Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Doubting Didymus · 09-16-2002, 07:39 PM

Quote:

wood was probably stronger in the distant past before the high level of pollutants in the soil and water of today.

Very original! I have never seen this one before.

Duvenoy · 09-17-2002, 06:05 PM

Quote:

I was in the Carribean for a short time several years ago. I think the Ark could have handled it, wood was probably stronger in the distant past before the high level of pollutants in the soil and water of today.

Ed, of all the amazing rationalizations you've come up with, this one has to be a top contender for the Doozy Award!

The woods of today differ little if any, from those of a couple of centuries ago, which was well before pollution became such a problem. If today's lumber was so affected, carpenters and the makers of fine furniture (NOT the partical board crap) would be in trouble. You wouldn't be able to get a decent, curly maple rifle stock at any price.

Damn! I'm in it again! Checking back out, now....

doov

Ed · 09-18-2002, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Duvenoy:
"No, what you are doing is similar to counting the tree rings on two trees to look for drought periods in the past and not realizing they come from two totally different ecosystems. You are just assuming that they come from the same ecosystem because their appearance is similar but you have no empirical evidence that they are from the same ecosystem. And if you go back far enough in the rings you will find a drought period that appears to match and so you say Aha! This proves the drought occured at such and such a time!"
-------------------------

Now wait a minute. This is a little out of my field of endevor, but aren't all of the trees that bore samples are taken from carefully documented; dates and location and so forth? Also, ice core samples are located by the Global Satilite(sp?) Whatsis. So, I say, "Aha! Looks good!"

doov

Thats my point, trying to use DNA from extant organisms to extrapolate into the past is like doing poor dendrochronology.

lpetrich · 09-18-2002, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ed:

... trying to use DNA from extant organisms to extrapolate into the past is like doing poor dendrochronology.

And how is that, O Ed?

Duvenoy · 09-19-2002, 02:56 AM

Quote:

Thats my point, trying to use DNA from extant organisms to extrapolate into the past is like doing poor dendrochronology.

(Doov rises to the bait like a hungry Coelacanth. He tastes it, then SPITS IT OUT BEFORE THE HOOK CAN BE SET!!)

Ed · 09-21-2002, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lpetrich:
[QB]
Ed:
Since there is evidence that homo erectus lived as recently as 12,000 years ago some of that cave art could very well be theirs. And for Neanderthal artwork go to the American Museum of Natural History in NY and you will see some of theirs.

lp: However, cave painting starts happening only when Homo sapiens (sapiens) shows up -- I don't know of any evidence of older cave painting. If Homo erectus could paint caves, then why didn't any of them ever paint caves over most of the million-plus years of their existence?[/b]

Maybe they didnt paint in caves, maybe they painted outside caves so they no longer exist.

Quote:

(LP on gene-sequence comparison...)
Ed:
No, what you are doing is similar to counting the tree rings on two trees to look for drought periods in the past and not realizing they come from two totally different ecosystems. ...

lp: Except that tree-ring researchers are careful to keep track of where their trees had come from. At least if they are competent ones. If they are not careful about doing so, the journal referees will likely compose some nasty rejection letters. It's strange that some supposedly great wildlife biologist would be unaware of what's supposed to go into a professional publication.

See above my post to Duv. You also missed my point.

Quote:

lp: As to whether the human and chimp versions of some protein or RNA strand have the same function, that can be tested.

And that hardly proves ancestry.

Ed · 09-25-2002, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Oolon Colluphid:

Originally posted by Ed:
Actually it depends on which flood theory you accept. I lean toward the old earth flood theory, so it would have occurred aproximately 2 million years ago and therefore not as many species as you mention would have been on the ark.

oc: Oh really? How come then, when asked how post-flood creatures got from Ararat to their present locations (and only there), eg koalas to Australia, you said (9 April, page 10 of this thread): [/b]

I was presenting the YEC theory. If the OEC theory is correct then maybe they got there by a combination of migration, floating mats, land/ice bridges, and etc.

[b]

Quote:

Ed: Ever hear of Gondwanaland? The flood may have occurred shortly before Gondwanaland broke up so many species could have easily migrated to suitable habitats.

oc: and when I pointed out that Gondwanaland’s split didn’t explain Laurasian biogeography; maybe you meant Pangaea? you said:

quote:
Yes, actually I meant Pangea.

oc: Please therefore:

1. provide evidence that Pangaea, which is generally considered to have broken up around 180mya, only actually split up 2mya. Why do geologists consistently find a figure ninety times as long?

2. alternatively, explain present biogeography.

3. explain how a 2mya flood ties in with the bible. Luke 3:23-36 is pretty specific on how many generations there were between Noah and Jesus: he lists 66 generations between them. Well, we know from the bible that those folks lived longer than us, anything up to 900. But that’s a bit young: simple maths shows they apparently averaged 30,000 years old when each generation reproduced.

Or are there some generations missing from Luke’s list? (Why?) Okay, if each generation reproduced at, say, age 500, then there should be 4,000 generations from Noah to Jesus. Not 66. How accurate is a genealogy that misses at least 3,900 -- or over 98% -- of the members? How come you trust the bible’s accuracy in Gen 1&2?

(Of course, if geologists have it right with their 180my date, then there’s either at least 360,000 generations (reproducing at age 500, remember) missing from Luke, or those 66 generations lived at least 2.73 million years each.)

Failure to resolve these conundrums will, I think, conclusively show that your hypothesis is manure.

TTFN, Oolon

See above about biogeography. Yes, there probably are missing generations. In ancient times genealogies often only included the more well known or special members of the ancestors.

lpetrich · 09-25-2002, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ed:

... Yes, there probably are missing generations. In ancient times genealogies often only included the more well known or special members of the ancestors.

Evidence for that contention: {}

Oolon Colluphid · 09-26-2002, 03:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ed Case:

OC: explain how a 2mya flood ties in with the bible. Luke 3:23-36 is pretty specific on how many generations there were between Noah and Jesus: he lists 66 generations between them. [...]

Or are there some generations missing from Luke�s list? (Why?) Okay, if each generation reproduced at, say, age 500, then there should be 4,000 generations from Noah to Jesus. Not 66. How accurate is a genealogy that misses at least 3,900 -- or over 98% -- of the members? How come you trust the bible�s accuracy in Gen 1&2?

(Of course, if geologists have it right with their 180my date, then there�s either at least 360,000 generations (reproducing at age 500, remember) missing from Luke, or those 66 generations lived at least 2.73 million years each.) [Emphasis added by OC]

Ed: Yes, there probably are missing generations. In ancient times genealogies often only included the more well known or special members of the ancestors.

Ed, any idea what �begat� means?

Hey Doov, I�ve got a better contender for that Doozy Award

Oolon

[ September 26, 2002: Message edited by: Oolon Colluphid ]

ps418 · 09-26-2002, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ed:
Actually it depends on which flood theory you accept. I lean toward the old earth flood theory, so it would have occurred aproximately 2 million years ago . . .

Well, you reject the clear teaching of Genesis. The text firmly dates the flood at 4300-4500 yrs ago. The date is firm because the geneaologies include statements that A was X years old when B was born (for example, Abram was born when Terah was 70, Terah when Nahor was 29, Serug was 30 years old when Nahor was born, Reu was 32 years old when Serug was born, etc), not simply A begat B. Read yer bible sometime. Placing the flood 10,000+ yrs ago (or whatever) is just an arbitrary attempt to reconcile the clear meaning of biblical text with Naturalistic Evilutionist Science. For more on the date of the flood, see:
<a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3563.asp" target="_blank">Dr. J. Osgood, 1981. Creation Education: The Date of Noah's Flood. Creation Ex Nihilo 4(1):10-13.</a>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.