The Statler Waldorf Balcony

[Statler Waldorf]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/scadding.html

Meh, that's kind of a typical response used by Evolutionists when one of their own marches out of step. "Well the Journal he was published in was not really that great", or "Just because he disagrees does not prove anything" or even, "That's not what he meant when he said that". Unfortunately all three of those approaches are used in this talkorigins article. Fact of the matter is, there are less "vestigial" organs and structures today than there were in the past and creationists have found functions for every example evolutionists try and use. They are not good evidence for common descent. It's an out-dated argument and it should die off along with the pepper moth one.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Meh, that's kind of a typical response used by Evolutionists when one of their own marches out of step. "Well the Journal he was published in was not really that great", or "Just because he disagrees does not prove anything" or even, "That's not what he meant when he said that". Unfortunately all three of those approaches are used in this talkorigins article. Fact of the matter is, there are less "vestigial" organs and structures today than there were in the past and creationists have found functions for every example evolutionists try and use. They are not good evidence for common descent. It's an out-dated argument and it should die off along with the pepper moth one.

The arguement's age clearly does nothing to dissway its correctitude and unfortunately, simply stating "Fact of the matter is, there are less "vestigial" organs and structures today than there were in the past and creationists have found functions for every example evolutionists try and use. They are not good evidence for common descent." is not a rebuttal of any kind.
You see, that quote also included a bibliography and was based on studies, facts, and other juicy bits of information that make it a credible source (among other reasons).
As I can see above, you provided two sentences that I presume you wrote yourself that actually provide no reason whatsoever as to why or how anything brought up is wrong and as such, you have done nothing to actually proving anything.

[Statler Waldorf]

I've never heard of 'observational' time and 'calculated' time as being two distinct things until I started this conversation with you

Sounds more like a problem with your knowledge of phsyics to me. If observational definition of time was just made up then why is there an equation to convert between the two definitions of time that is used by Physicists?

The speed of light for any given angle as measured in observed time is: C= c0 l(1-Cos(Theta))

where c0 is the canonical speed of light (1,079 million km/hr) as measured in calculated time, and θ is the angle of the light relative to the observer.

As you should recall from reading the post you responded to, we weren't discussing the flood.
Most scientists with a knowledge of dendrochronology aren't creationists, so no, the wouldn't agree with you (and yes, there are statistics on that you'll no doubt ignore.)

Actually we WERE discussing the flood because you said there were trees that pre-dated the flood. Which of course is not the case due to the reasons I have already given.

Reasons the flood cannot happen:
1) NOT ENOUGH WATER on the entire planet to cover all land.
2) The Ark, as described in the bible, can not support all life on earth for any length of time
3) Fossil record does not support a flood
4) Trees and other creatures that could not have survived a worldwide flood are still around

1. You're right there is not enough water ON the planet to cover the planet. However the "fountains of the great deep" which opened up would include some of the water that is encased in the mineral structures in the Earth's mantle. Even many secular Geologists estimate there is enough water in the Earth's mantel to fill all the ocean's ten fold.

2. You're right, the Ark could not support all life on Earth for any period of time. It's a good thing it didn't have to. Rather, it only had to support 2 of each "kind" of animal. Thanks to Darwin and rapid speciation we can estimte that there are only around 5000 different kinds of animals that would be required to take on the Ark and still end up with the diveristy we see today. This was more than doable.

3. The fossil record actually is some of the strongest evidence for a global flood. I am glad we have it.

4. Already told you, tree ring dating cannot be used to demonstrate that any trees pre-date the flood. Especially since the very genuses that are supposedly so old are the same ones that can add more than one ring per year.

I call Bullshit. I eat through scientific journals, books, and media out of boredom. I'm certainly not afraid of looking at the an-istrotropic light horoscope from the alchemy daily.
I'm not even going to start on the hypocracy over denigrating me over using youtube and wikipedia but failing to provide even a link to a ridiculously biased paper by a creationist who wants to prove creationism and not actually do science.

Why would I link you to the articles then? Since it is obvious that you have already made up your mind about them before even seeing them. What kind of rationale is that? If I thought you were an objective person I would be more than happy to share them with you, you have already admitted that you are far from that. So I will just keep refuting you with the information from them. You can keep using youtube and wiki, by all mans.

Why would they date the rock to determine the age of the wood or vice versa?
It sounds to me like you want them to disagree - to say nothing over the fact that they don't.

Seems pretty logical that when you find a piece of wood completely encased in sandstone, you would assume that the wood would have to either be older or at very least the same age as the sandstone (if you know how sandstone is formed). Howeever, when the wood was dated it was over 249 million years younger than the sandstone. One or both of those dating methods is not reliable then.

---

Meh, that's kind of a typical response used by Evolutionists when one of their own marches out of step. "Well the Journal he was published in was not really that great", or "Just because he disagrees does not prove anything" or even, "That's not what he meant when he said that". Unfortunately all three of those approaches are used in this talkorigins article. Fact of the matter is, there are less "vestigial" organs and structures today than there were in the past and creationists have found functions for every example evolutionists try and use. They are not good evidence for common descent. It's an out-dated argument and it should die off along with the pepper moth one.

The arguement's age clearly does nothing to dissway its correctitude and unfortunately, simply stating "Fact of the matter is, there are less "vestigial" organs and structures today than there were in the past and creationists have found functions for every example evolutionists try and use. They are not good evidence for common descent." is not a rebuttal of any kind.
You see, that quote also included a bibliography and was based on studies, facts, and other juicy bits of information that make it a credible source (among other reasons).
As I can see above, you provided two sentences that I presume you wrote yourself that actually provide no reason whatsoever as to why or how anything brought up is wrong and as such, you have done nothing to actually proving anything.

Sweet, I was hoping you'd say something along these lines. So I can now remember this next time you try and say the Bible is only a "bronze aged book" or "old and out-dated"- thanks.

I thought it was kind of apparent. A structure that has supposedly lost its functionality is not evidence for particle to human Evolution because this shows an actual loss in information and functionality. So it is more evidence for de-evolution than it is for evolution and actually does damage to the Theory. Now if we had observed organs that used to do very little, but now have become more and more complex and do more and more in the organism then we'd actually have something to work with. Besides it can't be used as proof because as many people have said on here, "just because we don't know the answer now does not mean we won't find it later on"- I can always just use that argument back at you. Again, the list of "vestigial" organs used to be huge, now it is small, so it looks like your evidence is actually dying.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Sounds more like a problem with your knowledge of phsyics to me. If observational definition of time was just made up then why is there an equation to convert between the two definitions of time that is used by Physicists?

Wow. Why indeed statler? why indeed? What physicists? Where?
I don't know what the fallacy of this... thing is that you've presented to me off the top of my head - I'm guessing Non Sequitur, as your question clearly has nothing to do with whether or not it's made up. It certainly doesn't prove it's not made up. The fact that an equation exists doesn't mean it's used in the manner you describe.

Actually we WERE discussing the flood because you said there were trees that pre-dated the flood. Which of course is not the case due to the reasons I have already given.

No, what was being discussed was observing things over a long time period. You asserted that understanding radiological dating was impossible because humans can't live for billions of years necessary to observe that radioactive things don't spontaneously create daughter elements 8 or more times faster than other observed times, despite the fact that doing so would violate the laws of physics assuming it doesn't also render the planet uninhabitable (or melts it entirely away.)
Tree rings was your analogy that I rebutted.

1. You're right there is not enough water ON the planet to cover the planet. However the "fountains of the great deep" which opened up would include some of the water that is encased in the mineral structures in the Earth's mantle. Even many secular Geologists estimate there is enough water in the Earth's mantel to fill all the ocean's ten fold.

