I thought I had them at the flood, but...

[Job 33:6]

Pretty sure meat froze and still does when the temperatures are depp in minus. Btw, it doesn’t rain at temperatures deeply below freezing. It snows if anything but even that doesn’t occur if cold enough.

Exactly. Thats why the mammoths were preserved.

 

[The Barbarian]

You obviously do not work in science.

My degrees are in science. I worked as an ergonomist for most of my post-university career, after which I retired and taught science. So I have had two careers in science. You're wrong again.

I assure you that fossils finally landing at a delta did not form along the way.

They formed after being deposited where the river slowed, after which they were slowly buried under more sediment. Sometimes, it can happen suddenly, such as the Burgess shale fossils which were buried under a huge underwater mudslide.

Even if you're irritated, it's a bad idea to go after someone personally.

(Barbarian is referred to as a "harridan")

Barbarian chuckles:
I don't think you know what that word means.

Ah, the ad hominem attack when reason has failed.

Yes, I suppose that's why you called me that. But it's obvious that you don't know what the word means.

(Barbarian notes that land plants are the biggest source of carbon exchange)

No one says leaves are the main issue.

It was probably a mistake to bring them up like that, then.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

My degrees are in science. I worked as an ergonomist for most of my post-university career, after which I retired and taught science. So I have had two careers in science. You're wrong again.

You view of scientists is singular. All so know don’t trust other scientists. No exceptions.

They formed after being deposited where the river slowed, after which they were slowly buried under more sediment. Sometimes, it can happen suddenly, such as the Burgess shale fossils which were buried under a huge underwater mudslide.

How slow is slowly buried and have dead creatures been slowly buried in a lab and didn’t decay?

Even if you're irritated, it's a bad idea to go after someone personally.

I know but it’s become more popular as the ability to think diminishes.

I don't think you know what that word m
Yes, I suppose that's why you called me that. But it's obvious that you don't know what the word means.

I didn’t call you anything and I know what all the words mean that I use.

It was probably a mistake to bring them up like that, then.

There was no claim that plants are the major source of CO2 exchange. But we can plant more whereas we can’t make more ocean. In any case money collected as a tax won’t change the situation. Will make those collecting it better off.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
My degrees are in science. I worked as an ergonomist for most of my post-university career, after which I retired and taught science. So I have had two careers in science. You're wrong again.

You view of scientists is singular.

No. I've known a lot of them from a lot of different disciplines. You're wrong about that, too.

They formed after being deposited where the river slowed, after which they were slowly buried under more sediment. Sometimes, it can happen suddenly, such as the Burgess shale fossils which were buried under a huge underwater mudslide.

How slow is slowly buried

Depends. For some inverts, could be hundreds of years.

and have dead creatures been slowly buried in a lab and didn’t decay?

Sure. Low oxygen waters, do that quite readily.

 

[pat34lee]

I guess the only thing I'm still holding on to is that night I believe I met Jesus.

If you can't believe God, who inspired Moses to write
Genesis, then you haven't got a leg to stand on. There
was only one witness to creation, and it wasn't a scientist.
There was one who caused the flood; who gave Noah the
instructions to build the ark and caused the animals to come
to him, and there were no scientists around to see it. Anyone
can see the proof if they look. They just don't want to see it.
And yet, he is giving them what time is possible until there
is no time left to repent.

2 Peter 3:3-9
3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

 

[pat34lee]

Sure. Low oxygen waters, do that quite readily.

You have to have very deep water and/or many feet of mud for that.
Such as you get in worldwide flood conditions.

 

[The Barbarian]

You have to have very deep water and/or many feet of mud for that.

The most common type of environment that may be anoxic is a body of water. Swamps or hypereutrophic water bodies are commonly devoid of dissolved oxygen.
https://study.com/academy/lesson/anoxic-environment-definition-conditions.html

In many cases, we see signs that decay had begun prior to burial, which is incompatible with sudden burial:
There is no indication of feathering on the upper neck and head. While these conceivably may have been nude, this may still be an artefact of preservation. It appears that most Archaeopteryx specimens became embedded in anoxic sediment after drifting some time on their backs in the sea—the head, neck and the tail are generally bent downward, which suggests that the specimens had just started to rot when they were embedded, with tendons and muscle relaxing so that the characteristic shape (death pose) of the fossil specimens was achieved.[29] This would mean that the skin already was softened and loose, which is bolstered by the fact that in some specimens the flight feathers were starting to detach at the point of embedding in the sediment. So it is hypothesized that the pertinent specimens moved along the sea bed in shallow water for some time before burial, the head and upper neck feathers sloughing off, while the more firmly attached tail feathers remained.[30]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx

 

[DamianWarS]

I just have one question.

Why would God let Moses record them and let it remain in the Torah if it were not true?

In eastern philosophy often stories are told that sound the best not what actually happened. Details are fluid so long as your version tells it better. If I said my father met my mother at a brothel it doesn't sound as good as my father met my mother during a family celebration. The latter is the better version and the former brings dishonour to the mother and to the family so the latter is the story chosen. It doesn't matter if it's not true what matters is that it makes the most sense and it gives the most honour.

The Israelites post exodus had a distorted version of God or "gods" but this shouldn't be a surprise. Their most intimate connection with God was stories of their fore fathers that happened 400 years ago. No doubt everyone had something to say about where we came from and the Hebrews were at the bottom of the ladder so it would make a lot of sense that the accounts they had were heavily influenced by a surrounding cultures, most dominate Egypt.

So what stories did they carry with them into the dessert? What would happen if Moses said forget about what you think you know because it's all wrong, then tell them an account ancients couldn't possibly understand let alone Moses. It would make more sense to continue to use the accounts they already know but use them to point to the one true God.

The Egyptian myth of Creation is remarkably like Genesis 1.

 

[Job 33:6]

Interesting. Fossils are one of the strongest supports for Young Earth creation. And there are serious hurdles for those promoting the evolutionary 'geologic column.' Sorry this won;t be more in-depth but I don't have a lot of time for a long answer:





2. Whoever told you that plants/animals are separated 'correctly' within the layers is misinformed. They often are not. (Plus, for the theory of the geologic column coupled with evolution of the species to be true one would need a near-perfect record, with big deviations having clear explanations as to how they could have occurred.) You may have heard of Index fossils. Why are these particular fossils used to date layers and not others? Because unlike the rest of the fossils which can easily be found in different layers (even straddling two layers, which should be impossible under an Old Earth view unless it's cataclysm driven,) index fossils are 'more commonly' found in the 'expected' locations. But even these are not 100% consistent. For example, flowering plants supposedly evolved ~160 million years ago, but pollen samples are found in Precambrian strata supposedly over 550 million years. And duck fossils, squirrels, bees, platypus, frogs, etc. have been found along with T-Rex fossils. Older fossils can be found in strata above younger ones, or species crossing into strata they are not 'expected' to be in. Sometimes species 'skip' a strata or two as well! [The explanation offered for these many out of place fossils is that they somehow 'slipped' down through solid rock or 'reworked' themselves upwards into the next strata - which doesn't make any geological sense whatsoever.]

http://evolutionfacts.com/Ev-V2/2evlch17e.htm
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences29.html
http://thecreationclub.com/fossils-out-of-time-and-place-bill-nye-should-be-a-creationist-now/

Continuing with these points above. There is no such thing as precambrian pollen fossils. Nor squirrels found along side T rex. This is all made up, and there isnt any actual scientific research on such things. Number 2 is really just a bunch of meaningless conjecture without credible sources.

 

[Job 33:6]

Interesting. Fossils are one of the strongest supports for Young Earth creation. And there are serious hurdles for those promoting the evolutionary 'geologic column.' Sorry this won;t be more in-depth but I don't have a lot of time for a long answer:



3. Fossilized trees are often found straddling several layers. Not only would this be impossible if sediments represented millions of years, but in many cases the rock surrounding these trees shows signs of being rapidly deposited. (Ironically, the standard explanation of this from an 'old-Earth' perspective is that in these cases, the layers formed very quickly, due to some cataclysm like a volcano, flood, sandstorm, etc.; or for upside down fossilized trees that they somehow got caught standing in water, like a swamp or flood.) Which seems to back up the flood view more than the geologic column.

Polystrate fossils to not cross over strata representing millions of years, this is just a misconception.

 

[Job 33:6]

Interesting. Fossils are one of the strongest supports for Young Earth creation. And there are serious hurdles for those promoting the evolutionary 'geologic column.' Sorry this won;t be more in-depth but I don't have a lot of time for a long answer:


4. Many creatures still alive today yet dated to 500+ millions of years old (e.g. starfish, jellyfish, brachiopods, clams, and snails) are often 'missing' from the strata they are supposed to be found in or the layer they would have been expected to be found in missing entirely.

Animals of the cambrian (500+ million years ago) do not exist today. Some animals similar to animals that live today, existed back then. But animals of today are not found in the fossil succession. And some layers in the geologic column are eroded away. But as described above, we have simple principals of superposition and lateral continuity which allow us to accurately identify unconformities, as do we have angular unconformities and erosional surfaces (see my earlier response).

 

[Job 33:6]

Interesting. Fossils are one of the strongest supports for Young Earth creation. And there are serious hurdles for those promoting the evolutionary 'geologic column.' Sorry this won;t be more in-depth but I don't have a lot of time for a long answer:
5. In many places strata overlies other strata at an angle. These angled layers at any given point are used to support the idea of a 'column.' Why is this a problem? What is found in the layers changes laterally, not just vertically! Imagine three layers angled over each other like roof tiles which appear to match with geologic layers A, B, and C at point X. But travel along some distance and the same exact strata now hold fossils more corresponding to B, C, and D. That isn't a support for the geologic column at all - it actually is what one would expect to find with sediment layering.

Angular unconformities are a problem for a young earth because nobody is capable of describing how they could form in any short period of time.

I give this example all time on this website. In one section of rock in NY, we actually have older rock in a horizontal position, located adjacent to younger rock in a vertical position separated by scour marks and fault breccia, and animal burrows in the younger layers.

The reason this cant be explained to have formed in any short period of time, is that its formation would involve the deposition of the older layers, then the offset of the older layers, the deposition of the new layers, life burrowing into the new layers, hardening of the new layers, then offset of the whole system bringing the older layers back to horizontal and the younger layers to vertical. All the while, this formation exists within a single megasequence filled with repetitive oceanic trans and regressive patterns. The rocks further are topped with mesozoic layers with things like dinosaur tracks, and further still topped with layers containing glacial striations from glacial movement over solid rock.

This cannot be explained by a global flood, nor could such things be explained to have happened in 6000 years, much less the 1 or 2 years in which the flood allegedly occurred.

 

[Job 33:6]

Interesting. Fossils are one of the strongest supports for Young Earth creation. And there are serious hurdles for those promoting the evolutionary 'geologic column.' Sorry this won;t be more in-depth but I don't have a lot of time for a long answer:


6. 'Cope's Rule' details how fossils (in general) are found 'larger' as one goes up through the strata. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cope's_rule
There is no basis for this in evolution, nor any reason longer time periods would make fossils bigger as one goes up the strata. This doesn't match with ''living fossils,' many of which are clearly smaller than their ancestors. Rather, this finding matches well with the sorting of water, where smaller organisms would be expected to be deposited first.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cope's_rule


Validity[edit]
Cope recognised that clades of Cenozoic mammals appeared to originate as small individuals, and that body mass increased through a clade's history.[13] Discussing the case of canid evolution in North America, Blaire Van Valkenburgh of UCLA and coworkers state:

Accurate ^

Cope's rule, or the evolutionary trend toward larger body size, is common among mammals. Large size enhances the ability to avoid predators and capture prey, enhances reproductive success, and improves thermal efficiency. Moreover, in large carnivores, interspecific competition for food tends to be relatively intense, and bigger species tend to dominate and kill smaller competitors. Progenitors of hypercarnivorous lineages may have started as relatively small-bodied scavengers of large carcasses, similar to foxes and coyotes, with selection favoring both larger size and enhanced craniodental adaptations for meat eating. Moreover, the evolution of predator size is likely to be influenced by changes in prey size, and a significant trend toward larger size has been documented for large North American mammals, including both herbivores and carnivores, in the Cenozoic.[11]

Accurate^

In some cases, the increase in body size may represent a passive, rather than an active, trend.[14] In other words, the maximum size increases, but the minimum size does not; this is usually a result of size varying pseudo-randomly rather than directed evolution. This does not fall into Cope's rule sensu stricto, but is considered by many workers to be an example of "Cope's rule sensu lato".[15] In other cases, an increase in size may in fact represent a transition to an optimal body size, and not imply that populations always develop to a larger size.[13]

However, many palaeobiologists are skeptical of the validity of Cope's rule, which may merely represent a statistical artefact.[3][16] Purported examples of Cope's rule often assume that the stratigraphic age of fossils is proportional to their "clade rank", a measure of how derived they are from an ancestral state; this relationship is in fact quite weak.[17] Counterexamples to Cope's rule are common throughout geological time; although size increase does occur more often than not, it is by no means universal. For example, among genera of Cretaceous molluscs, an increase in size is no more common than stasis or a decrease.[15] In many cases, Cope's rule only operates at certain taxonomic levels (for example, an order may obey Cope's rule, while its constituent families do not), or more generally, it may apply to only some clades of a taxon.[18]

Despite many counter-examples, Cope's rule is supported in many instances. For example, all marine invertebrate phyla except the molluscs show a size increase between the Cambrian and Permian.[19] Collectively, dinosaurs exhibit an increase in body length over their evolution.[20] Cope's rule also appears to hold in clades where a constraint on size is expected. For instance, one may expect the size of birds to be constrained, as larger masses mean more energy must be expended in flight. Birds have been suggested to follow Cope's law,[21] although a subsequent reanalysis of the same data suggested otherwise.[22]

An extensive study published in 2015 supports the presence of a trend toward larger body size in marine animals during the Phanerozoic. However, this trend was present mainly in the Paleozoic and Cenozoic; the Mesozoic was a period of relative stasis. The trend is not attributable simply to neutral drift in body size from small ancestors, and was mainly driven by a greater rate of diversification in classes of larger mean size. A smaller component of the overall trend is due to trends of increasing size within individual families.[23]


Accurate^

It appears that everyone (including myself) is well aware that Copes rule doesn't apply to all fossils throughout the entire geologic column. This particular topic doesn't hold any weight against the theory, its just an irrelevant point of discussion.

 

[The Barbarian]

It appears that everyone (including myself) is well aware that Copes rule doesn't apply to all fossils throughout the entire geologic column. This particular topic doesn't hold any weight against the theory, its just an irrelevant point of discussion.

Indeed, we have numerous examples of elephants, humans, cats, birds, plants, insects, etc. getting smaller over time in some cases. It's called a "rule" rather than a law, because it isn't true in all cases.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Indeed, we have numerous examples of elephants, humans, cats, birds, plants, insects, etc. getting smaller over time in some cases. It's called a "rule" rather than a law, because it isn't true in all cases.

Interesting findings in Asia of pygmy animals due to scarce food and limited area.

 

[The Barbarian]

Interesting findings in Asia of pygmy animals due to scarce food and limited area.

As a rule, large animals on islands tend to dwarfism. Elephants, for example have evolved pygmy forms in North America, East Indies, and in the Arctic sea. In one case, there were also pygmy humans there.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Where?

The verse is Psalms was written by Moses.

 

[joshua 1 9]

this means that the bible has secret codes

This means that the Bible has shadows and types. Are you trying to claim that Jesus had "secret codes" because He taught in parables? Only those on the "outside" do not understand.

Mark 4 "…11 And He told them, “The mystery of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to those on the outside, everything is expressed in parables, 12 so that,‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven.’”

