Embedded Anomalies.

I appreciate everyone's replies,but can we not turn this thread into another Science v Religion.


Cheers.

reply to post by kerkinana walsky


Science is not wrong, only the assumptions are wrong. Those assumptions have been tailor made to rule out the supernatural or the claims of the Bible. It's up to you and I to sort out the truth. I have simply presented a plausible scenario for why a global flood is perfectly reasonable. Virtually every society worldwide has a flood story with a Noah figure. Yet science simply discounts this because it doesn't fit with their preferred paradigm.

In the same way they blindly throw out ooparts that might suggest a very different world, than the mundane cruel one that science wants us to believe in.

Originally posted by SevenThunders
I have simply presented a plausible scenario for why a global flood is perfectly reasonable.

really

could you link to that I must have missed it

thanks

Originally posted by Hanslune

oh and the Human race has to have developed from just two people who are genetically identical without us all having webbed toes ?

That actually is the current thinking of modern science, not just the Bible. They have back projected the gene pool to a single female progenitor, whom they call 'Eve'. In fact according to evolutionary theory this would have to be the case. Some ape had a 'favorable' genetic mutation and the first Eve popped out.

As for the rest of your hatred against the creator of the universe, I can't really help you. That's between you and God. I think I know who will win.

Originally posted by SevenThunders

That actually is the current thinking of modern science, not just the Bible. They have back projected the gene pool to a single female progenitor, whom they call 'Eve'. In fact according to evolutionary theory this would have to be the case. Some ape had a 'favorable' genetic mutation and the first Eve popped out.

As for the rest of your hatred against the creator of the universe, I can't really help you. That's between you and God. I think I know who will win.

can anybody tell me if there are any creationists out there who do actually understand evolution or are they all like this one living in blissful ignorance and making statements that five minutes of research on their part would preclude them from saying ?

Eve was as much an Ape as you are 7thunders

Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent common ancestor of all humans via the mitochondrial DNA pathway, not the unqualified MRCA of all humanity. All living humans can trace their ancestry back to the MRCA via at least one of their parents, but Mitochondrial Eve can only be reached via the maternal line. Therefore, she necessarily lived much longer ago than the MRCA of all humanity.
Allan Wilson's naming Mitochondrial Eve[4] after Eve of the Genesis creation story may be considered unfortunate in that it has led to some misunderstandings among the general public. A common misconception is that Mitochondrial Eve was the only living human female of her time — she was not. Had she been the only living female of her time, humanity would most likely have become extinct due to an extreme population bottleneck.

en.wikipedia.org...



Hans would win 7thunders see Hans is actually real




[edit on 31-10-2007 by kerkinana walsky]

reply to post by kerkinana walsky


Thanks for pointing out one of the key logical fallacies of evolution. The necessity of having multiple fortuitious chromosomal changes all at the same time. It's a matter of paradigms. You say evolution I say devolution.

It is quite likely to be true that a current pair of most species would have serious genetic issues in trying to repopulate their kinds. That's due to devolution, the effect of entropy in destroying and degenerating the gene pool. In older times this was not the case.

Adam and Eve were perfect with no genetic flaws. The flaws came later, especially after the increase of harmful radiation we received after our water canopy was removed. Even the fossil record reveals that older species, such as the dinosaurs were larger and more robust. We have been getting smaller, weaker and dumber. That's what the fossil record says. In fact pre-flood humans lived longer, were smarter and probably had a greater technological civilization than ours. There is considerable evidence to suggest this as well.

yup theres always loads of evidence when you're accepting anything that fits what you believe

reply to post by kerkinana walsky


HEHEHEHEEHE made me laugh out loud

seriously though, not a creationist but do have a strong hunch based on much reading that there WAS some sort of widespread flood type disaster thing in antiquity. personal opinion is "melt water pulse 1a" 10k years ago or so, I think it is called, 40 or 50 meter rise in sea level within extremely short period of time, would have seemed pretty "biblical" to any coast/lowland river delta dwelling people (the majority).

also it would not surprise me (although I'm not convinced, nor do I think it necessary as I find evolution to be perfectly sufficient) if humans were originally a slave race created from lesser evolved hominids by aliens ("gods"). However I do think if this is the case those earlier hominids evolved via natural selection etc, and that if this happened, the aliens also originally evolved from some other stupider creature via natural selection. (I call this Darwinist creationism... ie just cos Darwin was right about evolution, doesn't mean that somewhere along the line something didn't lend a hand)

anywho enough blabbing (Im tired and my head feels weird)
check out melt water pulse 1a, younger dryas period and supposed early lost civilisations: perhaps they are all connected...

Holcene sea level chart

please note, no pulse, no sudden rise in ocean levels, no great flood of Noah.

we live on a planet that is 4/5 water and I am amazed that people go "oooh wow" when they discover that lots of people have a story about flooding. Even so compared to the amount of Ethnic groups on earth there are flood stories in about 20% of them, not the 100% you would expect if the Bible were even close to being correct. and if the Bible were correct the stories would all be the same and they aren't.
www.talkorigins.org...
this site lists all the known stories about ancient floods, if you read them you will soon notice that most of them vary wildly on the details.

2000 years from now no doubt the Great Flood of Orleans will also have become a biblical event and the Tsuanmi that Hit asia I have already heard is being touted as Gods Wrath on the Muslims in some christian groups. Thats not clever though is it. If you take your faith seriously why would you ascribe things to God that he had no hand in. Thats like informing the police that your best friend is a mass murderer and then expecting him to welcome you and let you come stay at his house for all eternity..,

Isn't there something in the Bible about bearing false witness
if I was God I know where I'd be sending you,

Well dang KW you left me nothing to add.

However the thread has gone off topic so I won't comment further except to add:

Hanlune 1 god 0

(if you can't beat 'em,join 'em.lol.)

The problem with evolution is the images it brings up.The vast majority of people will think of apes into man,fish into giraffe and bird into hedgehog

But evolution is sooooo much more than that.Its all about the little things,not just something changing radically.
And its the little things which prove that life is constantly evolving!
For example,a fish in Africa (sorry can't remember its name) has learnt that when the dry season starts,if it buries its self in the wet mud,when it dries it will be in a state of hibernation.When the rains come and the waters return it will come out of its "frozen" state.The fish has learned how to survive in its enviroment,therefore it has evolved from the fish that would lie there and bake in the sun.



As there are signs of "intelligent" human life dating back millions of years then the Bible has to rewrite the age of the earth and the age of man!!

Originally posted by kerkinana walsky
right so I think I'm with you

for the Bible to be true science has to be wrong, cosmic rays have to be different and the planet has to be a different size ?

oh and the Human race has to have developed from just two people who are genetically identical without us all having webbed toes ?

that makes perfect sense now thanks

Hahaha great post! Funny because your right. And don't forget, the world has to be flat and all the universe is revolving around us.

Originally posted by SevenThunders
They have back projected the gene pool to a single female progenitor, whom they call 'Eve'.

No, they haven't.

Learn to read.

Originally posted by SevenThunders In fact according to evolutionary theory this would have to be the case.

No, this would certainly not be the case at all according to Evolution.

Learn to think.

Originally posted by SevenThundersSome ape had a 'favorable' genetic mutation and the first Eve popped out.

Oh, never mind!

For God's sake, just go ahead and wallow in pure ignorance the rest of your miserable and thoughtless existence.

Harte

Its a shame this has been hijacked into God vs evolution

I was really interested in the original post as its an area of research that I am particularly interested in, please stay on topic.

There are numerous strange artifacts that have been discovered that simply cannot be ignored if looked at with an open mind, but we are constantly spoon fed with the popular science view because they don’t fit.

Originally posted by SevenThunders
Sounds like you do not understand how carbon 14 dating works then. Here is the high school science version.
science.howstuffworks.com...

...Obviously if the production rate of carbon 14 changed then so would the equilibrium ratio. For example, if the atmosphere stopped producing carbon 14, the ratio of carbon 14 in the environment would decrease over time, falsely inflating the age estimates of carbon 14 dating.

I'm aware of how Creationists try to spin the science behind C14 dating and I don't need a lesson from one on the subject.

Cosmic rays have of course fluctuated with time. But cosmic rays don't affect things like tree rings, like I tried to tell you before.

There are other ways to date objects sometimes. When such a method can be used, then the date given can be compared (often) with the date the same object yields through C14 dating. In this way the differences in cosmic rays and the corresponding C14 production fluctuations can be calibrated out of C14 dating. This has been done to an extremely high degree of accuracy. Like I said, there exists tree ring data in a continuous line all the way back to as far back as C14 dating is useful (about 50,000 years.)

I don't need to retake high school science by the way. Maybe you should run a search on my posts. You'll see this is obvious.

Water vapor would in no way interfere with the production of atmospheric C14.

Originally posted by SevenThundersNot true. It would shield the intensity of cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere, necessarily reducing carbon 14 production.

I said it wouldn't, and it wouldn't.

The amount of water necessary in this "water canopy" would be so great that air-breathing life could not have even existed on Earth were such a ridiculous notion true.

Originally posted by SevenThundersMost of the water came up from the deep as described in the Bible.

That explains everything! Oh yeah, except why the water came up out of the ground and where it is now. Not to mention the bioblical claim that it came as rain.

Whatsamatta, you ain't got enough faith to just say that God created the water, it caused a flood, then God "uncreated" the water and removed all evidence of the flood? I mean, surely He could do this small thing!

But it does at least explain to a small extent why some air-breathing animals didn't drown.

Now, could you please explain why the "water canopy" didn't crush every living land animal on the planet, given the thousand fold increase in air pressure such a thing would cause?

Originally posted by SevenThundersThere is also some peculiar evidence that the surface area of the planet was considerably smaller.

expanding-earth.org...

'Nuff said.

Next looney please.

Also -
Haven't been around here in a while. Hey to Byrd!

Harte

reply to post by Harte


So far all you've provided is ad-hominem attacks based on your preconceived notions and biases. That is hardly an argument. Cosmic rays are attenuated by water vapor as is well known and in fact cosmic ray ions are thought to be cloud seeders.

C14 is thought to be generated by cosmic ray collisions with Nitrogen. If the collision energy is reduced, C14 production goes down. It's not hard to see. Also it is thought that the flood itself may have upset the c12/c14 balance by introducing a lot more c12 into the environment.

As for tree ring data, just how old do you think the oldest trees are? Maybe you could reliably calibrate back to 3500 years. However even here there is some contradictory evidence that seems to show changing c12/c14 ratios over time. A good discussion can be found here.
www.creationscience.com...

Howdy Seventhunders

Jakyll do you want to continue the thread on embedded items - ie stop seventhunders or do you wish for the thread to continue for yet another endless run of faith based pseudo science versus reality?

I noted that your last post would suggest that you support the latter?

Let us know

To answer the creationism nonscientific stand (yet again)

The King Clone creosote bush goes back 11,700 years. I guess Noah's flood didn't bother this desert shrub any. What is a desert doing in the supposedly tropical antediluvian world?

How a tree, which supposedly lived in a tropical, lowland environment, survived being dumped into a high altitude environment subject to extremes of temperature, harsh winds, and desert-like conditions for part of the year, and that after being churned about in a flood for a year--a flood which was violent enough to rip up the earth's crust and pulverize great rocks, a flood which was packed with grinding sediments, is something best explained by creationists. While at it, they might also explain why there is no dramatic difference between the antediluvian treering pattern, supposedly grown under lush, tropical conditions, and the present day treering pattern which reflects a harsh environment. One would expect to see a dramatic change between big, fat treerings and thin, hard ones upon crossing that boundary in the treering sequence! Nothing of the sort is found in the 8000-year-old, tree-ring history of the bristlecone pine

Link to tree info

Tree rings can also be read in dead wood, that goes back 8,000 years, as noted above.

By the way SevenThunders so that we can better understand your faith based beliefs; are you a YEC or OEC? If so why do you reject the other Christian held belief?







[edit on 3-11-2007 by Hanslune]

Originally posted by Hanslune

The King Clone creosote bush goes back 11,700 years. I guess Noah's flood didn't bother this desert shrub any. What is a desert doing in the supposedly tropical antediluvian world?

Not heard of that one

The oldest Bristlecones are 4,000 years old, and we have a continuous dendrochronological record from them going back 9,000 years. Interesting that the 'Flood' managed to leave dead bristlecones in the spot they were growing (and obviously the environment there before and after was exactly the same), and didn't cover them in a single mm of sediment (whilst piling up several miles worth elsewhere*

sonic.net...


* where did all that sediment come from, anyway?



Anyway, as far as the alleged 'anomalies' go - in most cases they don't exist (all we have to go on is local newspaper reports from the 1800s) or they are clear cases of mistaken identity / deliberate hoaxes.

And if we do find incontrovertible examples, I guess we have to consider the possibilty of time travel or maybe an alien spaceship visiting earth 200 million years ago as probably more valid explanations than humans having been around that long.

reply to post by jakyll


Don't think they listened to you. hEh.
Sad thing is aparently you can't talk about this stuff without the sparring matches beginning on ATS.
Otherwords. PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!
He was not talking about god or whatever else biblical crap you people want to pander and argue about. It is altogether a possiblity that mankind's current accepted history is wrong WITHOUT it being religious proof or condemnation of religion. Dayum. Stop shoving the rest of the world into your petty BS squabbles.



[edit on 3-11-2007 by WraothAscendant]

reply to post by Hanslune

Jakyll do you want to continue the thread on embedded items - ie stop seventhunders or do you wish for the thread to continue for yet another endless run of faith based pseudo science versus reality?

Well,it would be nice to stick to the original topic!!
Maybe the people talking about religion are trying to get the attention away from something they can't deal with!

And i replied to the evolution discussion because it bugs me that most people think "ape into man" and thats it! They don't bother to find out more!