AgnosticWeb.com

Back to the forum index

Linear

First of all, may I make a general plea? It's sometimes difficult enough to follow the different threads, and there is simply no way the weirdness of Yellowstone can come under horizontal gene transfer! If anyone wants to start a totally new discussion, would you please put it on a new thread.-Secondly, a personal note to David, who wrote: Dhw thinks I'm closed-minded. I'm not, but I can't know everything, and I work to conclusions I've had time to cover. I don't think you are closed-minded in general - on the contrary, having worked closely with you for so long, I find you extremely tolerant and open on many issues. However, in the context of your anthropocentric view of evolution, I do find you surprisingly intransigent. Having said that, your approach tends to vacillate, which suggests that maybe you are not quite as convinced as you seem to be. On different occasions (though I don't have time to delve back into the files) you have rejected and accepted the concept of the intelligent cell, and although you now refuse to think about what God might have done before the Big Bang, I remember vividly your acknowledgement that he might well have created earlier universes. If your mind was closed, you would have abandoned us long ago, and I for one am deeply grateful that you haven't.-On the subject of Yellowstone, with trees from Asia, there are many similar anomalies, such as fish fossils being found on the tops of mountains, and as I'm sure you know, one theory that explains them is catastrophism, i.e. a history of floods, volcanic eruptions, tectonic displacements, collisions with asteroids and comets etc. One of the theorists (Peter Warlow) even goes so far as to posit a tippe top overturning of the Earth, due to a mega-collision. He also posits reversals of the Earth's rotation. This would certainly solve some of the geological mysteries. Incidentally, Darwin was a uniformitarian, which goes hand in glove with his insistence that evolution must be a gradual process. My guess is that he was wrong on both counts.
 
Noah's Flood is one of countless flood myths. In the Mesopotamian Epic of Gilgamesh (on which some scholars think the Noah story is based) the hero is Atrakasis. Of course there is no way the authors of these stories would know first-hand what had happened, let alone how widespread the floods were: a local catastrophe in those days would seem like the end of the world. I'd like to make two contrasting comments on this: 1) I have no doubt there were catastrophic floods in olden times, so it's scarcely surprising that stories should have been handed down; 2) Do those who believe that the story of Noah is the literal truth also believe that the story of Atrakasis is the literal truth? If not, why not?

3350 views


>dhw: Secondly, a personal note to David, who wrote: Dhw thinks I'm closed-minded. I'm not, but I can't know everything, and I work to conclusions I've had time to cover. I don't think you are closed-minded in general - on the contrary, having worked closely with you for so long, I find you extremely tolerant and open on many issues. However, in the context of your anthropocentric view of evolution, I do find you surprisingly intransigent. .... I remember vividly your acknowledgement that he might well have created earlier universes. If your mind was closed, you would have abandoned us long ago, and I for one am deeply grateful that you haven't.-A long time ago it seemed logical to me that humans were God's end point. I have seen no evidence or argument since then to change my mind. WE are different in kind, against all odds. 'Nuff said.-As for other universes. Of course God might have done this before. He has eternities. But we are here now. Let's just discuss this one. we can't learn anything about past ones before the BB.
> 
> dhw: On the subject of Yellowstone, with trees from Asia, there are many similar anomalies, such as fish fossils being found on the tops of mountains, and as I'm sure you know, one theory that explains them is catastrophism, -I know you love Catastrophism but fish fossils on mountain tops are easily explained as mountains rising up from sea bottoms. The theory of continental drift says pressure between plates pushes up the mountain range. Since the 1960's this is first year geology 101.

3239 views

dhw: On the subject of Yellowstone, with trees from Asia, there are many similar anomalies, such as fish fossils being found on the tops of mountains, and as I'm sure you know, one theory that explains them is catastrophism, 
> 
>David: I know you love Catastrophism but fish fossils on mountain tops are easily explained as mountains rising up from sea bottoms. The theory of continental drift says pressure between plates pushes up the mountain range. Since the 1960's this is first year geology 101.-And likewise just as easily by a flood. Though, consider this. Fossils likely would not have formed on mountain tops during the upheaval of a mountain precisely because it WAS an UPheaval. Fossilization requires that sediments be deposited (typically rapidly) on TOP of a dying animal in order for it to be fossilized. If mountain ranges were violently thrusting upwars, water would have been flowing equally as violently downwards, taking all of the remains and sediments with them. However, the biblical flood describes a gradual drainage of the water over a long period of time, after a massive aquatic upheaval. The turbulent waters would have deposited organism against snags and outcrops and them piled sediment in behind them during the flood itself, with subsequent deposits being layered on top during the slow drainage, much like dirt left behind in a bathtub.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

