|
Post by mountain on Aug 14, 2020 2:37:02 GMT -5
Genesis 9 8 And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying, 9 And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you; 10 And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth.11 And I will establish my covenant with you, neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth. Verse 10 reads like all the living creatures that were with Noah in the Ark were to go out and mingle with every beast of the (new) earth? The ante-deluvian world was a single large land mass. The post deluvian world was a break up of that land mass into continental shelves akin to what we know today. If we look at a map of the world we can see where all the pieces more or less fitted together. All living things had been corrupted in the ante-deluvian world and save for a few pure samples of uncorrupted animals, etc, including man, all were destroyed. The uncorrupted animals, etc., helped to re-populate the world. However, the broken and separated land masses of the new world contained a lot of new species commensurate with their environment, eg kangaroos in Australia. No hop, skip and a mighty jump from Mount Ararat to reach Oz. They were created along with many others for the new world. (Nathan) one thing wrong here my friend, with God all things are possible. I would have thought your explanation applied in my analysis?
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Aug 14, 2020 2:39:50 GMT -5
3.36 Million Year Old Fossils From an Ancient Crested Penguin Found in New Zealand. Existing, happening, or living, after the Flood described in the book of Genesis, or (later) after a widespread flood as described in other mythological traditions. Fossils certainly are evidence of antedeluvian existence since the great flood brought about the unusual circumstances which allowed the fossils to form.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2020 11:17:40 GMT -5
Oh, great – now this thread begins to resemble the discussion that its title question triggered with the Mormons.
And magpies39plus introduces illogical thought as quite acceptable, for if the 6 days of creation were eons of time what within the Bible text in the same sentence (context) would change that for the 7th day into a 24 hour day in order for the people of Israel to keep the 7th day holy? If the six days of creation were eons of time, logically, the 7th day was also at least one eon of time – and therefore no Israeli of the time of Moses would live long enough to keep the 7th day holy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2020 16:44:59 GMT -5
As usual, this thread demonstrates that Former 2x2 evolutionist AVOID answering tough questions such as how do fossils form. If you cat dies and falls on top of the ground, before it could even begin to form a fossil it would ether be eaten by predators or rot away by bacterial consumption. Dead animals must be buried QUICKLY either alive or dead, and buried deep enough to gwt them away from rotting away, such as in mud flows that then form rock around the body of the animal, however much of a dead animal is left by the time it is so buried. Even imprint fossils form when they are rapidly buried in mud that becomes rock before the animal decays away (if it all decays away).
So, for visitors who are using this board to learn about 2x2s and why they remain 2x2s or become atheistic evolutionists, this thread has drawn the least attention from 2x2s and former 2x2s - - they still live in la la land in which they adopt any old theory in spite of what God tells us all.
Interestingly, while Mormons are caught in similar la la lands, fewer of them avoid tough questioning of their illogical beliefs, so they have been much more interesting to discuss such things with that 2x2s and former 2x2s on this board.
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Aug 25, 2020 17:19:19 GMT -5
Hi Grats, rice.....yes or no?
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Aug 26, 2020 2:00:36 GMT -5
One of the most interesting "fossil's" is the microwave noise from space.
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Aug 26, 2020 3:54:36 GMT -5
One of the most interesting "fossil's" is the microwave noise from space. Funny I could swear that was coming from my kitchen?
