forgetting that animals that are herbivores are not the natural enemies of each other, despite being different species. And you are forgetting that mammals are found with dinosaurs. Tiny little mousey mammals. Some of them found in the dino's bellies so being natural enemies does not keep critters segregated; far from it. [/B]

I've read this but when you consider the size of some of these burial sites it appears to be larger than any river flood of record we've ever known of even for like the Amazon. Also the literature I've read about this can allow for the global flood. Albeit , its creationist literature but the logic they have is good. For instance what appears as an ancient river bed could be explained as a current wash area just like you see in our oceans today. We have rivers if you want to call them that under the surface of the ocean that flow and erode the bottom where they move. Some of these rivers take several years to transport H2O from cold to warmer areas or vice versa. Different perspectives and different ways of analyzing some things we see can cause us to rethink our intial conclusions. This happens all the time in science.

We just had an example a few years ago with the discovery of the positron. This particle was predicted mathematically but wasn't confirmed until we did some exotic work with super colliders etc. As our knowledge base expands we must rethink and re-analyze things.

Jim Larmore

February 5, 2004, 08:56 AM

Originally posted by lpetrich
Jim Larmore :
One of the points of rebuttal if you will on finding dinos and large mammals together is that they were probably natural enemies in the biota and would not gravitate towards each other at all.

Separate herds need not be a result of being natural enemies.

However, stratigraphy clearly indicates that large dinos and large mammals had not coexisted; the first large mammals are always above the last large dinosaurs -- and the last of any non-avian dinosaur.

My big concern is we as creationist expect several million or even a few billion antidilluvian (ms ) homo sapiens to have existed before the flood . ...

Good that you saw that. In fact, stratigraphic sequencing is often remarkably good, applying to many other species.

I know you guys have called him a kook and a crack pot but Carl Baugh has a bison skull that supposedly was found in the same cretacous sediments that an acanthrasauras was found in. Go figure :eek: and then there are those pesky cat tracks etc.

If these are indeed a bunch of hooey then I'll concede to your side and offer to buy you a T-bone at your favorite resturant, but until I can proove this to myself I'm going to believe its genuine. I've already studied the human foot prints and I believe they are fully human.

simian

February 5, 2004, 09:01 AM

Originally posted by Jim Larmore

I'm still hoping to find some evidence of their existence. If you destroy the flood legend you destroy much of what makes my faith real. Jesus Christ Himself mentioned it. Theres evidence for a global flood but theres also evidence that it may not have been world wide at the same time. I am a scientist and I must look at what the evidence tells me but I am also a christian.

Jesus Christ Himself was also taken to the top of a very high mountain where he was shown all the kingdoms of the world (Matthew 4:8-9). I have mentioned this earlier in the thread. If you bothered to respond, I seem to have missed it.

So tell me, given that Jesus Christ Himself saw all the kingdoms of the world from the top of a very high mountain, is the world flat or bowl shaped. Or does the bible contain some information that is not factually correct?

Simian

Roland98

February 5, 2004, 09:15 AM

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
I've already studied the human foot prints and I believe they are fully human.

No offense Jim, but what makes you more qualified than experts to judge that they are "fully human?"

Jim Larmore

February 5, 2004, 09:21 AM

Originally posted by simian
Jesus Christ Himself was also taken to the top of a very high mountain where he was shown all the kingdoms of the world (Matthew 4:8-9). I have mentioned this earlier in the thread. If you bothered to respond, I seem to have missed it.

So tell me, given that Jesus Christ Himself saw all the kingdoms of the world from the top of a very high mountain, is the world flat or bowl shaped. Or does the bible contain some information that is not factually correct?

Simian

I'm not sure what you are getting at here simian. When Jesus was taken to the top of a very high mountain by Satan in Matt 4 it was during His life here on earth which is well after the flood was to have taken place. So of course there would have been very high mountains just like we have today.

I don't understand what your asking here. Please clarify.

To add a little about the flood model that some creationist claim . The earth was near a perfect sphere before the flood and around 10% smaller in diameter. The rotational tilt was not there so the poles were uniform in temperature. The continents were together in what we call pangea. The earth moved one degree for every rotation in a perfectly circular orbit making the year 360 days instead of 365.??. The atmosphere was nearly twice the amount of CO2 and atmospheric pressure. A canopy of H2O and hydrogen covered the earth , this is called the racea in the Hebrew ( pronounced rackeeah ) which produced a pink or magenta light with no ultraviolet to radicalize the elements. I know some of this sounds a little off the wall but some of it makes sense too. Theres more but I can't remember all it right now.

Jet Black

February 5, 2004, 09:25 AM

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
I'm not sure what you are getting at here simian. When Jesus was taken to the top of a very high mountain by Satan in Matt 4 it was during His life here on earth which is well after the flood was to have taken place. So of course there would have been very high mountains just like we have today.

I don't understand what your asking here. Please clarify.

put simply. If he was stood on a high mountain near Israel, could he see, say, Japan or China?

To add a little about the flood model that some creationist claim . The earth was near a perfect sphere before the flood and around 10% smaller in diameter. The rotational tilt was not there so the poles were uniform in temperature. The continents were together in what we call pangea. The earth moved one degree for every rotation in a perfectly circular orbit making the year 360 days instead of 365.??. The atmosphere was nearly twice the amount of CO2 and atmospheric pressure. A canopy of H2O and hydrogen covered the earth , this is called the racea in the Hebrew ( pronounced rackeeah ) which produced a pink or magenta light with no ultraviolet to radicalize the elements. I know some of this sounds a little off the wall but some of it makes sense too. Theres more but I can't remember all it right now.

no, it doesn't make any sense really, a little thought demonstrates this, like for example the canopy would just get boiled off by the sun.

Jack the Bodiless

February 5, 2004, 09:32 AM

Jim:
The way I look at it at this time is that theres been so much happened to our crust since the flood happened in the form of tectonic action, massive earth quakes etc . Even the Bible mentions this happening right after the flood , God did this to bury all the dead bodies to keep from contaminating the atmosphere, you can read it in the flood account.
...Where?

I can't find this. Chapter and verse please.

Jim Larmore

February 5, 2004, 09:56 AM

Originally posted by Roland98
No offense Jim, but what makes you more qualified than experts to judge that they are "fully human?"

Nothing at all, just an above average intelligence and a pair of eyes to see with. When you see them in situ and brush the silt out of them and see for yourself the features you see for human foot prints then its safe to say they are fully human. Like I said I'm an old tracker from my military training. I know what human footprints look like partial or full. This makes me wonder why these tracks are dismissed by scientist. Theres a lot of them to look at , they couldn't all have been carved out as a fake.

Obviously, some of these tracks they are calling human are suspect to say the least but some of dino tracks are a stretch too. Some of them are very much human looking and have me convinced they are genuine after close examination. They did do a cross sectional cut on some of them they excavated out of the river bottom and they showed pressure laminations under the impression. A carved out footprint would not show pressure laminmations.

You know tracks in ancient sediments are strange in many ways for instance when I first saw these tracks of the dinos I was very skeptical. I thought yeah right, this is nothing more than erosional forces of the water on the river bottom but after I really did some investigation of a lot of tracks I saw some with the claw marks still there, pressure push up areas etc. I started to buy into the tracks authenticity. Its the same with these human tracks. Some have all the toes visible and are actually inside a dino track but they are there in a left right pattern appear in a natural trail pattern we would see in any river bank that had been walked on by the homo sapiens species and in this case some speices of dinos too.

Amaleq13

February 5, 2004, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
If you destroy the flood legend you destroy much of what makes my faith real.

This is really the bottom line, isn't it? You really aren't trying to figure out what conclusion best explains the evidence. You are trying to find evidence to support your a priori, faith-based conclusion. You claim to be a scientist but this is the exact opposite way science is properly conducted. The evidence should lead to the conclusion not the other way around.

I am a scientist and I must look at what the evidence tells me but I am also a christian.

It is clear that, for this subject at least, it is your faith and not your understanding of science that is paramount. I get the sense that you know (or at least suspect) this at some level and that is why you are consciously avoiding taking a proper scientific approach to the evidence.

Regarding the flood, you wrote:
Jesus Christ Himself mentioned it.

Could you (or anyone for that matter) provide the specific passage? I don't recall this reference.

NottyImp

February 5, 2004, 10:01 AM

I'm still hoping to find some evidence of their existence. If you destroy the flood legend you destroy much of what makes my faith real.

No you don't Jim! Forgive me for butting in here, but there are literally tens of millions of devout Christians who do not take the "flood legend" literally, just as they don't (and you don't) take other parts of the bible literally.

I think here you're showing where the real motivation for your studies comes from, and if you're honest with yourself, you'll see that it has little to do with real, honest science.

Jim Larmore

February 5, 2004, 10:25 AM

Originally posted by NottyImp
No you don't Jim! Forgive me for butting in here, but there are literally tens of millions of devout Christians who do not take the "flood legend" literally, just as they don't (and you don't) take other parts of the bible literally.

I think here you're showing where the real motivation for your studies comes from, and if you're honest with yourself, you'll see that it has little to do with real, honest science.

You didn't finish what you were saying about my motivation NottyImp. At any rate you are wrong about my beliefs. What literally thousands of devout christians believe is none of my business. I don't base my faith on other people's beliefs. They could believe the moon is made out of cheese as far as I know.

