Another Flood Question

[tas8831]

And yet almost every fossil found was found in sedimentary rocks..... They simply reject it because of the implications to the frequency of global floods....

That is like saying "and yet almost every almost every loaf of bread contains wheat flour"...

 

[tas8831]

What evidence? That all remains are found in sedimentary strata?

What evidence? that all wheat bread is made from wheat flour?

Still waiting for the explanation as to where we got the "allies" for "phonetic" traits D/G when all we had to start with were A/A as you claim.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... An asteroid hitting the earth, and blanketing the whole earth in a sort of "nuclear winter" blocking out the sun, could have initially caused a massive flood in proportions that the world had never seen. Those are plausible theories with evidence. Non-bible thumpers could even agree with that, from a scientific standpoint

It's an interesting idea, that I don't recall hearing before... it's easy enough to see how it would cause a global 'winter' and huge tsunamis (there is geological evidence of such events in the past), but how would an asteroid strike cause a global flood (of which no geological evidence has been found)?

 

[tas8831]

Probably.

Along with astrology.

I sort of doubt that scientific inquiry would have ever posited a single, world-wide flood event. The observation of the progression of plants, in some cases on top of other plant-bearing strata, would have put the fritz on that noise.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Specific instances?? Tell someone who doesn't believe in the Bible, that the flood happened. They will refute it based solely on the fact, that it came from the Bible.

Funny, this thread runs to 20 pages now, and I doubt if anyone has said this. Instead, there is a great deal of talk about the lack of physical evidence for a Flood, from both believers and non-believers.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

He'd only be surprised if he didn't understand special relativity or hadn't thought to work it out. Who is said to be surprised depends entirely on how the story is described; the stay-at-home twin is surprised in some tellings - in others both are surprised. It doesn't really matter, it's just an illustrative story, a Gedankenexperiment.

An illustrative story that helped bring relativity into the forefront of modern science. It quite matters. Because the stationary twins clocks do not slow at all, only the moving twins do. So the moving twin can’t even perceive correctly the clock rate of the stationary twin. Nor can he perceive correctly his own, since they slowed and he believes they haven’t. Show me a single one where the stationary twin is surprised? It’s impossible for him to be surprised, he sees the moving twins clocks slow, when that twin returns he is younger, just as the stationary twin knew he would be.

Nothing has changed; each twin has his own frame with his own proper time, that's all.

If nothing changed, then why is one twin younger than the other? Not only time changed, but decay rates as well.

The thing about relativity is that it's... relative. While the twins are in relative inertial motion, the time each observes for the other twin really does run slower relative to his own proper time - there's no experiment either can do to show otherwise. When they get back together and are comoving again, the time difference between their clocks is a result of the non-inertial motion of the travelling twin. It's counter-intuitive, but that's SR for you.

And yet despite your claim, only one twin ages slower, the one that can’t tell his clocks slowed and incorrectly believes the stationary twins clocks did. The only thing counterintuitive is people’s refusal to accept the truth.

That once in motion you can not perceive the rate of time correctly, except for objects set in motion from your frame, and then only relative to you.

The stationary twin has no problem perceiving correctly the twin in motions clock rate, because that twin was set in motion from his frame. The same with two comoving twins. The twin set in motion from that frame can’t perceive the other twins clocks correctly, but the twin who set the other twin in motion can perceive correctly the one set in motions clocks.

You can pick any frame that you like, they're all equally valid, just as long as you don't change frames mid-analysis. But when dealing with a local context it's obviously simpler to use a local frame.

You don’t believe that. If you did you would accept the frame where our clocks were once faster as an equally valid frame.... but your objecting to that, instead treating this frame as an absolute frame.

No - a 'preferred frame' is a hypothetical universal 'stationary' frame, as you'd have in an aether theory; there is no such frame, any more than there's absolute time. That's what SR does away with.

How do you know there is no stationary frame? According to every device we have we are stationary and everything else’s is in motion. So even if you saw a stationary frame, you wouldn’t know it. You can’t say one doesn’t exist, just that you can never detect such a frame. There is a difference.

You can choose whatever frame you wish to use because they're all equivalent. Use a cosmic background (e.g. the CMBR) frame if you wish, or the International Celestial Reference Frame, or the International Terrestrial Reference Frames. Use the one that is most relevant and makes the calculations simplest.

You don’t believe that. You continually object to using any frame but this one, because using another frame would show that your clocks are slowing as we speak, and therefore what you call a second now, is not the same as a second one year ago. You don’t want to consider any frame but this one which you treat as an absolute frame.

I see little point continuing with this; I don't have the maths to go through it in the detail it deserves, and it's all available on the interwebs.

Why do you need maths? The maths would just confirm that since we are in a curved trajectory our clocks are continuously slowing. Just because you call a longer tick of time a second, doesn’t mean it is the same duration as a second was a year ago.

It’s your belief that they are equal that makes you unable to understand why light always travels at c in every frame regardless of velocity.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

From where? Don't confuse the metric expansion of space with movement of the matter through it. The 'big bang' wasn't an explosion.

Yes, the magic that a point in space, a singularity, magically caused everything to appear everywhere in the universe.... perhaps some consider such illogic logical....

Not quite - each possesses velocity relative to the other. There isn't one 'correct' answer, because there is no preferred frame. You can pick either frame - they're both equally valid.

Not true at all and easily proven false.

Take two comoving frames. Set one in motion (A) from the other (B). A will think his time doesn’t change, so will B. A will see B’s clocks slow, B will see A’s clocks slow. When A returns, only his clocks will have shown a shorter elapsed time. If both frames were equally valid there would be no elapsed difference as both would show correctly each clock slowing and upon the return the clocks would still match. Apparently A can’t tell anything correctly, only B can.

Once in motion you can not perceive the rate of time in other frames correctly. Unless that frame is set in motion from your frame, and then only relative to your frame.

B has no problem seeing A’s correct clock rate of slowing. A on the other hand can’t percieve B’s clocks correctly. This is expected since A was set in motion from B’s frame.

If on the other hand each frame was equally valid, then both clocks in A and B should slow at the exact same rate, since that is what both see. But we know this to be false.

 

[tas8831]

Why do I need to do that?

It is your argument, is it not?

Do you really expect anyone to just believe an empty assertion?

 

[tas8831]

You say you are non-denominational

My profile indicates that I tried to change that. The system here will not let you - at least I cannot see an easy way to do it.

; do you doubt God's word and understanding is immeasurable when compared to man?

Yes, I doubt that.

Think about what you wrote, and ask yourself why those of your faith are so eager to denigrate themselves.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...It’s impossible for him to be surprised, he sees the moving twins clocks slow, when that twin returns he is younger, just as the stationary twin knew he would be.

If nothing changed, then why is one twin younger than the other? Not only time changed, but decay rates as well.

And yet despite your claim, only one twin ages slower, the one that can’t tell his clocks slowed and incorrectly believes the stationary twins clocks did. The only thing counterintuitive is people’s refusal to accept the truth.

That once in motion you can not perceive the rate of time correctly, except for objects set in motion from your frame, and then only relative to you.

The stationary twin has no problem perceiving correctly the twin in motions clock rate, because that twin was set in motion from his frame. The same with two comoving twins. The twin set in motion from that frame can’t perceive the other twins clocks correctly, but the twin who set the other twin in motion can perceive correctly the one set in motions clocks.

You don’t believe that. If you did you would accept the frame where our clocks were once faster as an equally valid frame.... but your objecting to that, instead treating this frame as an absolute frame.

How do you know there is no stationary frame? According to every device we have we are stationary and everything else’s is in motion. So even if you saw a stationary frame, you wouldn’t know it. You can’t say one doesn’t exist, just that you can never detect such a frame. There is a difference.

You don’t believe that. You continually object to using any frame but this one, because using another frame would show that your clocks are slowing as we speak, and therefore what you call a second now, is not the same as a second one year ago. You don’t want to consider any frame but this one which you treat as an absolute frame.

Why do you need maths? The maths would just confirm that since we are in a curved trajectory our clocks are continuously slowing. Just because you call a longer tick of time a second, doesn’t mean it is the same duration as a second was a year ago.

It’s your belief that they are equal that makes you unable to understand why light always travels at c in every frame regardless of velocity.

I've said all I want to say on this, and your opinions about what I object to, consider, or believe & don't believe are of little interest to me. I refer you to the Wiki entry on the Twin Paradox, which is fairly comprehensive.

A shorter and simpler explanation is on Einstein Online.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It's easy to claim that you have "the truth" without any justification or demonstration. There are plenty of Christians who I enjoy talking to about science, because most don't reject science like Creationists like to do in order to protect their faith.

Who rejects science? Those that accept a flood, or those that reject it, when 73% of the earths surface is sedimentary? Local floods? Then why do we not see one single flood in the last 4,000 years that has buried animals starting the process of fossilization? There simply is not enough sediment deposited in a small flood to bury animals quickly enough and deeply enough to prevent decay and begin fossilization.

