Kosh

This is blatantly wrong, and I suspect you're
simply using the usual apologetic sources which
don't carry an weight with modren archeologists.
But you can post about that in the Bib Crit
forum if you really want to debate it....

You just clearly don't have an understanding of
how the crust (rocks) of the Earth are formed
and how they are used for dating. Unfortunatlely,
I'm not an authority on it... does anyone know
why Patrick hasn't shown up here yet?

Read the rest of the book from which that
scripture comes! 2 Peter

His agenda is pretty obvious...

IS NOT! We'll have to agree to disagree, that's
not how I read it (and that of course is the problem with the whole damn book!)

There are quite a few humans who can't do that
either. Remember, it's a bell curve.

And that has nothing to with disproving the fact
there are other levels of intellegence. That they
are not quite as advanced as us simply means that
we got here first.

I seem to remember reading that scientists believe
dolphins to be just as intelligent as us. They're
just missing that opposing thumb,speech, and the
use of fire.

All of which negates your assertion that we are
so unique (clearly your argument for a special
creation).


You're going to quote ICR to us? You will get
absolutely no respect or credibility here doing
that. Quote sources from REAL scientists who don't
have an agenda (your money on Sunday!).

<a href="http://education.yahoo.com/search/be?lb=t&p=url%3Am/mid_atlantic_ridge" target="_blank">http://education.yahoo.com/search/be?lb=t&p=url%3Am/mid_atlantic_ridge</a>

If all you can do is quote from the ICR,there's
no point in continuing. No repected geologist
subscribes to that BS.

[rest of the flood stuff deleted. we've seen it
all (and refuted it completely) before. Do a
search here, read, and come back with something
that hasn't been beat to death]

John Solum

So, according to you all material in the universe is as old as the universe? In a way you're right, all the matter and energy that's currently in the universe has been around in one form or another since the universe was formed (it seems to me that this is compatible with the law of conservation of energy). With that said, I think you're unclear about what radiometric ages mean. Let's say for example that you date zircons (a mineral) in a granite and get an age of 100 million years. That age represents the time when those zircons crystallized, and therefore when the granite formed. The material that formed the granite existed before that time (for example as a magma), but it wasn't a granite, so one way to think about that radiometric age is that it represents the time when that material became a granite.


Aquifers aren't vast lakes. The water in aquifers exists in pore spaces between grains. For example a sandstone may have a porosity of 20% (the volume of the holes/ the total volume). The water in aquifers doesn't exist as a huge volume of open water, the water goes in those pore spaces. In any case, the formation of aquifers isn't mysterious. There are areas where rain falls and percolates into the aquifers (areas of recharge), and there are areas where water comes out of the aquifers (areas of discharge). That's all there is to it.

Oolon Colluphid

While I wait for my apology, and on the offchance that Bait might address any of the points I’ve already raised, here’s a bit more as promised on hybrids.

Female grasshoppers of the species Chorthippus brunneus and C biguttulus recognise males of their own species by their mating calls. Normally they do not mate with males of other species, because their mating calls are different. But in the laboratory, a female can be tricked by a recording of her own species into mating with a male from a different one. The hybrid offspring are healthy and fertile. So it seems that all that keeps the two species apart is their mating calls. This is but one so-called ‘isolating mechanism’ of a range that keep species apart. With the aforementioned mallard and pintail ducks, it’s plumage and courtship displays.

Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos)



Northern Pintail (Anas acuta)



From <a href="http://members.aol.com/jshartwell/hybrid-cats.htm" target="_blank">here</a>: “Unusually for hybrid animals, big cat hybrids are often fertile.”
Here’s male and female ligers:





<a href="http://www.alpacaregistry.net/journal/win98j-11.html" target="_blank">Here</a> is some info on the South American camelids. <a href="http://www.bozedown.dircon.co.uk/NewFiles/DNA%20article4.html" target="_blank">Here's some more</a> (thanks turtonm!) All these creatures can produce fertile offspring, though they are different enough to be classed as different genera. It naturally took artificial insemination, but even creatures as different as a dromedary camel and a llama can produce offspring.



The parents (in background) apparently achieved instant cama.

Even Gish agrees that Darwin’s finches are derived from a common ancestor, though they no longer interbreed.

And don’t get a botanist (Mr Darwin...?) started on plant hybrids...

And did you know... in Britain we have two species of gull that do not interbreed, the lesser black-backed gull and the herring gull. Yet there is a continuous interbreeding ring of herring gulls that encircles the northern hemisphere... except that they gradually become more and more like the lesser black-backed gull... till the ring meets in Europe, and they do not interbreed, and are thus separate species. There are many other examples of ring species, for instance the Ensatina salamanders <a href="http://www.santarosa.edu/lifesciences/ensatina.htm" target="_blank">here</a>.

Here’s some more info:
<a href="http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/ring_species.html" target="_blank">http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/ring_species.html</a>

What I’d like you to explain is, how can some sorts of crosses make workable bodies, sometimes even fertile ones, and not others? Why only between species thought under evolution to be closely related? Why the mule and the tigon, but not the tragelaph (deer and goat), camelopard (camel and leopard) or allopecopithecum (wolf and ape) -- hybrids that medieval commentators excluded from the ark? (Cohn 1996: Noah’s Flood – The Genesis Story in Western Thought)

So come on Bait: what exactly is a 'kind'? And how do you know? Because the modern definition of species isn't an infallible guide.

TTFN, Oolon

[ February 20, 2002: Message edited by: Oolon Colluphid ]

[ February 20, 2002: Message edited by: Oolon Colluphid ]</p>

Vorkosigan

Oolon, have you read Hugh E. H. Paterson, the S. African biologist who argued for the "recognition concept of the species?" He argued that current (1970s-1980s) biological definitions species had actually conflated several different definitions of that word, typological, genetic, morphological, reproductively isolated, and species-specific recognition systems. He argued that the last was the only valid way to discriminate among species, as I recall. Been while.

Michael

[ February 20, 2002: Message edited by: turtonm ]</p>

Oolon Colluphid

Hi Michael

I've heard of Paterson in this context, but not read anything of his. This sounds a bit like the 'Practical Species Concept' -- that species are those samples that a biologist can distinguish, and tell others how to distinguish... which avoids saying anything about how the organism reproduces, or how closely related it is to others in the group. Or is he saying that provided the organisms recognise each other as different, they’re separate species? How the hell do you apply that one?

This <a href="http://www.users.bigpond.com/thewilkins/papers/metataxo.htm" target="_blank">Taxonomy of Species Definitions</a> is fascinating.

What I want to know is (and I direct this point to Bait especially), if organisms were created as separate kinds, why is it impossible to find a single universally useful definition of species? IOW, what is a 'kind'?

Cheers, Oolon

Oolon Colluphid

Bait:

Looking back, there’s another bit I want to pick you up on. What’s with all this primordial "ooze" business? If you’d said it once or twice, it could be put down to just a metaphor. But you use the term at least six times, giving the impression you really think life came out of some sort of goo. You’ve been reading Evolution with Dick and Jane, haven’t you? Here is ooze. See ooze change. Ooze grows legs. See ooze run.

(1) Please define 'life'. What do you think it is?

(2) Try reading some of these to get a more realistic idea of where and how science is looking for ‘origins of life’ answers.

<a href="http://www.resa.net/nasa/origins_life.htm" target="_blank">NASA’s Origins of Life site</a>

<a href="http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/SUA03/RNA_origins_life.html" target="_blank">RNA and the Origins of Life</a>

<a href="http://www.gla.ac.uk/projects/originoflife/html/2001/menu.htm" target="_blank">Origins of Life (University of Glasgow)</a>

<a href="http://www.origins.rpi.edu/chem.html#rna" target="_blank">Formation of the RNA World</a>

<a href="http://www.syslab.ceu.hu/corliss/Nature.html" target="_blank">The Emergence of Living Systems
in Archaean Submarine Hot Springs</a>

<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Display&dopt=pubmed_pubme d&from_uid=11539076" target="_blank">130 PubMed articles here</a>

<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=115394 67&dopt=Abstract" target="_blank">Hydrogen cyanide polymerization</a>

<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=115413 37&dopt=Abstract" target="_blank">Hydrogen cyanide polymers</a>

TTFN, Oolon

Bait

Hi all,
First off, I have to give BIG APOLOGY to Oolan, I misread his 45 million as 45 Billion…I’M SORRY, FORGIVE ME, HANG MY HEAD IN SHAME. Seriously, please forgive me Oolan on that one…friends again?
Also, I haven’t answered Oolan’s stuff yet, only because I’m reading and debating against a lot of you (only one of me), and having to look at and look up a lot of material, with limited access to a computer.
&gt;&gt;&gt;Originally posted by Bait:
&gt;&gt;&gt;I also personally believe that the “flood” even could have happened even greater than 10,000 years ago.

&gt;&gt;&gt;What bloody flood?! You do realise that it's usual to demonstrate there's something to explain, before you try to explain it, yeah?!

Ok, here are some evidences:

<a href="http://www.yfiles.com/rainbow.htm" target="_blank">http://www.yfiles.com/rainbow.htm</a> – GENETIC PROOFS

<a href="http://cityhonors.buffalo.k12.ny.us/city/aca/sci/evolutn/evoarticles/46earth/46earth.html" target="_blank">http://cityhonors.buffalo.k12.ny.us/city/aca/sci/evolutn/evoarticles/46earth/46earth.html</a> – GEOLOGICAL PROOFS


<a href="http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c010.html#8" target="_blank">http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c010.html#8</a> – THEORIES ON HOW IT OCCURRED

<a href="http://www.trueorigin.org/cfjrgulf.asp" target="_blank">http://www.trueorigin.org/cfjrgulf.asp</a> – FURTHER APPARENT EVIDENCE

<a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1137.asp" target="_blank">http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1137.asp</a> – EVIDENCE IN COAL DEPOSITS

<a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3802.asp" target="_blank">http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3802.asp</a> – Fossilized jellyfish?

<a href="http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-210.htm" target="_blank">http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-210.htm</a> – Grand Canyon evidence

<a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v23n1_earth_how_old.asp" target="_blank">http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v23n1_earth_how_old.asp</a>

<a href="http://www.trueorigin.org/arkdefen.asp" target="_blank">http://www.trueorigin.org/arkdefen.asp</a>

<a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/v8n1_chalk.asp" target="_blank">http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/v8n1_chalk.asp</a>

And BTW…I really would rather not get into a “flood” debate here. This is one where we’ll agree to disagree..ok? We’ll stick to “creation”…plenty enough to debate right there. I concede that you can probably come up with just as much against on this subject.

quote:

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Actually if you actually read what the Bible really says of creation, you could go back millions of years, theoretically, since there is no record as to how many “years” Adam walked with God before the fall (or before Eve for that matter).

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;And again I ask: if there were no death during this time, just what the blue hell did animals eat? Where did all the exquisitely fashioned parasites live, and how did they not cause disease?

Ok, going to the Bible for reference…the 1st and 2nd. "Days" saw the creation of light, the firmament, etc. Animals, etc. have not been made yet.

3rd. day, God brought forth dry land, called the waters “seas” . BTW, Does not science recognize that the origin of land came from beneath the seas? Anyway, also on the third day, God created vegetation…in particular “plants bearing seed” and “trees bearing fruit”, and appears to state that plants appeared on land first. However, The Hebrew word used is “ha’arets”, the same used in Genesis 1…roughly translated as “earth”. Plant life therefore plant life could have been appearing in the oceans also.

The fourth day says that God made two great lights….not the same term (in Hebrew) as “created”…Implying that God allowed the lights to show through, or given to the earth (us) to “serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years" Could be several explanations for this passage...but the passage seems to indicate that he did not "create" these lights then...but he did give them then. This is one I will admit that I DO NOT KNOW...ok?

The fifth day establishes that God created first creatures of the sea (BTW, in concordance with scientific evidence), and flying creatures (the Hebrew word does not make the distinction of only “birds”, but could include any flying creature…including insects, etc. just flying creatures. This also follows nicely with current scientific thinking, as far as creature s being in the seas before land animals.

The sixth day shows God creating the “living creatures” of the land. Three types as a matter of fact, livestock (appears to be exclusively mammals - cattle, goats, domesticated types of animals), “wild animals” (probably such as Lions, hippo’s, bears, etc.),ie: animals that could not be tamed, and “creatures that move along the ground”…(probably meaning reptiles, snakes, etc.) Again, fitting current scientific thinking in the sequences of life.

The Bible never says that there wasn’t “death”, or that animals did not eat each other, etc. in fact, as you can see how the foundations of the food chain was created first, the pinnacle of the food chain created last (man). Light illuminated the earth before plants, plants appeared before animals. Life in the sea came before life on the land. Mammals were among the last to be created, again, in complete agreement with scientific theory.

For a more detailed expose’ .see <a href="http://www.yfiles.com/Biblical-creation.htm" target="_blank">http://www.yfiles.com/Biblical-creation.htm</a>


quote:

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;You will say then, “why does not the Bible say so??? Is God hiding stuff? Is God a liar? The answer is no, I do not necessarily tell my children the reason I do certain things, or how I came up with the money to buy this and that….that’s my business, not theirs. I don’t have to tell them HOW I built the boat, theirs is just to know I did.

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Yeah, but that's just the point. It's not that things are a certain way that we cannot figure out. We now know why they are as they are; and how they are is, just as if there were no creator involved. If there were a creator involved, he set things up to look just as if he weren't there really; indeed, he's gone out of his way to deceive us.


But he is not deceiving us at all if he tells us “here’s how (the sequence) it happened”, or that this happened. Sequences, as an example, in the Genesis account generally agree with scientific theory…and it was written thousands of years before modern science. You asked me to explain some things, now your turn. Explain how exactly everything works so well together, so perfectly, by accident.

Remember too, the Bible is not meant to be a scientific document, although it sometimes has scientifically related subjects. Rather, it is meant to be a document that relates to the salvation of the spirit. My point is that some people try to disprove the Bible (and therefore the existence of God?) by trying to beat them over the head with “scientific proofs”…when first, the Bible does not necessarily disagree with the findings of science, or scientific theory, and secondly, science is not exact, and does not by its own definition “prove” anything.
quote:

So, yes, I agree that God may have used natural selection to procreate all of the animals, after their kind…and EXCEPT FOR MAN.

&gt;&gt;&gt;Why? On what grounds -- actual biological evidence -- do you think we are sooo different? Can you name a single bone, organ, protein, amino acid, etc, that is present in chimpanzees that is not present in humans too? (Can you name a single protein? ) Take another look at those skulls I posted above. Again I ask: which are the ape ones, and which are the humans?

Genetic evidence for one, as well as (according to ol' Carl Sagan himself), about 160 enzymes, (about a 2% difference?), or about 80 million nucleotides.
References: “shadows of forgotten ancestors”; by Carl Sagan, Ann Druyan
And:
<a href="http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry/evobio/evc/argresp/sequence.html" target="_blank">http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry/evobio/evc/argresp/sequence.html</a>
<a href="http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/challenge8.html" target="_blank">http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/challenge8.html</a>
<a href="http://www.yfiles.com/snake.html" target="_blank">http://www.yfiles.com/snake.html</a>

quote:

&gt;&gt;&gt;He could have put forms of cows, monkeys, birds, dinosaurs, etc., and let natural selection go from there (which IMHO is likely, and at the same time does not dispute the natural selection theory).

&gt;&gt;&gt;And why then is it that birds contain genes for making teeth and full fibulas like their supposed reptile ancestors had? Care to define 'kind'?

We have some genes in us that matches those of an ear of corn...doesn't mean we're related.

(American Heritage Dictionary)
Species: : 1. A fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking after a genus and consisting of organisms capable of interbreeding…3. A kind, variety, or type.


Check out: <a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4369gc8-25-2000.asp" target="_blank">http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4369gc8-25-2000.asp</a>


quote:

&gt;&gt;&gt;I’ll even concede that it is possible that God even created the various forms of animals, etc. from some primordial ooze, though unlikely, because of the phrase used “after their own kind” would lend you to believe otherwise.

&gt;&gt;&gt;Why make them from the ooze? Why not just make them? 'Allowed them to evolve from common ancestors' is the phrase you're looking for... ignoring the phenomenal waste of that method, and the odd mass extinction...

Ok…I already admitted to Kosh an error on the “ooze” bit…I was answering questions put to me elsewhere concerning an experiment that meant nothing.

But it does bring up, how did life begin to start with (without God that is)?


quote:

&gt;&gt;&gt;Even today, you cannot successfully mix species more than one generation (when two do mix, that first generation is sterile) even with species as close as a donkey and a horse.

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;BWAHAHAHA! Go away and look up mallards and pintails, and llamas and vicunas. I'll give you a few more hints tomorrow when I can get at my refs. And, uh... "as close as"... hmmm... you don't mean 'as closely related', do you?

I think you need to go back and check your definitions my friend…

BTW…I thought we weren’t going to do the “straw argument” thing.