I know the Bible has some discrepancies or areas where we see contradictions, however the flood is not one of them. Its continually upheld throughout the Bible as being a literal occurrence and like I said Jesus Christ Himself said it happened. If I can't fit the evidence with the facts then thats a problem to be resolved later but I remain a scientist and a christian with many questions unanswered. Nothing unusual actually if you think about it, theres a ton of questions unanswered in all of science.

BTW, I challenge you or anyone to find anywhere in the Bible that says the flood is just a myth or didn't acutally happen.

Jack the Bodiless

February 5, 2004, 10:34 AM

...We're still waiting for the verse where Jesus said the Flood happened.

And the one where the Bible talks about God's clean-up operation.

simian

February 5, 2004, 10:35 AM

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
I'm not sure what you are getting at here simian. When Jesus was taken to the top of a very high mountain by Satan in Matt 4 it was during His life here on earth which is well after the flood was to have taken place. So of course there would have been very high mountains just like we have today.

I don't understand what your asking here. Please clarify.

To add a little about the flood model that some creationist claim . The earth was near a perfect sphere before the flood and around 10% smaller in diameter. The rotational tilt was not there so the poles were uniform in temperature. The continents were together in what we call pangea. The earth moved one degree for every rotation in a perfectly circular orbit making the year 360 days instead of 365.??. The atmosphere was nearly twice the amount of CO2 and atmospheric pressure. A canopy of H2O and hydrogen covered the earth , this is called the racea in the Hebrew ( pronounced rackeeah ) which produced a pink or magenta light with no ultraviolet to radicalize the elements. I know some of this sounds a little off the wall but some of it makes sense too. Theres more but I can't remember all it right now.

Jet Black stated it, but here it is again:

Modern science tells us the earth is roughly spherical. At most, from an infinite distance 50% of the earth can be seen at any given time. Perhaps slightly (fraction of a percent?) more if you account for refraction due to the earth's atmosphere. Science therefore tells us there is no mountain, no matter how high where all the lands of the earth can be seen, and as kingdoms were spread over the world at that point, there is no location where all the kingdoms of the world can be seen.

So, is what is in the bible incorrect (that is to say, does the bible lie), or is the earth some non-sherical shape? The only shapes I can think of that would work are a plane and a bowl shape, if the biblical description is correct.

Keep in mind, this is something that supposedly happened to Jesus.

Simian

Asha'man

February 5, 2004, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
Its continually upheld throughout the Bible as being a literal occurrence and like I said Jesus Christ Himself said it happened.

How exactly can you know that Jesus really said this?

We have a written account, prone to exaggeration, where it is claimed that Jesus said it. However, that written account was created by people who believed the flood happened, and had no way to know otherwise.

Given that all the physical evidence points to no flood, maybe that portion of the bible is more likely to be a reflection of the writer's biases, putting words into the mouth of Jesus, and not divine truth. Do you acknowledge that this is possible?

Al Fresco

February 5, 2004, 10:46 AM

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
If you destroy the flood legend you destroy much of what makes my faith real. Jesus Christ Himself mentioned it.

Is your faith so tenuous that you are unable to entertain the possibility that the biblical Flood story can be understood in metaphorical rather than historical terms? As others have pointed out, many devout Christians (including those belonging to most mainstream denominations) have adopted this interpretation. Do you think that those Christians who do not embrace the Flood as actual history are jeopardizing their chances for salvation? In more general terms, do you think being an evolutionist or a creationist is a critical salvation issue?

Even the Bible mentions this happening right after the flood , God did this to bury all the dead bodies to keep from contaminating the atmosphere, you can read it in the flood account.

Where in the Genesis account does it say God buried all the dead bodies to keep from contaminating the atmosphere? I can�t seem to find this explanation in the Bible.

When God does something He does it right.

Regardless whether God did or did not purposefully bury the carcasses from the purported Flood, the fact remains that geologic forces have now exposed immense sections of the strata in question. Yet nowhere in the world do any of the strata that contain dinosaur remains contain a single authenticated specimen of human fossils, human artifacts, or fossils of large mammals. Your concern about this complete lack of evidence that should be there had the Flood actually occurred as literally depicted in the Bible is well justified. The fact that you now must place your hope in the nebulous findings of a discredited pseudo-scientist like Carl Baugh shows just how desperate your situation has become.

As others have said, science is not about relying on fringe-group assertions to prop up faith-based beliefs for which well-documented evidence does not exist. It is about going wherever sound and reliable evidence leads. Unfortunately for you, it is not leading where you want to go.

Sven

February 5, 2004, 10:48 AM

Hey, Jim, I just wanted to reply to selected points since others already posted much.

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
Obviously, some of these tracks they are calling human are suspect to say the least but some of dino tracks are a stretch too. Some of them are very much human looking and have me convinced they are genuine after close examination.

I suggest you discuss this with an expert in the field, directly at the location where you found these tracks.

If you destroy the flood legend you destroy much of what makes my faith real. Jesus Christ Himself mentioned it.

This has been pointed out to you before, but I'll repeat it one more time: How do you know that Jesus really said this? You only have the account(s?) of someone who wrote about Jesus decades after his death. Do you really think that every saying of Jesus was recorded 100% accurate? Did it ever occur to you that the writer for some reason believed that Jesus talked about the flood although he never did?

I find it very disturbing that you place your faith on only a few words/verses of the entire bible.

We just had an example a few years ago with the discovery of the positron. This particle was predicted mathematically but wasn't confirmed until we did some exotic work with super colliders etc. As our knowledge base expands we must rethink and re-analyze things.

Do you really compare the positron with Noah's flood?!?

(1) There was solid evidence that the positron exists from the beta-decay. This wasn't evidence from an acient book, but testable experimental evidence.
(2) A global flood was disprove early in the 19th century (do you remember my remarks about dead theories?) - something which never happened for the positron before we could finally detect it.

Your analogy is very, very bad.

To add a little about the flood model that some creationist claim .

They can claim as much as they want, but they still haven't presented evidence for any of their claims.

The earth was near a perfect sphere before the flood and around 10% smaller in diameter. The rotational tilt was not there so the poles were uniform in temperature. The continents were together in what we call pangea.

There you're whole theory breaks down. It is very well established that Pangea didn't exist any more a few thousand years ago.

The earth moved one degree for every rotation in a perfectly circular orbit making the year 360 days instead of 365.

Nice. But there's no evidence for this and it is entirely irrelevant.

The atmosphere was nearly twice the amount of CO2 and atmospheric pressure.

Do you really think that all life adapted to the much cooler temperatures and much less pressure in a few thousand years?!? Jim, this would require a by several orders of magnitude faster evolution than ever observed!

A canopy of H2O and hydrogen covered the earth , this is called the racea in the Hebrew (pronounced rackeeah ) which produced a pink or magenta light with no ultraviolet to radicalize the elements.

(1) the water canopy has been debunked long ago - haven't you read my post in which I suggested to visit TO and AIG first before posting more long debunked creationist claims? See here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-add.html#A2) and here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/canopy.html).
(2) I have to ask the same as I already asked concerning the "dividing of the earth" (BTW, care to answer this sometime?): Why nobody recorded this change of colour of the sky in the bible? Did nobody notice it or what?? Please, Jim, think a little bit before posting such absurd claims.
(3) I'm pretty sure that you actually need radicals in the atmosphere for breaking down various chemicals. I have to research this, but I think no radicals in the atmosphere could actually be fatal to any life.

Jim Larmore

February 5, 2004, 10:50 AM

Originally posted by Jet Black
put simply. If he was stood on a high mountain near Israel, could he see, say, Japan or China?

no, it doesn't make any sense really, a little thought demonstrates this, like for example the canopy would just get boiled off by the sun.

Jet,
Well, if you believe in the "super-natural" you would understand that the abilitys of a super-natual being would be beyond our comprehension. Seeing Japan or China in this context would be well within the pairs ( Satan and Christ's ) capabilities at the moment. Now saying this you could ask why even go to the top of the mountain to start with if they could see all of it anyway? Good question, it could have been a literal or figurative account of what happened . Who knows for sure, when it comes to God we can't answer many questions. Like omnipotence, just what does this really entail? It could get to be mind blowing. The context of all this is the temptation Jesus was put thru by Satan. Both of these beings are supernatural and therefore exibit super-natural activities. You can either believe it or not thats your choice.

As far as the canopy is concerned I won't even try to explain how this particular part of the model works. Liquid metalic like hydrogen could not exist at the temperatures in the atmosphere without God's supernatural support. Given what we know of the atmosphere now I can't support this aspect of the model however it is part of their model that they give. Not everything they give is logical but fiat creation is not logical either and I believe this happened. :) The big bang is not logical either, when you consider the mechanics they expect us to believe. Infinite velocity of light and massive particles expanding, yeah right, what ever:D

Sven

February 5, 2004, 10:50 AM

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
I know the Bible has some discrepancies or areas where we see contradictions, however the flood is not one of them. Its continually upheld throughout the Bible as being a literal occurrence and like I said Jesus Christ Himself said it happened.

You don't know that he said it. Or did you hear him personally saying it?

Edited to add: Thanks Asha'man, you found the words that I was struggling for.

chapka

February 5, 2004, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
The earth was near a perfect sphere before the flood and around 10% smaller in diameter. The rotational tilt was not there so the poles were uniform in temperature. The continents were together in what we call pangea. The earth moved one degree for every rotation in a perfectly circular orbit making the year 360 days instead of 365.??. The atmosphere was nearly twice the amount of CO2 and atmospheric pressure. A canopy of H2O and hydrogen covered the earth , this is called the racea in the Hebrew ( pronounced rackeeah ) which produced a pink or magenta light with no ultraviolet to radicalize the elements. I know some of this sounds a little off the wall but some of it makes sense too. Theres more but I can't remember all it right now.

