No, nobody has such a need. We reject the flood not because we want to but because it doesn’t fit the evidence.
On that we agree.
Depends on what pictures you mean. The sections I see show gaps, faults, and, occasionally, overturned blocks.
Yes, because that’s what the evidence shows.
Not possible. That doesn’t fit the stratigraphic sequence, which intersperses marine and terrestrial fossils in different layers. Terrestrial fossils are not just at the top and marine fossils aren’t jsut at the bottom.
What makes you think that is either what’s described in Genesis or what fits the physical evidence?
No, because it doesn’t fit what we see.
Where? What was the answer?
You need to explain the actual phenomena you’re proposing here. From what I understand, what you claim is physically impossible, though it’s not quite clear what you claim.
It is these kinds of unfounded statements that deny us the privilege of discourse. Your interpretation of the evidence I believe is completely askew. Good night for now.
I would be happy to discuss the evidence if only you would respond. I and others have pointed to particular bits of the evidence, but you have consistently ignored those posts. Did you see my post on the K/T boundary clay?
We can but only if you are willing to discuss the specific details of the evidence you’re provided. That means no more blanket dismissal as “same evidence different interpretation”.
I do appreciate that you’re doing your best to account reasonably for the evidence. I agree with the approach @John_Harshman is suggesting: After you’ve had your first cuppa joe (or two) in the morning, tell us how your theory accounts for the K/T boundary in as much detail as you can.
No. AIG thinks that the tradition that a mountain which began to be called “Mt. Ararat” in recent centuries in Turkey happens to be where Noah’s Ark came to rest. There is no textual basis for that position. It is purely a tradition. (By the way, there are multiple traditional locations for the landing place of Noah’s Ark.)
If they have ever read the Hebrew text of Genesis, they know that there is no mention of a “Mt. Ararat” in the Bible. There is only mention of “the mountains of the Ararat region” or “the hill country of Ararat.”
Yes, I requested that our local public library purchase it, and they did – a great value for the money for personal use, and I suspect theirs was discounted. The photography is wonderful and the charts, tables and explanations are outstanding.
Here endeth the commercial, and I get no commission.
This is a picture of computed racemization rate constants of amino acids in the fossils. I modified the graph originally from this website by biochemist Michael Brown, PhD:
I want to go back to the original papers as I suspect the L to D ratios are almost invariant across geological ages all the way down to the Siluran strata!
This was yet another problem with the long age interpretation. Even adjusting the numbers by the Arrhenius equation wouldn’t seem to rescue the problem as we’d have to be invoking temperatures below freezing.
It’s somewhere on my list of todos. But this is yet another reason I think the fossil record is young. There are other reasons.
The above graph should agree with other clocks INSIDE the fossils such as C14 in as much as there should be relative invariance of “daughter” products relative to assumed geological age.
I’m not saying the indicated ages will be the same, but rather the property of approximate relative invariance.
JWile suggested some other possible clocks to look at such as oxidation clocks. This could be fruitful area of YLC/YFR (Young Fossil Record) research.
And here we have the famous Gish Gallop. Rather than engage with the arguments already mentioned, Sal introduces a new and unexplained colorful picture. If this bit is confronted, he’ll go on to something else. Never a real discussion about anything.
One thing Brown doesn’t explain, though he explains all manner of things like “how do atoms stick together?” and “what’s an amino acid?”, is what a racemization constant is and what its units are. Sal, could you explain that?
I appreciate that you are striving for less narrow interpretations. Others are giving you a hard time for this too, but it’s still a significant break from the usual line of argument. Thank you!
I actually thought you guys were on the hook for engaging my arguments, not me engaging yours. My arguments, if uncontested, pretty much trump the old fossil record story.
EDIT: changed Trump to trump at AllenMiller’s request
Is there a latex capability here? Otherwise I’ll have to import images with my latex equations in place. This would be good to know so I can answer Dr. Harshman and also for future discussions.