No, only those rejecting science reject a global flood. Every fossil found is found in sedimentary rock, yet we see no fossils forming today from any of the claimed processes that lead to sedimentation, including small local floods. Every single one decays to the point of non-existance over time. Millions of buffalo were killed on the American plains and left to rot. Yet not a single bone began to fossilize, almost all are completely decayed away. In 65 million years there will be no record left of today’s animals through fossils, because no catastrophic event has occurred capable of causing fossilization. Those fossils are not fossils spread out over millions of years, but the results of catastrophic events that caused their deaths and burial in tons of sediment.

Science could easily prove this false by showing me one bone, even by your account of time, that has started to fossilize in the last 4,000 years? Not even one? Of course not, because no catastrophic event has occurred to bury them fast enough or deep enough to prevent their total decay.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...Take two comoving frames. Set one in motion (A) from the other (B). A will think his time doesn’t change, so will B. A will see B’s clocks slow, B will see A’s clocks slow. When A returns, only his clocks will have shown a shorter elapsed time. If both frames were equally valid there would be no elapsed difference as both would show correctly each clock slowing and upon the return the clocks would still match. Apparently A can’t tell anything correctly, only B can.

Once in motion you can not perceive the rate of time in other frames correctly. Unless that frame is set in motion from your frame, and then only relative to your frame.

B has no problem seeing A’s correct clock rate of slowing. A on the other hand can’t percieve B’s clocks correctly. This is expected since A was set in motion from B’s frame.

If on the other hand each frame was equally valid, then both clocks in A and B should slow at the exact same rate, since that is what both see. But we know this to be false.

See #410.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I've said all I want to say on this, and your opinions about what I object to, consider, or believe & don't believe are of little interest to me. I refer you to the Wiki entry on the Twin Paradox, which is fairly comprehensive.

Which like you refuses to accept the traveling twin can’t percieve the stationary twins clocks correctly. Instead calling a paradox for what is simply the inability to perceive correctly another’s clock rate. The paradox only exists in the minds of those that refuse to accept the traveling twin is wrong in what he perceives the stationary twins clock rate to be.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

See #410.

I understand, you have no response that reality shows one twin is simply incorrect in his viewpoint, while claiming both are equally valid, yet we both undertand they are not. The Evolutionists second tactic, run when science shows he’s wrong. It’s ok, I understand you have no valid response, so it’s ok.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Of course there was a flood, although not a world-wide one. Throughout recorded history Mesopotamia, or the flood plain of the Rivers Tigris and Euphrates, has been subject to destructive floods, due to snow-melt in the mountains of Turkey and Iran and to heavy rain. (So far as I know, there is no evidence of flooding due to marine incursions.) The Bible even preserves a measurement by some ancient surveyor recording that the water level during one such flood rose by fifteen cubits (6.85 metres) - Genesis 7:20; this is an impressive height in a flat country.

Show me one animal that was killed in those floods undergoing the process of fossilization? Surely one can be found, since apparently local floods caused the fossilization of billions of dinosaur bones, both large and small, even eggs.

No, local floods is not scientifically sound at all.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I understand, you have no response that reality shows one twin is simply incorrect in his viewpoint, while claiming both are equally valid, yet we both undertand they are not. The Evolutionists second tactic, run when science shows he’s wrong. It’s ok, I understand you have no valid response, so it’s ok.

Well, thanks for your condescension

It's true that I don't have a response that agrees with your view; if you have a reference to or citation of an authoritative source that explains your view coherently, I'd be very interested to read it.

 

[Jimmy D]

Who rejects science? Those that accept a flood, or those that reject it, when 73% of the earths surface is sedimentary? Local floods? Then why do we not see one single flood in the last 4,000 years that has buried animals starting the process of fossilization? There simply is not enough sediment deposited in a small flood to bury animals quickly enough and deeply enough to prevent decay and begin fossilization.

No, only those rejecting science reject a global flood. Every fossil found is found in sedimentary rock, yet we see no fossils forming today from any of the claimed processes that lead to sedimentation, including small local floods. Every single one decays to the point of non-existance over time. Millions of buffalo were killed on the American plains and left to rot. Yet not a single bone began to fossilize, almost all are completely decayed away. In 65 million years there will be no record left of today’s animals through fossils, because no catastrophic event has occurred capable of causing fossilization. Those fossils are not fossils spread out over millions of years, but the results of catastrophic events that caused their deaths and burial in tons of sediment.

Science could easily prove this false by showing me one bone, even by your account of time, that has started to fossilize in the last 4,000 years? Not even one? Of course not, because no catastrophic event has occurred to bury them fast enough or deep enough to prevent their total decay.

