And the citation to that quote in the scientific literature is....?
If Evolution
- Thread starter CherubRam
- Start date
And the citation to that quote in the scientific literature is....?
Barbarian asks:
How does a dessert form in the middle of a flood?
Stipe confabulates:
Sand dunes. Desert plants. Tracks of desert animals. How did all that happen, and not be a desert?
I see that someone beat me to it. And it's a good question he posed. If you have a degree in earth science, how is it that you don't know any of this?
How does a dessert form in the middle of a flood?
Stipe confabulates:
Sand dunes. Desert plants. Tracks of desert animals. How did all that happen, and not be a desert?
I see that someone beat me to it. And it's a good question he posed. If you have a degree in earth science, how is it that you don't know any of this?
Quote Originally Posted by gcthomas View Post
Erm, sand accumulates and compresses the lower layers, then ground water percolation cements the grains together. Same as other sedimentary rocks.
Stipe writes:
Directly observed. It's going on today.
The formation of sandstone involves two principal stages. First, a layer or layers of sand accumulates as the result of sedimentation, either from water (as in a stream, lake, or sea) or from air (as in a desert). Typically, sedimentation occurs by the sand settling out from suspension; i.e., ceasing to be rolled or bounced along the bottom of a body of water or ground surface (e.g., in a desert or erg). Finally, once it has accumulated, the sand becomes sandstone when it is compacted by the pressure of overlying deposits and cemented by the precipitation of minerals within the pore spaces between sand grains.
The most common cementing materials are silica and calcium carbonate, which are often derived either from dissolution or from alteration of the sand after it was buried.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandstone
Stipe writes:
How much compression do you think is needed to keep grains of sand in contact with each other? Show us your numbers.
Stipe writes:
Ah, so stalactites are impossible.
Stipe writes:
Ah, so flat desert areas are impossible...
Stipe writes
I think what's going on here, is taffy being distributed.
Erm, sand accumulates and compresses the lower layers, then ground water percolation cements the grains together. Same as other sedimentary rocks.
Stipe writes:
Directly observed. It's going on today.
The formation of sandstone involves two principal stages. First, a layer or layers of sand accumulates as the result of sedimentation, either from water (as in a stream, lake, or sea) or from air (as in a desert). Typically, sedimentation occurs by the sand settling out from suspension; i.e., ceasing to be rolled or bounced along the bottom of a body of water or ground surface (e.g., in a desert or erg). Finally, once it has accumulated, the sand becomes sandstone when it is compacted by the pressure of overlying deposits and cemented by the precipitation of minerals within the pore spaces between sand grains.
The most common cementing materials are silica and calcium carbonate, which are often derived either from dissolution or from alteration of the sand after it was buried.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandstone
Stipe writes:
How much compression do you think is needed to keep grains of sand in contact with each other? Show us your numbers.
Stipe writes:
Ah, so stalactites are impossible.
Stipe writes:
Ah, so flat desert areas are impossible...
Stipe writes
I think what's going on here, is taffy being distributed.
Nope
Veritas veritate
New member
First, I would like to apologize for being gone so long from TOL. My life becomes extremely busy from time to time and it takes months for it to slow down again... That being said, I have taken the time to read through this thread and will now address some things here.
I cannot believe that everyone has failed to point out the flawed logic in this request. You claim that there are transitional fossils; therefore, you have the burden of proving that any dead animal that has been fossilized is in fact transitional. The only thing that bones truly tell for a fact is that the animal died. Similarly, fossils only tell us for a fact that the animal died a long time ago under the correct conditions to become fossilized. Everything else you wish to say about it is pure conjecture. You cannot prove that any fossil reproduced, you cannot prove that the parents of a fossil were any different than that of the fossil, and you surly cannot prove that any fossil is, in fact, an ancestor to any two or more major groups that are said to be evolutionarily connected. Therefore, every major group said to be evolutionarily connected to any other major group lacks a known transitional. Why? because it is impossible to know that what you claim to be transitional was anything more than something that died a long time ago.
I most certainly do! Let me begin by saying that I completely agree with the scientific observations of speciation; however, I do not agree with the conclusion that one kind of animal has somehow changed into another kind because we observe speciation within a kind. Now I know that using the word "kind" is ambiguous, the closest definition that I can give you is what you have called "major groups." I would expect anyone who replies to this post to specifically describe what is meant when they say "species" and where the line is drawn between one specie and another. In order to have an intelligent conversation I believe that it only fair that each term be defined by the user.
Now as far as actual genetic code, it is extremely illogical and unscientific to look at several kinds of organisms, see that they have similar genetic codes, and conclude that they must have a common ancestor. Let me give an example. Lets say that gene-X has been decoded to be trait-Y. Now, using science, I can deduce that every time I come across an organism with gene-X that it will possess, or its offspring will possess, trait-Y. That is as far as science goes in genetics. Claiming that because many kinds of organisms possess gene-X and, as a result, trait-Y somehow means that they all have a common ancestor that is different from the currently observed kind is not science. That is not something that has ever been observed. In all of my genetic research, I have not found one single geneticist who can link male or female human DNA through the Y chromosome in males or female mitochondrial DNA back to any common ancestor with the respective DNA from apes. The genetic Adam and Eve of humans is none other than, you guessed it, a kind of human (or species if you prefer). I predict that this will be the same with every kind of organism. As far back as genetics can go, each kind of organism will only be traced as far back as possible to an ancestor that is the same kind of currently observed organism. The things that science has observed in genetics and the work therein is astounding and extremely interesting, but nothing observed gives any credible proof to the evolution of one kind of animal to a completely different kind. The only way that science could prove that type of evolution is to observe it happening in the future to an organism being only observed to do so without any kind of direct human interference.
I cannot believe that everyone has failed to point out the flawed logic in this request. You claim that there are transitional fossils; therefore, you have the burden of proving that any dead animal that has been fossilized is in fact transitional. The only thing that bones truly tell for a fact is that the animal died. Similarly, fossils only tell us for a fact that the animal died a long time ago under the correct conditions to become fossilized. Everything else you wish to say about it is pure conjecture. You cannot prove that any fossil reproduced, you cannot prove that the parents of a fossil were any different than that of the fossil, and you surly cannot prove that any fossil is, in fact, an ancestor to any two or more major groups that are said to be evolutionarily connected. Therefore, every major group said to be evolutionarily connected to any other major group lacks a known transitional. Why? because it is impossible to know that what you claim to be transitional was anything more than something that died a long time ago.
I most certainly do! Let me begin by saying that I completely agree with the scientific observations of speciation; however, I do not agree with the conclusion that one kind of animal has somehow changed into another kind because we observe speciation within a kind. Now I know that using the word "kind" is ambiguous, the closest definition that I can give you is what you have called "major groups." I would expect anyone who replies to this post to specifically describe what is meant when they say "species" and where the line is drawn between one specie and another. In order to have an intelligent conversation I believe that it only fair that each term be defined by the user.
Now as far as actual genetic code, it is extremely illogical and unscientific to look at several kinds of organisms, see that they have similar genetic codes, and conclude that they must have a common ancestor. Let me give an example. Lets say that gene-X has been decoded to be trait-Y. Now, using science, I can deduce that every time I come across an organism with gene-X that it will possess, or its offspring will possess, trait-Y. That is as far as science goes in genetics. Claiming that because many kinds of organisms possess gene-X and, as a result, trait-Y somehow means that they all have a common ancestor that is different from the currently observed kind is not science. That is not something that has ever been observed. In all of my genetic research, I have not found one single geneticist who can link male or female human DNA through the Y chromosome in males or female mitochondrial DNA back to any common ancestor with the respective DNA from apes. The genetic Adam and Eve of humans is none other than, you guessed it, a kind of human (or species if you prefer). I predict that this will be the same with every kind of organism. As far back as genetics can go, each kind of organism will only be traced as far back as possible to an ancestor that is the same kind of currently observed organism. The things that science has observed in genetics and the work therein is astounding and extremely interesting, but nothing observed gives any credible proof to the evolution of one kind of animal to a completely different kind. The only way that science could prove that type of evolution is to observe it happening in the future to an organism being only observed to do so without any kind of direct human interference.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Answers Research Journal, which you also think does not exist. It's amazing what happens when we think certain things don't exist first, and then procede!
Interplanner
Well-known member
No one who believes in the Genesis deluge believes it only because of that account. It is in up to 500 indigenous accounts around the world. The major ones being the Nordic Hyperborea, the Persian Gilgamesh Epic, and the Greek Deucalion.
Among the many bizarre artefacts about the Third Reich, Albert Speer--the Reich architect who did projects such as redesigning Berlin's traffic center--explained that he was ordered to design a road system large enough for the expected Hyperborean giants to use once they arrived. In their subverted reconstruction of history, such gigantist figures were the heroes of old. In Genesis, they are 'only evil continually.'
You can laugh at this if you like, but the same scientists developed evolutionary thought, and to attempt to subvert the power of the Biblical record, they simply said later such things (like creation and the deluge) didn't exist, which is now the official line in Western education. Militarily, the same folks spent millions producing German victory movies merely 6 months before defeat, and planned troop and materiel movement ops in areas where bridges were known not to exist.
We get pretty wacky when we controvert the Biblical record, either by denial or by dialectic.
In the Alaska state museum, Juneau, we find this wackiness about the end of 'the ice age' in the description of a plant fossil: 'This is one of many examples of the mega-fauna growing at the end of the ice-age.' !!! Translation: 'I'll handstand upside down naked in 3 feet of snow in 20 degree Juneau for uniformitarianism all day! It's great!'
It reminds me of Sir Mansfield in Jane Austen's MANSFIELD PARK on a tribe of the West Indies: "The Tuolamas are like mules, you see; they cannot produce offspring." People like that ran international shipping companies!
CherubRam
New member
There is a multitude of flood accounts from around the world. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html
6days
New member
Wow... impressive list from an atheist website!
Right Divider
Body part
See what I mean, everyone?Let's test that belief, then. In the accepted phylogeny of horses shown here:
Which step represents more change than is found within many mammalian species, today?
Think carefully. You don't want to give up on yet another challenge.
Pretty pictures of someone's imagined ordering presented as "fact".
You're a barrel of laughs.
It's easy. Because it's not a flood. Since when you see a flood can cover the top of a high mountain. If you don't have a second instance to support the assumption scientifically that it's a flood, then it may not be a flood at all. It's a flood only in literal terms, not in scientific terms. In scientific terms it can be a kind a catastrophe humans may not know of.
In my opinion, the following two assumptions are the devil misleading us to the wrong direction.
1) we assume subconsciously that we can get to past with "evidence". This is rather a delusion. What evidence do you have for what you yourself just did as recent as yesterday. There's no evidence for everyone's yesterday because yesterday's evidence is not available to us. The past is basically not accessible to humans. That's the big picture. So what we are talking about is how can humans speculate the past indirectly with "evidence" (sometimes they are just the limited and subjectively interpreted speculations) we can acquire at hand.
2) humans understand all kinds of catastrophes ever happened in the past, how long is it again, presumably 14 billions years. No, I don't think this assumption can be remotely accurate, if the age of earth can be that old.
The flood that created the Black Sea covered the highest mountains in the area.
Or, as it seems, it could be either a regional flood (which happened at about the right time) or a parable.
My thought is that nitpicking about the details obscures the lesson He's giving us.
I don't think so. For example, forensics and fire investigations clearly show that we can.
Photographs and video, my signature on two documents, the unfinished potting bench with my notes on the ends of the lumber, etc.
(Barbarian calls RD's bluff)
(RD tries a different bluff)
Well, let's take a look...
Here's a skeleton of Hyracotherium:
And one of Orohippus:
What differences do you see that are greater than can be found within a single species of animal?
Show us your list, and then we'll go on and see if we can find a transitional between Orohippus and whatever is next. It's a long series. Let's see what you've got.
(RD tries a different bluff)
Well, let's take a look...
Here's a skeleton of Hyracotherium:
And one of Orohippus:
What differences do you see that are greater than can be found within a single species of animal?
Show us your list, and then we'll go on and see if we can find a transitional between Orohippus and whatever is next. It's a long series. Let's see what you've got.
Which leaves us with two possibilities:
1.Big floods have happened to a lot of different peoples.
2. There was just one big flood.
:think:
Right Divider
Body part
Barbarian continues to bluff; RD tells the truth.
And ONCE AGAIN, you "know" without a doubt about these ancient bones. :french:Well, let's take a look...
Here's a skeleton of Hyracotherium:
And one of Orohippus:
What differences do you see that are greater than can be found within a single species of animal?
Show us your list, and then we'll go on and see if we can find a transitional between Orohippus and whatever is next. It's a long series. Let's see what you've got.
ONCE AGAIN, you're a barrel of laughs.
Barbarian calls RD's bluff:
What differences do you see that are greater than can be found within a single species of animal?
Show us your list, and then we'll go on and see if we can find a transitional between Orohippus and whatever is next. It's a long series. Let's see what you've got.
RD cuts and runs:
He didn't last long. Any other creationist want to step up and try it?
What differences do you see that are greater than can be found within a single species of animal?
Show us your list, and then we'll go on and see if we can find a transitional between Orohippus and whatever is next. It's a long series. Let's see what you've got.
RD cuts and runs:
He didn't last long. Any other creationist want to step up and try it?
Right Divider
Body part
Bluff and bluster.... good work zealot. Don't let truth get in your way. Just believe your man-made "wisdom".
6days
New member
The Barbarian said:
The flood that helped shaped our current earth covered what was then the highest mountains on earth by a depth of over 20' / over 6 meters.
Gen. 7:19
New International Version
They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered.
New Living Translation
Finally, the water covered even the highest mountains on the earth,
English Standard Version
And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered.
You'll need more than bluff and bluster. Your man-made "wisdom" failed you this time. Next time, learn a little bit before you try to tell us about things you don't understand.