Carboniferous coal measures contain no flowering plants or grasses

[dad]

Simple genetics says you fail.

That's what you think.

You see, all humans have a pair of alleles for variation within their chromosomes. Even assuming that Adam and Eve each had the maximum amount of variation (for a total of 4 different variations on each trait) it does not account for the variety that we currently see. Mutations may have provided some, but 6000 years is not enough time considering the length of each generation for humans (even worse if you think that Adam lived to be 900 years old).

You seem to be assuming alleles worked and existed as is, way back yonder. Prove it. Next, mutation rates of the present are merely how present lifeforms mutate. Not all that meaningful to anything beyond the present. There also were sons of god that entered the mix at one point.
That is just for starters. Variety was the spice of life.

To further understanding of a subject. But, in this case, you have not convinced me that you have any idea what you're talking about.

You have convinced me that you are half a deck short in trying to address the past.

Which is why I directed you to posts from a man who does know about the subject.

And what did he have to say?

The evidence is that we have not observed a difference in the rate of decay.

Why would we, if there was no difference since man started to observe decay at all??? Really.

Without anything to suggest that there was a difference there is no reason to assume so.

Without anything to suggest that it was the same, there is no reason to assume so

And as for the Bible, it was written by men who thought that having cattle mate in the presence of stripped sticks brings stripped offspring.

They were right, were they not? I rest my case.

I am not going to that book for scientific knowledge if that is what they think.

I don't go into that book for present science either. But when one goes, there, take off your old age shoes, and realize fully, that present science has nothing at all to say against the bible.

 

[Naraoia]

The flood was small potatoes, compared to a universe state change. We need to account for the many changes that came from that, AFTER the flood. Such as possibly the ice age, mountain building, rapid continental movement, etc. They assumed that the flood was the big event that most recently happened. They came up empty.

So, again, what to look for?

 

[Naraoia]

Easy. The daughter material did not get there as a result of decay as it now does get there.

How did it get there?

EDIT: you need to supply a mechanism that gives consistent age estimates with every single radioisotope used in dating.

 

[Vene]

dad, instead of responding point by point I'm going to make an observation. You seem to be in the opinion that the past worked vastly differently. Why? What has changed since then?

And by the way, DNA works in exactly the same way now as it always has, here is an article that tells of the finding of a frozen mammoth in 1999. The scientists who uncovered it found DNA inside of it. And seeing as it dated back to 23,000 years ago it is not only older than what YECs think is possible, but it's genetic material is still present. It can be examined in exactly the same manner as DNA we find in organisms today. If genes worked differently 6000 years ago this mammoth would have demonstrated it. All you are doing is making assertions without a shred of evidence.

 

[dad]

How did it get there?

EDIT: you need to supply a mechanism that gives consistent age estimates with every single radioisotope used in dating.

We don't know. There is no reason to assume it got there as it now gets there. The ratios have nothing, therefore to do with real time. They are simply left in the proportions we see, from whatever former process was in place.
Therefore all ratios are proportioned properly, we simply don't know why. You assume the why, by assuming a same past. I assume the why by assuming a different past. Science is mum on the issue. Gagged. Silent. Muted. Inept. Irrelevant. Stabbing in the dark. Unaware. Guessing. Devoid of a clue.

 

[dad]

So, again, what to look for?

Look for a mess. Look for rapid moving of continents, obscuring flood evidence. I think what precisely to look for we don't know. Possibly some iridium from below or above the earth deposited. Possibly one of the 'extinctions'. But one must be careful of glacial evidence, and ice age events, and many things, that men of old may have assumed were from the flood.

 

[dad]

dad, instead of responding point by point I'm going to make an observation. You seem to be in the opinion that the past worked vastly differently. Why? What has changed since then?

Your point rested on assuming a same past. Why would we assume that? What has changed since Babel? Since Peleg? Well, tree growth rates, lifespans, evolution rates, gravity, light, and the absence of the spiritual that used to be so close they tried to build up to it, for starters.

And by the way, DNA works in exactly the same way now as it always has, here is an article that tells of the finding of a frozen mammoth in 1999.

Right, but you seem to assume that mammoths were not after the flood? Why is that? If an ice age came on the world, why, elephant kind creatures would have to adapt, no??

The scientists who uncovered it found DNA inside of it. And seeing as it dated back to 23,000 years ago it is not only older than what YECs think is possible, but it's genetic material is still present. It can be examined in exactly the same manner as DNA we find in organisms today.

