LittlePig wrote:
And I can't think of any reason you would make the comment you made if you weren't suggesting that the find favored your view of a worldwide flood.
Umm, because simply it's a better explanation? And the fact that it's more consistent with the Flood Model doesn't hurt either.
Except, of course, it isn't consistent with a 'Flood Model', since it isn't mixed in with any animals that we know are modern.
Before the rabbits multiply beyond control, I'll just leave my proposal as a rapid burial. Nothing more than that. For this thread, it can just be a giant mud slide.
Since it's still spring time, let's let the rabbits multiply.
Questions for Debate:
1) Does a Global Flood Model provide the best explanation for our current fossil record, geologic formations, and biodiversity?
2) What real science is used in Global Flood Models?
3) What predictions does a Global Flood Model make?
4) Have Global Flood Models ever been subjected to a formal peer review process?
"Well thanks a lot, Plato." - James ''Sawyer'' Ford
"Don''t flip ya lid." - Ricky Rankin
______________
Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.
I sighted 3 that is right 3 different instances in which genetic entropy caused the deaths of the colony in which they live.
And yet you say that there is a population threshold that needs to be met. According to you and the stories that you are trying pass off as science. Evolution would not be able to have just one lucky mutation they would have to have many lucky mutations. From you comments you believe that genetic mutation happens, you just believe also that they will be selected out of the populations. From all of the actual experiments done on this all turn out the same way. The colony eventually dies.
An interesting experiment would be to have a colony and take out the genetic mutated specimens and
The physical evidence of a great flood cannot be denied, the only question remaining is whether it was the “biblical� flood or not.
In my view of things
(:-
The physical evidence of a great flood cannot be denied...
Define "great flood." There is certainly evidence of massive floods in the past at various points around the globe. But there is no evidence for the biblical Noah's flood as that is described in the bible ... ie. a complete covering of the entire earth with water of sufficient volume to have exceeded the height of the tallest mountain.
When you consider the date that this supposedly occurred (a measly 4,300 years ago, or so), then it is even less supported by evidence and in fact completely disproven from almost every angle of analysis (archeology, geology, distributions of plants and animals, genetics, anthropology, dendrochronology, etc.). It did not happen as described in Genesis.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win. John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read. Mark Twain
DrNoGods wrote:
Define "great flood." There is certainly evidence of massive floods in the past at various points around the globe. But there is no evidence for the biblical Noah's flood as that is described in the bible ... When you consider the date that this supposedly occurred (a measly 4,300 years ago, or so), then it is even less supported by evidence and in fact completely disproven from almost every angle of analysis (archeology, geology, distributions of plants and animals, genetics, anthropology, dendrochronology, etc.). It did not happen as described in Genesis.
There are a few things you must remember about the righting describing the great flood.
[1] The people at the time didn't even know the earth was round.
[2] You must keep in mind that the persons who wrote these passages were written to and for the human population at the time it was written. Genesis was written in the middle of the 5th century BC.; Columbus sailed to the new world in 1492 AC. The difference between the two is 2,518 years.
[3] You yourself stated that there have been great floods.
In Abrahamic religions, Noah[a] (/ˈnoʊ.ə/ NOH-ə)[1][2] was the tenth and last of the pre-Flood Patriarchs. The story of Noah's Ark is told in the Bible's Genesis flood narrative. The biblical account is followed by the story of the Curse of Ham.
In addition to the Book of Genesis, Noah is mentioned in the Old Testament in the First Book of Chronicles, and the books of Tobit, Wisdom, Sirach, Isaiah, Ezekiel, 2 Esdras, 4 Maccabees; in the New Testament, he is mentioned in the gospels of Matthew, and Luke, the Epistle to the Hebrews, 1st Peter and 2nd Peter. Noah was the subject of much elaboration in the literature of later Abrahamic religions, including the Quran (Surahs 71, 7, 1, and 21).
Genesis
7 The LORD then said to Noah, “Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation.
17 For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth.
24 The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days.
If it did indeed rain for 140 days what the locals saw was a “great flood�.
I am sure the righters used analogies and metaphors to describe this event, but this does not prove the even didn’t happen.
h goodness is the hydro-plate theory one of the most ridiculous things ever proposed by a creationist, ever. For those that don't know, Walt Brown proposed that for some reason the "fountains of the deep" broke open, which caused the mid-Atlantic ridge to form and pushed the continents to accelerate to highways speeds, because they fell down a hill. Here's his explanation,
Obviously something the size of North America moving at highway speeds is going to require a lot of energy. NA, is pretty darn big, and pretty darn heavy. I roughly figured it out, I figured the crust is some 150 km deep, which would give me a volume of ~3,000,000,000 km^3. I assumed it made entirely of Feldspar, which has a density of 2,500,000,000,000 kg/km^3. My rough math has NA weighing in at 7 *10^21 kg... that's a big number. Let's write it out just to see how big it is.
7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg
That sure is a pretty big number. Although I think this guy that likes to sit in a chair has the wrong body part in the chair, when considering his rough estimate for the crust of 150 km deep. This estimate is only off by a factor of 3. The depth of the Earth’s crust is actually between 30 to 50 km on the continents and 5 to 10 km in the ocean. Walt theory places the waters of the great deep between the mantle and the crust. But I will go with this guy “who sits on the wrong body part� numbers.
The continents are made of granite, which does have feldspar a couple of types of feldspar in it, but it also has quartz, hornblende and mica which gives granite is characteristic look. Granite and basalt does have a similar density. Granite has a density of 2.75 grams per cubic centimeter and feldspar has a density of 2.62 grams per cubic centimeter but it can go up to 2.75. I can go with the 2.5 x 1012 kg / km3 density along with the calculated mass of 7 x 1021 kg.
Well since we know that the entire thing is moving at 20 m/s we can figure out the kinetic energy it has. That would be the energy needed to both start and stop the entire continent to highway speeds (that needs to be said again to highlight just how absurd this is)
KE = 0.5 × mass × velocity^2 or KE = 0.5 (7*10^21)(202)
The answer is, 1.4 *10^24 J. That again is a really, huge, bigly, number. And that's just the Kinetic energy it has, it doesn't include the energy needed to accelerate it, friction, wind resistance (!?!?) etc.
1.4 * 10^24 Joules of energy can boil every last drop of water on the entire planet, 100 times over
That sure is a lot of energy. But would all of this energy be turn into heat energy? Where did the energy come from the make the mountains like the Rocky Mountains that stretch most of the length of North America. What was the energy needed to raise the Colorado plateau. A car traveling 200 kilometers per hour and crashes into a wall does not melt because of all the energy that is created in a collision is not changed to heat energy. The kinetic energy is changed in to a force that deforms the car. Some heat energy is produced with the friction between the tires and the road but most of the energy is changed into mechanical energy which crushes the car. Why would we expect a different outcome when geological processes are being examined?
Physicist in a simple calculation can calculate the force that would be created by using a quantity called impulse. The equation for impulse is Ft = dmv. Notice in this equation how Force and time are inversely related. Impulse also describes how a car traveling at 200 km/hour can stop safely. The force needed to stop the car is greatly reduced if the force is applied over a longer period of time.
Walt’s explanation of how the plates were accelerated is the same explanation used to explain plate movement today. The terms that geologist use today are called ridge push and slab pull. The difference is the coefficient of friction of the material that the plate has to slide over. Plate Tectonics today say that the plates slide over the surface of the mantle. Where as the hydroplate theory describes the motion of the plates over a layer water in the critical state.
A water layer in the Earth anywhere from 5 to 50 kilometers would be in a critical states. Water becomes a supercritical fluid at a pressure of 22 Mpa and a temperature of 647K.
The properties of supercritical water are very different from ambient liquid water. For example, supercritical water is a poor solvent for electrolytes, which tend to form ion-pairs. However, it is such an excellent solvent for non-polar molecules, due to its low relative permittivity (dielectric constant) and poor hydrogen-bonding, that many are completely miscible. Viscosity and dielectric both decrease substantially whereas auto-dissociation increases substantially. The physical properties of water close to the critical point (near-critical) are particularly strongly affected by density. Extreme density fluctuations, around the critical point, causes opalescent turbidity. Neutron diffraction has shown that tetrahedral liquid-like states are seen within the supercritical water at above a threshold density, while below this threshold density gas-like water forms small, trigonal, sheet-like configurations
M. A. Anisimov, J. V. Sengers and J. M. H. Levelt Sengers, Near-critical behavior of aqueous systems, in Aqueous systems at elevated temperatures and pressures: Physical chemistry in water, steam and hydrothermal solutions, ed. D. A. Palmer, R. Fernández-Prini and A. H. Harvey (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2004) pp. 29-71.
Viscosity decreases greatly in a supercritical water. This would allow the plate to slide because of the low coefficient of friction constant that can be as low as 0.01, but even if the coefficient constant was 0.05 and at a modest angle of 5 degrees it would the slab would still move.
The mid-ocean ridge rises 2500 meters above the ocean floor and it is 1500 meters wide. This means that the angle from the center of the ridge to ocean floor would be 73.3 degrees. Using the 5 degrees as previously mentioned. This would mean that the force down the incline would be given by the following equation. Fd = Fw sin o. Fd = 6.1 x 1021 N. Force normal or force into the plane would be given by the equation Fn = Fw cos o. Fn = 6.97 x 1022. Using 0.05 as the coefficient of friction would give a frictional force of 3.5 x 1021N. This means that there would be 2.16 x 1021 N to accelerate the plate. Using the mass the mass of the plate as given in the chair guy’s description and the equation F=ma means the plate would accelerate at 0.37 m/s2. Using the acceleration equation a=dv/t means the plate would reach a speed of 20 m/s in 54 seconds.
This movement would also not produce any frictional heat. Because when the wall temperature would have been equal to the bulk temperature the term ( µw µb ) becomes 1 and the friction factor becomes isothermal. In isothermal flow, there is no significant temperature variation in the fluid being pumped. https://d1rkab7tlqy5f1.cloudfront.net/T ... Iersel.pdf https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/en ... ermal-flow
So the movement of the plate across the supercritical water would not cause an increase in the temperature of the water or the plate.
All of this happened... because North America fell down a hill! Of course God decided that he liked Iceland and spared it from ripping in 2 even though the mid-Atlantic ridge runs right through it. http://c8.alamy.com/comp/B1TYJK/mid-atl ... lir-nation... How does Walt Brown explain this catastrophic event throwing entire continents around like rag dolls in one area, and in the next making a nice hiking trail? He doesn't.
Not quit sure what this guy in his chair is talking about but he obviously does not know modern plate tectonics. Iceland was produce by the upwelling magma at the mid-ocean ridge. Iceland was created by the mid-ocean ridge like the island of Surtsey in the 1950’s
There's just so much else wrong with this it becomes an exercise in calculating the absurd. Using an asteroid impact calculator tool, I get even more crazy effects of an North American sized asteroid hitting the earth at 20m/s. Like a magnitude 11.5 earthquake on the exact opposite side of the earth. A shock-wave traveling at 300 km/h on the opposite side of the earth (yes the shock wave will circle the earth, several times in fact) a 1500 ft Tsunami.
Ok now let’s examine how the plates would stop.
The difference between the tectonic plates stopping and an asteroid impact is the length of time in the process of stopping and the where the energy is dispersed. When an asteroid impacts the Earth, the time that it takes for the asteroid to stop is very short. This short time means the force that is require to stop the asteroid is very high. It is this force that causes all of the damage that we see in an asteroid impact. All of the force is transferred to the crust of the Earth at a single point.
This is not the case with the tectonic plates in Walt Brown’s theory.
The Rocky mountains is a mountain chain that is 4400 m high and 110-480 km wide and 4800 km long and they are made mostly of granite. Conventional plate tectonics says, these mountains were made by two continental plates colliding together and forcing not only the Rocky Mountains, but also the Colorado plateau into the air. The energy for this deformation was provided by the convection currents in the mantle. How much force would it take to compress this much granite
Granite has a compressive strength of 1.31 x 108 pa. Pascal is a derived unit using meters so to use Pascal’s all of our measurements must be in meters. To compress 4.8 x 106 meters to a height of 4400 m would mean it would have to compress 2.11 x 1010 m2 of granite a distance of around 2 x 105 meters. This would require a force of 5.5 x 1023 N. Using the impulse equation Ft = dmv, the force needed to stop the plate would be Ft = 1.40 x 1023. The force needed to stop the plate depends on how fast the plate stopped. So the compression of the plates alone would be enough to stop the plates from moving.
An interesting observation is tectonic plates found in the mantle. These plates were found because they were cooler regions than that of the surrounding mantle material at the core mantle boundary. If plates have been subducting for millions of years why would you have these cooler regions the core mantle boundary under trenches. Thermal equilibrium should have been reached long ago if it took millions of years for these plates to move through the mantle. R.S. Coe and M. Prevot in 1989 in an article written in Earth and Planetary Science letters suggested how plates can subduct quickly given the correct shear forces and pressures. They went on to suggest that this rapid subduction happen during geomagnetic reversals.
Geomagnetic reversals are said to take a thousand years followed by millions of years in which the earth’s magnetic field is stable. If this were the case one would predict that all of the iron in the basalt that make up the ocean floor would be aligned in the same direction. But that is not what is observed. What is observed in over 100 core samples from the ocean floor is an even vertical variation of the direction of the iron through the ocean crust. This would be exactly what creationist would predict for magnetic reversal on the order of weeks instead of thousands of years.
Rapid subduction would also act like brakes slowing the fast moving plates over thousands of kilometers as the plate descended to the mantle core boundary.
Current plate tectonic theory has no answers for the observations above.
This is another instance where observation does not support current old age theories.
Hydroplate theory? Look, just because a phony "theory" doesn't use the word may, doesn't mean it has any more credibility. Especially when it's a bald-faced lie on the face of it.
Yes it does, because what the experimenter is saying is that he has no observational evidence to support his conjecture.
There are a few things you must remember about the righting describing the great flood.
[1] The people at the time didn't even know the earth was round.
[2] You must keep in mind that the persons who wrote these passages were written to and for the human population at the time it was written. Genesis was written in the middle of the 5th century BC.; Columbus sailed to the new world in 1492 AC. The difference between the two is 2,518 years.
[3] You yourself stated that there have been great floods.
The biblical story describes the reason for the event being that god intended to destroy man. 4,300 years ago there where humans scattered all over the planet. It doesn't matter at all whether the writers of Genesis knew that people were living in Australia at the time ... they were there. And according to the myth all humans on this planet were killed in the event except for 8 of them (Noah and his wife, their 3 sons and their wives). So, according to this myth, at the end of the event there were only 8 human beings left on earth, and all air-breathing animals were gone except the ones on the ark. That is the story, and for something like that to happen the entire globe would have to be covered with water to above the top of the highest mountains. Otherwise, how did all the people in Australia and other parts of the world die in the event? It clearly had to be a GLOBAL flood, not a LOCAL flood.
The event is not disproven by arguments about what the people knew of world population at the time, or how many times Noah is mentioned in the bible, or how the flood itself supposedly happened (BTW ... it is virtually impossible to flood the entire globe with water to the heights described in Genesis, by any mechanism, so it could not have happened as described for that reason alone).
It is disproven by many facts. The present distribution of plants and animals on earth could not possibly have arisen from 8 humans starting 4,300 years ago, and no air-breathing animals as well except those that walked or flew off the ark. For example, how did marsupials get to Australia from somewhere in the middle east (eg. Turkey)? There are countless other examples. Where is the massive geologic evidence that would have been left behind after such an event? It does not exist. And there are many other fields of science, and observation, that disprove this mythical event. Not to mention the logistics of one 600 year old man (really?) and his 3 sons building the ark, getting all of the supposed animals in it, etc.
It is a completely ridiculous story, that could not possibly have happened as described in the bible.
I rest my case.
You have not even presented a defense yet. Your only support seems to be that "the bible says it happened." But the geological and other evidence says it did not happen, and could not have happened as described as there is no source of that much water from rain and springs, etc. But you are correct that it was written by people who were scientifically illiterate, and this is why they had no way to write their tall tale with any consideration of the practical aspects of such an event, whether it could actually happen within the constraints of physics, gravity, etc. Fiction does not require adherence to actual facts though, and this story is pure fiction.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win. John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read. Mark Twain
Are you really trying to defend this nonsense? You tried this with Russell Humphrey's crazy article on planetary magnetic fields where he pulled two initial conditions right out of his hind end (ie. planets all started out as balls of H2O, then god decided to line up all the H atom nuclear spins). Once someone completely makes up initial conditions to suit their argument, and these conditions have no basis in reality, it is safe to ignore anything that comes afterwards.
This is exactly what Walt Brown did. He assumes there was a single "supercontinent" only 4,300 years ago (we know that is false), and that the tallest mountains at the time were only 6,000' feet tall (also known to be false). Then he postulates the existence of these massive "fountains of the deep" water reservoirs (another hind end pull) that have been thermally and pressure cycled twice a day like the tides, and which suddenly (conveniently, right after Noah has his boat built and all the animals aboard) burst open and all this imaginary water floods the earth. Really?
