Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution

Shemjaza · Apr 30, 2018

xianghua said:
so if they were able to do so you will not conclude design?

Can you describe what exactly you are talking about here?

In your story, are there little animals walking around who, for no clear reason, have perfect 12 hour clocks on their backs and will let you attach them to your wrist if you grab one?

pitabread · Apr 30, 2018

Kenny'sID said:
Agreeable terms would be nice, but I just don't think you were paying attention. Probably something you can't help, so I mean no harm in saying so. Look closely and tell me why I may not be able to agree to your terms, or you to mine for that matter...do you see it? Now give me those reasons, please, and we can go from there, hopefully anyway.. If you don't see them there they are sprinkled all over here and there, and it's hard to believe you haven't noticed a one of them, but I suppose it's possible. Anyway, if not, I'll do my best to point them out, but seems to me they are so obvious already that may not help. But I'm getting ahead of myself....

Just to clarify, I don't care why you don't want to use proper terminology given the context of the discussion. My only point is that it leads to unnecessary misunderstanding, something which you have been complaining endlessly about. I figured that of anyone here, you'd be the most eager to avoid perpetuating such misunderstandings.

Now are you ever going to get around to what I posted re: the scientific method or do you want to spend some more time pontificating about the finer points of trying to have a discussion on the Internet?

inquiring mind · Apr 30, 2018

Ophiolite said:
You are mistaken in virtually everything you say here. I shall take a single instance, as per the highlighted text. Here are a couple of papers that illustrate the techniques. (Many, many more could be provided. I'm sure you can search for these yourself.) These and the associated technology continue to advance so that the determinations are refined and extended.

A multiple proxy and model study of Cretaceous upper ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations

Holocene atmosphere-ocean interactions: records from Greenland and the Aegean Sea

Here’s an excerpt from the first couple paragraphs of your first link. I must admit that about the only things I understand are "highlighted."

“[1] We estimate tropical Atlantic upper ocean temperatures using oxygen isotope and Mg/Ca ratios in well‐preserved planktonic foraminifera extracted from Albian through Santonian black shales recovered during Ocean Drilling Program Leg 207 (North Atlantic Demerara Rise). On the basis of a range of plausible assumptions regarding seawater composition at the time the data support temperatures between 33° and 42°C. In our low‐resolution data set spanning ∼84–100 Ma a local temperature maximum occurs in the late Turonian, and a possible minimum occurs in the mid to early late Cenomanian. The relation between single species foraminiferal δ18O and Mg/Ca suggests that the ratio of magnesium to calcium in the Turonian‐Coniacian ocean may have been lower than in the Albian‐Cenomanian ocean, perhaps coincident with an ocean 87Sr/86Sr minimum. The carbon isotopic compositions of distinct marine algal biomarkers were measured in the same sediment samples. The δ13C values of phytane, combined with foraminiferal δ13C and inferred temperatures, were used to estimate atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations through this interval. Estimates of atmospheric CO2 concentrations range between 600 and 2400 ppmv. Within the uncertainty in the various proxies, there is only a weak overall correspondence between higher (lower) tropical temperatures and more (less) atmospheric CO2. The GENESIS climate model underpredicts tropical Atlantic temperatures inferred from ODP Leg 207 foraminiferal δ18O and Mg/Ca when we specify approximate CO2 concentrations estimated from the biomarker isotopes in the same samples. Possible errors in the temperature and CO2 estimates and possible deficiencies in the model are discussed. The potential for and effects of substantially higher atmospheric methane during Cretaceous anoxic events, perhaps derived from high fluxes from the oxygen minimum zone, are considered in light of recent work that shows a quadratic relation between increased methane flux and atmospheric CH4concentrations. With 50 ppm CH4, GENESIS sea surface temperatures approximate the minimum upper ocean temperatures inferred from proxy data when CO2 concentrations specified to the model are near those inferred using the phytane δ13C proxy. However, atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 3500 ppm or more are still required in the model in order to reproduce inferred maximum temperatures.

1. Introduction

[2] The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is believed to be a primary determinant of climate [Royer et al., 2004]. Model studies indicate that the direct radiative effects and water vapor feedbacks accompanying a change from 500 to 1000 ppm CO2(values at the lower end of mid‐Cretaceous CO2 estimates) have a greater effect on Earth's surface temperature than the combined temperature effects of paleogeographic and solar luminosity changes over the past 90 million years [Bice et al., 2000; Bice and Norris, 2002]. Estimates of Cretaceous CO2 concentrations have been made using a variety of terrestrial and marine proxies, including the carbon isotopic composition of specific organic compounds. The resulting estimates for an individual geologic stage can vary widely [Royer et al., 2001; Bice and Norris, 2002, and references therein]. In a model‐data study, Bice and Norris [2002] suggested that in the mid‐Cretaceous at least, this variability may be real, which points out the need for a multiple proxy approach in order to more reliably constrain paleo‐CO2 concentrations.”

pitabread · Apr 30, 2018

Jimmy D said:
Aaaand still no comment on whether you understand or accept Pita’s explanation of the scientific method.

Why is that?

It couldn't possibly be deliberate stalling could it? Nah, couldn't be...

pitabread · Apr 30, 2018

inquiring mind said:
Here’s an excerpt from the first couple paragraphs of your first link. I must admit that about the only things I understand are "highlighted."

What's your point?

Are you trying to make the traditional, "science doesn't yield 100% perfect knowledge, therefore it must be wrong"-type argument?

inquiring mind · Apr 30, 2018

pitabread said:
What's your point?

Are you trying to make the traditional, "science doesn't yield 100% perfect knowledge, therefore it must be wrong"-type argument?

Well, you guys have the scientific method...

Speedwell · Apr 30, 2018

inquiring mind said:
Well, you guys have the scientific method...

Which by it's nature only provides provisional "truth."

pitabread · Apr 30, 2018

inquiring mind said:
Well, you guys have the scientific method...

Do you know what the scientific method is?

inquiring mind · Apr 30, 2018

pitabread said:
Do you know what the scientific method is?

I could find a scientific method flow chart, and you scientists couldn't.

pitabread · Apr 30, 2018

inquiring mind said:
I could find a scientific method flow chart, and you scientists couldn't.

That's not what I asked. Do you know what the scientific method is?

inquiring mind · Apr 30, 2018

pitabread said:
That's not what I asked. Do you know what the scientific method is?

Do scientific method flow charts represent the correct procedure, or not?

pitabread · Apr 30, 2018

inquiring mind said:
Do scientific method flow charts represent the correct procedure, or not?

A flow chart may provide a basic, high-level view of the method (i.e. forming a hypothesis, making predictions, etc) if that is what you are asking.

pitabread · Apr 30, 2018

inquiring mind said:
There could have been colossal changes occurring rapidly and at much faster rates, just like the Bible says.

Not without consequences. Young-Earth creationism runs into this problem by trying to invoke the Flood as a catch-all explanation for rapid subduction, release of radiation, and formation of major geological features. The problem is that such rapid processes release a tremendous amount of energy, and they've never managed how to explain how Noah & Co. (not to mention everything else) didn't get evaporated in the process.

inquiring mind · Apr 30, 2018

Good point, but maybe Noah was in an area far enough away from the major releases of energy, and the violent fast-moving water between him and the nearest eruptions dissipated the heat to a tolerable level.

pitabread · Apr 30, 2018

inquiring mind said:
Good point, but maybe Noah was in an area far enough away from the major releases of energy, and the violent fast-moving water between him and the nearest eruptions dissipated the heat to a tolerable level.

The amount of energy we are talking about would have evaporated all the water on the planet and probably the very atmosphere itself. There wouldn't be any escape from a disaster of such magnitude.

inquiring mind · Apr 30, 2018

pitabread said:
The amount of energy we are talking about would have evaporated all the water on the planet and probably the very atmosphere itself. There wouldn't be any escape from a disaster of such magnitude.

That was the intention... except for Noah & Co.

pitabread · Apr 30, 2018

inquiring mind said:
That was the intention... except for Noah & Co.

Unless Noah's Ark was actually a spacecraft orbiting the planet at the time, then there wouldn't have been much of a choice. Noah would have been vaporized along with everything else.

Speedwell · Apr 30, 2018

inquiring mind said:
Good point, but maybe Noah was in an area far enough away from the major releases of energy, and the violent fast-moving water between him and the nearest eruptions dissipated the heat to a tolerable level.

The short answer is that there is not the slightest possibility that the Earth was entirely covered with water circa 2600 BC. The modern science of geology was founded by Christians, many of them clergymen, who set out to find evidence of the flood and finally had to give it up.

inquiring mind · Apr 30, 2018

Speedwell said:
The short answer is that there is not the slightest possibility that the Earth was entirely covered with water circa 2600 BC.

I don't think an "official" date was ever established.

Speedwell said:
The modern science of geology was founded by Christians, many of them clergymen, who set out to find evidence of the flood and finally had to give it up.

That's a pretty big undertaking, proving it or disproving it, even today. Marine fossils in strange places is pretty interesting though.

pitabread · Apr 30, 2018

inquiring mind said:
I don't think an "official" date was ever established.

Most YECist organizations typically put Noah's Flood at around ~2300 to 2500 BC. Which coincidentally is right around the time of Egypt's 6th Dynasty and yet somehow those Egyptians never noticed they were supposed to have been wiped from the face of the Earth. Oops.

Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

and a discerning heart

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

and a discerning heart

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

and a discerning heart

Well-Known Member

and a discerning heart

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

and a discerning heart

Well-Known Member

and a discerning heart

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

and a discerning heart

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency