Aliens and evolution

[MikeF]

Khatru wrote:

<quoted text>
I forgot about Wishbone Ash!

Argus!

[Andre]

Double Fine wrote:

<quoted text>
Okay I get it. Rapid deposition/erosion.
Radiometric dating disproves any claims here.

I am sorry to say, but an issue is yet again stated as fact although objective analysis of data would suggest that this is an incorrect assessment of all available data.
The reason for this is that there is evidence that radiometric dating is not reliable.
You may also be familiar with problems associated with radiometric dating and the various assumptions on which it relies. So again, far from “disproving” the claim, it can merely question it based on its own questionable credibility.

From your source:'No evidence of erosion in the layers themselves'.
Really? What does your source (people who are not geologists, I tell ya that much) suppose would 'erosion in the layers' look like?

“Had these parallel layers been deposited slowly over thousands of years, erosion would have cut many channels in the topmost layers” should give you a fair idea.

Explain these questions, please.
1) Where did the water come from? The Bible speaks of 'fountins of the deep'. Where are these fountains?

Thank you for this question. It allowed me to gain some wonderful insight and especially in respect of recent discoveries. The data indicates that is was most likely the ocean floors. You may find these articles quite interesting: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/...
http://www.kjvbible.org/geysers.html

2) Where did the water go? Refer the term "water cycle". Water stays in the system. It alternates between liquid, solid and vapourous forms, but the total water in the system stays largely the same.

It seems that the catastrophic plate tectonics model provides some answers with seas deepening and upward movement of the continents. There may be other hypothesis as well.

3) For every animal on every continent, you need a plausible explanation for *how* they got there. Do you believe that two koala bears swam across the Indian Ocean to Australia? Do you believe that two jaguars swam over the Pacific ocean to South America? How about two dodos to Madagascar? Do this for every animal on earth.

Some interesting ideas and hints can be found reading on Krakatua. But I have no evidence, only speculation.

4) Explain how there was not a collapse of the food pyramid. I.e. Noah reportedly took two of each species on the ark, right? A male and a female? So let's say we have two gazelle in Africa and a lion catches one of them, then the breeding pair is destroyed. Next week the lion needs food again. Why are there still gazelle left? Did the carnivoes just stop eating or what?

Read Genesis 1:29,30 and Gen 9: As basic as difference in diets.

5) Explain what the herbivores ate. Let's assume that our brave animals swam over the oceans and got to the continents. Are there any plants to eat for the herbivores? An elephant needs a million calories a week. Explain how the elephants received nutrition.

It would seem from the Bible that vegetation may not have been so badly affected (dove with olive leaf Gen 8:11). They would have had ample to eat. Quite nutritious as well as it seems that somehow hyperbaric conditions existed at some time in the past – with about 50% higher oxygen levels.

[Subduction Zone]

Andre, there is no evidence that radiometric dating is unreliable. There is evidence that it can be used incorrectly, but then so can a hammer. Radiometric dating is a tool. A very accurate tool. If used incorrectly you will get incorrect results.

So where is your evidence that radiometric dating is unreliable? I am betting that at best you have evidence of it being used incorrectly.

[Nuggin]

Andre wrote:

<quoted text>I am sorry to say, but an issue is yet again stated as fact although objective analysis of data would suggest that this is an incorrect assessment of all available data.
The reason for this is that there is evidence that radiometric dating is not reliable.

The way you determine if something is or is not reliable is by testing the methodology and cross checking it with established dates.

So, let's talk.

If the methodology of radiometric dating is wrong, then the rate of decay of particles is variable.

If the rate of decay of particles is variable, then at any given moment in time any given nuclear power plant should spontaneously explode or completely lose power inexplicably. People living in New Mexico or Colorado, near where Uranium deposits can be found, should have massive rates of cancer and radiation poisoning. People trying to get X-rays should, on a regular basis, find that the machine no longer emits radiation and/or burns a hole in people when used as the amount of x-rays being produced should fluxate wildly.

None of those things happen. Ever.

So, let's talk about cross checking with established dates.

First, radiometric dating is internally consistent. You don't test one end of a piece of wood and get a different date than you would testing the other end of the piece of wood. Same object, same test, same results.

Further, we can use radiometric dating on historical objects who's origin and date have been well established. The wreck of a famous ship, for example. Or the bones of a king. Or the beams in the wall of a castle. When we do this, the dates come out consistent with the historical record.

AND, when we compare radiometric dates to dates which are determined using other methods, like dendrochronology - we find the same thing. A piece of wood from the SW can be dated to the year using dend. It can be dating using radiometric and you get the same result.

AND, when we compare that with ice core dating, which is determined by the seasonal layers of ice being laid down in the polar regions, we find those dates are LIKEWISE consistent.

AND, when we compare ALL of those with sedimentary layers from the ocean floor, or lake bottoms, where the cycle of grown lays down specific layers of sediment over the course of a year, THOSE dates are likewise consistent.

So, INTERNALLY consistent, consistent with multiple different independent dating systems which rely on utterly different mechanisms, consistent with the historical record.

AND, if the mechanism were false, then entire field of nuclear physics would be falsified.

Compare that to: "My mom told me about a talking snake".

Seriously, get off the internet you boob.

[Nuggin]

Andre wrote:

<quoted text>Read Genesis 1:29,30 and Gen 9: As basic as difference in diets.
<quoted text>It would seem from the Bible that vegetation may not have been so badly affected (dove with olive leaf Gen 8:11). They would have had ample to eat. Quite nutritious as well as it seems that somehow hyperbaric conditions existed at some time in the past – with about 50% higher oxygen levels.

If all animals were vegetarian in the past, why did they have fangs? And why did they change to eating meat? Surely, a peaceful loving god would not condemn the gazelle to a horrible death in the jaws of a lion if there is plenty of grass for both to eat.

[Khatru]

MikeF wrote:

<quoted text>
Morning,
Hawkwind??? Wow. I haven't heard that name is a long while. Saw most of those except for Tull and Rainbow/Blackmore. I think I still have a Rory Gallagher poster somewhere.
I saw Moody Blues once in Lakeland, Florida with a full orchestra. Very cool.(Actually have seen the band about five times).
Don't go to many concerts these days. Most of the bands are either past their prime or full of substitutions. And, as you said, the ticket prices are nuts.

Hi Mike

Yes, they were the days, alright.

I've only seen the Moodies twice. Once on their 1973 World Tour (still have the concert programme from that show) and later on the tour they did for Long Distance Voyager (1981 I think).

I did catch the Blue Jays in 1975 and they were great.

Have you picked up the DVD for the Moody Blues set at the 1970 Isle of Wight Festival? It's pretty good.

[Khatru]

MikeF wrote:

<quoted text>
Argus!

That's another one that's never been far from my stereo.

[MikeF]

Khatru wrote:

<quoted text>
Hi Mike
Yes, they were the days, alright.
I've only seen the Moodies twice. Once on their 1973 World Tour (still have the concert programme from that show) and later on the tour they did for Long Distance Voyager (1981 I think).
I did catch the Blue Jays in 1975 and they were great.
Have you picked up the DVD for the Moody Blues set at the 1970 Isle of Wight Festival? It's pretty good.

Hey!

Haven't got that one. I need to add it to my list of things to do.

Check this one out. I was there.
http://www.frankfurthigh.com/history/img_musi...

Queen did *4* encores!

Yes, those were the days. Yes they were.

[MikeF]

Here's the hall that concert was in. Doubt there was much more than a 1000 people.

http://www.fr-online.de/image/view/2012/8/3/1...

[Khatru]

MikeF wrote:

<quoted text>
Hey!
Haven't got that one. I need to add it to my list of things to do.
Check this one out. I was there.
http://www.frankfurthigh.com/history/img_musi...
Queen did *4* encores!
Yes, those were the days. Yes they were.

Sounds like a good show!

Two quite different bands.

I only saw Queen once. It was around 73/74 and they were supporting Mott the Hoople.

[Khatru]

MikeF wrote:

Here's the hall that concert was in. Doubt there was much more than a 1000 people.
http://www.fr-online.de/image/view/2012/8/3/1...

Man that must have been great!

[KittenKoder]

Nuggin wrote:

<quoted text>
If all animals were vegetarian in the past, why did they have fangs? And why did they change to eating meat? Surely, a peaceful loving god would not condemn the gazelle to a horrible death in the jaws of a lion if there is plenty of grass for both to eat.

What makes the death of the grass less horrific?

[Aura Mytha]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
What makes the death of the grass less horrific?

UM...besides the fact you smoke it on purpose?

[KittenKoder]

Aura Mytha wrote:

<quoted text> UM...besides the fact you smoke it on purpose?

Erm, no comment.

[Double Fine]

Aerobatty wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, I think it's up to 90 now. And there are probably still missing.
While you're there in Africa, how about you quit sending us these things, eh?
All time record low barometric pressure on this one, too.
Almost exactly a year after we had a freak blizzard with wet, heavy snow that came down while there were still leaves on the trees here in southern New England.
We had a triple whammy last year of an unprecedented tornado in June, hurricane Irene, which caused massive flooding and the October snowstorm.
Yeah. Climate change is a myth.
Thought you should know.

A lie, spread by communists...I know the story LOL.

