RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (51) < ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 ... >   
  Topic: forastero's thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2011,12:19   

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,09:59)
And here are just a few examples of dino soft tissue that leaves da cave boys in da dust

A wing membrane from a 60 ft Pterosaur http://www.nature.com/nature.....a0.html

Mososaur soft tissue http://www.oceansofkansas.com/mus-tyl....lo.html

The Smoky Hill chalk of Kansas has been the source of several well preserved and nearly intact shark "mummies", http://www.squali.com/fossili....ina.htm

Specimen also displays several areas of soft-tissue preservation, including the cartilage that attached the shoulder girdle to the skeleton and connected the ribs at the sternum.
http://www.paleosearch.com/kschalk....ls.html

Ichthiosaur soft tissue http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc........1690467

Exceptionally well preserved pterosaur wing membrane from the Cretaceous of Brazil http://www.nature.com/nature.....a0.html

Preservation of the bone protein osteocalcin in dinosaurs
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs........0..871M

Bits of Triceratops Gene Extracted
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subject....a.shtml

Geologists Find First Clue To Tyrannosaurus Rex Gender In Bone Tissue
http://www.biology-online.org/article....us.html

Fossilisation, and in a couple of cases incompletely-mineralised bone, muppet.  Not soft tissue.  Did you actually follow the links?

If I was talking to most people, I would assume you would know the difference between fossil impressions and the actual tissue.  But I'm talikng to someone who thinks pterosaurs, mosasaurs and sharks are dinosaurs, so I'm not optimistic.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2011,12:25   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2011,08:54)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,00:59)
Oh Ogre, I almost forgot. Your cat and dog examples are a poor representation of brown bear to polar bear and dichotomies because the white fur of polar bears is more than likely an epigenetic regulation of melanin and hollowing.

The Panda is a whole different beast and I dont believe that its chromosomes fused with a grizzly bear but its sesmoid thumb morphology is more than likely epigenetic as it is in so many other beast

And thanks. Its great that you step up to the plate

Why?  My examples are what happens.  I'll need peer-reviewed evidence that polar bears and brown bears are actually the same species and that if you put a brown bear in the arctic it will become a polar bear.  I'll need evidence that an epigenetic change will last for 100,000 years (the time of the earliest recorded polar bear).

Please quote where I said a panda fused with a grizzly.  What I said, is that the panda maintains the entire range of traits that identify it as belonging to order carnivora.  In that way, a panda is more like a brown bear than a horse.

Please quote the evidence from a peer-reviewed study that the panda's thumb is epigenetic.

It's a damn shame that you won't step up to the plate.  You keep making claims with absolutely no supporting evidence.

I'll repeat... even if much of the changes are epigenetic and environmental (which is not the case), then it  still does not mean creationism is right and evolution is wrong.

Care to deal with the Flood geology? Or do you want to provide any evidence that I'm asking for?

Some brown bears and polar bears are more closley related to each other than are some polar to polar bears and brown bears are to brown bears.

Just google sesmoid and epigenetic and mechanical loading

The relationship of epigenetics to mechanobiology can be seen, for example, in the development of sesamoid bones, which Sarin and colleagues expressed as “mediated epigenetically by local mechanical forces.”2  Sarin VK, Erikson GM, Giori NJ, Bergman AG, Carter DR. Coincident development of sesamoid bones and clues to their evolution, The Anatomical Record, 1999; 257(5): 174-180.

There are all kinds of stimuli that could keep the melanin switch turned off

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2011,12:28   

Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 05 2011,12:19)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,09:59)
And here are just a few examples of dino soft tissue that leaves da cave boys in da dust

A wing membrane from a 60 ft Pterosaur http://www.nature.com/nature.....a0.html

Mososaur soft tissue http://www.oceansofkansas.com/mus-tyl....lo.html

The Smoky Hill chalk of Kansas has been the source of several well preserved and nearly intact shark "mummies", http://www.squali.com/fossili....ina.htm

Specimen also displays several areas of soft-tissue preservation, including the cartilage that attached the shoulder girdle to the skeleton and connected the ribs at the sternum.
http://www.paleosearch.com/kschalk....ls.html

Ichthiosaur soft tissue http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc........1690467

Exceptionally well preserved pterosaur wing membrane from the Cretaceous of Brazil http://www.nature.com/nature.....a0.html

Preservation of the bone protein osteocalcin in dinosaurs
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs........0..871M

Bits of Triceratops Gene Extracted
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subject....a.shtml

Geologists Find First Clue To Tyrannosaurus Rex Gender In Bone Tissue
http://www.biology-online.org/article....us.html

Fossilisation, and in a couple of cases incompletely-mineralised bone, muppet.  Not soft tissue.  Did you actually follow the links?

If I was talking to most people, I would assume you would know the difference between fossil impressions and the actual tissue.  But I'm talikng to someone who thinks pterosaurs, mosasaurs and sharks are dinosaurs, so I'm not optimistic.

See, those stay in denial  dont deserve a good teacher

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2011,12:41   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2011,09:15)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,03:10)
Actually, you had had looked into some billions of years-old crystal ball chronologies  when I said:

Its pseudoempericism to say that no kinds of radiometric contamination are alterations occurred in billions or even thousands of years is as ridiculous as saying dinosaur soft tissue can last millions of years. Plus, please tell me how this type of radiometric dating

Then you insisted that no fundamental forces in our universe have changed over time and I countered with:

-Uniformitarianism is pseudoscience because in reality our sun is dying, the earths rotational spin is slowing, Lunar rotations are dissipating, ocean currents are slowing, the earth's internal heat is cooling, tectonics is slowing, star migration is slowing, the magnetic field is weakening, the hydrologic cycle is drying up, oceanic tides are weakening, fruits and vegetables of today have lost large percentages of their mineral content over the last 50 years, bones are becoming less dense, etc.......

I gave you many quotes from top scientists who claimed "explosion" including from your own links. Plus the priest that developed the Big Bang theory said it was an explosion and Einstein concurred that the priest was right.

Again for the fifth time, try googling Cambrian and benthic

What geologic columns? You can find stratigraphic relatively  in recent terms but uplifting destroys, mixes and or contaminates very ancient stratigraphy. Even Cenozoic sites are a jumbled hodgepodge dated by preconceived ideas.  Even De Vince knew that. Just look at a geological map. Its a mosaic spread out horizontally in all kinds of crazy looking mosaics based on index fossils, which were supposedly originally dated by depth. This is circular reasoning. Plus, we are finding living index fossils all the time

Oh yeah here we go again.  Do you read what we write?

1) look up isochrons, explain in detail why all isochron dating methods are wrong and yet they still all converge on the same date.

2) The sun is 'dying' by known physical, chemical, and nuclear processes that are consistent with known processes.  In fact, it is also known that these processes are exactly the same as they were about 13 billion years ago... because we can see these processes in action 13 billion years ago.

3) Earth's rotation and Lunar rotations are caused by the exact same thing, a transfer of energy from the Earth to the Moon, causing the Earth to slow and the Moon to speed up, moving away from us.  This is simple, very simple, physics.  It is a known, explained process that does not mean fundamental laws are changing.

4) currents change all the time.  Major currents also change, just more slowly.  This is a known and explained process that does not indicate fundamental laws are changing.

5) Earth's internal heat is based on radiation.  When the process or radioactive decay occurs (a known process that does not indicate fundamental laws are changing) that means there is less material to warm the interior of the Earth.  

I could go on, but there is no point.

You, forastero, are confusing the fundamental laws of nature, with the natural process of entropy as energy flows are used to create work and some of that energy is lost to non-productive heat.  

There is nothing in this list that implies or indicates in any way that a fundamental law, force, or character is changing.

I have previously asked you for evidence for the latter three of these claims and you did not provide any.

Quotes!?!?!? Who cares?  An explosion is a simple explanation for people who can't understand expansion.  I'll ask you again... what exploded?  Since even sub-atomic particles and matter/anti-matter didn't exist until AFTER the big bang... what exploded?

The Cambrian was an era.  The benthic fossils that you are concerned with were FOUND in a variety of rocks that are Cambrian in age (i.e. 530 mya and 580 mya).  The reason, of course, that all the life was benthic is because a) There were no land dwelling species at the time and b) the formations that caused the majority of the fossillization were underwater landslides on continental shelves and canyons.

I don't understand why you can't understand this.

No, they are not.  The geologic column was developed and used for construction purposes well before Darwin was born.  In fact, the early (Christian) geologists could look at the fossils in a rock column and tell you what kind of rock it was and what kind of rock was above it and below it.

Interestingly, your claim here makes a mockery of entire fields of industry that are making billions of dollars per year (oil, diamonds, coal, etc).  So, since they are making money (lots of money) off what you claim to be inaccurate, I think that pretty much trumps your claims.

No, we do not find living index fossils all the time.  That's why they are index fossils because they lived for a very specific amount of time and then no more were ever found.  Like I said, oil geologists use index fossils daily.  It works.

If if the systems degrade [due to sin] as you say, it doesnt diminish the fact that thing or way different today. Plus you even admit that the forces makes huge leaps and drops.

Oh and again, what are you empirically calibrating this dating  technique to and why must they autonomously send the samples all over to "supposedly" prevent the abundantly prevalent fraud with these dating techniques? A few secret emails is the norm, I'm sure.

Again go look at a geological map like the dudes do and you will see that these so called eras are spread all over horizontally. Plus oil dudes often love anything that supports survival of the fittest corporate cronyism.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2011,12:47   

Forastero the strange, would you clarify something for me? I cannot fathom your position, but I am trying.

I gather that you endorse the reality of various geological eras, including the Triassic (250 mya - mya), the Jurassic (199 mya to 145 mya), and Cretaceous (145 mya - 65 mya).

You do that when you say, "speaking of explosions, there are also all the explosions of life such as the Cambrian explosion, Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene  explosion, Miocene explosion,  Pleistocene explosions."

In that passage you assert that there occurred "explosions of life" during each of these eras, explosions that stand as evidence for ID. Because it would be unintelligible to simultaneously make assertions regarding events of those eras and deny that those same eras existed/occurred at all, I conclude that you endorse the chronologies to which those eras refer, including the eras spanning the period 250 mya through 65 mya.

Moreover, because you describe the occurrence of biological "explosions" during these eras, including the eras spanning 250 mya through 65 mya, it follows that endorse the notion that life was present during those ancient eras, sometimes "exploding" into radiations of additional diversity and complexity.

---

Now you argue that it is "ridiculous" to say that dinosaur soft tissue can last millions of years, yet observe that all kinds of dinosaurs are found with soft tissues. In so saying, you perforce are denying that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago.

So, put these two assertions together for me:

"there existed geological eras spanning 250 mya through 65 mya during which life was thriving and diverse, sometimes evidenced by 'explosions' of diversity."

And

"dinosaurs didn't live millions of years ago, but rather much more recently, recently enough to permit the preservation of soft tissue."

Is it your belief that these geological eras occurred, complete with exploding diversity, but that dinosaurs did not live during those eras? Is it therefore your belief that the evidence (the geological column, radiometric dating, etc.) in fact correctly establishes the existence of those eras, yet the evidence that associates dinosaurs with those eras - grounded in the same geology and physics - is completely mistaken?  

In which case, then, it follows you are asserting that other forms of life did the exploding during, for example, the Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous explosions. What forms were those?

Or, perhaps is it your belief that the eras themselves did not exist at all, and that the entirety of geological and physical evidence through which these eras have been inferred and dated actually arose through other, very recent processes - sufficiently recent to permit the persistence of "all kinds" of dinosaur tissue.

In which case your assertion that "explosions" occurred during those eras that stand as evidence for ID becomes completely unintelligible, as you cannot simultaneously deny the eras and make assertions about them.

It also follows that when you use terms like "Triassic" and "Cretaceous" you are in fact using private terms that bear no relationship to those terms as employed by sciences of geology and paleontology. You therefore deny yourself access to research referencing these eras using these terms in their ordinary scientific senses. Given that, what evidence do you have for the occurrence of "explosions" of life during the eras of your own invention?

Or, perhaps you aren't denying that dinosaurs did live 250 - 65 mya, but rather are saying that the tissues to which you refer didn't originate with dinosaurs. Also completely unintelligible, given your assertion that "all kinds of dinosaurs are found with soft tissues."