3252 views

Tony:If mountain ranges were violently thrusting upwars, water would have been flowing equally as violently downwards, taking all of the remains and sediments with them.-The process of tectonic plates causing an up thrust is a very slow process, never violent. For example the Tetons are still rising about six inches a year. I don't accept your explanation. Ancient sea bottoms set the fossils which were slowly moved upward. Look at Trilobites exposed in the Canadian Rockies. They are all over the place. I've stepped on them.

3210 views

Tony:If mountain ranges were violently thrusting upwars, water would have been flowing equally as violently downwards, taking all of the remains and sediments with them.
> 
> The process of tectonic plates causing an up thrust is a very slow process, never violent. For example the Tetons are still rising about six inches a year. I don't accept your explanation. Ancient sea bottoms set the fossils which were slowly moved upward. Look at Trilobites exposed in the Canadian Rockies. They are all over the place. I've stepped on them.-The problem is that what we know of plate tetonic movement is very much speculation and it very often continues to surprise us. Generally speaking, scientist assume that things occurring now are how they have always occurred, and try to use current measurements to extrapolate backwards. This is the case with plate tetonics. They measure current drift in cm/year, and try to extrapolate that backwards. Yet, we also see things like this:-"Normally changes to our geological environment take place almost imperceptibly. A life time is too short to see rivers changing course, mountains rising skywards or valleys opening up. In north-eastern Africa's Afar Triangle, though, recent months have seen hundreds of crevices splitting the desert floor and the ground has slumped by as much as 100 meters (328 feet). At the same time, scientists have observed magma rising from deep below as it begins to form what will eventually become a basalt ocean floor. Geologically speaking, it won't be long until the Red Sea floods the region. The ocean that will then be born will split Africa apart."-
Now here is my point. This change was completely unexpected based on the current theory of plate tetonics. What do we say when a theory does not accurately predict the observations? We say that theory is wrong. Perhaps not completely wrong, but wrong in some respect. In this case it is wrong in respect to the rate at which plate shifts happen. Period. That doesn't mean that we take the new data and use it as the new maximum, it means we go back and take a hard look at why we ever thought that was the speed limit to begin with.-
If this much change could happen in months, not even years, but months, when the Earth is NOT under extreme pressure stress, what would happen if the Earth WERE under extreme pressure stress?-
(Interesting theory)
http://www.onenewsnow.com/features/2014/09/15/does-this-flood-theory-blow-bill-nye%E2%80%99s-attack-on-creation-out-of-the-water#.VJkyOF4AMA-https://answersingenesis.org/geology/plate-tectonics/can-catastrophic-plate-tectonics-explain-flood-geology/

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

3276 views


> Tony: The problem is that what we know of plate tetonic movement is very much speculation and it very often continues to surprise us 
> 
> This change was completely unexpected based on the current theory of plate tetonics. What do we say when a theory does not accurately predict the observations? We say that theory is wrong. Perhaps not completely wrong, but wrong in some respect. In this case it is wrong in respect to the rate at which plate shifts happen. Period. That doesn't mean that we take the new data and use it as the new maximum, it means we go back and take a hard look at why we ever thought that was the speed limit to begin with.-I don't agree with your view, in that you admit that it is a theory under study, and only 60 years old from the time it was accepted. Of course, a sudden change was surprising, but the process is still slow and fossils can reach mountain tops after formation by subduction and elevation. This is an active three-plate area and it is changing. But the theory is pretty solid at its basis. From the article:-"The Afar Triangle, which cuts across Ethiopia, Eritrea and Djibouti, is the largest construction site on the planet. Three tectonic plates meet there with the African and Arabian plates drifting apart along two separate fault lines by one centimeter a year. A team of scientists working with Christophe Vigny of the Paris Laboratory of Geology reported on the phenomenon in a 2006 issue of the Journal of Geophysical Research. While the two plates move apart, the ground sinks to make room for the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden." 
> 
> 
> Tony: If this much change could happen in months, not even years, but months, when the Earth is NOT under extreme pressure stress, what would happen if the Earth WERE under extreme pressure stress?-You seem to be inventing a theory about Earth stress to fit your beliefs. The current thought about the change in this area is from the same article:-"The chain of volcanoes that runs along the roughly 6,000 kilometer (3,730 mile) long East African Rift System offers further testimony to the breaking apart of the continent. In some areas around the outer edges of the Rift System, the Earth's crust has already cracked open, making room for the magma below. From the Red Sea to Mozambique in the south, dozens of volcanoes have formed, the best known being Mt. Kilimanjaro and Mt. Nyiragongo. -"These fiery mountains too will one day sink into the sea. Geophysicists have calculated that in 10 million years the East African Rift System will be as large as the Red Sea. When that happens, Africa will lose its horn."-Science is supposed to modify theories from observation. This sudden event adds to our knowledge.-I looked at the two creationist websites you offered. I'm sorry but my own bias gets in the way. They still look like a struggle to get belief to fit science. We both may believe in God but from widely differing viewpoints. Same result, very different paths.

3294 views


> > Tony: The problem is that what we know of plate tetonic movement is very much speculation and it very often continues to surprise us 
> > 
> > This change was completely unexpected based on the current theory of plate tetonics. What do we say when a theory does not accurately predict the observations? We say that theory is wrong. Perhaps not completely wrong, but wrong in some respect. In this case it is wrong in respect to the rate at which plate shifts happen. Period. That doesn't mean that we take the new data and use it as the new maximum, it means we go back and take a hard look at why we ever thought that was the speed limit to begin with.
> 
> I don't agree with your view, in that you admit that it is a theory under study, and only 60 years old from the time it was accepted. Of course, a sudden change was surprising, but the process is still slow and fossils can reach mountain tops after formation by subduction and elevation. This is an active three-plate area and it is changing. But the theory is pretty solid at its basis. From the article:
> 
> "The Afar Triangle, which cuts across Ethiopia, Eritrea and Djibouti, is the largest construction site on the planet. Three tectonic plates meet there with the African and Arabian plates drifting apart along two separate fault lines by one centimeter a year. A team of scientists working with Christophe Vigny of the Paris Laboratory of Geology reported on the phenomenon in a 2006 issue of the Journal of Geophysical Research. While the two plates move apart, the ground sinks to make room for the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden." 
> > -This is what I am talking about. Earlier in the same article it mentions changes in terms of meters in months, not centimeters in years. The article does not even agree with itself!!-
> > 
> > Tony: If this much change could happen in months, not even years, but months, when the Earth is NOT under extreme pressure stress, what would happen if the Earth WERE under extreme pressure stress?
> 
> You seem to be inventing a theory about Earth stress to fit your beliefs. The current thought about the change in this area is from the same article:
> -Not a theory, a question. A hypothesis/theory would have some attempt at an explanation and a set of falsifiable things that could be tested. This is simply a question. If geological change is happening in some areas of the earth at rates that do not fit our current geologic conception, is the reality wrong, or is our conception wrong? If a few earthquakes and volcanos can do this in miniscule time frames (geologically), what could enough water to cover the earth do?--> "The chain of volcanoes that runs along the roughly 6,000 kilometer (3,730 mile) long East African Rift System offers further testimony to the breaking apart of the continent. In some areas around the outer edges of the Rift System, the Earth's crust has already cracked open, making room for the magma below. From the Red Sea to Mozambique in the south, dozens of volcanoes have formed, the best known being Mt. Kilimanjaro and Mt. Nyiragongo. 
> 
> "These fiery mountains too will one day sink into the sea. Geophysicists have calculated that in 10 million years the East African Rift System will be as large as the Red Sea. When that happens, Africa will lose its horn."
> 
> Science is supposed to modify theories from observation. This sudden event adds to our knowledge.-Agreed. However, Uniforitarianism has only been the mainstream ideology for what, 100 years, 200 tops? Less than .1% of Human history. Do we discount 99.9% of observations when not even all of our .1% agree? Literally 230 Civilizations from around the globe share a virtually identical accounting of the flood event. So, 230 Civilizations that were thousands of years closer to the original event are less reliable than our speculations based on our .1% of observations? I am not saying that we should throw science out with the bath water, but what good is science if we refuse to ask questions and seek out all possible answers and test them? Why should we arrogantly reject and discount anything that doesn't fit our extremely limited and narrow world view?

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

3334 views

Fracking-Another thought on this topic. This is a recent article on the effect of fracking. If you aren't familiar with it, it is a process that is used to fracture the earth by injecting water, sand and chemicals into the rock layers, typically in extremely limited quantities in a very localized area and in a very controlled manner. And this is the result:-"HilCorp Energy efforts to frack in Ohio was stopped after 5 magnitude 3 earthquakes along the Pennsylvania border were recorded.-For example, in Youngstown, Ohio, over 100 earthquakes rocked the town in areas that had 177 active injection wells.-This study shows that the process of fracking itself is causing the earthquakes, and not merely a fracking related activity."-Now, if some relatively lame human fracking can manage to cause over 100 earthquakes reaching at least 3.0 on the richter scale, what would this do:-
"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month--on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened."-http://www.techtimes.com/articles/8553/20140616/earth-found-hiding-huge-reservoirs-water-400-miles-below.htm
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/8553/20140616/earth-found-hiding-huge-reservoirs-water-400-miles-below.htm-The quantity of water is not the point of this, but rather the fact that it is under extreme temperatures and pressure. If it were to try and vent it would make all the fracking jobs on the planet look miniscule in terms of the potential scale for damage.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

3348 views


> 
> Tony: "In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month--on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened."
> 
> http://www.techtimes.com/articles/8553/20140616/earth-found-hiding-huge-reservoirs-wate... http://www.techtimes.com/articles/8553/20140616/earth-found-hiding-huge-reservoirs-wate... 
> The quantity of water is not the point of this, but rather the fact that it is under extreme temperatures and pressure. If it were to try and vent it would make all the fracking jobs on the planet look miniscule in terms of the potential scale for damage.-As a Texan, I know all the ins and outs of fracking. In fact I have an engineer friend who previous ran Brown and Root and has a newly patented (3 of them) process to simplify the way it is done. He was looking for a test well when we last talked. Recently I noted here the hidden water in the Mantle. The news coverage says fracking is very safe, but small earthquakes do happen.

3215 views


> > 
> > Tony: "In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month--on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened."
> > 
> > http://www.techtimes.com/articles/8553/20140616/earth-found-hiding-huge-reservoirs-wate... > http://www.techtimes.com/articles/8553/20140616/earth-found-hiding-huge-reservoirs-wate... > 
> > The quantity of water is not the point of this, but rather the fact that it is under extreme temperatures and pressure. If it were to try and vent it would make all the fracking jobs on the planet look miniscule in terms of the potential scale for damage.
> 
>David: As a Texan, I know all the ins and outs of fracking. In fact I have an engineer friend who previous ran Brown and Root and has a newly patented (3 of them) process to simplify the way it is done. He was looking for a test well when we last talked. Recently I noted here the hidden water in the Mantle. The news coverage says fracking is very safe, but small earthquakes do happen.-But what would be the effect if the waters in the mantle were to burst forth?

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

3216 views


> Tony: But what would be the effect if the waters in the mantle were to burst forth?-Your 'what if' is correct, but in the natural world it won't happen. To me it would take God's action.

3176 views


> > Tony: But what would be the effect if the waters in the mantle were to burst forth?
> 
> Your 'what if' is correct, but in the natural world it won't happen. To me it would take God's action.-And that is exactly what is claimed in the bible. Don't you find it strange, however, that biblical writers even knew about this? Or are you going to try and claim, as some have, that they were referencing the little water they knew about from wells?

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

3200 views


> Tony: And that is exactly what is claimed in the bible. Don't you find it strange, however, that biblical writers even knew about this? Or are you going to try and claim, as some have, that they were referencing the little water they knew about from wells?-For the massive flood the Bible describes there had to be more than rain. The mantel water is just now discovered. Still I can't get around many other objections.