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Aug 26, 2020 13:41:34 GMT -5
One of the most interesting "fossil's" is the microwave noise from space. Funny I could swear that was coming from my kitchen? Cosmic Microwave Background: Remnant of the Big Bang This is from Space.com By Elizabeth Howell August 24, 2018 Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation An image of the cosmic microwave background radiation, taken by the European Space Agency (ESA)'s Planck satellite in 2013, shows the small variations across the sky (Image: © ESA/Planck Collaboration) The cosmic microwave background (CMB) is thought to be leftover radiation from the Big Bang, or the time when the universe began. As the theory goes, when the universe was born it underwent a rapid inflation and expansion. (The universe is still expanding today, and the expansion rate appears different depending on where you look). The CMB represents the heat left over from the Big Bang. You can't see the CMB with your naked eye, but it is everywhere in the universe. It is invisible to humans because it is so cold, just 2.725 degrees above absolute zero (minus 459.67 degrees Fahrenheit, or minus 273.15 degrees Celsius.) This means its radiation is most visible in the microwave part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Origins and discovery The universe began 13.8 billion years ago, and the CMB dates back to about 400,000 years after the Big Bang. That's because in the early stages of the universe, when it was just one-hundred-millionth the size it is today, its temperature was extreme: 273 million degrees above absolute zero, according to NASA. Any atoms present at that time were quickly broken apart into small particles (protons and electrons). The radiation from the CMB in photons (particles representing quantums of light, or other radiation) was scattered off the electrons. "Thus, photons wandered through the early universe, just as optical light wanders through a dense fog," NASA wrote. About 380,000 years after the Big Bang, the universe was cool enough that hydrogen could form. Because the CMB photons are barely affected by hitting hydrogen, the photons travel in straight lines. Cosmologists refer to a "surface of last scattering" when the CMB photons last hit matter; after that, the universe was too big. So when we map the CMB, we are looking back in time to 380,000 years after the Big Bang, just after the universe was opaque to radiation. American cosmologist Ralph Apher first predicted the CMB in 1948, when he was doing work with Robert Herman and George Gamow, according to NASA. The team was doing research related to Big Bang nucleosynthesis, or the production of elements in the universe besides the lightest isotope (type) of hydrogen. This type of hydrogen was created very early in the universe's history. Robert Wilson discovered the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation in 1964 along with Arno Penzias, putting the Big Bang theory on solid footing. Wilson and Penzias won the 1978 Nobel Prize in physics for the find. (They shared the award with Soviet scientist Pyotr Kapitsa.) Robert Wilson discovered the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation in 1964 along with Arno Penzias, putting the Big Bang theory on solid footing. Wilson and Penzias won the 1978 Nobel Prize in physics for the find. (They shared the award with Soviet scientist Pyotr Kapitsa.) (Image credit: Clive Grainger (CfA)) But the CMB was first found by accident. In 1965, two researchers with Bell Telephone Laboratories (Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson) were creating a radio receiver, and were puzzled by the noise it was picking up. They soon realized the noise came uniformly from all over the sky. At the same time, a team at Princeton University (led by Robert Dicke) was trying to find the CMB. Dicke's team got wind of the Bell experiment and realized the CMB had been found. Both teams quickly published papers in the Astrophysical Journal in 1965, with Penzias and Wilson talking about what they saw, and Dicke's team explaining what it means in the context of the universe. (Later, Penzias and Wilson both received the 1978 Nobel Prize in physics). Studying in more detail The CMB is useful to scientists because it helps us learn how the early universe was formed. It is at a uniform temperature with only small fluctuations visible with precise telescopes. "By studying these fluctuations, cosmologists can learn about the origin of galaxies and large-scale structures of galaxies and they can measure the basic parameters of the Big Bang theory," NASA wrote. While portions of the CMB were mapped in the ensuing decades after its discovery, the first space-based full-sky map came from NASA's Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) mission, which launched in 1989 and ceased science operations in 1993. This “baby picture” of the universe, as NASA calls it, confirmed Big Bang theory predictions and also showed hints of cosmic structure that were not seen before. In 2006, the Nobel Prize in physics was awarded to COBE scientists John Mather at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, and George Smoot at the University of California, Berkeley. The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation tells us the age and composition of the universe and raises new questions that must be answered. See how the Cosmic Microwave Background works and can be detected here. The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation tells us the age and composition of the universe and raises new questions that must be answered. See how the Cosmic Microwave Background works and can be detected here. (Image credit: Karl Tate, SPACE.com Infographics Artist) A more detailed map came in 2003 courtesy of the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), which launched in June 2001 and stopped collecting science data in 2010. The first picture pegged the universe's age at 13.7 billion years (a measurement since refined to 13.8 billion years) and also revealed a surprise: the oldest stars started shining about 200 million years after the Big Bang, far earlier than predicted. Scientists followed up those results by studying the very early inflation stages of the universe (in the trillionth second after formation) and by giving more precise parameters on atom density, the universe's lumpiness and other properties of the universe shortly after it was formed. They also saw a strange asymmetry in average temperatures in both hemispheres of the sky, and a "cold spot" that was bigger than expected. The WMAP team received the 2018 Breakthrough Prize in Fundamental Physics for their work. In 2013, data from the European Space Agency's Planck space telescope was released, showing the highest precision picture of the CMB yet. Scientists uncovered another mystery with this information: Fluctuations in the CMB at large angular scales did not match predictions. Planck also confirmed what WMAP saw in terms of the asymmetry and the cold spot. Planck's final data release in 2018 (the mission operated between 2009 and 2013) showed more proof that dark matter and dark energy — mysterious forces that are likely behind the acceleration of the universe — do seem to exist. Advertisement Other research efforts have attempted to look at different aspects of the CMB. One is determining types of polarization called E-modes (discovered by the Antarctica-based Degree Angular Scale Interferometer in 2002) and B-modes. B-modes can be produced from gravitational lensing of E-modes (this lensing was first seen by the South Pole Telescope in 2013) and gravitational waves (which were first observed in 2016 using the Advanced Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory, or LIGO). In 2014, the Antarctic-based BICEP2 instrument was said to have found gravitational wave B-modes, but further observation (including work from Planck) showed these results were due to cosmic dust. As of mid-2018, scientists are still looking for the signal that showed a brief period of fast universe expansion shortly after the Big Bang. At that time, the universe was getting bigger at a rate faster than the speed of light. If this happened, researchers suspect this should be visible in the CMB through a form of polarization. A study that year suggested that a glow from nanodiamonds creates a faint, but discernible, light that interferes with cosmic observations. Now that this glow is accounted for, future investigations could remove it to better look for the faint polarization in the CMB, study authors said at the time. Additional resource NASA: Tests of Big Bang: The CMB
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Aug 26, 2020 13:43:09 GMT -5
One of the reasons why this is a most interesting "fossil" is that the variations in the CMB are the reason why we are here.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Aug 26, 2020 15:47:06 GMT -5
One of the most interesting "fossil's" is the microwave noise from space. Funny I could swear that was coming from my kitchen? You're living in an echo chamber.
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Aug 26, 2020 16:01:57 GMT -5
Funny I could swear that was coming from my kitchen? Cosmic Microwave Background: Remnant of the Big Bang This is from Space.com By Elizabeth Howell August 24, 2018 Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation An image of the cosmic microwave background radiation, taken by the European Space Agency (ESA)'s Planck satellite in 2013, shows the small variations across the sky (Image: © ESA/Planck Collaboration) The cosmic microwave background (CMB) is thought to be leftover radiation from the Big Bang, or the time when the universe began. As the theory goes, when the universe was born it underwent a rapid inflation and expansion. (The universe is still expanding today, and the expansion rate appears different depending on where you look). The CMB represents the heat left over from the Big Bang. You can't see the CMB with your naked eye, but it is everywhere in the universe. It is invisible to humans because it is so cold, just 2.725 degrees above absolute zero (minus 459.67 degrees Fahrenheit, or minus 273.15 degrees Celsius.) This means its radiation is most visible in the microwave part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Origins and discovery The universe began 13.8 billion years ago, and the CMB dates back to about 400,000 years after the Big Bang. That's because in the early stages of the universe, when it was just one-hundred-millionth the size it is today, its temperature was extreme: 273 million degrees above absolute zero, according to NASA. Any atoms present at that time were quickly broken apart into small particles (protons and electrons). The radiation from the CMB in photons (particles representing quantums of light, or other radiation) was scattered off the electrons. "Thus, photons wandered through the early universe, just as optical light wanders through a dense fog," NASA wrote. About 380,000 years after the Big Bang, the universe was cool enough that hydrogen could form. Because the CMB photons are barely affected by hitting hydrogen, the photons travel in straight lines. Cosmologists refer to a "surface of last scattering" when the CMB photons last hit matter; after that, the universe was too big. So when we map the CMB, we are looking back in time to 380,000 years after the Big Bang, just after the universe was opaque to radiation. American cosmologist Ralph Apher first predicted the CMB in 1948, when he was doing work with Robert Herman and George Gamow, according to NASA. The team was doing research related to Big Bang nucleosynthesis, or the production of elements in the universe besides the lightest isotope (type) of hydrogen. This type of hydrogen was created very early in the universe's history. Robert Wilson discovered the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation in 1964 along with Arno Penzias, putting the Big Bang theory on solid footing. Wilson and Penzias won the 1978 Nobel Prize in physics for the find. (They shared the award with Soviet scientist Pyotr Kapitsa.) Robert Wilson discovered the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation in 1964 along with Arno Penzias, putting the Big Bang theory on solid footing. Wilson and Penzias won the 1978 Nobel Prize in physics for the find. (They shared the award with Soviet