I'm sorry, but you really can't pick and choose your science. It's like picking words out of the sentence "The Bible is a book containing literally hundreds of stories which carry lessons, presented as history, myth, and legend" and using it as evidence that "The Bible is . . . literal . . . history".

The evidence for "pangaea" and the other supercontinents is based on plate tectonics, a process which takes millions of years and is totally incompatible with a young earth or rapid process. If the plates move quickly, they SHATTER instead of FOLDING, and instead of gradual lava flow and buildup of sea floor, you get the sea pouring directly into the earth's molten core. So you either need to forget about "pangaea" or eliminate all of modern physics, material science, and geology.

Likewise, changing the characteristics of the atmosphere is contrary to everything we know about biology, not just evolution. Small changes in pressure and temperature can be catastrophic in modern animals, and sudden changes in temperature create mass extinctions. The animals on the ark, if they were used to seriously different conditions before the flood, would simply step off and die. As would the humans.

All the evidence for the rotational and magnetic tilt of the earth and the length of the year is based on geological evidence of great antiquity, utterly incompatible with a young earth. Likewise the chemistry you use to try to explain the activity of the atmosphere. And of course the "vapor canopy" is scientifically ludicrous.

So please, remember: you can't pick and choose with science. A young earth would invalidate almost everything we know about the world and the way it works. It makes just as much sense to say that the "vapor canopy" was held up by fairies as to try to use the "science" you're stepping all over to justify it.

Sorry to be harsh, but you really need to understand this. Even if the footprints look like human ones to you, do they look enough like human ones that you no longer believe in any modern physics, chemistry, biology, history, or archaeology? Are you right and all of the workers in those fields for hundreds of years wrong?

Many people believe that the Bible was not MEANT to be taken literally. Jesus talked about the man who buried his talents. Does that mean that it actually happened? Of course not--but it made His point: that we have brains for a reason, and intentionally ignoring the reasonable thing to do or believe because it might not feel as safe is the sign of intellectual cowardice.

Sven

February 5, 2004, 11:00 AM

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
Jet,
Now saying this you could ask why even go to the top of the mountain to start with if they could see all of it anyway? Good question, it could have been a literal or figurative account of what happened .

See, Jim, here is an example where you actually chose the position that this is a figurative account-because you can not deny this passage is impossible if meant literally. So, why don't you go one step further and accept that Noah's flood has been proven to be impossible also and also accept it as figuratively?

Who knows for sure, when it comes to God we can't answer many questions.

Jim, you got it. That's exactly the reason why science can not use God as an explanation.

Liquid metalic like hydrogen could not exist at the temperatures in the atmosphere without God's supernatural support. Given what we know of the atmosphere now I can't support this aspect of the model however it is part of their model that they give.

Don't you see how illogical this is? For explaining a miracle (Noah's flood) scientifically, they invent a vapor canopy. When it's pointed out that a vapor canopy is impossible scientifically, you add another miracle to explain it. Why did you even introduce it the first time?!?

The big bang is not logical either, when you consider the mechanics they expect us to believe. Infinite velocity of light and massive particles expanding, yeah right, what ever:D
Huh? Where did you get this from? I never heard these strange claims. Perhaps you misunderstood something?

Sven

February 5, 2004, 11:02 AM

chapka: Nice post!

Jim Larmore

February 5, 2004, 11:06 AM

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Jim:

...Where?

I can't find this. Chapter and verse please.

Gen 10:25 is the Peleg experience where the continents were divided but its not the verse I'm looking for. I'll keep looking Jack sorry I can't be of immediate assistance on this, give me a little time to find it, its obviously not in the flood story itself but I know its there somewhere.

Jet Black

February 5, 2004, 11:13 AM

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
Jet,
Well, if you believe in the "super-natural" you would understand that the abilitys of a super-natual being would be beyond our comprehension. Seeing Japan or China in this context would be well within the pairs ( Satan and Christ's ) capabilities at the moment. Now saying this you could ask why even go to the top of the mountain to start with if they could see all of it anyway? Good question, it could have been a literal or figurative account of what happened . Who knows for sure, when it comes to God we can't answer many questions. Like omnipotence, just what does this really entail? It could get to be mind blowing. The context of all this is the temptation Jesus was put thru by Satan. Both of these beings are supernatural and therefore exibit super-natural activities. You can either believe it or not thats your choice.

it is a bit pointless though isn't it. what does the verse say exactly?

As far as the canopy is concerned I won't even try to explain how this particular part of the model works. Liquid metalic like hydrogen could not exist at the temperatures in the atmosphere without God's supernatural support.

so why bother even making it a liquid and or metallic hydrogen canopy? what is the argument to suggest that it is a canopy made of these materials? Why can't it be made of turnip juice or fnarkle or the ether? these conclusions would make just as much sense.

Given what we know of the atmosphere now I can't support this aspect of the model however it is part of their model that they give. Not everything they give is logical but fiat creation is not logical either and I believe this happened. :)

but it is a stupid model, since it has no theological or physical backing. It reminds me of a bizarre AIG article in which they went on about Adam's rib growing back, even though there is no need for it to because the Bible never talks about it.
The big bang is not logical either, when you consider the mechanics they expect us to believe. Infinite velocity of light and massive particles expanding, yeah right, what ever:D

erm. what version of the Big Bang is that? not one I heard about while I did my physics degree for sure. The difference between your criticism of the BB and my criticism of the hydrogen canopy argument, is that I know about the behaviour of these materials, and you don't seem to know about the Big Bang. It seems rather presumptuous to ridicule something which you do not understand at all doesn't it?

Sven

February 5, 2004, 11:17 AM

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
Gen 10:25 is the Peleg experience where the continents were divided

No. It says "the earth was divided". And I already pointed out that the claim that these few words represent the whole gigantic event of drifting continents, mountains rising up, etc. is simply ridiculous. Please think about it. Any recording of the events after Noah's flood would have included several chapters about these if they had happended according to your theory.

Al Fresco

February 5, 2004, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
Well, if you believe in the "super-natural" you would understand that the abilitys of a super-natual being would be beyond our comprehension. Seeing Japan or China in this context would be well within the pairs ( Satan and Christ's ) capabilities at the moment.

If you are going to resort to a miraculous explanation every time you are backed into a corner, we had just as well end the debate right now. Why are you pretending to be on an honest scientific quest for evidence to support the Flood? Supernatural explanations are not permitted in formulating scientific answers to any questions. If you are going to slip in the supernatual every time valid scientific explanations are missing, our efforts to deal with your claims regarding the Flood will be an exercise in futility. Because miraculous claims can explain anything, they actually explain nothing. You cannot introduce preternatural elements into your explanations and expect any legitimate scientist to take them seriously. Why are you wasting your time ostensibly searching for scientific answers when a simple miracle provides you with all that you need? Why not admit to yourself that you are on a religious crusade, not a scientific one?

Sven

February 5, 2004, 11:35 AM

Jim Larmore

February 5, 2004, 11:36 AM

Originally posted by chapka
I'm sorry, but you really can't pick and choose your science. It's like picking words out of the sentence "The Bible is a book containing literally hundreds of stories which carry lessons, presented as history, myth, and legend" and using it as evidence that "The Bible is . . . literal . . . history".

The evidence for "pangaea" and the other supercontinents is based on plate tectonics, a process which takes millions of years and is totally incompatible with a young earth or rapid process. If the plates move quickly, they SHATTER instead of FOLDING, and instead of gradual lava flow and buildup of sea floor, you get the sea pouring directly into the earth's molten core. So you either need to forget about "pangaea" or eliminate all of modern physics, material science, and geology.

Likewise, changing the characteristics of the atmosphere is contrary to everything we know about biology, not just evolution. Small changes in pressure and temperature can be catastrophic in modern animals, and sudden changes in temperature create mass extinctions. The animals on the ark, if they were used to seriously different conditions before the flood, would simply step off and die. As would the humans.

All the evidence for the rotational and magnetic tilt of the earth and the length of the year is based on geological evidence of great antiquity, utterly incompatible with a young earth. Likewise the chemistry you use to try to explain the activity of the atmosphere. And of course the "vapor canopy" is scientifically ludicrous.

So please, remember: you can't pick and choose with science. A young earth would invalidate almost everything we know about the world and the way it works. It makes just as much sense to say that the "vapor canopy" was held up by fairies as to try to use the "science" you're stepping all over to justify it.

Sorry to be harsh, but you really need to understand this. Even if the footprints look like human ones to you, do they look enough like human ones that you no longer believe in any modern physics, chemistry, biology, history, or archaeology? Are you right and all of the workers in those fields for hundreds of years wrong?

Many people believe that the Bible was not MEANT to be taken literally. Jesus talked about the man who buried his talents. Does that mean that it actually happened? Of course not--but it made His point: that we have brains for a reason, and intentionally ignoring the reasonable thing to do or believe because it might not feel as safe is the sign of intellectual cowardice.

I disagree with what you're saying here theres no evidence to support a shattering of the continental plates on rapid movement. We are as you know basically floating on a liquidus called magma. This substance exibits extreme lubricational characteristics , ( watch it flow in magma rivers that flow out of volcanos ) so your arguement doesn't hold there at all. Its not logical.

With regards to your comment on the atmosphere , if you reduce the size of the planet but keep the mass then you induce the gravitational constant that would cause more pressure. Currently they are doing experiments on increasing the pressure to twice the present pressure and doubling the CO2 , these are being conducted in hyperbaric chambers and this appears to cause the animals and plants to grow and thrive "BETTER" than what we see in our present condition, ,,,, the studies are ongoing. So your arguement doesn't hold there either.

I don't mean to be matter of fact or harsh here either but if they look like human footprints they look like human footprints, This doesn't make me want to abandon what physics or chemistry teaches me. It makes me wonder how we can fit this evidence in with everything we know. It makes me wonder if we concluded incorrectly. It wouldn't be the first time science has concluded incorrectly. The truth and nothing but the truth? Sounds simple enough, yeah right. :confused:

Biff the unclean

February 5, 2004, 11:43 AM

I've read this but when you consider the size of some of these burial sites it appears to be larger than any river flood of record we've ever known of even for like the Amazon.
That's not at all true Jim. The size of the mass fossil deposits depends on the size of the herd of animals that were drowned and washed down stream.

Also the literature I've read about this can allow for the global flood. Albeit , its creationist literature but the logic they have is good.
Ask yourself this please�if the logic is so good why are Creationists the only ones reaching these conclusions?

For instance what appears as an ancient river bed could be explained as a current wash area just like you see in our oceans today. We have rivers if you want to call them that under the surface of the ocean that flow and erode the bottom where they move. Some of these rivers take several years to transport H2O from cold to warmer areas or vice versa. Different perspectives and different ways of analyzing some things we see can cause us to rethink our intial conclusions. This happens all the time in science.
What happens all the time in science is you search for truth. The "rivers" in the ocean that you mention are actually currents. They do not run along riverbeds. The fossil grave yards are all in riverbeds.

We just had an example a few years ago with the discovery of the positron. This particle was predicted mathematically but wasn't confirmed until we did some exotic work with super colliders etc. As our knowledge base expands we must rethink and re-analyze things.
Yep, that's the way science works. Unfortunately that's the way it worked with the Bronze Age myth of a global flood too. We examined the evidence and had to re-analyze things. That's why we discarded the flood story as not being a fact.

When Jesus was taken to the top of a very high mountain by Satan in Matt 4 it was during His life here on earth which is well after the flood was to have taken place. So of course there would have been very high mountains just like we have today.
The authors of this myth thought that you could see all the kingdoms of the world from the top of a really high mountain.
We examined the evidence and had to re-analyze that claim too. We found that to be incorrect.
I don't understand what your asking here. Please clarify.

The earth was near a perfect sphere before the flood and around 10% smaller in diameter. The rotational tilt was not there so the poles were uniform in temperature. The continents were together in what we call pangea. The earth moved one degree for every rotation in a perfectly circular orbit making the year 360 days instead of 365.??.
This comes from neither the Bible or from science. You are just playing make believe.

The atmosphere was nearly twice the amount of CO2 and atmospheric pressure. A canopy of H2O and hydrogen covered the earth , this is called the racea in the Hebrew ( pronounced rackeeah ) which produced a pink or magenta light with no ultraviolet to radicalize the elements. I know some of this sounds a little off the wall but some of it makes sense too. Theres more but I can't remember all it right now.
This comes from the Bible saying that the "waters" were divided with half of them above the "firmament." They thought that the sky was a solid dome as hard as beaten bronze. They thought that this solid sky had windows to let the rain come through. They thought it was only a few miles above the ground. That's why Jesus ascended into the sky like a toy balloon. That's why Christians will be caught up in the air.
But since that was written we have investigated the sky and found that they were wrong.

I'm an old tracker from my military training. I know what human footprints look like partial or full. This makes me wonder why these tracks are dismissed by scientist. Theres a lot of them to look at , they couldn't all have been carved out as a fake.
Well I've been down to Glen Rose and visited Dinosaur Valley State Park, and it makes me wonder about your skills as a GI tracker. I saw the huge two toed sauropod tracks and a load of three-toed theropod tracks from animals 5-7 feet tall. And a shit load of poorly carved "human footprints" many of them vandalizing the theropod track ways. The carving of "human footprints" has been a cottage industry there, I'm told, since 1938.

Some of them are very much human looking and have me convinced they are genuine after close examination.
Then I would suggest that it is time for an eye exam.

They did do a cross sectional cut on some of them they excavated out of the river bottom and they showed pressure laminations under the impression. A carved out footprint would not show pressure laminmations.
Vandalized theropod tracks would though.

You know tracks in ancient sediments are strange in many ways for instance when I first saw these tracks of the dinos I was very skeptical.
Considering that there are�according to you�no ancient sediments. If these are fossilized foot prints and all fossils come from Noah's flood then what were these people and dinosaurs doing walking around at the bottom of the ocean?

I know the Bible has some discrepancies or areas where we see contradictions, however the flood is not one of them. Its continually upheld throughout the Bible as being a literal occurrence and like I said Jesus Christ Himself said it happened. If I can't fit the evidence with the facts then thats a problem to be resolved later but I remain a scientist and a christian with many questions unanswered. Nothing unusual actually if you think about it, theres a ton of questions unanswered in all of science.

BTW, I challenge you or anyone to find anywhere in the Bible that says the flood is just a myth or didn't acutally happen.
You are correct, the Bible doesn't say it is a myth. Jesus, in the Bible, takes the Flood as a given fact.
But the Flood isn't a fact. It never happened.
Jesus and the Bible are wrong.
So what are you going to do? Your religion does not match the facts. You can still go with religion, but since you know it isn't factual that leaves you with the moral problem of having to distort the truth. Or you can go with the morally preferable Scientific Method.

variant 13

February 5, 2004, 11:50 AM

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
With regards to your comment on the atmosphere , if you reduce the size of the planet but keep the mass then you induce the gravitational constant that would cause more pressure. Currently they are doing experiments on increasing the pressure to twice the present pressure and doubling the CO2 , these are being conducted in hyperbaric chambers and this appears to cause the animals and plants to grow and thrive "BETTER" than what we see in our present condition, ,,,, the studies are ongoing. So your arguement doesn't hold there either.

I've heard of studies where they increase the levels of CO2 and the plants do indeed grow bigger and quicker, the problem is that the levels of nutrients in the plants DECREASES.

Not so fast. According to Princeton biologist Irakli Loladze, we may have overlooked a potentially devastating consequence of rising CO2 levels. It might be a boon to plants, but higher levels of the gas could trigger a pandemic of human malnutrition.

At first, this sounds nonsensical. Surely faster-growing plants can only make food more plentiful? Indeed it will, but quantity isn't the issue here. Loladze reckons we should be deeply worried about the quality of food from these plants. According to his analysis, crops that grow in high CO2 are nutritionally barren, denuded of vital micronutrients such as iron, zinc, selenium and chromium. If he's right, we're heading for a world where there's food, food everywhere, yet not a thing to eat.

