Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That's not true because we some things, like astronomy, can only be direct observation of prehistoric events. The 1987 supernova happened 170,000+ years ago, long before the advent of history, be we couldn't observe it directly until 1987.
You don't really know anything about quantum mechanics and entanglement and uncertainty, right? Because it sounds like you just heard this from some newspaper headline and decided to run with it, ignoring what it actually means. I just want to make sure: you have no idea what you're talking about here, right?
That is more along the lines of a weak ontological argument . One could apply that to sunlight. We have all been at a different distances to light and it seems rather the same existential experience . One clove of garlic instead of two is still garlicky. Comparing that to a fossil would imply a eulogy is needed every time someone hits the dimmer switch. Since that is how we see stars, the star is.
Could you clarify this as it didn't make a lot of sense to me? I don't know what it all has to do with Supernova 1987A and that it occured about 170,000 years ago.
Viewing a supernova is not an appropriate context to identify it as a prehistoric event on many levels. It is an ontological argument you are making. What is a star? I could try an argument of monism and claim it exists in the present as a piece of the whole. The light shines somewhere still thus the star shines. Debating in such a manner we can certainly have all kinds of fun.
Williston Basin, North Dakota.
Mckenzie river delta in Canada.
How many more do you want - there are a couple of dozen more locations around the world.
** snip **
I'll look into the other when I get a chance.The Williston Basin in North Dakota
Also known as the North Dakota Column, this is claimed to contain the entire geologic column. As stated earlier, the total theoretical column depth is 100 miles, but the depth of the Williston Basin is only 3.4 miles. This means that much of the column is missing. Such large amounts of sedimentation are possible during a year-long global Flood, because it was laid down sideways making it quite possible to lay down such large amounts of sediment very quickly, the main factors being available sediment and the rate of current flow.
Now it does have rocks labeled as all ten ages, but some interesting data can be found in, The Geological Atlas of the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin.. The Williston Basin is part of the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin.
Here is how they labeled some these strata:
- Hay River Embayment (van Hees, 1964) - a depositional area northwest of the Peace-Athabasca Arch, developed on the Interior Platform, containing remnants of rocks that have been interpreted as being equivalent to Lower and Middle Cambrian units of central Alberta. The rocks have not been dated, and some of the strata may be younger than here interpreted. The embayment extends westward into the mountains of northeastern British Columbia. This indicates that when lacking fossils, they find rocks that they can interpret as equivalent to the rocks they are dating, so as to set a geologic age. Biostratigraphy according to Williston Basin, "biostratigraphy based on pollen and spores has been used to determine the age of the coal beds." [7] Other fossils include shells and fish but many layers have few if any fossils. In general these layers have not been dated by fossils. Furthermore, there is little reference to radiometric dates beyond the pre-Cambrian. The one set that is mentioned produced inconsistent results.
There are several other cases where poor or no biostratigraphic data is mentioned, as well as no reference to radiometric dates. As a result it seems that many of these strata were assigned geologic ages based on comparing rocks. Then the comparisons were interpreted based on the geological column. They seem to be assuming that because of the geologic column, the gaps must contain ages for which they have no fossils.
- Local lithostratigraphy and sedimentology are generally well known. However, the paucity of reliable radiometric dates and the absence of biostratigraphic control has hindered correlation within and between the assemblages and precluded accurate dating of each assemblage.
The conclusion that they have a complete geologic column in this area is based on the assumption of the existence of the geologic column. This is circular reasoning.
If that is not enough there is a place where a rock layer labeled Devonian can be found between rock layers labeled Carboniferous. Devonian is alleged to be older than Carboniferous, but this would suggest that they are really the same age.
Curiously while the theoretical column thickness is 100 miles, the maximum thickness of sediment found any place is only 16 miles. That means that at any given location at least 84% of the geologic column is missing.
** snip **
That's not true because we some things, like astronomy, can only be direct observation of prehistoric events. The 1987 supernova happened 170,000+ years ago, long before the advent of history, be we couldn't observe it directly until 1987.
the problem with this scenario is that it assumes that the nova appeared exactly the same as it did when it first exploded. it doesn't take into account that in 168,000 +/- many factors could have transpired to alter the results of the explosion.
so in reality Goober and i are right {i have stated this before}, no one can see into the past. then again, it may not have taken 170,000 years to get here, that is just the assumption. no one can measure when the explosion happened nor track its progress so there are a lot of 'ifs' here.
I'm sorry, but I'm just not into weird navel gazing. Light emitted from the star that became SN 1987A had to travel for 168,000 years before it reached Earth in 1987. That's pretty cut and dried. No one hand clapping messiness, no is the river moving or ther bridge moving over it inanity. It's just a fact.
the problem with this scenario is that it assumes that the nova appeared exactly the same as it did when it first exploded. it doesn't take into account that in 168,000 +/- many factors could have transpired to alter the results of the explosion.
so in reality Goober and i are right {i have stated this before}, no one can see into the past. then again, it may not have taken 170,000 years to get here, that is just the assumption. no one can measure when the explosion happened nor track its progress so there are a lot of 'ifs' here.
As stated earlier, the total theoretical column depth is 100 miles
Curiously while the theoretical column thickness is 100 miles, the maximum thickness of sediment found any place is only 16 miles. That means that at any given location at least 84% of the geologic column is missing.