Really? The earth's mantle is holding ten times the amount of water needed to cover every land mass on the entire planet?
Where, Statler? Where is the water in the mantle? How is the water staying there and not coming up from the mantle, given that any four year old can recognize that rocks sink and water goes up - especially if the earth-balloon popped and all the water escaped?
Is the earth actually a giant sponge and god squeezed it the one time until all the continents disappeared?
Where did the water come out since the entire planet was drowned in water in less than two months?

2. You're right, the Ark could not support all life on Earth for any period of time. It's a good thing it didn't have to. Rather, it only had to support 2 of each "kind" of animal. Thanks to Darwin and rapid speciation we can estimte that there are only around 5000 different kinds of animals that would be required to take on the Ark and still end up with the diveristy we see today. This was more than doable.

So let me get this straight - a 600 year old man and his family built a professional stadium-sized wooden ship and scoured the planet of two of every 'kind' of creature, including billions of creatures that are now considered extinct, and one human family was able to
1) get two of every 'kind' of creature on the entire planet - including those from other continents?
2) provide for the housing, medical, sanitation, and dietary needs (including the HIGHLY specialized needs of certain creatures)?
3) transport these creatures multiple times from all locations around the planet to his ark?
4) survive?
All of this within a human lifetime and more?

Also... "rapid speciation?" So evolution is fine when it accounts for being able to conveniently wrap an otherwise gigantic number of creatures into a single arc and not only evolution - but hyper-fast evolution that allows a bear to spread across the planet and once again assume the exact roles that polar bears, brown bears, grizzley bears, koala bears, panda bears, and so forth within a millenia or two?

And most of all - when the flood was over, all of these creatures somehow returned to their natural locations despite having no signs of mass floods or drownings or signs of a mass extinction of any kind on a global scale within the last 10,000 years as though they'd never left?

3. The fossil record actually is some of the strongest evidence for a global flood. I am glad we have it.

Only if you're utterly science-illiterate, sure.

4. Already told you, tree ring dating cannot be used to demonstrate that any trees pre-date the flood. Especially since the very genuses that are supposedly so old are the same ones that can add more than one ring per year.

You certainly like to say that, but I actually understand the science behind it.
There are trees that are still around that are older than the biblical account of genesis.

Why would I link you to the articles then? Since it is obvious that you have already made up your mind about them before even seeing them. What kind of rationale is that? If I thought you were an objective person I would be more than happy to share them with you, you have already admitted that you are far from that. So I will just keep refuting you with the information from them. You can keep using youtube and wiki, by all mans.

I will keep using youtube and Wiki - because the way you dispel ignorance is with knowledge - because of or even despite the source and I stand by the youtube video I displayed for you and the others that have been shown to you because they display facts and figures that are easily backed with empirical evidence and facts that easily and readily refute *with evidence and simple logic* the inane ideas like - Noah's flood and genesis.

But you're right. I am very skeptical about your "evidence" because you've given me nothing here there or anywhere to make be believe it's anything other than an attempt to prove a young-earth theory despite observation and evidence but I'm still interesting in seeing what you have.

You see - that's the difference between science and religious philosophy, as I've explained much earlier in this discussion because scientists don't do their studies with people who share the same worldview. Once they conduct a study and submit it, it must even pass through people who may have every reason to want to see the theory or whatever it is to fail. What makes evolution, gravity, heliocentrism, and just about every science behind our modern society a theory is because it went through even those ringers and won out over it's competing models through testing and observation.
In other words, light travels at 299,792,458 meters per second not because a group of people agreed to it, but because it's been tested repeatedly with dogged determination and ever-more sophisticated and precise machines and techniques until we could get that figure down to the nanometer.

All you're doing is convincing me further about how easily the ideas behind your inane theory can be torn apart if subjected to scrutiny and I have every reason to believe it already has been when I simply reminded you of Einsten's special relativity.