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Barbarian observes:
My degrees are in science. I worked as an ergonomist for most of my post-university career, after which I retired and taught science. So I have had two careers in science. You're wrong again.

"
1. (used with a sing. verb) The applied science of equipment design, as for the workplace, intended to maximize productivity by reducing operator fatigue and discomfort. Also called biotechnology, human engineering, human factors engineering."

So you designed furniture and such. I can see why there is no fierce competition for survival between people in this line of work. Probably do not need grants nor have to publish papers that are only peer reviewed AFTER submission for fear of stealing. By the way, why don't scientists send out their unsubmitted manuscripts for peer review before sending to be published? Would save time. They can hand them out at conferences and then submit them after many of their peers read them. The reason is they do not trust other scientists in their field. Stealing other people's work is known.

Otherwise my time is limited these days. Maybe I get back to this later.

 

[The Barbarian]

"
1. (used with a sing. verb) The applied science of equipment design, as for the workplace, intended to maximize productivity by reducing operator fatigue and discomfort. Also called biotechnology, human engineering, human factors engineering."

So you designed furniture and such.

Most of my career, I was in the engineering department of a large insurance company. So I was most often designing workplaces to minimize hazards from material handling and repetitive motion disorders. Closest I got to designing furniture would be things like organizing computer workstations or assembly line layouts.

Truth is, one has to be more familiar with human anatomy, physiology, and biomechanics than with what we normally think of as engineering.

I can see why there is no fierce competition for survival between people in this line of work.

Most employers expect one to be a CSP and a voting member of the Human Factors society. And you have to be a competent biologist to understand the mechanics of it all. So there were some obstacles to entering the profession.

You might want to take a look at Chaffin and Anderson's Occupational Biomechanics to get an idea of that segment of ergonomics.

And there were a lot of fruitcake ideas being peddled by non-degreed people calling themselves ergonomists. That's how the "keep your back straight, lift with your legs" foolishness got started. In most industrial tasks, that's a dangerous practice.

Fortunately, most workers were smart enough to ignore it. The only way to actually know the optimum
layout is to determine the forces at the L5/S1 vertebral disk. There is good data showing the risk of back injury rises markedly when compression forces go much about 750 lb on that disk. And the only way to know that is to to an analysis that estimates the force at each body segment for the posture required for the lift.

It's tedious to actually do, but it works

Probably do not need grants nor have to publish papers that are only peer reviewed AFTER submission for fear of stealing.

There are entire journals dedicated to these things.

By the way, why don't scientists send out their unsubmitted manuscripts for peer review before sending to be published?

There's a lot of communication between people on those things. Not many people prepare a "manuscript" for it. Most commonly, it's a poster session at a meeting, or telephone conversations, or even talk in the break room. I don't think you know much about the way daily work goes for scientists.

They can hand them out at conferences and then submit them after many of their peers read them.

A poster presentation, at a congress or conference with an academic or professional focus, is the presentation of research information, usually peer-reviewed work,[contradictory] in the form of a paper poster that conference participants may view. A poster session is an event at which many such posters are presented. Poster sessions are particularly prominent at scientific conferences such as medical congresses.[1][2][3]

Typically a separate room or area of a trade show floor is reserved for the poster session where researchers accompany a paper poster, illustrating their research methods and outcomes.[3] Each research project is usually presented on a conference schedule for a period ranging from 10 minutes to several hours. Very large events may feature a few thousand poster presentations over a matter of a few days.[4]

Presentations usually consist of affixing the research poster to a portable wall with the researcher in attendance answering questions posed by passing colleagues.[3] The poster itself varies in size according to conference guidelines from 2x3 feet to 4x8 feet in dimensions.[3][5] Posters are often created using a presentation program such as PowerPoint and may be printed on a large format printer. Posters are often printed on a glossy base and laminated with plastic to improve durability.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poster_session

That's how it works. Aren't they afraid of other stealing their research? Nope. Because they don't actually show the data, just summaries of the data. Without that, it's useless to steal the conclusions.

Maybe I get back to this later.

Spend a little time learning about it, and we'll talk.