Yeah, heard that factoid - lowest baromic pressure ever on an Atlantic hurricane - pressure is related to windspeed, if I can still recall my geography lessons. So, yeah, we knew this was gonna be a big'un

[Double Fine]

Khatru wrote:

<quoted text>
It's a great album and ever since 1972, it's never been far from my stereo.

To my utter shame, never heard of the song.

Listening to it now...Brilliant song

I plead ignorance... In 1972, my father was just in high school

[-Skeptic-]

Nuggin wrote:

<quoted text>
The way you determine if something is or is not reliable is by testing the methodology and cross checking it with established dates.
So, let's talk.
If the methodology of radiometric dating is wrong, then the rate of decay of particles is variable.
If the rate of decay of particles is variable, then at any given moment in time any given nuclear power plant should spontaneously explode or completely lose power inexplicably. People living in New Mexico or Colorado, near where Uranium deposits can be found, should have massive rates of cancer and radiation poisoning. People trying to get X-rays should, on a regular basis, find that the machine no longer emits radiation and/or burns a hole in people when used as the amount of x-rays being produced should fluxate wildly.
None of those things happen. Ever.
So, let's talk about cross checking with established dates.
First, radiometric dating is internally consistent. You don't test one end of a piece of wood and get a different date than you would testing the other end of the piece of wood. Same object, same test, same results.
Further, we can use radiometric dating on historical objects who's origin and date have been well established. The wreck of a famous ship, for example. Or the bones of a king. Or the beams in the wall of a castle. When we do this, the dates come out consistent with the historical record.
AND, when we compare radiometric dates to dates which are determined using other methods, like dendrochronology - we find the same thing. A piece of wood from the SW can be dated to the year using dend. It can be dating using radiometric and you get the same result.
AND, when we compare that with ice core dating, which is determined by the seasonal layers of ice being laid down in the polar regions, we find those dates are LIKEWISE consistent.
AND, when we compare ALL of those with sedimentary layers from the ocean floor, or lake bottoms, where the cycle of grown lays down specific layers of sediment over the course of a year, THOSE dates are likewise consistent.
So, INTERNALLY consistent, consistent with multiple different independent dating systems which rely on utterly different mechanisms, consistent with the historical record.
AND, if the mechanism were false, then entire field of nuclear physics would be falsified.
Compare that to: "My mom told me about a talking snake".
Seriously, get off the internet you boob.

ignorant rambling troll who doesn't know jack sh*t about the burden of proof,

[Double Fine]

-Skeptic- wrote:

<quoted text>
ignorant rambling troll who doesn't know jack sh*t about the burden of proof,

Yo.

His post above was pretty good.

[Double Fine]

Andre wrote:

<quoted text>I am sorry to say, but an issue is yet again stated as fact although objective analysis of data would suggest that this is an incorrect assessment of all available data.
The reason for this is that there is evidence that radiometric dating is not reliable.
You may also be familiar with problems associated with radiometric dating and the various assumptions on which it relies. So again, far from “disproving” the claim, it can merely question it based on its own questionable credibility.
<quoted text>“Had these parallel layers been deposited slowly over thousands of years, erosion would have cut many channels in the topmost layers” should give you a fair idea.
<quoted text>
Thank you for this question. It allowed me to gain some wonderful insight and especially in respect of recent discoveries. The data indicates that is was most likely the ocean floors. You may find these articles quite interesting: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/...
http://www.kjvbible.org/geysers.html
<quoted text>
It seems that the catastrophic plate tectonics model provides some answers with seas deepening and upward movement of the continents. There may be other hypothesis as well.
<quoted text>Some interesting ideas and hints can be found reading on Krakatua. But I have no evidence, only speculation.
<quoted text>Read Genesis 1:29,30 and Gen 9: As basic as difference in diets.
<quoted text>It would seem from the Bible that vegetation may not have been so badly affected (dove with olive leaf Gen 8:11). They would have had ample to eat. Quite nutritious as well as it seems that somehow hyperbaric conditions existed at some time in the past – with about 50% higher oxygen levels.

1) If you claim that radiometric dating is unreliable, show by means of experiment, that the decay rates are consistent with the Biblical account.

2) Erosion do cut many paths in the topmost layers. We see that happening

3) Yes there is some water in the Mantle. That water STAYS THERE

4) Go buy a normal garden plant at a nursery. Put in in a jar. Submerse the plant for 40 days. Take it out. Will it still live?

5) Lions do not vegtation. Breaking down plant matter is not in their system.

[MikeF]

Double Fine wrote:

<quoted text>
To my utter shame, never heard of the song.
Listening to it now...Brilliant song
I plead ignorance... In 1972, my father was just in high school

YIKES! I was a staff sergeant in Germany.:-(