Or...?

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2011,12:52   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2011,09:20)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,03:57)
Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 05 2011,03:29)
A real live one

 
Quote

Then you insisted that no fundamental forces in our universe have changed over time and I countered with:

-Uniformitarianism is pseudoscience because in reality our sun is dying, the earths rotational spin is slowing, Lunar rotations are dissipating, ocean currents are slowing, the earth's internal heat is cooling, tectonics is slowing, star migration is slowing, the magnetic field is weakening, the hydrologic cycle is drying up, oceanic tides are weakening, fruits and vegetables of today have lost large percentages of their mineral content over the last 50 years, bones are becoming less dense, etc.......


Yet the fundamental forces remain the same. To account for a young universe the change in speed of light would have fried adam and all other life. Strange how on one hand all of the universal constants have been perfectly designed for life but then they can be warped to suit a young universe.

As for the rest, wow they are certainly making creationists stupider - Fruit and vegetables have less minerals? Not if you shop at the right places.

Star migration is slowing?? WTF

speed of light ? thats all? Anyway, the amount of light hitting the earth has definitely changed and does change a lot. Your Gould scriptures will tell you that

And Wrong

And yes

Citation please for the fruits and bones thing.  I asked well over a week ago.  None yet.

The amount of light hitting the Earth has changed... duh.

This is a well known phenomena that the sun goes through cycles of lowered and increased radiative output.  It is in no way evidence for or implying that any fundamental laws of the universe are changing.

I have given all kinds of examples on bone density diminishing over time in several critters and the only thing you could respond with was an island dwarf. Again, they call them island dwarfs because they're ancestors were more robust.

Vitamin loss in vegis http://www.lifeextensionvitamins.com/vewivii....co.html

Oh and physicians do understand the growth and degradation that sin can have on a body over time as do good stewards of the earth

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2011,12:56   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 05 2011,12:47)
Forastero the strange, would you clarify something for me? I cannot fathom your position, but I am trying.

I gather that you endorse the reality of various geological eras, including the Triassic (250 mya - mya), the Jurassic (199 mya to 145 mya), and Cretaceous (145 mya - 65 mya).

You do that when you say, "speaking of explosions, there are also all the explosions of life such as the Cambrian explosion, Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene  explosion, Miocene explosion,  Pleistocene explosions."

In that passage you assert that there occurred "explosions of life" during each of these eras, explosions that stand as evidence for ID. Because it would be unintelligible to simultaneously make assertions regarding events of those eras and deny that those same eras existed/occurred at all, I conclude that you endorse the chronologies to which those eras refer, including the eras spanning the period 250 mya through 65 mya.

Moreover, because you describe the occurrence of biological "explosions" during these eras, including the eras spanning 250 mya through 65 mya, it follows that endorse the notion that life was present during those ancient eras, sometimes "exploding" into radiations of additional diversity and complexity.

---

Now you argue that it is "ridiculous" to say that dinosaur soft tissue can last millions of years, yet observe that all kinds of dinosaurs are found with soft tissues. In so saying, you perforce are denying that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago.

So, put these two assertions together for me:

"there existed geological eras spanning 250 mya through 65 mya during which life was thriving and diverse, sometimes evidenced by 'explosions' of diversity."

And

"dinosaurs didn't live millions of years ago, but rather much more recently, recently enough to permit the preservation of soft tissue."

Is it your belief that these geological eras occurred, complete with exploding diversity, but that dinosaurs did not live during those eras? Is it therefore your belief that the evidence (the geological column, radiometric dating, etc.) in fact correctly establishes the existence of those eras, yet the evidence that associates dinosaurs with those eras - grounded in the same geology and physics - is completely mistaken?  

In which case, then, it follows you are asserting that other forms of life did the exploding during, for example, the Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous explosions. What forms were those?

Or, perhaps is it your belief that the eras themselves did not exist at all, and that the entirety of geological and physical evidence through which these eras have been inferred and dated actually arose through other, very recent processes - sufficiently recent to permit the persistence of "all kinds" of dinosaur tissue.

In which case your assertion that "explosions" occurred during those eras that stand as evidence for ID becomes completely unintelligible, as you cannot simultaneously deny the eras and make assertions about them.

It also follows that when you use terms like "Triassic" and "Cretaceous" you are in fact using private terms that bear no relationship to those terms as employed by sciences of geology and paleontology. You therefore deny yourself access to research referencing these eras using these terms in their ordinary scientific senses. Given that, what evidence do you have for the occurrence of "explosions" of life during the eras of your own invention?

Or, perhaps you aren't denying that dinosaurs did live 250 - 65 mya, but rather are saying that the tissues to which you refer didn't originate with dinosaurs. Also completely unintelligible, given your assertion that "all kinds of dinosaurs are found with soft tissues."

Or...?

I have clearly said in Occam terms that those eras represent only a antediluvian and post flood  eras with many eco zones

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2011,13:05   

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,12:15)
Where did I indicate that I disagreed with polyphenic genes? That is what I have been teaching you about. That said, I am not a good teacher to you because you dont deserve it.

In your own words and mine, the mutations detract from their fitness inn one way or another. Short legged cats dont always have a disadvantage like you say but there are plenty of age-old organizations trying to prevent the breeding of them. There must be a reason.

Wow... so much is explained about your personality in this short statement.

EVERYONE deserves to learn everything that they can, all the time.  If you disagree, then you are part of the reason that US kids suck at everything.

In the last sentence... {begin snark} because the old ways are always best right? {end snark}

I can't express how stupid that last sentence is.  If there is a reason, then state it.  Doing something because it's tradition, regardless of whether it's right or not, is one of the fundamental problems that religion causes in our modern world.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2011,13:07   

Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 05 2011,12:19)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,09:59)
And here are just a few examples of dino soft tissue that leaves da cave boys in da dust

A wing membrane from a 60 ft Pterosaur http://www.nature.com/nature.....a0.html

Mososaur soft tissue http://www.oceansofkansas.com/mus-tyl....lo.html

The Smoky Hill chalk of Kansas has been the source of several well preserved and nearly intact shark "mummies", http://www.squali.com/fossili....ina.htm

Specimen also displays several areas of soft-tissue preservation, including the cartilage that attached the shoulder girdle to the skeleton and connected the ribs at the sternum.
http://www.paleosearch.com/kschalk....ls.html

Ichthiosaur soft tissue http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc........1690467

Exceptionally well preserved pterosaur wing membrane from the Cretaceous of Brazil http://www.nature.com/nature.....a0.html

Preservation of the bone protein osteocalcin in dinosaurs
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs........0..871M

Bits of Triceratops Gene Extracted
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subject....a.shtml

Geologists Find First Clue To Tyrannosaurus Rex Gender In Bone Tissue
http://www.biology-online.org/article....us.html

Fossilisation, and in a couple of cases incompletely-mineralised bone, muppet.  Not soft tissue.  Did you actually follow the links?

If I was talking to most people, I would assume you would know the difference between fossil impressions and the actual tissue.  But I'm talikng to someone who thinks pterosaurs, mosasaurs and sharks are dinosaurs, so I'm not optimistic.

Thanks, John, that was my next project... to look those up, but (as I predicted mind you), he went with impressions that soft tissue left in soft, fine grained sediment.

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2011,13:10   

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,13:56)
I have clearly said in Occam terms that those eras represent only a antediluvian and post flood  eras with many eco zones

That describes a private, idiosyncratic use of those terms.

You therefore deny yourself access to research conclusions that employ these terms of art in the more ordinary sense, including research that discloses "explosive" radiations of diversity, to support ID, as those terms in the professional literature have different referents than do the terms of your private language.

Entering your frame of reference, when was the flood, relative to which these eras were 'ante' and 'post'? That will enable us to begin to assign meaning to your  "antedeluvian" and "post flood" chronology.

Which eras were 'ante,' and which 'post' flood?

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2011,13:12   

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,12:52)
I have given all kinds of examples on bone density diminishing over time in several critters and the only thing you could respond with was an island dwarf. Again, they call them island dwarfs because they're ancestors were more robust.

Vitamin loss in vegis http://www.lifeextensionvitamins.com/vewivii....co.html

Oh and physicians do understand the growth and degradation that sin can have on a body over time as do good stewards of the earth

Ummm.... you do realize that bone density =/= robustness.

Bone density is a measure of the mass of the bone in a unit volume.  For example, ostriches have a lower bone density that cats, even though the ostriches are larger and even have thicker, more robust bones.  Why?  Because bird bones are much less dense.

sigh...

I'm fairly certain that life extension vitamins.com is not exactly peer-reviewed.  If they link to a peer-reviewed article, then I suggest you just link to that.

Define 'sin'.

Calculate the effects of sin on the various body parts, I would suggest a graph with the 'sinfullness' correlated with the degradation in body parts over the last 100,000 years... oh wait, that's older than the Earth by a factor of about 15...

This is getting crazier and crazier.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2011,13:17   

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,12:41)
If if the systems degrade [due to sin] as you say, it doesnt diminish the fact that thing or way different today. Plus you even admit that the forces makes huge leaps and drops.

Oh and again, what are you empirically calibrating this dating  technique to and why must they autonomously send the samples all over to "supposedly" prevent the abundantly prevalent fraud with these dating techniques? A few secret emails is the norm, I'm sure.

Again go look at a geological map like the dudes do and you will see that these so called eras are spread all over horizontally. Plus oil dudes often love anything that supports survival of the fittest corporate cronyism.

1) quote me, in context, as saying that forces make huge leaps and drops.  Explain how my comment (as referenced above) implies in any way, shape, or form that fundamental laws are changing.  (Hint, the force applied to a car when you lightly touch the gas pedal is much lower than when you press the pedal all the way to the floor.)

2) isochrons - look it up

 You still have not explained what the mechanism of the change in fundamental forces is that would cause radioactivity to change rates.  You still have not explained how this change continues to result in wildly different dating methods all returning the same age.  

3) Have you ever heard of 'uplift' or 'sinking'.

You are actually incorrect, oil dudes love anything that makes them money and geology does so.  What contributions have your notions made to the world?  None...

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2011,14:08   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2011,13:05)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,12:15)
Where did I indicate that I disagreed with polyphenic genes? That is what I have been teaching you about. That said, I am not a good teacher to you because you dont deserve it.

In your own words and mine, the mutations detract from their fitness inn one way or another. Short legged cats dont always have a disadvantage like you say but there are plenty of age-old organizations trying to prevent the breeding of them. There must be a reason.

Wow... so much is explained about your personality in this short statement.

EVERYONE deserves to learn everything that they can, all the time.  If you disagree, then you are part of the reason that US kids suck at everything.

In the last sentence... {begin snark} because the old ways are always best right? {end snark}

I can't express how stupid that last sentence is.  If there is a reason, then state it.  Doing something because it's tradition, regardless of whether it's right or not, is one of the fundamental problems that religion causes in our modern world.

Ha ha..do you also believe the Nazis deserved to learn your creed?

evolutionism has always been the most intolerant to every one who wasn't of their "favored race" and creed. Heck, this very website has has expelled me from all other forums and banished me to this one thread like the plague.

Btw 2 I am sure those old cat and dog societies can be down right uppity but they are known to allow mutations so what is it about the short legged cat?

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2011,14:41   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2011,13:07)
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 05 2011,12:19)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,09:59)
And here are just a few examples of dino soft tissue that leaves da cave boys in da dust

A wing membrane from a 60 ft Pterosaur http://www.nature.com/nature.....a0.html

Mososaur soft tissue http://www.oceansofkansas.com/mus-tyl....lo.html

The Smoky Hill chalk of Kansas has been the source of several well preserved and nearly intact shark "mummies", http://www.squali.com/fossili....ina.htm

Specimen also displays several areas of soft-tissue preservation, including the cartilage that attached the shoulder girdle to the skeleton and connected the ribs at the sternum.
http://www.paleosearch.com/kschalk....ls.html

Ichthiosaur soft tissue http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc........1690467

Exceptionally well preserved pterosaur wing membrane from the Cretaceous of Brazil http://www.nature.com/nature.....a0.html

Preservation of the bone protein osteocalcin in dinosaurs
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs........0..871M

Bits of Triceratops Gene Extracted
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subject....a.shtml

Geologists Find First Clue To Tyrannosaurus Rex Gender In Bone Tissue
http://www.biology-online.org/article....us.html

Fossilisation, and in a couple of cases incompletely-mineralised bone, muppet.  Not soft tissue.  Did you actually follow the links?