Are you really suggesting that the only way fossils form are in a global flood?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Can you give a reference for this statement that the components of binary stars show different radial velocities? Binary stars belong to our own galaxy, which is not taking part in the expansion of the universe.

Also, even if binary stars were receding from us as part of the expansion of space, their recession velocities would be too small to be measured; since the Hubble constant is about 70 km/s/Mpc, a star at a distance of 1000 parsecs (3260 light-years) would be receding at only 70 metres per second; this is much less than the radial velocities that can be measured by normal stellar spectroscope.

You might want to rethink that belief.

But I gave the link once. Along with your other problems and the correct solution.

A New Non-Doppler Redshift

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1306.1015.pdf

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Are you really suggesting that the only way fossils form are in a global flood?

Catastrophic event. Show me a single bone beginning fossilization not involved in a catastrophic event? Just one?

That all but a few hundred are found in sedimentary strata, well, come to the correct conclusion on your own.

 

[tas8831]

The gift that keeps on giving....

Still waiting for your genetic evidence for as to where the Asian and African came from in the first place.

You claim that Adam and Eve had nearly identical 'allies', so where did the diversity come from?

From mating.

Dear readers - please let this burn into your memories.

This latest YEC expert on all science (despite clearly NOT being an expert on any science) has declared that diversity comes from the mating of a breeding pair in possession of nearly identical sets of alleles.

You heard it here first!

That’s why there are shared genes between them, yet some are distinct, because inbreeding reduces genetic variability and sets in specific traits.

WHERE DID THE DISTINCT GENES COME FROM???

You keep ignoring this question, or giving some silly, 3rd grade type of response (hybriization!).

That’s why 98% of the genome is now non-functional because of genetic errors.

98% of the genome is NOT non-functional - in fact, creationists claim that it is almost all functional! I think it is hilarious when one YEC expert on all science directly contradicts other YEC experts on all science.

Kimura predicted, based on neutral mutation rates (and other things) way back in the 1960s that the genome of a large, 'slow breeding' organism (like mammals) would be about the size that ours (and other mammals, around 30,000 genes and genomes of about 3 billion bps) are and have about as many genes as we do - in fact, his prediction based on mutation rates was more accurate than other prediction of the time that were based on extrapolations of concepts of 'complexity' and the like (on the order of 100,000+ for humans).


So, again, I suggest you read some introductory material on the things you have convinced yourself that you understand.

But, if all humans did not share the same original descendants after the flood,

Flood shmood.

The ark inhabitants were descendants of Adam and Eve, right?

That means that the genetic diversity that they possessed was premised solely on the nearly identical genomes of Adam and Eve - so the usual un-answered question remains -

WHERE DID THE GENETIC DIVERSITY COME FROM???

You can NOT claim 'interbreeding', because ALL of Adam and Eve's descendants would have had nearly identical genomes, and since you folks like to claim that they were "perfect" genomes there would have been no mutation (which you folks like to claim is a God punishment for the 'fall' - despite the fact that God apparently also gave us mutation correcting mechanisms... Couldn't make up His mind?).


And by the way - how could they NOT?

Are you implying that there were other non-biblical peoples around to interbreed with?

the 98% would not be consistent across races which live in different continents and were therefore subject to different mutational variables.

So now mutation is OK...

Please make up your mind.

It’s your story that can’t match what is observed, not mine. Even if it isn’t junk DNA.

Your story is 3rd grade-level gibberish.

You cannot even provide a proposed genetic mechanism for your tall tales, much less evidence.

You can't even bring yourself to admit that mutations produce new alleles, despite admitting that mutations occur (sometimes)!

But non-functional DNA is what you end up with when God deactivates it to shorten mans lifespan after the flood.

And there you go.

If God did this, then why did God give us mutation correction mechanisms (and the genes for it)?

You cobbled together some phoney-baloney "genetics" to justify your dismissal of reality, then fall back on God-magic when you run out of fake science.

Go ahead, do some genetic experiments on man and get it working again and see what happens. That’s my prediction, test it.

Test your own prediction.

Or better yet - go here:

Download the complete genome for an organism

and find some actual evidence for your claims.

I understand quite well that for a mutation to become fixed in the entire population, the population had to come from descendants....

Goody for you.

Do you understand yet that YOU are not the descendant of a single person or breeding pair?

No, that’s your claim they were nearly identical, not mine. Where did you get that from my statement one was A/B and the other C/D?

Your claim was simple fabrication, pulled out of thin air.

My position is at least based on YOUR bible tales about Eve being 'made from' Adam's rib - this is standard YEC stuff.

However, I demolished your tall tale by showing the limits of your wacky fake 'genetics.'

I guess you ignored that.