scientist Pyotr Kapitsa.) (Image credit: Clive Grainger (CfA)) But the CMB was first found by accident. In 1965, two researchers with Bell Telephone Laboratories (Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson) were creating a radio receiver, and were puzzled by the noise it was picking up. They soon realized the noise came uniformly from all over the sky. At the same time, a team at Princeton University (led by Robert Dicke) was trying to find the CMB. Dicke's team got wind of the Bell experiment and realized the CMB had been found. Both teams quickly published papers in the Astrophysical Journal in 1965, with Penzias and Wilson talking about what they saw, and Dicke's team explaining what it means in the context of the universe. (Later, Penzias and Wilson both received the 1978 Nobel Prize in physics). Studying in more detail The CMB is useful to scientists because it helps us learn how the early universe was formed. It is at a uniform temperature with only small fluctuations visible with precise telescopes. "By studying these fluctuations, cosmologists can learn about the origin of galaxies and large-scale structures of galaxies and they can measure the basic parameters of the Big Bang theory," NASA wrote. While portions of the CMB were mapped in the ensuing decades after its discovery, the first space-based full-sky map came from NASA's Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) mission, which launched in 1989 and ceased science operations in 1993. This “baby picture” of the universe, as NASA calls it, confirmed Big Bang theory predictions and also showed hints of cosmic structure that were not seen before. In 2006, the Nobel Prize in physics was awarded to COBE scientists John Mather at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, and George Smoot at the University of California, Berkeley. The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation tells us the age and composition of the universe and raises new questions that must be answered. See how the Cosmic Microwave Background works and can be detected here. The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation tells us the age and composition of the universe and raises new questions that must be answered. See how the Cosmic Microwave Background works and can be detected here. (Image credit: Karl Tate, SPACE.com Infographics Artist) A more detailed map came in 2003 courtesy of the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), which launched in June 2001 and stopped collecting science data in 2010. The first picture pegged the universe's age at 13.7 billion years (a measurement since refined to 13.8 billion years) and also revealed a surprise: the oldest stars started shining about 200 million years after the Big Bang, far earlier than predicted. Scientists followed up those results by studying the very early inflation stages of the universe (in the trillionth second after formation) and by giving more precise parameters on atom density, the universe's lumpiness and other properties of the universe shortly after it was formed. They also saw a strange asymmetry in average temperatures in both hemispheres of the sky, and a "cold spot" that was bigger than expected. The WMAP team received the 2018 Breakthrough Prize in Fundamental Physics for their work. In 2013, data from the European Space Agency's Planck space telescope was released, showing the highest precision picture of the CMB yet. Scientists uncovered another mystery with this information: Fluctuations in the CMB at large angular scales did not match predictions. Planck also confirmed what WMAP saw in terms of the asymmetry and the cold spot. Planck's final data release in 2018 (the mission operated between 2009 and 2013) showed more proof that dark matter and dark energy — mysterious forces that are likely behind the acceleration of the universe — do seem to exist. Advertisement Other research efforts have attempted to look at different aspects of the CMB. One is determining types of polarization called E-modes (discovered by the Antarctica-based Degree Angular Scale Interferometer in 2002) and B-modes. B-modes can be produced from gravitational lensing of E-modes (this lensing was first seen by the South Pole Telescope in 2013) and gravitational waves (which were first observed in 2016 using the Advanced Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory, or LIGO). In 2014, the Antarctic-based BICEP2 instrument was said to have found gravitational wave B-modes, but further observation (including work from Planck) showed these results were due to cosmic dust. As of mid-2018, scientists are still looking for the signal that showed a brief period of fast universe expansion shortly after the Big Bang. At that time, the universe was getting bigger at a rate faster than the speed of light. If this happened, researchers suspect this should be visible in the CMB through a form of polarization. A study that year suggested that a glow from nanodiamonds creates a faint, but discernible, light that interferes with cosmic observations. Now that this glow is accounted for, future investigations could remove it to better look for the faint polarization in the CMB, study authors said at the time. Additional resource NASA: Tests of Big Bang: The CMB And one minute later my pie is cooked!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2020 0:43:21 GMT -5
I figured I would find the thread everywhere other than on topic, but wow, 'fossil' from space. That's gotta be a 2x2 influenced mind to come up with that one – for visitors who want to learn how that works, there are quite a few workers's sermons online these days to choose from and winess the 'spiritual' meanings the supposedly dig 'out of scripture' when in reality they dig those ideas into Scripture, just like fossils from space, referring of course to what is better known as Cosmic Background Radiation. And Cosmic Background Radiation needs 2x2 type 'spiritual' meaning dug into 'reality' in order to support any Big Bank THEORY
So, I won't bother coming here to see what is doing on this FOSSIL thread that I started because when 2x2s and former 2x2s either cannot or will not answer a question, most often they will change the topic..
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Aug 28, 2020 1:08:01 GMT -5
when 2x2s and former 2x2s either cannot or will not answer a question, most often they will change the topic.. You have to when you've already said everything there is to say.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2020 12:15:07 GMT -5
And, of course, you have said all there is to say regarding how fossils form, so go ahead and “have to” change the topic while those who want to learn about you can go back over the thread (its a short trip looking just for your posts) and see where and what you think is all there is to say about how fossils form. I could be wrong but I think that I am the only poster on this thread thus far to say how fossils form. And to most people who observe the other posts all over the map on everything but how fossils form, there is very good reason for their silence on how fossils form.
My high school science teacher TRIED to teach me that animals in water die and drift to the bottom where sediment builds up over them for a million years or so and becomes rock that encases those dead animals – at least ANY part of them that has not rotted away in a million years – oops. Even the Mormons caught in a near copy of 2x2ism's mentally blinded trap have noticed what I noticed at high school in science classrooms in which the teachers I thought would make great 2x2s.
But Bob has said “all there is to say” – and therefore might stay on topic by saying no more instead of saying any more – ho hum. I hope he doesn't die in water and become another bobber in a million years or so.
|
|
janj
Senior Member
Posts: 470
|
Post by janj on Aug 31, 2020 21:13:21 GMT -5
I figured I would find the thread everywhere other than on topic, but wow, 'fossil' from space. That's gotta be a 2x2 influenced mind to come up with that one – for visitors who want to learn how that works, there are quite a few workers's sermons online these days to choose from and winess the 'spiritual' meanings the supposedly dig 'out of scripture' when in reality they dig those ideas into Scripture, just like fossils from space, referring of course to what is better known as Cosmic Background Radiation. And Cosmic Background Radiation needs 2x2 type 'spiritual' meaning dug into 'reality' in order to support any Big Bank THEORY So, I won't bother coming here to see what is doing on this FOSSIL thread that I started because when 2x2s and former 2x2s either cannot or will not answer a question, most often they will change the topic.. You promised to leave this thread way back, which was great, but unfortunately you're still here. Typical ex - promise one thing-do another. I'm off to visit my Catholic friends, at least they don't do that!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2020 12:45:44 GMT -5
Maybe you need some basic English classes janj – I said (several times) and I quote, “....I won't bother coming here to see what is doing on this FOSSIL thread ....” And my subsequent visits to this board have a few purpose that have nothing to do with “coming here to see what is doing in this FOSSIL thread.” One purpose is research regarding TMB blockage of my computers ages ago and eventually I will learn how and why this board censors its registered members – i.e., how this board discriminates between computers to censor one and leave another for quite a while before blocking its access to TMB too. I am interested in technology required to do that, since few on this board are interested in any biblical discussions, let alone scientific facts regarding how fossils form. And once you can read English for what it says instead of inserting your own ideas into the text, you might realize that I did not “....promised to leave this thread way back ....” Nor did I “promise” to not look at this thread and/or comment on it any time I choose regardless of the other purposes for each of my visits on TMB for months already.
But it does seem that since I last looked at this thread, Bob has stayed on topic by saying no more than “all there is to say” about how fossils form.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 2, 2020 18:05:12 GMT -5
Maybe you need some basic English classes janj – I said (several times) and I quote, “....I won't bother coming here to see what is doing on this FOSSIL thread ....” And my subsequent visits to this board have a few purpose that have nothing to do with “coming here to see what is doing in this FOSSIL thread.” One purpose is research regarding TMB blockage of my computers ages ago and eventually I will learn how and why this board censors its registered members – i.e., how this board discriminates between computers to censor one and leave another for quite a while before blocking its access to TMB too. I am interested in technology required to do that, since few on this board are interested in any biblical discussions, let alone scientific facts regarding how fossils form. And once you can read English for what it says instead of inserting your own ideas into the text, you might realize that I did not “....promised to leave this thread way back ....” Nor did I “promise” to not look at this thread and/or comment on it any time I choose regardless of the other purposes for each of my visits on TMB for months already. But it does seem that since I last looked at this thread, Bob has stayed on topic by saying no more than “all there is to say” about how fossils form. You haven't asked me how I feel about anyone's reading skills, though.
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Sept 2, 2020 23:42:47 GMT -5
This question was put before some Mormons a couple of days ago and it triggered quite an interesting discussion.
I believe they form quickly. Mount St. Helens had fossilized trees.The mountain also provided a clear reason to distrust the reliability of radiometric dating. A new rock cap atop the mountain that formed after the 1980 eruption should have shown it to be on the order of tens of years. But standard analysis gave the totally incorrect date of 350,000 years. 30 Years Later, the Lessons from Mount St. Helens
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 3, 2020 1:11:46 GMT -5
This question was put before some Mormons a couple of days ago and it triggered quite an interesting discussion. I believe they form quickly. Mount St. Helens had fossilized trees.The mountain also provided a clear reason to distrust the reliability of radiometric dating. A new rock cap atop the mountain that formed after the 1980 eruption should have shown it to be on the order of tens of years. But standard analysis gave the totally incorrect date of 350,000 years. 30 Years Later, the Lessons from Mount St. Helens
That site that you posted is from the Institute for Creation Research (ICR)
This what the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) say about who they are & what they do in their own words: The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) wants people to know that God’s Word can be trusted in everything it speaks about—from how and why we were made, to how the universe was formed, to how we can know God and receive all He has planned for us. Now you know, -so it up to you whether you want to believe in legitimate science or have 'pseudoscience'* twisted to fit religion so it gives false information. *pseudoscience: -a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 3, 2020 1:24:10 GMT -5
That is always the fallback explanation, -a retreat when an logical answer becomes too difficult and one is unable to provide a valid explanation! What ever turns you on Why do I need to be the one "turned on?"
Seems to me that it is you who is the can't give an answer, -except just a platitude of a banal bromide to keep you 'TURNED ON."
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Sept 3, 2020 14:52:21 GMT -5
This question was put before some Mormons a couple of days ago and it triggered quite an interesting discussion.
I believe they form quickly. Mount St. Helens had fossilized trees.The mountain also provided a clear reason to distrust the reliability of radiometric dating. A new rock cap atop the mountain that formed after the 1980 eruption should have shown it to be on the order of tens of years. But standard analysis gave the totally incorrect date of 350,000 years. 30 Years Later, the Lessons from Mount St. Helens
Various versions of the Mt St Helens video have been around for years. All make as much sense as Nathan does. If you believe them then good luck to you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2020 10:09:41 GMT -5
Ah -- page 2 on such an important consideration to every thinking and observant person -- equals time to apply the bump on this board.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2020 10:13:02 GMT -5
This question was put before some Mormons a couple of days ago and it triggered quite an interesting discussion.
I believe they form quickly. Mount St. Helens had fossilized trees.The mountain also provided a clear reason to distrust the reliability of radiometric dating. A new rock cap atop the mountain that formed after the 1980 eruption should have shown it to be on the order of tens of years. But standard analysis gave the totally incorrect date of 350,000 years. 30 Years Later, the Lessons from Mount St. Helens
I believe science is in agreement with your overall thesis of fossils forming relatively quickly (with the exception of the non-organic shells of marine life). This is probably why, although we now have a rather remarkable fossil record, we still see a small fraction of life reflected in it. I'm not a geologist, so it would be intellectually dishonest for me to comment on the Mount St. Helens data. I'll provide the link which gives three possible hypotheses. An honest scientist would have to consider whether to discard radiometric dating altogether (including the other elements, which are used in-tandem with potassium/argon) or whether it is more likely that the Creation Research Institute authors contaminated their samples and/or overlooked impurities. Hard to know, since the CRI won't let other qualified geologists evaluate their samples independently (the mark of fraud in science). www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/mt_st_helens_dacite_kh.htmSample contamination is an extremely common occurrence in my field of work (molecular biology, specifically RNA work). I have discarded multiple samples when the controls I put in place showed possible contamination with RNA degrading enzymes, or heat, or salts, or any number of things that human error (me) may have contributed to. What I did NOT do was publish extremely suspect results for a religious organization that didn't believe in the Central Dogma of Biology (if such a thing were to exist) in a journal specifically funded for furthering that non-scientific view. I simply discarded the samples, having reason to doubt their purity. This is the difference between science and creationism - I wasn't under any perceived threat of metaphysical disapproval which would bias me to pursue a dishonest line of reasoning.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2020 22:22:35 GMT -5
I detect the old 2x2 practice of accusing others (without proof) of exactly what the 2x2 is practicing him/her self.
CRI submitted samples to several independent analyses – ipsedixit just spews job-protecting bias and CALLS that honesty – interestingly supporting the common secular view of the same data CRI interprets otherwise just as sensibly – surprise, surprise huh.
All anyone needs to do to appear honest with samples properly gathered is discard any sample (as 'possibly contaminated') that does not produce the DESIRED data – and THAT applies to everyone, not just those who desire billions of years.
However, the samples from Mt. St Helens were of rocks formed in 1980, not 300,000 years ago as the common analysis attributed to those samples – plain and simple – but far too simple for biased minds.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2020 23:26:51 GMT -5
I detect the old 2x2 practice of accusing others (without proof) of exactly what the 2x2 is practicing him/her self. CRI submitted samples to several independent analyses – ipsedixit just spews job-protecting bias and CALLS that honesty – interestingly supporting the common secular view of the same data CRI interprets otherwise just as sensibly – surprise, surprise huh. All anyone needs to do to appear honest with samples properly gathered is discard any sample (as 'possibly contaminated') that does not produce the DESIRED data – and THAT applies to everyone, not just those who desire billions of years. However, the samples from Mt. St Helens were of rocks formed in 1980, not 300,000 years ago as the common analysis attributed to those samples – plain and simple – but far too simple for biased minds. If this opinion of yours quiets your conscience and helps you sleep, you're welcome to it. I find little that you said coherent, but you no doubt feel likewise of my views. Perhaps the earth is actually flat, which throws off any number of physical calculations and makes scientists gather data which support an old earth so thoroughly that it was accepted by real scientists in the 1800s. Or perhaps Satan can speed radioactive atomic decay, whereas the religious atoms are protected from his sinister hands. Whatever the reason, In just glad that at least scientists can chuckle at organizations like CRI, rather than fear the church which sponsors their predetermined (based on a book, not on observation and logic) views. And (in a hopeless attempt at rational explanation) if CRI contaminated the samples during collection, transit and/or storage, it wouldn't matter how many independent labs they submitted it to, would it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2020 4:26:24 GMT -5
So ipsedixit, since you claim that didn't understand plain and simple English, have a second read of it.
I detect the old 2x2 practice of accusing others (without proof) of exactly what the 2x2 is practicing him/her self.
CRI submitted samples to several independent analyses – ipsedixit just spews job-protecting bias and CALLS that honesty – interestingly supporting the common secular view of the same data CRI interprets otherwise just as sensibly – surprise, surprise huh.
All anyone needs to do to appear honest with samples properly gathered is discard any sample (as 'possibly contaminated') that does not produce the DESIRED data – and THAT applies to everyone, not just those who desire billions of years.
However, the samples from Mt. St Helens were of rocks formed in 1980, not 300,000 years ago as the common analysis attributed to those samples – plain and simple – but far too simple for biased minds.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2020 14:23:13 GMT -5
So ipsedixit, since you claim that didn't understand plain and simple English, have a second read of it I can scarcely understand this sentence.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 12, 2020 15:21:31 GMT -5
So ipsedixit, since you claim that didn't understand plain and simple English, have a second read of it I can scarcely understand this sentence. Ditto, -me too. In fact I can't understand it. Period.
|
|