Seems pretty logical that when you find a piece of wood completely encased in sandstone, you would assume that the wood would have to either be older or at very least the same age as the sandstone (if you know how sandstone is formed). Howeever, when the wood was dated it was over 249 million years younger than the sandstone. One or both of those dating methods is not reliable then.

That's because your assumptions are wrong.

Sweet, I was hoping you'd say something along these lines. So I can now remember this next time you try and say the Bible is only a "bronze aged book" or "old and out-dated"- thanks.

Oh no, the bible is wrong because it's ideas and accounts are wrong, not because it's out-dated or old, but thanks for trying.

I thought it was kind of apparent. A structure that has supposedly lost its functionality is not evidence for particle to human Evolution because this shows an actual loss in information and functionality. So it is more evidence for de-evolution than it is for evolution and actually does damage to the Theory. Now if we had observed organs that used to do very little, but now have become more and more complex and do more and more in the organism then we'd actually have something to work with. Besides it can't be used as proof because as many people have said on here, "just because we don't know the answer now does not mean we won't find it later on"- I can always just use that argument back at you. Again, the list of "vestigial" organs used to be huge, now it is small, so it looks like your evidence is actually dying.

Wow. A creationist who doesn't understand evolution. How ... what's the word that's opposite of surprising?
Boring. That's right. Boring.
The first foundational falsehood of creationism (among more than a dozen or two).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RKQ7ukZKDk

[orogenicman]

Meh, that's kind of a typical response used by Evolutionists when one of their own marches out of step. "Well the Journal he was published in was not really that great", or "Just because he disagrees does not prove anything" or even, "That's not what he meant when he said that". Unfortunately all three of those approaches are used in this talkorigins article. Fact of the matter is, there are less "vestigial" organs and structures today than there were in the past and creationists have found functions for every example evolutionists try and use. They are not good evidence for common descent. It's an out-dated argument and it should die off along with the pepper moth one.

If you had actually read the article in its entirety, you wouldn't be responding with an argument that "creationists have found functions for every example evolutionists try and use", since, as was aptly pointed out via numerous sources, a vestigial organ doesn't have to be functionless to be vestigial. And yes, in fact, the some journals are better than others with regard to peer review, so the argument as to the journal that carried the paper is a valid one. Not all scientific journals are equal. If his article was actually a big deal in science circles, he'd have gotten it published in Science or Nature.

[Rev. Rye]

All right, I take it that you take the Bible literally, presumably saying that the earth is roughly 6000 years old. According to the Bible, it took place some 1600 or so years after the creation, and if Ussher's work is still used around Creationist circles, it happened around 2348 BC. Here's the Problem: The great Pyramid of Giza was built about 200 years before that, and somehow remained pretty much intact; come to think of it, it appeared that the entirety of Egyptian Culture remained intact. Granted, there was probably a dynastic change around that same time, with the Pharaoh Teti, but if you're going to say that one of Noah's sons took over Egypt and somehow rebuilt the entire civilisation from scratch in the matter of a few years, why would he have recreated their old religion, since monotheism wouldn't come to Egypt again for at least a millennium?

And for that matter, can you explain to us what actually constitutes a Biblical "Kind" anyway? And even then, I don't think all the speciation necessary would be possible in just a few thousand years. Millions I can guess, but less than 5000? If speciation happened so quick, people wouldn't be so quick to deny Darwin.

[orogenicman]

I think not!

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2...101810.php

RIVERSIDE, Calif. – A popular view among geophysicists is that large amounts of water are carried from the oceans to the deep mantle in "subduction zones," which are boundaries where the Earth's crustal plates converge, with one plate riding over the other.

But now geophysicists led by the University of California, Riverside's Harry Green, a distinguished professor of geology and geophysics, present results that contradict this view. They compare seismic and experimental evidence to argue that subducting slabs do not carry water deeper than about 400 kilometers.