Plague of plenty

New Scientist vol 176 issue 2371 - 30 November 2002, page 26
~~~

PS Who are doing the experiments you mentioned?

Sven

February 5, 2004, 11:55 AM

Biff: I generally find your posts to harsh - they tend to be unconstructive. See below.

Originally posted by Biff the unclean
Well I've been down to Glen Rose and visited Dinosaur Valley State Park, and it makes me wonder about your skills as a GI tracker. I saw the huge two toed sauropod tracks and a load of three-toed theropod tracks from animals 5-7 feet tall. And a shit load of poorly carved "human footprints" many of them vandalizing the theropod track ways. The carving of "human footprints" has been a cottage industry there, I'm told, since 1938.

As far as I understood Jim, he's been somewhere else. I already suggested that he should visit the location again and discuss the tracks with a trained geologist.

Then I would suggest that it is time for an eye exam.

See what I mean? Do you really think you can reach Jim with insults?

Considering that there are?according to you?no ancient sediments. If these are fossilized foot prints and all fossils come from Noah's flood then what were these people and dinosaurs doing walking around at the bottom of the ocean?

As far as I understand Jim, he doesn't claim that all sediments were laid down during the flood. His model is somewhat more vague, he hasn't specified up to now which strata are from the flood, which are not, and why they didn't mix.

You are correct, the Bible doesn't say it is a myth. Jesus, in the Bible, takes the Flood as a given fact.
But the Flood isn't a fact. It never happened.
Jesus and the Bible are wrong.
So what are you going to do? Your religion does not match the facts. You can still go with religion, but since you know it isn't factual that leaves you with the moral problem of having to distort the truth. Or you can go with the morally preferable Scientific Method.
Again. Do you really think that comments like this one will change anything in Jim's thinking?

Jim Larmore

February 5, 2004, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by Al Fresco
If you are going to resort to a miraculous explanation every time you are backed into a corner, we had just as well end the debate right now. Why are you pretending to be on an honest scientific quest for evidence to support the Flood? Supernatural explanations are not permitted in formulating scientific answers to any questions. If you are going to slip in the supernatual every time valid scientific explanations are missing, our efforts to deal with your claims regarding the Flood will be an exercise in futility. Because miraculous claims can explain anything, they actually explain nothing. You cannot introduce preternatural elements into your explanations and expect any legitimate scientist to take them seriously. Why not admit to yourself that you are on a religious crusade, not a scientific one?

Why not just say your only looking at the truth that can be verifiable in a lab Al? Are you going to say this is where you're going to limit your search and inquisitive wondering too? If its not falsifiable its not considered right? Ok,
Why not tell thousands each year that spontaneously go into remission from stage 4 cancer that what happened to them is a bunch of hooey. Its impossible or unlikely to have happened so you won't consider it as factual. Getting closer to actual science why not try to explain why a mass attracts another mass. What is gravity Al Fresco? We know it exists but can you really explain how or what it is that makes one mass attract another just based on its mass? We can quantify its effect on an accelerating body and observe its effects in the universe but to truely define it as a force? Without it the universe would be in a real mess I can tell you that. Speaking of gravity what about the dark matter in the universe? We see the effects of it but we can't really observe it and can't really say it exists by direct observation. What about the exact strong and weak nuclear forces Al? If they were'nt just like they are we couldn't have our periodic table of elements.

Man if your going to stay strictly scientific in everything you observe you are indeed going to be a limited person Al Fesco.

Jet Black

February 5, 2004, 12:05 PM

Sven

February 5, 2004, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
Man if your going to stay strictly scientific in everything you observe you are indeed going to be a limited person Al Fesco.

Nice ad hominen and straw man. Al Fresco simply said that one has to stay scientific when doing since, nothing more. And as long as you can not explain how one could do science if one allows God as an explanation, he will be right.

Jet Black

February 5, 2004, 12:07 PM

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
Why not just say your only looking at the truth that can be verifiable in a lab Al? Are you going to say this is where you're going to limit your search and inquisitive wondering too? If its not falsifiable its not considered right? Ok,
Why not tell thousands each year that spontaneously go into remission from stage 4 cancer that what happened to them is a bunch of hooey. Its impossible or unlikely to have happened so you won't consider it as factual. Getting closer to actual science why not try to explain why a mass attracts another mass. What is gravity Al Fresco? We know it exists but can you really explain how or what it is that makes one mass attract another just based on its mass? We can quantify its effect on an accelerating body and observe its effects in the universe but to truely define it as a force? Without it the universe would be in a real mess I can tell you that. Speaking of gravity what about the dark matter in the universe? We see the effects of it but we can't really observe it and can't really say it exists by direct observation. What about the exact strong and weak nuclear forces Al? If they were'nt just like they are we couldn't have our periodic table of elements.

Man if your going to stay strictly scientific in everything you observe you are indeed going to be a limited person Al Fesco.

I think you have run off at a bit of a tangent here.

chapka

February 5, 2004, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
I disagree with what you're saying here theres no evidence to support a shattering of the continental plates on rapid movement. We are as you know basically floating on a liquidus called magma. This substance exibits extreme lubricational characteristics , ( watch it flow in magma rivers that flow out of volcanos ) so your arguement doesn't hold there at all. Its not logical.

Yes, there is evidence. We can see the land "folding" where the continental plates have collided in the distant past. Materials science tells us that hard, brittle objects like rocks don't normally fold under pressure; they shatter. It also explains how very slow, powerful movement can cause this kind of folding of solid stone. If the plates had crashed into each other at extreme speeds such as your theory requires, speeds of several miles a year or more, they would shatter, not fold.

Remember, there is no room between the plates. As two plates overlap each other, a gap is created somewhere in the system. Right now this gap is slowly filled by, for example, magma flowing up between the two plates which have separated. If the plates move apart quickly, apart from any other problem, you're going to have enormous gaps between the plates, and thus catastrophic volcanic activity.

This is basic geology and materials science, and is built on fundamental principles of those disciplines. So yes, you have to ignore those entire fields of learning in order for your theory to hold water. Again, you can't pick and choose this way.

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
With regards to your comment on the atmosphere , if you reduce the size of the planet but keep the mass then you induce the gravitational constant that would cause more pressure. Currently they are doing experiments on increasing the pressure to twice the present pressure and doubling the CO2 , these are being conducted in hyperbaric chambers and this appears to cause the animals and plants to grow and thrive "BETTER" than what we see in our present condition, ,,,, the studies are ongoing. So your arguement doesn't hold there either.

How can you reduce the size of the planet significantly while keeping the mass constant? Removing water to the "vapor canopy" won't do it--that water has a lot of mass. "induce the gravitational constant that would cause more pressure" doesn't make any sense; what are you trying to say?

Please tell me where these studies have been performed and where they've been published. Do they apply to all animals? If not, how did those animals survive? And how did the studies account for the changes in temperature a thicker atmosphere would generate? Again, remember, you need to include ALL of physics, not pick and choose.

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
I don't mean to be matter of fact or harsh here either but if they look like human footprints they look like human footprints, This doesn't make me want to abandon what physics or chemistry teaches me. It makes me wonder how we can fit this evidence in with everything we know. It makes me wonder if we concluded incorrectly.

But if you conclude that because they look like human footprints then they must be human footprints; and if you therefore conclude that life on Earth is young, then you have to abandon almost everything we know about every scientific and academic discipline. What could still be true in archaeology or history if that were the case? What's your academic discipline--is it really compatible with a young Earth?

The answer to your question that it can't be fit in. It's not the missing puzzle piece; it explains nothing and makes many things we think we already know no longer make sense or fit together.

There may be human-like footprints there, and there may be a fascinating reason why. But the answer has to fit all the facts, including the things we know about science generally. Otherwise, it would be like reading one sentence of a detective story, making up your mind who the killer was, and then arguing your position without considering the rest of the book.

Jet Black

February 5, 2004, 12:34 PM

on the subject of folding. here is a really stunning folding picture:

http://academic.emporia.edu/aberjame/struc_geo/folds/fold07.jpg

how would one go about doing that sort of thing quickly?

Jim Larmore

February 5, 2004, 12:47 PM

Originally posted by chapka
Yes, there is evidence. We can see the land "folding" where the continental plates have collided in the distant past. Materials science tells us that hard, brittle objects like rocks don't normally fold under pressure; they shatter. It also explains how very slow, powerful movement can cause this kind of folding of solid stone. If the plates had crashed into each other at extreme speeds such as your theory requires, speeds of several miles a year or more, they would shatter, not fold.

Remember, there is no room between the plates. As two plates overlap each other, a gap is created somewhere in the system. Right now this gap is slowly filled by, for example, magma flowing up between the two plates which have separated. If the plates move apart quickly, apart from any other problem, you're going to have enormous gaps between the plates, and thus catastrophic volcanic activity.

This is basic geology and materials science, and is built on fundamental principles of those disciplines. So yes, you have to ignore those entire fields of learning in order for your theory to hold water. Again, you can't pick and choose this way.

How can you reduce the size of the planet significantly while keeping the mass constant? Removing water to the "vapor canopy" won't do it--that water has a lot of mass. "induce the gravitational constant that would cause more pressure" doesn't make any sense; what are you trying to say?

Please tell me where these studies have been performed and where they've been published. Do they apply to all animals? If not, how did those animals survive? And how did the studies account for the changes in temperature a thicker atmosphere would generate? Again, remember, you need to include ALL of physics, not pick and choose.

But if you conclude that because they look like human footprints then they must be human footprints; and if you therefore conclude that life on Earth is young, then you have to abandon almost everything we know about every scientific and academic discipline. What could still be true in archaeology or history if that were the case? What's your academic discipline--is it really compatible with a young Earth?

The answer to your question that it can't be fit in. It's not the missing puzzle piece; it explains nothing and makes many things we think we already know no longer make sense or fit together.

There may be human-like footprints there, and there may be a fascinating reason why. But the answer has to fit all the facts, including the things we know about science generally. Otherwise, it would be like reading one sentence of a detective story, making up your mind who the killer was, and then arguing your position without considering the rest of the book.