Definitions: Species:

Dictionary: 1. A fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking after a genus and consisting of organisms capable of interbreeding…3. A kind, variety, or type.

Dobzhansky & Mayr
" Species are groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups."

Also, Templeton “reviewed the problems associated with various "biological species concepts" and introduced his cohesion concept, "that defines a species as the most inclusive group of organisms having the potential for genetic and/or demographic exchangeability.

In plain english…creatures that can breed, and continue a line for more than 1 generation. (which is what I said)


&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;So the bible establishes very clearly that either 1. In God’s time, one of his days is equal to 1 thousand years of 24 hour earth days, or 2. God’s time does not count time…one day to God could be thousands, millions, etc. of years...i.e.: eons. Neither of these disagree with science, nor would science disagree with the Bible, if we hold these passages true. [/b][/quote]

&gt;&gt;&gt;I prefer to ignore them, as does science... unless you think the bible a useful science textbook. One so accurate that bats are birds, the earth is flat and rabbits chew the cud...

Oh com’on Oolan, now who’s doing the straw arguments. The Bible is not a scientific textbook...no one said it is, but it may have information as to where to look for archealogical, etc. evidence, it may be a good reference as to things of a historical nature. So here is a document that COULD help science discover...whatever, and you chose to ignore it?

And where does it say bats are birds? The earth is flat? As to rabbits chewing cuds…in the Hebrew? These arguments have been put away and explained a long time ago.

As an example, as far as a rabbit chewing cud...the Hebrew word for used here for cud is GERAH...which can mean grain, berry, etc...meaning something that has a little value. Rabbits go through a process called reflection where they take their dung and chew on it to get the remaining partially digested food.

There are also some who question whether the Hebrew word "arnebeth" (which is what is used in the Hebrew text)actually means rabbit, hare, etc...or if it refers to some other unknown (possibly extinct) animal of that time period.

quote:

&gt;&gt;&gt;Even scientifically it is unlikely animals came from ooze though. Really, what are the chances, mathematically, of ooze developing into something, developing into something else?

&gt;&gt;&gt;What, like, uh, something a little bit different from ooze... and that into something a little different again... and that into something a little different again... ? Looks pretty plausible to me. Repeat, oh, several hundred million times, and just how different could the descendants be, d'you think?
quote:

&gt;&gt;&gt;I also put to you, from a scientific standpoint, what are the chances (odds) that out of all of the species of animals, or even from just species of Ape, (monkey, etc), ONLY ONE SPECIES, ONLY HUMANS have developed to have intelligence enough to create all of the things we have created, or even to debate theories as we are now?

&gt;&gt;&gt;You clearly know nothing about chimps.

Well, actually I do know a bit about chimps. My grandfather was foreman at the Oklahoma City Zoo (then called Lincoln Park Zoo), and my mother was the caretaker that raised the first chimp born in captivity (his name was Bill). To keep him alive and healthy, she brought him home and raised him in our home. My grandfather raised the second born in captivity (named Moe - after my mothers death)using her techniques, also at home, ie: 24 – 7 care. I was involved in the care and training of both, playing with, training, feeding, etc., as well as the care etc. of various other animals at the zoo (though not in an official capacity…I accompanied, and helped, family interests sort of thing.) Nutherwords…first hand experience…and you?

So your qualifications as to chimps are???

Also check out : <a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1163.asp" target="_blank">http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1163.asp</a>

And: <a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4369gc8-25-2000.asp" target="_blank">http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4369gc8-25-2000.asp</a>


quote:

Usually, even by Darwin’s theory, there would be several species on the same basic level of intellectual development (or any other development for that matter).

Eh? Since when? Care to tell me which evolutionary biology textbook or scientific paper that puddle of drivel oozed out of?
quote:

&gt;&gt;&gt;Frank Zindler (1987)
A theory is an explanatory hypothesis which has passed test after test,
.
Incorrect, it only has to pass ONE test to become a theory, or have some evidence at points in a certain direction that supports the hypothesis.
Well that's news to just about everyone who does science. Hey, just how many frigging theories would there be if they only had to pass one test?!


quote:

&gt;&gt;&gt;And it becomes a law when the theory can be PROVEN beyond doubt. As long as there is ANY evidence against it, that cannot be explained, it cannot become a law, it remains a theory…an unproven hypothesis.

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;So, uh, quantum theory, relativity theory and the theory of gravity (it ain't a 'law', btw) are just unproven hypotheses? You, dear sir, are an ignoramus. NOTHING is ever proven in science. Proof is a luxury of mathematics, where you are defining the universe you're operating in to start with. With science, we are trying to find out what sort of universe we're operating in -- that's the whole point -- so we have to make do with merely all the evidence there is and any more we can gather. Empirical evidence, in other words. If you don't even know that, I'm not sure how you dare to criticise science.
TTFN, Oolon


Ok, I see, let me rephrase:
“American Heritage Dictionary” says that a Theory is:
“Systematically organized knowledge applicable in a relatively wide variety of circumstances, esp. A system of ASSUMPTIONS, accepted principals, and rules of procedures devised to ANALYZE, PREDICT, OR OTHERWISE EXPLAIN the nature of behavior of a specified set of phenomena.”
(caps mine)

Evolution is not a proven fact, so it should not be promoted dogmatically, as in, "particles to people evolution" is an unsubstantiated hypothesis or conjecture, the same with most theories of the earths origin. Virtually every theory or conjecture concerning either, and from either point of view, can (and has been) be refuted, or another theory or conjecture applied as a counterpoint.

I agree, the word theory is used by scientists to also mean well-substantiated explanation of data – but they are still not “proven” although the ones you mentioned do have a substantial amount of evidence supporting them...empiracle evidence. However, no one has been able to send a solid object at the speed of light yet to prove Einsteins theory of relativity, as an example, which is a mathematical theory, not yet proven physically…same with quantum theory.

It is not only possible, but normal, for a scientist to first propose a hypothesis, then systematically gather “evidence” (using accepted principals, etc.), creating a theory through this analysis…only to have the theory disproved by one or more discovered facts, or shot down by challenge. The said scientist then having to rethink the meanings of their findings, and adjust the theory accordingly.

Ok Oolan, here are my replies to you. Again, sorry for my goof, mistake, faux pa, error, etc.
Bests,
R.

Bait

Oolan,
Answered the "ooze" one...apparently someone "created" life by sending electrical currents through an artificial atmosphere that did not even come close to resembling anything on earth chemically, then claimed they "created" life. I meant to answer them, got on the wrong forum.
r.

Bait

Hi Oolan,
Ok...first, all of those were artificially insemenated (if I read right), and the likely hood of it happening in the wild is close to nill. Second, are they not all of the same general family? Has there been a case where a lion has breed with a duck? A mallard with a snake? I admit I haven't had the chance to sort through all of your stuff yet...so give me a chance to do some "looking".

Oh yea, I might only get to get on here one a day..sometimes two. So if I seem quiet for a day or so, it just means I haven't got to it yet.
R.

[edited for length --mt]

[ February 20, 2002: Message edited by: turtonm ]</p>

ps418

Quote:

Excerpt From 1998 “Problems with a global flood?” by J. Sarfati

Isaak: “How do you explain the formation of varves? The Green River formation in Wyoming contains 20,000,000 annual layers, or varves, identical to those being laid down today in certain lakes. The sediments are so fine that each layer would have required over a month to settle.”

Answer: The self-sorting mechanism described above explains that.

Hardly. None of the experiments referred to by Sarfati produces couplets that look anything like the thin, rhythmic, and laterally extensive Green River couplets.

It’s simply nonsense that the layers would have to form slowly, and/or one at a time. The evaporite mechanism fails to explain the variation in the number of layers between the same pair of volcanic ash layers.

This observation is not inconsistent with a varve interpretation of the Green River Formation couplets, since couplets will not be equally well-preserved throughout the basin. Whereas couplets will be well preserved near the center of the basin, couplets deposited near the basin margin in shallow water are easily disturbed, reworked, and eroded. Thus, we would not expect an equal number of couplets in a transect from basin center all the way to to the basin margin. However, it is indeed the case that in parts of the GRF, these thin laminae can be traced over tens of kilometers.

Here's a better observation. A 55 meter varved interval had a volcanic tuff above it and below it and each tuff was dated. The upper tuff dates to 46.2 million years and the lower tuff dates 47.2 million years. Assuming the ages are accurate, this suggests an average depositional rate of about 0.055mm/year (Robert R. Remy, Stratigraphy of the Eocene Part of the Green River Formation in the South-Central Part of the Uinta Basin, Utah, U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1987, p. BB20). The averaged thickness of the couplets is in fact about 0.06mm, consistent with a varve interpretation.