"The importance of this work is two-fold," Green said. "Firstly, if deep slabs are dry, it implies that they are strong, a major current question in geophysics that has implications for plate tectonic models. Secondly, even small amounts of water greatly reduce the viscosity of rocks; if water is not cycled deep into Earth, it means that mantle convection has not been as vigorous over time as it would have been with significant water."

Study results appear in the current issue of Nature.

The Earth's lithosphere is formed at mid-ocean ridges where magma upwells and freezes to form new oceanic crust. Interaction between cold water of the deep ocean and the extreme heat of magma results in widespread cracking of rocks and a hydrothermal circulation that drives sea water several kilometers below the surface.

Away from the mid-ocean ridges, the lithosphere moves along under the ocean until it reaches an oceanic trench, long topographic depressions of the sea floor. Here, the lithosphere bends sharply and descends back into the mantle. Near the trench, numerous faults are created that provide a pathway for additional water to enter the down-going lithosphere. Subsequent dehydration results in large amounts of this water leaving the subducting slab and migrating upwards. The ensuing instability leads to seismic activity.

Geophysicists have long suspected but only recently established that at depths less than about 250 kilometers earthquakes occur through dehydration of minerals like serpentine. But when Green and his colleagues studied the data for deeper earthquakes, they found that the subducting slabs are essentially dry, providing no pathway for significant amounts of water to enter the Earth's lower mantle.

Further, the researchers cite evidence for olivine in the slabs at these depths, despite the fact that it is not stable below about 350 km.

"At these depths, olivine should transform to the stable phase, spinel," Green said. "The very cold temperatures deep in the downgoing slabs inhibit this transformation. Experiments show that even extremely small amounts of water, if present, would cause the olivine-to-spinel transformation to run. But we see no spinel here, just olivine, which confirms that the slabs are dry."

Green explained that the olivine found below 400 kilometers is "metastable," meaning it is physically present as a mineral phase even though this is not its "right phase" at such depths – akin to a diamond, which forms only at the kind of high temperatures and pressures found very deep in the Earth's crust, being brought to the Earth's surface.

"At such depths, the olivine should undergo a phase transformation," he said. "A different crystal structure should nucleate, grow and eat up the olivine. If it is very cold in the center of subducting slabs, the reaction won't run. This is exactly what is happening here."

According to Green, the presence of the metastable olivine provides an alternative mechanism to initiate deep earthquakes – a mechanism he discovered 20 years ago – and also to cause them to stop at around 680 kilometers, where they are seen to stop.

"Does this mean that Earth's deep interior must be dry? Not necessarily," he said. "It is possible there are other ways – let's call them back roads – for water to penetrate the lower mantle, but our work shows that the 'super highway,' the subducting slabs, as a means for water to enter the lower mantle can now be ruled out."

Green and his colleagues cite the evidence for the existence of metastable olivine west of and within the subducting Tonga slab in the South Pacific and also in three other subduction zones – the Mariannas, Izu-Bonin and Japan.

---

Sounds more like a problem with your knowledge of phsyics to me. If observational definition of time was just made up then why is there an equation to convert between the two definitions of time that is used by Physicists?

The speed of light for any given angle as measured in observed time is: C= c0 l(1-Cos(Theta))

where c0 is the canonical speed of light (1,079 million km/hr) as measured in calculated time, and θ is the angle of the light relative to the observer.

If you are going to quote from other sources, it is vital that you cite the original source (that source, in this case, being Answers in Genesis), otherwise, you give the impression of being a plagiarist.

[Minimalist]

Oh, my. You mean no "fountains of the deep" for the shitwits to whine about?

[orogenicman]

Oh, my. You mean no "fountains of the deep" for the shitwits to whine about?

That's exactly right. The rock is too dense and has too few pores as a result to hold much, if any water. Even water that is chemcially bound in the minerals gets squeezed out at depth. The simple facxt is that the flood myth is just that, a myth, and was likely ythe result of the fact that civilizations have always concentrated along river valleys and seashores where, big surprise, it often floods.

[Minimalist]

Sucks to be them, huh?