Mass has nothing to do with the volume per se' and if you do reduce the size of volume but don't reduce the mass then you do invoke a greater gravitional effect for the remaining area left. This will attract more gas molecules at or near the surface and increase the partial pressures of the atmosphere.

One experiment was done by a Dr. Mori in Japan on a cherry tomatoe plant. He exposed his plant to twice the atmospheric pressure on the main stalk of the plant, He also filtered out the UV . The tomatoe plant is now a tree of about 15 years old with baseball size cherry tomatoes on it. They had to move it into a large hotel lobby to accomodate the size of the plant. As far as other experiments I think the creation museum is conducting some hyperbaric chamber experiments with mosquitos and fruit flys.

Maybe the shattering effect your talking about would explain the tremendous evidence we see in the rocks being crushed to powder in many areas like the great mountain ranges all over the world. As far as opening up the core to H2O , its an interesting concept and I'm sure it did happen, these were very tumultous times I'm sure.

Jet Black

February 5, 2004, 12:54 PM

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
Mass has nothing to do with the volume per se' and if you do reduce the size of volume but don't reduce the mass then you do invoke a greater gravitional effect for the remaining area left. This will attract more gas molecules at or near the surface and increase the partial pressures of the atmosphere.

as I pointed out, squashing the earth into a smaller volume is well, a bit impractical. I will do some calculations and get back to you.

Duck!

February 5, 2004, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by Jet Black
as I pointed out, squashing the earth into a smaller volume is well, a bit impractical. I will do some calculations and get back to you.

I don't know about the implications, but I'm curious to know if Jim has any convincing (or even unconvincing) evidence that the earth underwent a 10% volume change a few thousand years ago.

Duck!

Biff the unclean

February 5, 2004, 12:58 PM

Sven Biff: I generally find your posts to harsh - they tend to be unconstructive. See below.
I see you feel compelled to rate the posts of other posters. Thank you for your observation, I shall give it the consideration it deserves.

As far as I understood Jim, he's been somewhere else. I already suggested that he should visit the location again and discuss the tracks with a trained geologist.
Then you misunderstand Jim. He and I are both talking about the Paluxy River just outside of Glen Rose, Texas (south of Fort Worth). I have discussed the area with trained Paleontologists, one of whom actually caught locals carving "human footprints" on several occasions. The vandalizing of this important site by Creationists is a scandal. I'm surprised you have not heard of it.

See what I mean? Do you really think you can reach Jim with insults?
Does Jim really think he can reach us by not telling the facts? I've examined the same footprints that he claims to have expertly, with his military training, observed. The reality is very different from his assertions.

As far as I understand Jim, he doesn't claim that all sediments were laid down during the flood. His model is somewhat more vague, he hasn't specified up to now which strata are from the flood, which are not, and why they didn't mix.
Then I suggest that you reread what he has written. His entire geologic column is the result of the Genesis Flood.

Again. Do you really think that comments like this one will change anything in Jim's thinking?
Yes, I do. I know it was remarks very much like this that forced me to abandon religion because I honored truth.

Jet Black

February 5, 2004, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by Duck of Death
I don't know about the implications, but I'm curious to know if Jim has any convincing (or even unconvincing) evidence that the earth underwent a 10% volume change a few thousand years ago.

Duck!

well even a 10% change in radius only increases surface gravity and pressure by 20%, and that is a pretty big change. Quite where we would get this change from though, I don't know. I suppose I could assume the charge on a proton and an electron increase enough to shrink the radius of an atom by 10% and then see what this does to things like the fine structure constant, the sun, and light. Everything would be horribly blue shifted though, and temperatures for chemical reactions would increase massively. Chemistry as we know it would break down, as would DNA, enzymes and the lot.

I love these ad hoc explanations for why the world has changed. My favourite so far is Jonathan Safarti's idea that atomic decay rates coud increase by stripping all the electrons off the atoms. That blows the earth up by the way.

Biff the unclean

February 5, 2004, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by Jet Black
I love these ad hoc explanations for why the world has changed.
So the Earth is like one of those compressed sponged in the shape of animals that you put in water and watch them grow? Is that where all the flood waters went, LOL?

chapka

February 5, 2004, 01:39 PM

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
Mass has nothing to do with the volume per se
Then tell me: how do you reduce the VOLUME of the Earth without reducing its MASS? The only possible way (by definition) would be to substantially increase the density of the materials the Earth was composed of, meaning at some point there was a catastrophic decrease in density. When and how did this happen? And what was the earth made of before, and why isn't it here now?
Originally posted by Jim Larmore
One experiment was done by a Dr. Mori in Japan on a cherry tomatoe plant.
First: where and when was this published? Was its publication reported on in the scientific press?

Second: it's a long way from "a cherry tomato plant" to "all plants and animals," especially since we know that many animals (notably many marine animals) are acutely sensitive to pressure.
Originally posted by Jim Larmore
Maybe the shattering effect your talking about would explain the tremendous evidence we see in the rocks being crushed to powder in many areas like the great mountain ranges all over the world. As far as opening up the core to H2O , its an interesting concept and I'm sure it did happen, these were very tumultous times I'm sure.

(1) The question is, how else could the rock which folded have folded? Rock is easy to crush and hard to fold, and you just can't fold it quickly. There are many ways to explain crushing rocks, but only one that we know of to explain folding them. To say that the pervasive folding we see in the strata happened quickly is to say that geology and materials science are bunk.

(2) Tumultuous? That's not the right word; try catastrophic. Imagine the release of heat that would entail. Think boiling seas and mass extinctions. More importantly, we can see where the plates separated, and they show no signs of such catastrophic action. They show signs of many millenia of gradual deposition. Add topology to the list of fields you're forced to ignore if you accept a global flood.

Jet Black

February 5, 2004, 01:49 PM

a massive increase in pressure would be catastrophic for bats. the increase in air pressure would increase the speed of sound, and bats would never catch anything. same goes for any other echo locators. Countless airborne species would just drop out of the sky - remember the gravity increases massively too, so the amount of work to be done in order to stay in the air also increases, even taking air pressure into account.

Jim Larmore

February 5, 2004, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by Duck of Death
I don't know about the implications, but I'm curious to know if Jim has any convincing (or even unconvincing) evidence that the earth underwent a 10% volume change a few thousand years ago.

Duck!

This is pure speculation guys , theres no hard core evidence. I simply said if you will re-read what I said .
Its part of a MODEL that has been proposed by some creationist to explain some things about the world before the flood. One of these is a larger biota in the past plant and animal wise. Another of the issues was the small rig cages found on some of the predatory dinos like the T.Rex and acanthrasaurus. Analysis of geo-gases show an increase in the pressures over what we see today. I believe they also found higher pressures in some amber too. Anyway, the size of the rib cage indicated a less than efficient O2 supplier for such a large animal without higher partial pressures to saturate the blood plasma etc.

This model could feasibly explain these higher partial pressures.

Another aspect of the smaller globe is if you take the volume of water we see on our surface and put it under the crust or at least between the granite and the surface in a uniform layer all over the earth it would make sense then that it would have a shrinking effect on the surface. When these waters came up with extreme force it would bulge the planet and cause the rotational change and tilt back and forth like we see today. These are all hypothetical models only.

Evidence ? Naw, don't have it.

Jet Black

February 5, 2004, 02:03 PM

hey jim, do you need telling 5 or 6 times that a 10% compression of the earth is physically impossible?

chapka

February 5, 2004, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
Analysis of geo-gases show an increase in the pressures over what we see today. I believe they also found higher pressures in some amber too.
I don't know what "analysis of geo-gases" means, but assuming you're talking about evidence of the traces of the atmosphere on rock or in amber, the dating of any such finds would involve the same procedures that show that life on earth is millions of years old. If you want to use that evidence to show anything, you also have to accept its inevitable conclusion that life on earth is millions of years old.

This is what I mean when I say that you can't pick and choose.

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
Another aspect of the smaller globe is if you take the volume of water we see on our surface and put it under the crust or at least between the granite and the surface in a uniform layer all over the earth it would make sense then that it would have a shrinking effect on the surface.

Only if the Earth were hollow to start with. Otherwise, if you put a layer of water underneath the land, it will displace the land and the volume will stay the same. Hint: there's already something under the crust and between the granite and the surface.

Duck!

February 5, 2004, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
Another aspect of the smaller globe is if you take the volume of water we see on our surface and put it under the crust or at least between the granite and the surface in a uniform layer all over the earth it would make sense then that it would have a shrinking effect on the surface. When these waters came up with extreme force it would bulge the planet and cause the rotational change and tilt back and forth like we see today. These are all hypothetical models only.

I would have thought that there's nowhere near enough water on the earth to effect a 10% change in it's volume. And I'd be interested to see what the more scientifically educated have to say about the feasibility of having a layer of water under the surface of the earth, that is to say the surface was floating on water.

I'm interested to know why you put such great stock in something that you effectively admit is a series of ad-hoc speculative explanations with on evidence to back them up.

Duck!

Jim Larmore

February 5, 2004, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by Duck of Death
I would have thought that there's nowhere near enough water on the earth to effect a 10% change in it's volume. And I'd be interested to see what the more scientifically educated have to say about the feasibility of having a layer of water under the surface of the earth, that is to say the surface was floating on water.

I'm interested to know why you put such great stock in something that you effectively admit is a series of ad-hoc speculative explanations with on evidence to back them up.

Duck!

We're already floating on a liquidus called magma and there is water saturating nearly all the rocks under us. I have some oil and gas wells here in Oklahoma. When we drill down we don't have to go very far at all before we hit water laden rocks. As a matter of fact the liquids found in the rocks are integral in helping to suspend or support the surface. Ever hear of sink holes caused by the removal of oil and water in oil country? Ekofisk( ms ) a large drilling/ production platform in the north sea off the coast of Norway had to have a major retrofit done because of the ocean floor receding away due to the removal of massive amounts of oil and water from the rocks underneath. California is plagued with sink holes in oil country.

Scientist make models all the time to help describe what may have happened to cause or explain an existing observable condition or fact. The big bang is a model to describe the beginning of the universe. Molecular models help us explain how chemical reactions occurr. You don't necessarily have to have defineable evidence to have faith in a particular model.

Jet Black

February 5, 2004, 03:36 PM

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
[B]We're already floating on a liquidus called magma and there is water saturating nearly all the rocks under us. I have some oil and gas wells here in Oklahoma. When we drill down we don't have to go very far at all before we hit water laden rocks. As a matter of fact the liquids found in the rocks are integral in helping to suspend or support the surface. Ever hear of sink holes caused by the removal of oil and water in oil country? Ekofisk( ms ) a large drilling/ production platform in the north sea off the coast of Norway had to have a major retrofit done because of the ocean floor receding away due to the removal of massive amounts of oil and water from the rocks underneath. California is plagued with sink holes in oil country.

I would wait for the geologists on this one, but I think that saturating is a bit of a stretch: furthermore, enough water to count for a 10% increase in volume is ALOT of water. It would also reduce the mass of the earth if the water were elsewhere, reducing the air pressure, and reducing the gravity, hence the 10% thing being water actually becomes rather useless, since it reduces everything that you are trying to increase. If you try putting water in the canopy, this doesn't work either. For simplicity, assume that the earth is surrounded by a spherical shell of water, with the centre of the shell incident on the centre of the earth, one might naiively assume that we would feel the gravity pulling us down from both the earth under us, and the water round us. However in assuming this we have forgotten the inverse square law, and in applying this we find actually that the gravitational elements of the shell all cancel one another out - we only feel the gravity from things in the sphere described by all points equal to, or less than our radius from the centre of the earth.

Jim Larmore

February 5, 2004, 03:40 PM

Originally posted by Biff the unclean
As far as I understand Jim, he doesn't claim that all sediments were laid down during the flood. His model is somewhat more vague, he hasn't specified up to now which strata are from the flood, which are not, and why they didn't mix.
Then I suggest that you reread what he has written. His entire geologic column is the result of the Genesis Flood.

Again. Do you really think that comments like this one will change anything in Jim's thinking?
Yes, I do. I know it was remarks very much like this that forced me to abandon religion because I honored truth.

Biff ,
I have never claimed nor said the entire geological column was a result of the flood. This wouldn't make sense based on the hydrology over time and since the flood.

BTW, which exact trails are you referring to as being carved in the paluxy river? I knew of one in particular that was done back in the thirties when they first found some human tracks. The locals started to do this to increase the fame of the area and promote tourism. However the ones I've seen are not carved you can tell the carved ones , its pretty obvious. Give some names, all of these trails are named.

Sven,
I appreciate you responding the way you did but I'm kinda used to being treated like this on this forum.

Al Fresco

February 5, 2004, 03:41 PM

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
Why not just say your only looking at the truth that can be verifiable in a lab Al?

When did I ever say that scientific theories can only be verified in a lab? Why not just say that you are attempting to rewrite the tenets of the scientific method so that it will accommodate your supernatural presuppositions?

If its not falsifiable its not considered right?

All I was saying was that, if a hypothesis is not falsifiable, it is not scientific. Those like yourself who are giving non-falsifiable, miraculous explanations for observed phenomena are not practicing science.
You can invoke miracles all you want, but they won't cut the mustard as far as legitimate science is concerned. If you want to play the game of science, you must play by the rules.

Why not tell thousands each year that spontaneously go into remission from stage 4 cancer that what happened to them is a bunch of hooey. Its impossible or unlikely to have happened so you won't consider it as factual.

Of course I consider true remissions to be factual. Why do you automatically rule out natural explanations for such things? Is it impossible for the imune system to be responsible for naturally mediated remissions?

How many of these patients in remission eventually experience a recurrence of their cancer and die from it? From my understanding of the situation, such outcomes are often the norm rather than the exception. What supernatural entity is responsible for that state of affairs?

Getting closer to actual science why not try to explain why a mass attracts another mass. What is gravity Al Fresco? We know it exists but can you really explain how or what it is that makes one mass attract another just based on its mass?

Perhaps we cannot explain it in precise detail now, but science has a history of eventually answering such questions. The scientific method has only been practiced in earnest for the last 200 years or so. Do you really think that it should have answered all such questions by now? You are walking on thin ice using your God of the Gaps approach to such questions. Science also has a history of developing working solutions that do not depend on explanations that were once attributed exclusively to the gods.

What about the exact strong and weak nuclear forces Al? If they were'nt just like they are we couldn't have our periodic table of elements.

What does this fine-tuning argument have to do with the fact that science is restricted to the use of naturalistic explanations. This line of argumentation is religious in nature, not scientific. Science does not deal with the philosophical question of why things are the way they are. It deals with how things operate in nature.

Man if your going to stay strictly scientific in everything you observe you are indeed going to be a limited person Al Fesco.

I do not "stay strictly scientific in everything" I observe. I do not approach such things as great art and music from a strictly scientific standpoint. I appreciate them for their aesthetic and emotional values. However, when I deal with scientific matters, I attempt as best I can to adhere to the rules for doing science. You seem to be having a great deal of difficulty distinguishing between these two areas of human experience.

Jet Black

February 5, 2004, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by Jim Larmore

BTW, which exact trails are you referring to as being carved in the paluxy river? I knew of one in particular that was done back in the thirties when they first found some human tracks. The locals started to do this to increase the fame of the area and promote tourism. However the ones I've seen are not carved you can tell the carved ones , its pretty obvious. Give some names, all of these trails are named.

there is quite an extensive going over on talkorigins

lpetrich

February 5, 2004, 04:04 PM

Jim Larmore:
I'm still hoping to find some evidence of their existence. If you destroy the flood legend you destroy much of what makes my faith real. Jesus Christ Himself mentioned it.

However, Jesus Christ liked to talk in parables, and he may have regarded the story of Noah's Flood in that light. So don't be too literal-minded. Jesus Christ called his followers "the salt of the earth"; did he mean that they'd get turned into pillars of salt in the fashion of Lot's wife?

We just had an example a few years ago with the discovery of the positron. This particle was predicted mathematically but wasn't confirmed until we did some exotic work with super colliders etc. As our knowledge base expands we must rethink and re-analyze things.

The positron itself was discovered in 1932; it's an anti-electron, a sort of mirror image of an electron. Jim Larmore, are you sure that you are not mixing it up with some more recent elementary-particle discovery?

Well, if you believe in the "super-natural" you would understand that the abilitys of a super-natual being would be beyond our comprehension. (on how Jesus Christ could have supernaturally seen all the kingdoms of the world...)

If we are talking supernatural powers here, why does one need to be on a mountaintop?

Also, that Peleg phrase may refer to the land being marked out as having different owners for different parts of it.

Why not tell thousands each year that spontaneously go into remission from stage 4 cancer that what happened to them is a bunch of hooey.

But whatever causes such remission must not be a very efficient mechanism, because there are millions of people each year who do not experience such remission.

What about the exact strong and weak nuclear forces Al? If they were'nt just like they are we couldn't have our periodic table of elements.

The old fine-tuning argument. However, the Periodic Table of Elements is mostly a result of the properties of electrons, and they are described by a simple equation, the Dirac Equation. Their interactions with each other and with the nucleus can be described by Maxwell's Equations. Most details of nuclei are unimportant for atomic structure; only their masses and electric charges are important.

And are the elements really "fine-tuned"? Many of them are metals, and some of them have very similar physical and chemical properties, notably the Rare Earths.

... One of these is a larger biota in the past plant and animal wise. Another of the issues was the small rig cages found on some of the predatory dinos like the T.Rex and acanthrasaurus.

WHAT "small rib cages"? Jim Larmore, why do you insist on uncritically repeating things from the creationist literature?

Analysis of geo-gases show an increase in the pressures over what we see today. I believe they also found higher pressures in some amber too.

Details, please. And most amber is Cenozoic or late Mesozoic; the farther back one goes, the rarer amber gets. The Earth's past was not all alike; there are gigantic differences between the Archean and the Pleistocene.

Jet Black

February 5, 2004, 04:16 PM

Originally posted by lpetrich

But whatever causes such remission must not be a very efficient mechanism, because there are millions of people each year who do not experience such remission.

Just to be a real pedant, the mechanism may be very efficient indeed, however it might result from certain genes which are relatively rare in the population as a result of them not being selected for. The majority of cancer patients only get cancer after breeding age, and hence they will only pass on their not-good-at-fighting-cancer allele, so it is not likely to be a phenotypical effect of this gene with any strong selection pressure on it.

Jim Larmore

February 5, 2004, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by chapka
Then tell me: how do you reduce the VOLUME of the Earth without reducing its MASS? The only possible way (by definition) would be to substantially increase the density of the materials the Earth was composed of, meaning at some point there was a catastrophic decrease in density. When and how did this happen? And what was the earth made of before, and why isn't it here now?

(1) The question is, how else could the rock which folded have folded? Rock is easy to crush and hard to fold, and you just can't fold it quickly. There are many ways to explain crushing rocks, but only one that we know of to explain folding them. To say that the pervasive folding we see in the strata happened quickly is to say that geology and materials science are bunk.

Not necessarily:
Have you ever looked at lava flows? When lava gets to a semi-solid state it can do all sorts of things like fold and curve around to make some pretty fantastic looking designs etc. The folding of the rocks Jet showed may be the result of rocks that were at one point at an extremely high temperature and were folded into the shape they have taken because of the increase in elasticity due to the increased temperature. I don't know this to be the case but it could explain some of what is seen in this folding. Lets face it all of our rocks at one point or another were in the liquid molten state.

As far as the model for the earth being 10% less volume wise, Its a model, I'm not saying I buy into it. I was just reporting what I had read. You can come up with all sorts of models when you play around with the math. I don't necessarily agree with Jet on his conclusions about the bats etc. I'd have to evaluate it a little more. Life does exist in a very narrow window of opportunity here on earth thats sure and its one of the reasons life's fortuitous existence is very unlikely to me. Especially for it to exist in the state we enjoy.

I mean to me if it had really just been an accident of natural elements then why did it evolve into intelligent life? I don't want to open this can of worms again but why isn't life just bacteria or similar life forms? They are the most successful life forms on earth inhabiting all of the available niches. Then there is the whole complexity issue too, but this is off topic.

Stew

February 5, 2004, 04:20 PM

Some numbers for the back of our envelopes...

Earth's diameter 1.27 ee07 m

Earth's area 5.1 ee14 m*m

Earth's volume 1.1 ee21 m*m*m

thickness of the earth's crust

Continental 40 km
Oceanic 7 km
(rough average) 20 km

volume of the earth's crust 1.02 ee19 m*m*m

.

Jet Black

February 5, 2004, 04:23 PM

Originally posted by Jim Larmore

As far as the model for the earth being 10% less volume wise, Its a model, I'm not saying I buy into it. I was just reporting what I had read. You can come up with all sorts of models when you play around with the math. I don't necessarily agree with Jet on his conclusions about the bats etc. I'd have to evaluate it a little more. Life does exist in a very narrow window of opportunity here on earth thats sure and its one of the reasons life's fortuitous existence is very unlikely to me. Especially for it to exist in the state we enjoy.

I am pleased you don't buy into it. I strongly suggest that you don't. You might not agree with me about the bats, but it is true. sometimes they fly into caves where there is an excess of swamp gas, and they get confused and run into walls because the speed of sound changes.

Biff the unclean

February 5, 2004, 04:31 PM

I have never claimed nor said the entire geological column was a result of the flood. This wouldn't make sense based on the hydrology over time and since the flood.
Please make up your mind. Either the Earth is old and these layers show it's age, or it is not and they are from Gilgamesh's Flood. Are the fossils in different layers because of the epoch they lived in or because of how long they were able to tread water?
Since there are no layers that lack track ways since animals first came on land I have no way of knowing which layer or multiple layers are the ones you are talking about. I haven't even figured out how there was a Cambrian explosion on a 6000 year old Earth.
BTW, which exact trails are you referring to as being carved in the paluxy river? I knew of one in particular that was done back in the thirties when they first found some human tracks. The locals started to do this to increase the fame of the area and promote tourism. However the ones I've seen are not carved you can tell the carved ones, its pretty obvious. Give some names, all of these trails are named.
Nice try, you'll admit that some are frauds but pretend that there are real ones too. And count on my not remembering the trail names. All of the trails with "human" footprints are fake. Those humans with the 25 inch long three toed feet are theropods not giant Texans.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html

Jim Larmore

February 5, 2004, 04:40 PM

Originally posted by Al Fresco

Perhaps we cannot explain it in precise detail now, but science has a history of eventually answering such questions. The scientific method has only been practiced in earnest for the last 200 years or so. Do you really think that it should have answered all such questions by now? You are walking on thin ice using your God of the Gaps approach to such questions. Science also has a history of developing working solutions that do not depend on explanations that were once attributed exclusively to the gods.

What does this fine-tuning argument have to do with the fact that science is restricted to the use of naturalistic explanations. This line of argumentation is religious in nature, not scientific. Science does not deal with the philosophical question of why things are the way they are. It deals with how things operate in nature.
I do not "stay strictly scientific in everything" I observe. I do not approach such things as great art and music from a strictly scientific standpoint. I appreciate them for their aesthetic and emotional values. However, when I deal with scientific matters, I attempt as best I can to adhere to the rules for doing science. You seem to be having a great deal of difficulty distinguishing between these two areas of human experience.

You can't just say you can separate science and other things in life that way. Science is a way of describing all of the universe is it not? I was trying to show that theres a ton of things we can't now and may never be able to qauntify/define or other wise scientifically explain.

Theres not anthing that can not be approached from a scientific bases however you can't say just because I may involve the metaphysical in explaining something that it isn't valid scientifically. If it has a physical manefestation then its approachable scientifically. We may not be able to use the scientific methods to test it or falsify it but that doesn't mean it not real or valid. Its kinda like the bumble bee not supposed to be able to fly but the bee doesn't know this yet so it flys anyway. (Makes some pretty bad landings at times:) ).

Have you ever read any studies done on patients in hospitals who got prayed for and those who didn't? They actually have studies that show patients who got prayed for did better than those who didn't. Their recovery rate was better etc. Scientific ? Yeah. Testable ? Yeah.Explanable? ?????? If God created the world and the universe and I believe He did, He is the biggest scientist in the universe.

Biff the unclean

February 5, 2004, 04:48 PM

Jim when you explain why scientists don't know things--cannot know things-- you are also explaining why you do not know these very things. Beyond the physical is not the metaphysical. Beyond the physical is the fictional.

Jim Larmore

February 5, 2004, 04:51 PM

Originally posted by Biff the unclean

[b] BTW, which exact trails are you referring to as being carved in the paluxy river? I knew of one in particular that was done back in the thirties when they first found some human tracks. The locals started to do this to increase the fame of the area and promote tourism. However the ones I've seen are not carved you can tell the carved ones, its pretty obvious. Give some names, all of these trails are named.
Nice try, you'll admit that some are frauds but pretend that there are real ones too. And count on my not remembering the trail names. All of the trails with "human" footprints are fake. Those humans with the 25 inch long three toed feet are theropods not giant Texans.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html

Biff ,
Do you live down there in Texas? Maybe we could get together over the summer and do some exploring. How about it? I'd like to show you what I'm talking about. I have no reason to trumpet this thing here on this forum for a splash in the pan post. I really have seen them and its obvious which ones are fake and which ones aren't. Have you seen the ones they did a cross sectional cut on and seen the lamination lines in the compressional areas under the prints?

Jim Larmore

February 5, 2004, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by Biff the unclean
Jim when you explain why scientists don't know things--cannot know things-- you are also explaining why you do not know these very things. Beyond the physical is not the metaphysical. Beyond the physical is the fictional.

I'm not talking about beyond the physical per se' but God does exist beyond the physical and I don't believe Hes fictional. I'll admitt to not knowing a lot of things. Heck, as a matter of fact theres more I don't know than what I do know. However , just because I can't test it or quanitfy it doesn't mean its fictional or nonexistent.

Ever study quantum physics? Paralell universes/ dimensions etc?

Asha'man

February 5, 2004, 05:11 PM

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
Have you ever read any studies done on patients in hospitals who got prayed for and those who didn't? They actually have studies that show patients who got prayed for did better than those who didn't. Their recovery rate was better etc. Scientific ? Yeah. Testable ? Yeah.Explanable? ??????

Yea, I've looked at these studies, and they conclusively say "no detectable difference." Prayer produces no measurable difference in the health or recovery of hospital patients. Whatever website you grabbed that claim from was lying, or citing a faulty study. Since you have failed to cite any references, I'm not going to cite any back.

Biff the unclean

February 5, 2004, 05:20 PM

Biff ,Do you live down there in Texas? Maybe we could get together over the summer and do some exploring.
Sorry, I'm in California south of San Francisco

I really have seen them and its obvious which ones are fake and which ones aren't. Have you seen the ones they did a cross sectional cut on and seen the lamination lines in the compressional areas under the prints?
I really have seen them too and it is obvious that they are all fakes. Ask yourself this; if there were real ones sitting right there why would anyone go to all the trouble of making the fakes?
And I have seen the cross sections of the vandalized theropod foot prints.

I'm not talking about beyond the physical per se' but God does exist beyond the physical and I don't believe Hes fictional.
Except you weren't talking about "believing" you were talking about knowing.

I'll admitt to not knowing a lot of things. Heck, as a matter of fact theres more I don't know than what I do know. However , just because I can't test it or quanitfy it doesn't mean its fictional or nonexistent.
But you can test it. You can compare it to fiction and myth. You can see if there is anything happening in the stories you believe in that only occurs in fiction and myth
But if you cannot know that something is true, believing it to be true becomes mere self deception. How does that serve you?

Ever study quantum physics? Paralell universes/ dimensions etc?
Ever study Gilgamesh or Deucalion? http://www.pantheon.org/areas/mythology/europe/greek/articles.html

Al Fresco

February 5, 2004, 07:33 PM

You can't just say you can separate science and other things in life that way. Science is a way of describing all of the universe is it not? I was trying to show that theres a ton of things we can't now and may never be able to qauntify/define or other wise scientifically explain.
Science is a way of describing the natural universe. There is no a priori reason to think that there is any natural phenomenon that will forever remain unexplained by science. It may turn out that there are some natural phenomena that will defy scientific explanation, but there is no a priori reason believe that will be the case.
We may not be able to use the scientific methods to test it or falsify it but that doesn't mean it not real or valid.
That does, however, mean that it falls oustide the scientific purview. If you want to offer a supernatural explanation for some phenomenon or another, you are free to do so. But you will not be offering a scientific explanation.
Have you ever read any studies done on patients in hospitals who got prayed for and those who didn't? They actually have studies that show patients who got prayed for did better than those who didn't. Their recovery rate was better etc. Scientific ? Yeah. Testable ? Yeah.Explanable? ??????
I am not aware of any such studies that have stood up under rigorous scientific scrutiny. Perhpas you could give some citations to document your claim.

Sven

February 6, 2004, 03:26 AM

Originally posted by Biff the unclean
Then you misunderstand Jim. He and I are both talking about the Paluxy River just outside of Glen Rose, Texas (south of Fort Worth).

Sorry, but I think I misunderstood you. I knew Jim was talking abut the Paluxy River, but you didn't mention it spedifically. I should have researched this better before posting this.

I have discussed the area with trained Paleontologists, one of whom actually caught locals carving "human footprints" on several occasions. The vandalizing of this important site by Creationists is a scandal. I'm surprised you have not heard of it.

Long ago I read the articles at the TO-archive. Apparently I forgot some things...?

Does Jim really think he can reach us by not telling the facts? I've examined the same footprints that he claims to have expertly, with his military training, observed. The reality is very different from his assertions.

I think for Jim these things are facts. He simply isn't able (up to now?) to see the world without his "goddit-glasses". But I also think further discussion and education could help him, because he seems to be looking for answers honestly (at least sometimes when he isn't busy dodging questions or making unsupported claims).

Then I suggest that you reread what he has written. His entire geologic column is the result of the Genesis Flood.

Could you (or anyone else) please point me to the post in which Jim says so? Either I've missed it or Biff's memory is faulty.

Yes, I do. I know it was remarks very much like this that forced me to abandon religion because I honored truth.
This worked for you, OK. But not everyone is like you and I think generally others should be treated with more respect.

Edited to add: It's Biff's memory which is faulty - Jim himself corrected him.