The Flood

[thaumaturgy]

[sarcasm]Of course not.[/sarcasm]

Look, I provided data to indicate their claim was wrong. If you find that to be "sarcasm" worthy then I fear you have nothing to teach me about science.

[sarcasm]Of course.[/sarcasm]

Look, AV I don't care about raining before the Fall. I was merely pointing out the incorrect points this particular site has. Since you like to see "science" presented with a Christian spin, I recommend you look elsewhere.

But by all means, let me know how many peer reviewed journal articles YOU grabbed off your bookshelf and we can talk. Which journals did you publish in such that you were limited to less than 6 pages?

In your daily work, I assume you are like me, and you pretty much live on peer reviewed journal articles and have to read plenty of them, so what has been YOUR experience.

If you find someone who actually knows about this stuff to be so beneath you that your reply is appropriate to the mere mention of facts, then maybe you get the "Science" you deserve from sites like this.

 

[thaumaturgy]

PRE FLOOD RAIN FAQ:

If the hydroplate theory is reasonably correct, earth’s preflood topography was smoother, so rivers flowed more slowly and required less water to keep them filled.

When a river flows from a higher energy point to a lower energy point (that's why they flow) they ultimately lose energy enough to carry sediments which means they can dump them out and form what are called braided streams

These leave rather distinct deposits in the sediments. Do we find evidence that this was the only type of river in the PRe-Flood world? Or is this another "Just So Story"?

the preflood earth had more uniform temperatures. Also, abundant vegetation moderated temperatures by evaporative cooling during the day and condensation and heating at night. More uniform temperatures meant less wind3 and weather extremes.

Of course the authors of this piece may not have known that scientists can, in fact find evidence of interesting weather and even RAIN SHADOW effects recorded in the ancient rocks. This is a field called STABLE ISOTOPE GEOCHEMISTRY and it finds such interesting things as the fact that rainfall bears a distinct ratio of stable isotopes of oxygen versus different water sources! This is preserved in the rocks!

Of course the authors probably don't have the scientific background to know about this interesting and relatively large and established field. If you would like to learn more, try here:

STABLE ISOTOPE GEOCHEMISTRY FUNDAMENTALS

Can you point me to the place in the author's work where they discuss the evidence for actual complex weather and ancient mountains that we find in the rock and how that doesn't apply to their hypotheses?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Your "sword" is blunt.

But you can get a nasty papercut from flipping through the pages madly trying to find someone else's words to substitute for your own thoughts!

 

[NailsII]

Yes to all the above.

I'm pleased that your sanity has not deserted you.

And behind the science?

The science is based on observation, experimentation, analysis and conclusion.
Repeated many times by many different people.
This way hypothesis are formed, tested and discarded if incorrect, superceded if bettered or championed if shown to be accurate.
When all reasonable doubt has been eliminated, the hypothesis is promoted to theory - which while seldom implied as 'truth', is pretty damn close.

So how can any of the above be true, but not radio-isotope dating?

 

[AV1611VET]

So how can any of the above be true, but not radio-isotope dating?

You must have me mixed up with someone else. Where did I ever say radio-isotope dating was false?

 

[AV1611VET]

By the way, and I know this is way off topic, but if you cut a branch off of an apple tree, and then graft in a branch from a lemon tree, what will grow on that branch?

Apples or lemons?

I've been asking around, and can't get a satisfactory answer.

Also: what scientific branch [no pun intended] oversees that? Does that fall under Botany?

 

[thaumaturgy]

By the way, and I know this is way off topic, but if you cut a branch off of an apple tree, and then graft in a branch from a lemon tree, what will grow on that branch?

Apples or lemons?

I've been asking around, and can't get a satisfactory answer.

Also: what scientific branch [no pun intended] oversees that? Does that fall under Botany?

Oh, I see how this goes. You laud a website for its "science", we point out the actual problems with the website and its science and its claims and you get to move onto botany questions.

OK. I can see you're "serious" about your beliefs.

That figures.

 

[Skaloop]

By the way, and I know this is way off topic, but if you cut a branch off of an apple tree, and then graft in a branch from a lemon tree, what will grow on that branch?

Nothing.

But if you could graft it on in such a way that it would still function, it would produce apples. The lemon tree would be a source of water and nutrients, but the apple branch would still be an apple branch and grow apples. They probably wouldn't be very good apples, as they wouldn't necessarily have the proper materials provided for them, but if they grew anything at all, it would be an apple.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nothing.

But if you could graft it on in such a way that it would still function, it would produce apples. The lemon tree would be a source of water and nutrients, but the apple branch would still be an apple branch and grow apples. They probably wouldn't be very good apples, as they wouldn't necessarily have the proper materials provided for them, but if they grew anything at all, it would be an apple.

Okay, thanks.

What I meant, though, was you cut a branch off of an apple tree, then graft a lemon branch in its place.

Would the lemon branch produce lemons or apples?

You answered my question though --- just the other way around.

Thanks.

 

[Skaloop]

Okay, thanks.

What I meant, though, was you cut a branch off of an apple tree, then graft a lemon branch in its place.

Would the lemon branch produce lemons or apples?

You answered my question though --- just the other way around.

Thanks.

Yeah, sorry mixed 'em up. But the same applies either way.

And for the record, I have no idea whether that falls under botany. The clipping of branches surely does, but the grafting, I'm not so sure.

 

[Blayz]

By the way, and I know this is way off topic, but if you cut a branch off of an apple tree, and then graft in a branch from a lemon tree, what will grow on that branch?

Apples or lemons?

I've been asking around, and can't get a satisfactory answer.

Also: what scientific branch [no pun intended] oversees that? Does that fall under Botany?

Probably "horticulture" though grafting of disparate plants does not work, it does work for related species. I dont remember the exact details but years ago there was a serious blight in the grape vines in Australia, a disease which affected the roots, but not the plant. The solution was to graft the French varietals onto American stock (which are resistant to the disease). So the roots were American, the branches and grapes European.

I don't remember the exact details.

 

[NailsII]

You must have me mixed up with someone else. Where did I ever say radio-isotope dating was false?

I assumed it was your main basis for rejecting claims of pre-human civilisations. This is a common observation in creationists.
If I am wrong, on what grounds do you refute 385,000 year old footprints of a pre-human in soft, post-volcanic ash?

By the way, and I know this is way off topic, but if you cut a branch off of an apple tree, and then graft in a branch from a lemon tree, what will grow on that branch?

Apples or lemons?

I've been asking around, and can't get a satisfactory answer.

Also: what scientific branch [no pun intended] oversees that? Does that fall under Botany?

Don't know exactly, but I have it on good authority that there is a part lemon/part orange tree alive, that bears the fruit of both. It would appear to have been two seperate trees that grew very close together and have grafted themselves together after one was unsuccessfully cut back.


edit:- the apple branch could only bear apples (if it survives) as that it what its DNA is copdied to produce; and any subsequent growth would be the same. DNA does not tend to move freely throughout an organism and deposit itself in new areas....

 

[TheBear]

Take your time. Be thorough.

Thanks --- I'll let you know my final decision, and why, when I get one.

Your 'final decision'? That's an interesting choice of words. At any rate, be sure you make an informed 'decision', with real-world evidence to support it.

This is my favorite explanation to date.

There are numerous areas of contention in that article, AV. They each deserve a thread of their own. I'll start one or two. Maybe others will do the same.

Was that the extent of your research? A creationist website? Have you considered going to the USGS, NOAA, research centers and universities, or is that out of the question?

 

[AV1611VET]

Yeah, sorry mixed 'em up. But the same applies either way.

And for the record, I have no idea whether that falls under botany. The clipping of branches surely does, but the grafting, I'm not so sure.

Probably "horticulture" though grafting of disparate plants does not work, it does work for related species. I dont remember the exact details but years ago there was a serious blight in the grape vines in Australia, a disease which affected the roots, but not the plant. The solution was to graft the French varietals onto American stock (which are resistant to the disease). So the roots were American, the branches and grapes European.

I don't remember the exact details.

Thanks, guys!

I got off my lazy streak and Googled it.

Interesting was the fact that some people graft tomatoes with potatoes and produced a plant that grows above the ground, as well as below!

 

[TheOutsider]

Thanks, guys!

I got off my lazy streak and Googled it.

Interesting was the fact that some people graft tomatoes with potatoes and produced a plant that grows above the ground, as well as below!

That's still not as cool as tomacco.

 

[TheBear]

Take your time. Be thorough.

Thanks --- I'll let you know my final decision, and why, when I get one.

Your 'final decision'? That's an interesting choice of words. At any rate, be sure you make an informed 'decision', with real-world evidence to support it.

This is my favorite explanation to date.

There are numerous areas of contention in that article, AV. They each deserve a thread of their own. I'll start one or two. Maybe others will do the same.

Was that the extent of your research? A creationist website? Have you considered going to the USGS, NOAA, research centers and universities, or is that out of the question?

 

[AV1611VET]

Was that the extent of your research? A creationist website?

Yes --- I'm not interested in an atheistic explanation of anything --- so long as there's a theistic one available. Nothing hacks me faster than reading an article that starts out, "50 million years ago..."

Have you considered going to the USGS, NOAA, research centers and universities, or is that out of the question?

Out of the question.

(Please keep in mind that my views aren't necessarily the same as other Christians, though.)

 

[AV1611VET]

If I am wrong, on what grounds do you refute 385,000 year old footprints of a pre-human in soft, post-volcanic ash?

On these grounds.

 

[TheOutsider]

On these grounds.

We can do a good job to show #1 to be wrong then. And since when did you follow Ussher's chronology? I thought that you believed in Embedded Age.

 

[AV1611VET]

We can do a good job to show #1 to be wrong then. And since when did you follow Ussher's chronology? I thought that you believed in Embedded Age.

I believe in embedded age (ex nihilo) --- not embedded history (omphalos).