That is because it likely is present state dna. So???

If genes worked differently 6000 years ago this mammoth would have demonstrated it. All you are doing is making assertions without a shred of evidence.

Oh, ha. Your dates are wrong. Simple.

 

[RichardT]

The Creationist explanation is very simplistic. Basically the flowering plants and grass would have been pulled from their roots and floated to higher strata.

 

[flatworm]

The Creationist explanation is very simplistic.

Truer words were never spoken.

Basically the flowering plants and grass would have been pulled from their roots and floated to higher strata.

Which begs the question of why non-flowering plants of similar densities weren't likewise affected.

Just a reminder: The ebony tree is a flowering plant, and its wood sinks.

 

[atomweaver]

No, she saw it. She told of it. It doesn't get any better than that.

Right. Doesn't get any better than that = still inadequate.

I use eyewitness in the literal way, not some silly modern legalistic sense.

Your OP said 'testimony'... In what literal way is that _not_ a legal or evidenciary term? (be it a Bbiblical legal standard, or a scientific one)...

Sons of man? Where would they not be??

No, if Eve had daughters, Adam could get them pregnant. Sons are no problem.

You seem to have mixed up two different discussions, here. I had no interest in the early incestual literal- contortionist Biblical relationships-angle... only about the inconsistency of citing Proverbs 8:22 - 31 to support your vague notion that everywhere on Earth except the Garden could be both "Very Good" and simultaneously "inhospitable", when it simply doesn't say that. Instead, it says that this eyewitness rejoiced in the habitable parts of the earth with the sons of men. "sons of men" didn't live in the Garden, ever. Your eyewitness account is not contemporary with the Garden. According to DaveISBG, about 100-130 years after Adam and Eve
were thrown out. Your assertion of an inhospitable Earth is not established by your Biblical interpretation.

The clues cannot be seen properly by pagans, or others who assume there was no God, and that this universe is the one that is forever.

Good thing another creationist backs up my read, then.

I don't reject either. Nice try.

You most certainly do. You reject what is written all over Work #2 (Earth), by citing sections in Work #1 (Bible). Sorry, dad, by your own faith, God made both. Your method for rejection is therefore suspect.

 

[RichardT]

deleted

 

[Vene]

Your point rested on assuming a same past. Why would we assume that? What has changed since Babel? Since Peleg? Well, tree growth rates, lifespans, evolution rates, gravity, light, and the absence of the spiritual that used to be so close they tried to build up to it, for starters.

Did you just say that light and gravity have changed?

Right, but you seem to assume that mammoths were not after the flood? Why is that? If an ice age came on the world, why, elephant kind creatures would have to adapt, no??


That is because it likely is present state dna. So???

So, now their DNA is present day, and supposedly they are after the (nonexistant) flood. And you are suggesting that preflood DNA was not the same as post-flood. Now, here is my question, how were the electron shells around an atom changed (that is what determines reactivity of molecules, including DNA-which would explain a fundamental shift in it's function) or how did a flood change the genes of ALL organisms?

Oh, ha. Your dates are wrong. Simple.

Ah yes, just wave away the data. You never did explain how it's possible for radio decay to change in the past few thousand years.

 

[dad]

Right. Doesn't get any better than that = still inadequate.

It doesn't get any better than that for those that disbelieve the bible, and have no proof either. meanwhile, back in the real world, the witness is recorded in the book of books.

Your OP said 'testimony'... In what literal way is that _not_ a legal or evidenciary term? (be it a Bbiblical legal standard, or a scientific one)...

False, I have no OP. This ain't my thread. The testimony of someone is what they speak and testify to. Not in a present court of law only, but also in the bible.

You seem to have mixed up two different discussions, here. I had no interest in the early incestual literal- contortionist Biblical relationships-angle... only about the inconsistency of citing Proverbs 8:22 - 31 to support your vague notion that everywhere on Earth except the Garden could be both "Very Good" and simultaneously "inhospitable", when it simply doesn't say that.

Well, the earth obviously was inhospitable, or why else would He make a garden for us?? It was also on the way to becoming hospitable for Eden life over the process of time, as needed. Therefore it was very good, and all part of the plan.

Instead, it says that this eyewitness rejoiced in the habitable parts of the earth with the sons of men. "sons of men" didn't live in the Garden, ever.

Well, either they did, in the form of kids born to daughter of Eve, not mentioned (only the firstborn male need be mentioned), or the lady referred to a time soon after Eden, in the hospitable area where we ended up after getting the boot. Either way, God wins, you lose.

Your eyewitness account is not contemporary with the Garden. According to DaveISBG, about 100-130 years after Adam and Eve
were thrown out. Your assertion of an inhospitable Earth is not established by your Biblical interpretation.

I allowed his take on things, as sufficient evidence that Cain had wives to chose from. Not as any proof that no kids also may not have been born before. That, I think is unknown.

Good thing another creationist backs up my read, then.

As explained the gist of his post addressed Cain's wife, and I agree. If you want to fine tune things, and address a clear ruling in or out of sons of man before Cain, no. You better have a lot more than that.

You most certainly do. You reject what is written all over Work #2 (Earth), by citing sections in Work #1 (Bible).

No, they agree. It is only work 3 (your same state past myth) that makes you unable to see that.

Sorry, dad, by your own faith, God made both. Your method for rejection is therefore suspect.

The myth is all I reject, as well we should reject anti God baseless fables. The earth agrees with the bible, you had er wrong wrong wrong.

 

[dad]

Did you just say that light and gravity have changed?

Far as we know, yes. I don't see ho distant starlight could now get here in a week, do you? I do not see how water could come up from below on a planetary scale, or oceans of water could be up above the earth under present laws, do you??

So, now their DNA is present day, and supposedly they are after the (nonexistant) flood. And you are suggesting that preflood DNA was not the same as post-flood.

Yes, I am suggesting just that.

Now, here is my question, how were the electron shells around an atom changed (that is what determines reactivity of molecules, including DNA-which would explain a fundamental shift in it's function) or how did a flood change the genes of ALL organisms?

Easy. All we do is change the fabric of the universe, and remove the spiritual component temporarily. This affects the relationship of matter, since the spiritual added to matter affects the overall mix.

Ah yes, just wave away the data. You never did explain how it's possible for radio decay to change in the past few thousand years.

It need not change, that was the point. When it came to exist, the daughter material assumed the decay process position. The relationship was not parent daughter before.

 

[Split Rock]

The Creationist explanation is very simplistic. Basically the flowering plants and grass would have been pulled from their roots and floated to higher strata.

Simplistic? Yes... I agree.

Tell us, is there something about the structure, organization, or depth of flowering plant roots that made them much more susceptible to such an effect??

 

[RichardT]

AiG answers:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/CFoL/ch3-fossil-plants.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i1/plants.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/origin-of-plants

I read all of these just now, these seem to be directed toward laymen though. There are more articles that I can link to that are more technical but I don't have time to read them right now.

"In virtually all cases a new taxon appears for the first time in the fossil record with most definitive features already present, and practically no known stem-group forms."

–Kemp, T. S. (Curator of Zoological Collections, Oxford University), Fossils and Evolution, Oxford University Press, 1999, p. 246

 

[dad]

"In virtually all cases a new taxon appears for the first time in the fossil record with most definitive features already present, and practically no known stem-group forms."

–Kemp, T. S. (Curator of Zoological Collections, Oxford University), Fossils and Evolution, Oxford University Press, 1999, p. 246

Hey that is a good point.

 

[Split Rock]

Hey that is a good point.

Since when is an out of context quote a "good point?"

 

[dad]

Since when is an out of context quote a "good point?"

Well, it is a good point, if true, in that it is interesting, and makes evolution from the pond look real real silly.

 

[Baggins]

"In virtually all cases a new taxon appears for the first time in the fossil record with most definitive features already present, and practically no known stem-group forms."

–Kemp, T. S. (Curator of Zoological Collections, Oxford University), Fossils and Evolution, Oxford University Press, 1999, p. 246

I fail to see what this has got to do with this thread and your inability to explain the pattern of plant distribution in the fossil record credibly.

I believe this quote shows Kemp arguing for Punctuated Equilibrium as a method by which evolution happens. He isn't arguing that evolution doesn't happen.

I can't see a problem with this, you wouldn't expect new taxa to have many stem groups, and you wouldn't expect these few stem groups to be necessarily fossilised. Although in some cases and at higher taxa they obviously are.

Back on thread topic; are you seriously suggesting disparate root strength as a means of explaining plant fossil distribution

Ok, in that case explain pollen distribution, pollen doesn't have roots and it shows the same distribution patterns as the plants it comes from, I knew my modules in the pollen micropalaeontology would come in useful one day