You can punch out all the numbers you like about masses, shear forces, viscosity, etc. but it is meaningless because the initial conditions this guy used are complete bunk. He, just like Humphreys, created them to suit his argument. So anything he deduces from these entirely fabricated initial assumptions is garbage.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win. John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read. Mark Twain
FALSE. You have MADE A FALSE STATEMENT. That you took this article, which doesn't support your claim, and claimed it would support your claim demonstrates a weakness in your ability to evaluate scientific literature.
However, this effect is at best transient, as intentional inbreeding can only enhance the probability of fixation of deleterious alleles, and those alleles that are purged are rapidly replaced with new mutations.
The above article along with Stanford's work totally falsifies Kimura's theory.
The conclusion of this research is exactly what I have been saying all along. It does not matter if you purge the deleterious mutations they will be rapidly replaced. Now population size can slow this process but in the end the mutations will win.
Your article DOES NOT SAY that all populations are constantly declining in fitness and are going extinct, because it only specifies populations with less than 100 (or 1000) individuals. In but 100 generations this is a problem because larger population sizes only means a few more generations.
That your creation myth demands we start with 2 members of the human population, who then go on to create the whole of humankind, is your own problem and one you have done nothing to square away with all genetic evidence that minimum viable population sizes are associated with extinction risk. You have to rely on made up and untrue claims about perfect genomes and God Magic to solve this problem because you have no experimental data.
What there is no experimental data for is for the selecting out of delirious mutations. We have numerous observational evidence of genetic build up causing extinction. And of genetic load on organisms in general. What we do not have observational evidence for is the reduction of delirious mutations by natural section.
This really has nothing to do with creationist theories. I simply find it interesting that there is no evidence to support nature selecting out delirious mutations.
Now with regards to a genetic pure beginning, yes creationist do make that assumption, but it is not some critical piece to our theory. If we find out tomorrow that that natural selection does select out delirious mutations we simply do not have to make that assumption any longer.
The same is not true of evolution. Organisms have to be able to select out delirious mutations for evolution to be a viable theory.
This is the most common creationist tactic, and it's irritating. Take an article that doesn't support you, scan it for buzzwords you think support your case, and slap it down hoping nobody knows how to read.
There is a difference between observed data and experimenter inference. Researchers always look at other experimenters data and see if the inference made is correct. Many experiments were made by data collected by experimenters not even working even in other fields.
Quote:
This is your pitiful response? Surely you have more to say. Would you like it if I wrote that Paul would be a biological evolutionist if he were still alive today? Oh, I know your response already! "You're free to believe whatever you want, even fairy tales." But that would just be a poor sidestep of my argument, which is that making up fake facts about a dead man is morally repugnant, especially when they are in contradiction with the man's stated words. And you can't seem to tackle this head-on.
Ok, I find nothing morally repugnant about this. He is dead. He won't know and doesn't care. If he was not a believer when he died he would want someone to say this as a warning to those who might believe what he wrote.
Quote:
Ok, we are having a little trouble following the flow of the argument here. The article with "May" in it was being used to refute my argument. All I was doing is pointing out that it did not refute my argument. So my argument on Kimura's work still remains untouched by any of your articles, because they express nothing definite.
I know did that on purpose to make a point. If my article does not make a point because it uses the word may. How can any of your articles that use the word may make a point. Scientist use the word may when they have no observational evidence to support their claim. When Mendeleev made his predictions of what properties the as yet undiscovered elements would have he did not use the word may, that is not a definitive statement.
False, your arguments were consistently written with the stated point that no other explanations existed. And when alternatives were presented, you hurriedly scrambled to find non-absolutist language to latch onto and declare invalidates my case.
That's bad argumentation.
WHAT are you talking about?
Really,
The law of conservation of energy states that matter cannot be created or destroyed.
Yep. Don't tell me you're actually about to start a spiel on Big Bang cosmology. Do you have any desire to stay on the topic of biology? Because this is another sad creationist argument, jump all the way to origins no matter who you're debating with, and demand they solve all the mysteries of the universe to satisfy you. Because you know I have intellectual integrity, and don't mean to claim I know everything, all you have to do is fight your way to a topic I don't know about, or don't have all the answers to, and then declare your victory.
I could but the problem is not that science does not have an answer. It is that the answer would have to break the laws of science as we know them. So there is no possible way to have a solution to the problems at hand.
Sad.
Law of Biogenesis principle stating that life arises from pre-existing life, not from nonliving material.
The law of biogenesis was created to defeat Spontaneous Generation, which was an unscientific idea. We know about replicating molecules that emerge in abiotic environments.
Get back with me when you made something living from basic chemicals.