Geological column
I'll look into the other when I get a chance.Goober's bolded text said:Curiously while the theoretical column thickness is 100 miles, the maximum thickness of sediment found any place is only 16 miles. That means that at any given location at least 84% of the geologic column is missing.
(bold mine)[Woodmorappe] says, "Creationists do not say that every single day’s deposits must be preserved! The fact is that Morris and Parker are not talking about a little of the daily sediment being missing. If we read the Morris and Parker quote again, we can see that the 100- or 200-mile column is not the presumed product of daily sedimentation. Rather, the 100- to 200-mile column represents the sum of the thickest sections from the field of each of the ten Phanerozoic systems and/or their major components.
"Now what does all this mean? Common sense teaches us that 16 miles (at most) which exists, out of a total of 100 or 200 miles, is a very incomplete column!"
Woodmorappe rests his entire case upon this 200 mile thick column which he says must be there if the geologic column is to be real. We will examine that statement. Woodmorappe writes:
"There are a number of locations on the earth where all ten periods of the Phanerozoic geologic column have been assigned. However, this does not mean that the geological column is real. Firstly, the presence or absence of all ten periods is not the issue, because the thickness of the sediment pile, even in those locations, is only a small fraction (8-16% or less) of the total thickness of the hypothetical geologic column. Without question, most of the column is missing in the field."
This of course is NOT the definition of the geologic column that ANY geologist would use. If we can show that Woodmorappe's logic is flawed, then we can show that his case falls flat on its face. Woodmorappe and other young-earth creationists are trying to say that if we add the thickest sediments in each period from anywhere in the world this defines the entire geologic column. This is a ridiculous and silly argument. This is like saying the following:
The Antarctic region receives less than 1/10 of an inch of snow per year. Places in Colorado Ski country receive up to 5-10 feet of snow per year and Houghton, Michigan receives up to 20 feet per year. Let us add up the maximum snow fall anywhere in the world each day of the year. Most likely we would tally up something like 200 feet of snow as the total maximum daily snow fall. If we then conclude that this means that Antarctica only gets 1/2000 of the yearly snow fall and therefore Antarctica doesn't represent a full years snowfall, we would have done the same thing that Woodmorappe is doing with the geologic column. This is rather spurious to say the least. Antarctica received a full year's worth of snowfall--it is just a smaller amount than Vail, Colorado. Similarly to add up the maximum sedimentation in each geologic period and then expect that that represents the entire geologic column is perverse. Woodmorappe's argument doesn't stand up.
Today, Woodmorappe claims that the real issue with regard to the geologic column is the small percentage of the maximum sedimentation that exists. If Woodmorappe really felt that the existence of the 10 periods was of no importance, if Woodmorappe really thought that the small percentage of the 200 miles was the real issue, why did he spend his entire 1981 article talking about where the 10 periods existed? One would think he would spend the most time on the most important issue. He spent the most space discussing the 10 periods and I can't find a single paragraph on what he now says is important. Woodmorappe's entire article belies his current claim.
gwynedd1 -- interestingly enough in science every single reference frame can be translated into every other reference frame. When you record data or build models, you choose a reference frame that is most convenient. However that does not mean that you're neglecting every other reference frame. There's an entire mathematical field centered around transforming from one reference frame to another.
So yes, while the reference frames are relative, they are interconnected. The conclusions built in one reference frame will hold in all other reference frames.
I just watched an episode of "Dino Labs" on the science channel and relying only on the length and shapes of the bones they built complex computer models that show exactly how different dinosaurs moved. Do you claim that the size and shape of fossilized bones has no useful relation to the size and shape of the original bones? Do you understand that bones are so unique that forensic anthropologists can determine the sex, age, and often a person's occupation and major hobbies (if any) just by looking at the bones? The size, shape and position of the joints can determine their movement, the center of mass of the organism etc... The wear patterns are incredibly useful in determining repeated motions.2. The fossil is a quantum leap in a state of degradation of life. It is metamorphic in scale. There are few relations that can be made from the fossil to the life that created it. There are no direct proportions applied to the senses. This is not like viewing a phenomenological event. It is not like hearing an explosion 1/2 mile away verse 2 miles away. It is pure inference to guess at the fossil and what it was.
I just watched an episode of "Dino Labs" on the science channel and relying only on the length and shapes of the bones they built complex computer models that show exactly how different dinosaurs moved. Do you claim that the size and shape of fossilized bones has no useful relation to the size and shape of the original bones? Do you understand that bones are so unique that forensic anthropologists can determine the sex, age, and often a person's occupation and major hobbies (if any) just by looking at the bones? The size, shape and position of the joints can determine their movement, the center of mass of the organism etc... The wear patterns are incredibly useful in determining repeated motions.
Are you claiming that these are wild guesses because you seem to be demonstrating a misunderstanding of the field rather than convincingly showing how the conclusions made in palaeontology are based on "few relations."
Shall we find a few palaeontology websites and expand the list of the few relations I'm aware of as a lay-person in the field and see what your understanding of "pure inference" actually entails?
However it is consistent with my observations that many people that support evolution as a theory do not know much about science.
We can arbitrarily define a distance that maintains a consistent 25 C
Could you name some... or any of those factors. And could you plug them into the calcluations on this
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?