If I was talking to most people, I would assume you would know the difference between fossil impressions and the actual tissue.  But I'm talikng to someone who thinks pterosaurs, mosasaurs and sharks are dinosaurs, so I'm not optimistic.

Thanks, John, that was my next project... to look those up, but (as I predicted mind you), he went with impressions that soft tissue left in soft, fine grained sediment.

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Dinosaur mummy yields organic molecules
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id....4XLc-t4

Preservation of the bone protein osteocalcin in dinosaurs

Two different immunological assays were used to identify the remains of a bone matrix protein, osteocalcin (OC), in the bones of dinosaurs and other fossil vertebrates. Antibodies raised against OC from modern vertebrates showed strong immunological cross-reactivity with modern and relatively young fossil samples and significant reactions with some of the dinosaur bone extracts. The presence of OC was confirmed by the detection of a peptide-bound, uniquely vertebrate amino acid, {gamma}carboxyglutamic acid (Gla). Preservation of OC in fossil bones appears to be strongly dependent on the burial history and not simply on age. These results extend the range of protein preservation in the geologic record and provide a first step toward a molecular phylogeny of the dinosaurs.

Bits of Triceratops Gene Extracted July 29, 2000
These scientists analyzed samples from two vertebrae and a rib fragment of a Triceratops from North Dakota, USA, isolating 130 base pairs of its 12S rRNA gene (ribosomal RNA, a type of RNA found in the ribosomes of cells, where protein synthesis occurs). 100% of the base pairs matched those of the turkey (and 94.5% were similar to many of the other bird RNA samples tested). If true, this find certainly strengthens the argument that birds and dinosaurs are closely related.

Geologists Find First Clue To Tyrannosaurus Rex Gender In Bone Tissue


The Smoky Hill chalk of Kansas has been the source of several well preserved and nearly intact shark "mummies", with complete dentitions, dermal scales, vertebral columns, stomach contents, and  cartilage. This shark probably reached lengths of 6 meters or more in the Western Interior Seaway during the late Cretaceous. http://www.squali.com/fossili....ina.htm

Specimen also displays several areas of soft-tissue preservation, including the cartilage that attached the shoulder girdle to the skeleton and connected the ribs at the sternum.
http://www.paleosearch.com/kschalk....ls.html

“I looked at this and I looked at this and I thought, this can’t be. Red blood cells don’t preserve.” Furthermore, she added, “It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn’t believe it. I said to the lab technician: “The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?’”
“The lab filled with murmurs of amazement, for I had focused on something inside the vessels that none of us had ever noticed(or seen perhaps?) before: tiny round objects, translucent red with a dark center. Then a colleague took one look at them and shouted, ‘You’ve got red blood cells. You’ve got red blood cells!’” Mary Schweitzer
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id....7316912 A video with her own words

...but her boss was putting negative pressure on her from the get go. “When she first found the red-blood-cell-looking structures, I said, Yep, that’s what they look like,” “Now see if you can find some evidence to show that that’s not what they are.” Jack Horner--Smithsonian Magazine May 2000. Sure they are going to dismiss her work and force her to retract. They did the same thing when they stomped all over Woodward's dinosaur bone DNA found in the coal mine.
http://discovermagazine.com/2006....aur-dna

Geologists Find First Clue To Tyrannosaurus Rex Gender In Bone Tissue
It’s a girl … and she’s pregnant! Because the dinosaur tissues didn’t look exactly like pictures published of medullary bone in living birds like chicken and quail, Schweitzer’s team compared the tissue from the femur of the T. rex to that taken from leg bones of more primitive ratites, or flightless birds, such as ostriches and emus. These birds share more features with dinosaurs than other present-day birds. They selected an ostrich and an emu in different stages of their laying cycles, when medullary bone is present.

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2011,14:47   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2011,13:17)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,12:41)
If if the systems degrade [due to sin] as you say, it doesnt diminish the fact that thing or way different today. Plus you even admit that the forces makes huge leaps and drops.

Oh and again, what are you empirically calibrating this dating  technique to and why must they autonomously send the samples all over to "supposedly" prevent the abundantly prevalent fraud with these dating techniques? A few secret emails is the norm, I'm sure.

Again go look at a geological map like the dudes do and you will see that these so called eras are spread all over horizontally. Plus oil dudes often love anything that supports survival of the fittest corporate cronyism.

1) quote me, in context, as saying that forces make huge leaps and drops.  Explain how my comment (as referenced above) implies in any way, shape, or form that fundamental laws are changing.  (Hint, the force applied to a car when you lightly touch the gas pedal is much lower than when you press the pedal all the way to the floor.)

2) isochrons - look it up

 You still have not explained what the mechanism of the change in fundamental forces is that would cause radioactivity to change rates.  You still have not explained how this change continues to result in wildly different dating methods all returning the same age.  

3) Have you ever heard of 'uplift' or 'sinking'.

You are actually incorrect, oil dudes love anything that makes them money and geology does so.  What contributions have your notions made to the world?  None...

Just look at your quote on the radical gradients of solar forces

I'm the one that brought up uplift. Its why your geologic column myth is a joke

And I'm still waiting on how you calibrate your dating technique

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2011,15:12   

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,14:08)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2011,13:05)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,12:15)
Where did I indicate that I disagreed with polyphenic genes? That is what I have been teaching you about. That said, I am not a good teacher to you because you dont deserve it.

In your own words and mine, the mutations detract from their fitness inn one way or another. Short legged cats dont always have a disadvantage like you say but there are plenty of age-old organizations trying to prevent the breeding of them. There must be a reason.

Wow... so much is explained about your personality in this short statement.

EVERYONE deserves to learn everything that they can, all the time.  If you disagree, then you are part of the reason that US kids suck at everything.

In the last sentence... {begin snark} because the old ways are always best right? {end snark}

I can't express how stupid that last sentence is.  If there is a reason, then state it.  Doing something because it's tradition, regardless of whether it's right or not, is one of the fundamental problems that religion causes in our modern world.

Ha ha..do you also believe the Nazis deserved to learn your creed?

evolutionism has always been the most intolerant to every one who wasn't of their "favored race" and creed. Heck, this very website has has expelled me from all other forums and banished me to this one thread like the plague.

Btw 2 I am sure those old cat and dog societies can be down right uppity but they are known to allow mutations so what is it about the short legged cat?

Naxis deserve to learn everything I have to teach them too.  However, much like you, they often choose not to learn.

I have no creed.

Really.  Here's the definition of evolution (even IDists agree on this)

Change in allele frequencies in populations over time.

Please show me were 'favored race', 'creed', 'intolerance', etc is in this definition.. because I must have missed it.

BTW: Just so you know, just because a few people 150 years ago held a certain idea, that does not mean it is central dogma on which the entire science of Biology is based.  The central idea of Biology is based on reproducible evidence.

You were expelled to this forum so that you would stay on topic (it was obvious that you choose not to stay on topics on the other threads).  You have been allowed to remain here, in fact, I don't recall anyone actually being banned from here... unlike ALL of the forums that support YOUR ideas.  Heck, there's a whole thread dedicated to the permanent bannings of users in those other forums... most of which is just for asking questions (much like those you refuse to answer).

Please do not attempt to take a concern troll attitude.  You have to actually be persecuted to be do that.

BTW: I'm sure that if you learned about the subject, you might find the answer (hint: 1983).

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2011,15:28   

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,14:47)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2011,13:17)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,12:41)
If if the systems degrade [due to sin] as you say, it doesnt diminish the fact that thing or way different today. Plus you even admit that the forces makes huge leaps and drops.

Oh and again, what are you empirically calibrating this dating  technique to and why must they autonomously send the samples all over to "supposedly" prevent the abundantly prevalent fraud with these dating techniques? A few secret emails is the norm, I'm sure.

Again go look at a geological map like the dudes do and you will see that these so called eras are spread all over horizontally. Plus oil dudes often love anything that supports survival of the fittest corporate cronyism.

1) quote me, in context, as saying that forces make huge leaps and drops.  Explain how my comment (as referenced above) implies in any way, shape, or form that fundamental laws are changing.  (Hint, the force applied to a car when you lightly touch the gas pedal is much lower than when you press the pedal all the way to the floor.)

2) isochrons - look it up

 You still have not explained what the mechanism of the change in fundamental forces is that would cause radioactivity to change rates.  You still have not explained how this change continues to result in wildly different dating methods all returning the same age.  

3) Have you ever heard of 'uplift' or 'sinking'.

You are actually incorrect, oil dudes love anything that makes them money and geology does so.  What contributions have your notions made to the world?  None...

Just look at your quote on the radical gradients of solar forces

I'm the one that brought up uplift. Its why your geologic column myth is a joke

And I'm still waiting on how you calibrate your dating technique

gradient of solar forces... which solar forces?  Gravity, temperature pressure, solar winds, what?  All neatly explained by the laws of physics that you say are changing.  They aren't and there is no evidence or even hint that they do.

Yes, uplift.  What do you think uplift is?  On what scale do you think uplift occurs?  What is uplifted?   From where?  

I and two others have already told you how radioactive dating techniques are calibrated... I S O C H R O N S

here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs....ng.html

Are you asking how we know what the half life of materials is?  Because that's pretty easy too.  You watch one, measure the mass of the parent material before, measure the mass of the daughter material after.  Once you know how long it for x amount of material to decay, then it is a trivial math exercise to determine half life.

Or are you against math too?

Please keep in mind that you are obviously ignorant of this knowledge and you choose to remain so, since the source material for this linked to article is 1969 to 1996.

You could have found out the answer to your question in about 5 minutes had you typed 'calibration radioactive dating isochron' into Google.  You choose not to do that.  Your ignorance reflects poorly on your subject.  I was wrong, that happens, you choose to remain ignorant about a subject that you are arguing about.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2011,17:19   

Forastero -

I'm still interested in hearing your thoughts on when the flood occurred, which eras preceded the flood, and which followed.

We should really call them 'foresteras,' given that you have severed yourself from any connection to the standard chronology as parsed relative to the worldwide geological column and the passage of deep time it records. But since you make specific claims using standard nomenclature vis explosions for many geological periods, describe your eras in those terms.

When was the flood? Which eras preceded the flood, and which followed?

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
MichaelJ



Posts: 462
Joined: June 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2011,17:47   

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 06 2011,01:35)
Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 05 2011,04:29)
Flat earth ...

Isaiah 11:12  
12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV)

Revelation 7:1
1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. (KJV)

Job 38:13
13 That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? (KJV)

Jeremiah 16:19
19 O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ENDS OF THE EARTH, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit. (KJV)

Daniel 4:11
11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH: (KJV)

Matthew 4:8
8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; (KJV)

Proverbs 8:27-  When he prepared the heavens, I was there, When he drew a circle on the face of the deep

Isaiah 40:22-  It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And it's inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

Also unmoving:

I Chronicles 16:30: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable."
Psalm 93:1: "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm..."
Psalm 96:10: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable..."
Psalm 104:5: "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken."
Isaiah 45:18: "...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..."

I wont even start on the firmanent and vaults of heaven

The Hebrew Bible uses poems  consistent with  the ancient Middle Eastern cosmology, such as in the Enuma Elish, which described a circular earth surrounded by water above and below, as illustrated by references to the "foundations of the earth" and the "circle of the earth. In numerous passages, the bible refers to the earth as a campus in relation to night and day, boundaries and winds (easterlies, northerlies etc) so the four corners or "wings" logically means north, south, east and west. For instance Job 26:10 He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end.

Nebuchadnezzar was in a prophetic dream-time state and thus able to see the earth from afar and seeing the ends of the continents.  

Likewise, in  Mathew, even if Satan can see through solid earth, his best vantage point to see, accuse, and influence all of the kingdoms would logically be from a distance like a "angel of [false] light" (imagine a parabolic beam), hence the name "prince of the power of the air". This is why there are so many depiction  of ancient gods giving of conic and oblique powers

Early Church fathers like Augustine and Constantine’s tutor Lactantius believed in a spherical earth. The early Christian also often depicted symbols of Christ over the sphere of the earth or angels holding a spherical earth.

The flat earth ties to Christians was based mostly on lies by bible hating humanists like John W. Draper and Andrew Dickson White   Russell, J. B. 1997. Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus & Modern Historians. Praeger Paperback, Westport, Conn.

So you are saying while everybody else around them thought the world was flat, the early Jews knew it was spherical and instead of saying that our God told us that the earth is a sphere, they used the same flat earth language but only meant it metaphorically. Well explain then why we can't assert that they knew that the universe is 13 billion years old and the whole 7 day thing and the flood is metaphorical as well?

  
MichaelJ



Posts: 462
Joined: June 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2011,18:37   

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 06 2011,02:05)
Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 05 2011,04:40)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,19:22)
 
Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 05 2011,04:15)
The canyon system doesn't snake like the grand canyon.

No canyons snake the same because no giant giant forces snake the same

Exactly - a canyon that is created over millions of years will meander like the grand canyon


with the mt St Helens comparisions:

The sediments on Mount St. Helens were unconsolidated volcanic ash, which is easily eroded. The Grand Canyon was carved into harder materials, including well-consolidated sandstone and limestone, hard metamorphosed sediments (the Vishnu schist), plus a touch of relatively recent basalt.

The walls of the Mount St. Helens canyon slope 45 degrees. The walls of the Grand Canyon are vertical in places.

The canyon was not entirely formed suddenly. The canyon along Toutle River has a river continuously contributing to its formation.

The streams flowing down Mount St. Helens flow at a steeper grade than the Colorado River does, allowing greater erosion.

The Grand Canyon (and canyons further up and down the Colorado River) is more than 100,000 times larger than the canyon on Mount St. Helens. The two are not really comparable.

Edit: wrote St Helens instead of Grand Canyon

More pseudoempiricism from you. Various anomalies at St Helens and abroad show that super chaotic cataclysm forces dont always snake the same way as you say. Some gouge out vertically some not so vertically

So why use such a bad example as Mt St Helens? Show us an catastrophic example that does look like the grand canyon.

  
khan



Posts: 1554
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2011,18:41   

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,15:08)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2011,13:05)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,12:15)
Where did I indicate that I disagreed with polyphenic genes? That is what I have been teaching you about. That said, I am not a good teacher to you because you dont deserve it.

In your own words and mine, the mutations detract from their fitness inn one way or another. Short legged cats dont always have a disadvantage like you say but there are plenty of age-old organizations trying to prevent the breeding of them. There must be a reason.

Wow... so much is explained about your personality in this short statement.

EVERYONE deserves to learn everything that they can, all the time.  If you disagree, then you are part of the reason that US kids suck at everything.

In the last sentence... {begin snark} because the old ways are always best right? {end snark}

I can't express how stupid that last sentence is.  If there is a reason, then state it.  Doing something because it's tradition, regardless of whether it's right or not, is one of the fundamental problems that religion causes in our modern world.

Ha ha..do you also believe the Nazis deserved to learn your creed?

evolutionism has always been the most intolerant to every one who wasn't of their "favored race" and creed. Heck, this very website has has expelled me from all other forums and banished me to this one thread like the plague.

Btw 2 I am sure those old cat and dog societies can be down right uppity but they are known to allow mutations so what is it about the short legged cat?

I think "forastero" has officially filled out the creationist bingo card. We can all go home now and leave it rolling around in its own shit.

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

  
MichaelJ



Posts: 462
Joined: June 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2011,19:07   

Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 06 2011,02:08)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,01:50)
Fossil areas all over the world have mammals and dinosaurs in the same vicinity

Of course they do, muppet.  Mammals evolved from synapsids in the Triassic.  What's your point?

Note that I originally said "modern" mammals. He accuses practically every body else in the world of lying of lying but just on this thread we can document many his lies:

All kinds of dinosaurs are being found with soft tissues - He then gives us a list that contains creatures that aren't dinosaurs and examples of soft tissue impressions. In fact he finds one example that is contentious and is being studied by those same SCIENTISTS who he accuses of burying information supporting his fantasies.

Mt St Helens has a canyon exactly like the grand canyon - well no exactly but there are ones that are exactly like the grand canyon but he could be bother digging them up.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2011,20:49   

Antievolutionist Bingo

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2011,22:56   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2011,15:28)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,14:47)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2011,13:17)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,12:41)
If if the systems degrade [due to sin] as you say, it doesnt diminish the fact that thing or way different today. Plus you even admit that the forces makes huge leaps and drops.

Oh and again, what are you empirically calibrating this dating  technique to and why must they autonomously send the samples all over to "supposedly" prevent the abundantly prevalent fraud with these dating techniques? A few secret emails is the norm, I'm sure.

Again go look at a geological map like the dudes do and you will see that these so called eras are spread all over horizontally. Plus oil dudes often love anything that supports survival of the fittest corporate cronyism.

1) quote me, in context, as saying that forces make huge leaps and drops.  Explain how my comment (as referenced above) implies in any way, shape, or form that fundamental laws are changing.  (Hint, the force applied to a car when you lightly touch the gas pedal is much lower than when you press the pedal all the way to the floor.)

2) isochrons - look it up

 You still have not explained what the mechanism of the change in fundamental forces is that would cause radioactivity to change rates.  You still have not explained how this change continues to result in wildly different dating methods all returning the same age.  

3) Have you ever heard of 'uplift' or 'sinking'.

You are actually incorrect, oil dudes love anything that makes them money and geology does so.  What contributions have your notions made to the world?  None...

Just look at your quote on the radical gradients of solar forces

I'm the one that brought up uplift. Its why your geologic column myth is a joke

And I'm still waiting on how you calibrate your dating technique

gradient of solar forces... which solar forces?  Gravity, temperature pressure, solar winds, what?  All neatly explained by the laws of physics that you say are changing.  They aren't and there is no evidence or even hint that they do.

Yes, uplift.  What do you think uplift is?  On what scale do you think uplift occurs?  What is uplifted?   From where?  

I and two others have already told you how radioactive dating techniques are calibrated... I S O C H R O N S

here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs.......ng.html

Are you asking how we know what the half life of materials is?  Because that's pretty easy too.  You watch one, measure the mass of the parent material before, measure the mass of the daughter material after.  Once you know how long it for x amount of material to decay, then it is a trivial math exercise to determine half life.

Or are you against math too?

Please keep in mind that you are obviously ignorant of this knowledge and you choose to remain so, since the source material for this linked to article is 1969 to 1996.

You could have found out the answer to your question in about 5 minutes had you typed 'calibration radioactive dating isochron' into Google.  You choose not to do that.  Your ignorance reflects poorly on your subject.  I was wrong, that happens, you choose to remain ignorant about a subject that you are arguing about.

Calibration in radiometric dating is comparing dates with another accepted date like with tree rings or historic records

isochon dating calibrates itself with isochron datings

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2011,23:25   

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,22:56)
Calibration in radiometric dating is comparing dates with another accepted date like with tree rings or historic records

isochon dating calibrates itself with isochron datings

Not that there'd be anything wrong with isochrons validating isochrons--the physics is well-established--but that ignorant claim is just not true:

Cyclostratigraphy confirms radiometric dating past 100 million years

And there's really no question that the sun can't be enormously older or younger than around four and a half billion years.

As for the flood, evaporite deposits could hardly result from a flood, nor is the enormous amount of bioturbation, including huge numbers of worm burrows, consistent with any flood.  Not that creationists care about actual evidence.

Glen Davidson

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2011,23:32   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 05 2011,17:19)
Forastero -

I'm still interested in hearing your thoughts on when the flood occurred, which eras preceded the flood, and which followed.

We should really call them 'foresteras,' given that you have severed yourself from any connection to the standard chronology as parsed relative to the worldwide geological column and the passage of deep time it records. But since you make specific claims using standard nomenclature vis explosions for many geological periods, describe your eras in those terms.

When was the flood? Which eras preceded the flood, and which followed?

The Antediluvian world was described somewhat in the Bible. The Nephilim were destroying the environment and the megafauna, and each other but the lord preserved much of his magnificent creation for us in the fossil record.  It was fairly tropical in my opinion.  The ice age was after the flood. The earth has been  warming and many inland seas have been drying up since the ice age and humans have a lot of influence.

The explosions of life and ice ages are from your scriptures but explained that I'm a lumper and not a splitter

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2011,02:32   

Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 05 2011,19:07)
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 06 2011,02:08)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,01:50)
Fossil areas all over the world have mammals and dinosaurs in the same vicinity

Of course they do, muppet.  Mammals evolved from synapsids in the Triassic.  What's your point?

Note that I originally said "modern" mammals. He accuses practically every body else in the world of lying of lying but just on this thread we can document many his lies:

All kinds of dinosaurs are being found with soft tissues - He then gives us a list that contains creatures that aren't dinosaurs and examples of soft tissue impressions. In fact he finds one example that is contentious and is being studied by those same SCIENTISTS who he accuses of burying information supporting his fantasies.

Mt St Helens has a canyon exactly like the grand canyon - well no exactly but there are ones that are exactly like the grand canyon but he could be bother digging them up.

Nope I never accused everyone in the world of lying

Actually I gave quite a few examples of soft tissue

Your analogy is equivalent to saying that since cloud-to-ground lightening strikes dont "snake" exactly the same way, then its in no way equivalent

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2011,02:45   

Quote (Glen Davidson @ Nov. 05 2011,23:25)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,22:56)
Calibration in radiometric dating is comparing dates with another accepted date like with tree rings or historic records

isochon dating calibrates itself with isochron datings

Not that there'd be anything wrong with isochrons validating isochrons--the physics is well-established--but that ignorant claim is just not true:

Cyclostratigraphy confirms radiometric dating past 100 million years

And there's really no question that the sun can't be enormously older or younger than around four and a half billion years.

As for the flood, evaporite deposits could hardly result from a flood, nor is the enormous amount of bioturbation, including huge numbers of worm burrows, consistent with any flood.  Not that creationists care about actual evidence.

Glen Davidson

I'll pick on your best Cyclostratigraphy

A popular argument for old earth is the  Milankovitch cycle theory.  The theory has necessitated the belief in multiple ice ages and of late has been incorporated toward everything from climate change to Isochon dating.

Famous astronomer Fred Hoyle once said:  “If I were to assert that a glacial condition could be induced in a room liberally supplied during winter with charged night-storage heaters simply by taking an ice cube into the room, the proposition would be no more unlikely than the Milankovitch theory.”

First of all, the changes in summer sunshine postulated by the theory are too small to generate an ice age. Several other problems also render these cycles unlikely.
Ice-core samples reveal multiple, rapid oscillation (usually 100 year cycles) throughout the last Milankovitch period (100,000 years) those so called 100,000 year Milankavich cycles that they claim they see in the cores could just as easily represent 100 year oscillation cycles.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi....bstract
http://www.nature.com/nature....a0.html

In order to revamp support for the theory, evolutionists garnered supporting evidence from deep-sea and ice cores.  Sediment cores older 40,000 years old are very often dated using isochon methods. Isochon dating is in turn calibrated by these core sediments. Obviously this can be very circular in reasoning

Oh and contamination is also still a problem

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2011,02:57   

Quote (Glen Davidson @ Nov. 05 2011,23:25)
As for the flood, evaporite deposits could hardly result from a flood, nor is the enormous amount of bioturbation, including huge numbers of worm burrows, consistent with any flood.  Not that creationists care about actual evidence.

Glen Davidson

It wasnt just rain. The volcanic mid Atlantic ridge opened as did the fountains of the deep. Giant ice meteors  also hit the earth

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2011,03:47   

Quote
a antediluvian and post flood  eras with many eco zones

Living in Norway with it's well researched and documented geology, supported also by the observation of current climatic/geological processes on Greenland, confirming all that we already knew about or own country, religious nonsesne like the quote above tells me all: He is not rational, he is lost in faith, like as in "Faith trumps science".

He has joined the ranks of people like Kurt Wise and John Baumgardner.

A miserable lot.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
  1510 replies since Oct. 21 2011,05:55 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (51) < ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]