[By the way, we should keep in mind that the Green River couplets are composed of carbonate and kerogen laminae, not shale and sand like a turbidite.]

Another observation that is inconsistent with deposition via a flood are the mudcracks and evaporites within portions of the GRF. Bird trackways and nesting sites have also been documented in shoreline facies within the Green River Formation (Leggitt and Buchheim, 1997; McGrew, 1980; McGrew and Feduccia, 1973). Small mammal and amphibian trackways are known also, including one of the only known trackways of a frog (Lockely and Hunt, 1995, p. 255). This is inconsistent with the flood scenario, which has all the animals dying early in the flood.

Kevin Henke has a great article critiquing the Sarfati article. <a href="http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/henke/krh-floodnonsense.html#A05" target="_blank">More Nonsense on "TRUE.ORIGINS"</a> Regarding Sarfati's claim that the Green River varves can be better explained by a supposed 'self-sorting ' mechanism, he says:

Some individual varves in the Green River Formation may extend for 10's of kilometers (Fischer and Roberts, 1991, p. 1148) and there are more than 5,000,000 individual couplets or a total of more than 10,000,000 individual layers (Strahler, 1987, p. 233). Sarfati quotes Berthault (1988b, 1990) and invokes a "self-sorting mechanism" to explain the rapid formation of numerous laminae at once in the Green River Formation. So, if this "sorting mechanism" was responsible for the laminae in the Green River Formation, how could this mechanism instantly produce numerous fine-grained laminae over ten's of kilometers (Fischer and Roberts, 1991, p. 1148)? It's one thing to rapidly produce some laminae in a laboratory separatory funnel (see Figure 1 in Snelling's "Sedimentation Experiments"), it's another thing to rapidly deposit thin layers of clay and silt over 10's of kilometers. Even YEC Kurt Howard admits in Varves: Problems For Standard Geochronology that silts normally take days to settle out and clays even longer. (Unlike relatively coarse sand particles, very small particles (silts and clays) take time to settle out of solution.) Therefore, if 10,000,000 layers formed in only 6,000 years, an average of 4.6 layers would have to settle out completely in one day! That's too fast and chaotic for the geology of the formation.

Of course, things become even worse for YECs, since in their minds, the Green River Formation either formed during the year-long "Flood" or in the 4,000 or so years of "post-Flood" history. Already, the 6,000 year old YEC time frame is refuted. YECs must also explain how 10,000,000 layers, some of which may extend over tens of kilometers, can form in less than a few thousand years without eroding previously deposited layers or producing cross-bedding or other non-linear features. Simply hoping that Berthault's laboratory work could somehow be scaled up to 10's of kilometers isn't good enough.


Worst of all for YEC, variations in varve thickness within the Green River Formation clearly fall into regular cycles, several of which correlate beautifully with various long-term weather, climate, and astronomical cycles (Fischer and Roberts, 1991; Ripepe et al. 1991):

Cycle in Years* In Green River? Explanation
4-6 Yes ENSO (El Niño!!)
11-12 Yes Sunspot Cycle
30 Yes Unknown
600-700 Yes? Unknown
3,000 Yes? Unknown
20,000 Yes Precessional cycle
40,000 No Obliquity cycle
100,000 Yes Eccentricity cycle
400,000 No Long eccentricity cycle

* The lengths of some of these cycles have slowly changed over geologic time (Van Andel, 1994, p. 243-244).

. . . Petrographic, statistical and geophysical methods have detected the cycles and some of them have been seen over and over and over again in the Green River Formation for the past 70 years.

Notice that YEC web sites. . . completely ignore the associations between varve thickness and astronomical, weather and climate cycles. Why? Because these correlations utterly refute YEC and YECs haven't been able to cook up any natural explanations to deal with them. Why would laminae segregate by cycles to conform to the Earth's eccentricity if the Earth is too young to have completed even one of these cycles? No rivers or turbidity currents along with Berthault's deposition mechanism can explain them either. YEC views (they're too inadequate to be called models) are too fast and chaotic to be affected by subtle astronomical and climate cycles. Quiet and stagnant water is needed to record these astronomical processes and slow climatic changes. All YECs can do is ignore 70 years of research or falsely deny the existence of the cycles.