3171 views


> > Tony: And that is exactly what is claimed in the bible. Don't you find it strange, however, that biblical writers even knew about this? Or are you going to try and claim, as some have, that they were referencing the little water they knew about from wells?
> 
> For the massive flood the Bible describes there had to be more than rain. The mantel water is just now discovered. Still I can't get around many other objections.-Oh, I certainly agree with that. And the bible certainly doesn't claim that it was only rain. How they knew about the "springs/waters of the deep" is a mystery. The only two explanations are either the chronicle is divinely inspired, or they were more scientifically and technologically advanced than we give them credit for.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

3180 views


> 
> Tony: This is what I am talking about. Earlier in the same article it mentions changes in terms of meters in months, not centimeters in years. The article does not even agree with itself!!-We can have meters of drop in one major earthquake, but the continental drift is demonstrably slower overall.-> dhw: If geological change is happening in some areas of the earth at rates that do not fit our current geologic conception, is the reality wrong, or is our conception wrong? If a few earthquakes and volcanos can do this in miniscule time frames (geologically), what could enough water to cover the earth do?-We do know in the time of 'snowball earth' it roughly did happen, but not to the extent of water as high as Everest.
> 
> Tony: Agreed. However, Uniforitarianism has only been the mainstream ideology for what, 100 years, 200 tops? Less than .1% of Human history. Do we discount 99.9% of observations when not even all of our .1% agree? -How do we know how valid are the stories.-> Tony: Literally 230 Civilizations from around the globe share a virtually identical accounting of the flood event. So, 230 Civilizations that were thousands of years closer to the original event are less reliable than our speculations based on our .1% of observations?-Again, we know floods are everywhere in the world. We do have strong evidence of the Black Sea flood in Noah's area of life and where the many folks who wrote the OT lived. Jewish Hebrew scholars think about six folks wrote Genesis. Moses is no longer accepted as a single author. I see no reason wrong with accepting the Black Sea flood and multiple authors as two probable facts. -> Tony: I am not saying that we should throw science out with the bath water, but what good is science if we refuse to ask questions and seek out all possible answers and test them? Why should we arrogantly reject and discount anything that doesn't fit our extremely limited and narrow world view?-I agree. My world view got me to believe from my research.

3221 views

DHW: First of all, may I make a general plea? It's sometimes difficult enough to follow the different threads, and there is simply no way the weirdness of Yellowstone can come under horizontal gene transfer! If anyone wants to start a totally new discussion, would you please put it on a new thread.
> -I *did* say initially that I did not want to derail that thread, but continued at David's insistence. My apologies. I will make sure to start new threads regarding forked topics in the future.-
>DHW: On the subject of Yellowstone, with trees from Asia, there are many similar anomalies, such as fish fossils being found on the tops of mountains, and as I'm sure you know, one theory that explains them is catastrophism, i.e. a history of floods, volcanic eruptions, tectonic displacements, collisions with asteroids and comets etc. One of the theorists (Peter Warlow) even goes so far as to posit a tippe top overturning of the Earth, due to a mega-collision. He also posits reversals of the Earth's rotation. This would certainly solve some of the geological mysteries. Incidentally, Darwin was a uniformitarian, which goes hand in glove with his insistence that evolution must be a gradual process. My guess is that he was wrong on both counts.
> 
> Noah's Flood is one of countless flood myths. In the Mesopotamian Epic of Gilgamesh (on which some scholars think the Noah story is based) the hero is Atrakasis. Of course there is no way the authors of these stories would know first-hand what had happened, let alone how widespread the floods were: a local catastrophe in those days would seem like the end of the world. I'd like to make two contrasting comments on this: 1) I have no doubt there were catastrophic floods in olden times, so it's scarcely surprising that stories should have been handed down; 2) Do those who believe that the story of Noah is the literal truth also believe that the story of Atrakasis is the literal truth? If not, why not?-
You are correct in that there is no way there would be any first hand accounts of a flood of biblical proportions except that of Noah and his family. However, if the biblical account is true, as I believe it is, then the very fact that there ARE catastrophic flood accounts that so closely mirror each other is actually evidence that it did in fact occur. The babel incident happened AFTER the flood. So, presuming that it is true, then when the languages were confused and people spread out over the earth, it only makes since that the cultural heritage would have traveled with them and would have been translated into their new language. That would explain why the accounts are so extraordinarily similar both in terms of time, scale, and details such as the big wooden ship with one man and his family.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

3290 views

RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum