Jump to content


Diamond Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

360 Excellent


About one.opinion

  • Rank
    Diamond Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

1,318 profile views
  1. one.opinion

    Accuracy of radioisotopic dating

    I’ll check the link out tomorrow. Let’s try to keep the thread snark-free, though. Thanks!
  2. I recognize that several science-y contributors here do not agree with the alleged accuracy of radioisotopic dating of fossils and other rock samples. I have enough Chemistry background to understand the basics of radioactive decay and how they can be used for dating purposes, but I do plan on doing some reading regarding the accuracy of the method. I will be reading sites that support the method and those that do not, so please chime in with literature that supports your belief - whether "for" or "against" the accuracy of the method. It is unlikely I will respond to any posts that lack referenced material. Thanks in advance!
  3. one.opinion

    Polystrate Fossils: Proof of Noah's Flood

    1. I never asked for any sort of date. 2. I never “set a trap”. I hope you have a relaxing weekend.
  4. one.opinion

    Polystrate Fossils: Proof of Noah's Flood

    I never asked you to date anything. If I were attempting to provide evidence for a YEC-related claim, I would check ICR and AiG. Your behavior over this issue is just plain confusing.
  5. one.opinion

    Polystrate Fossils: Proof of Noah's Flood

    As I have said, if there is a trap, it is in your own imagination. It is impossible to inadvertently set a trap and I had no desire or intent to do so. I never asked for any specific dating, just evidence of anything that would lead to the conclusion that a bridge is more recent than typically thought. This is not a trap of my making.
  6. Whether a wall is built or not, it will certainly not be paid for by Mexico, another promise made by the President (even though there have been attempts to deny this).
  7. one.opinion

    Polystrate Fossils: Proof of Noah's Flood

    Thanks, Zemke, sounds like an awesome experience! I'm sure that ocean sea levels have been much different in the past history of the planet, I just haven't seen evidence that these geological differences have occurred in the last 3500-4000 years.
  8. one.opinion

    Polystrate Fossils: Proof of Noah's Flood

    I'm having trouble figuring out why presenting evidence would be logically inconsistent with your position. I'm not asking (and have never asked) for you to present radioisotopic dating evidence, or any other type of evidence that would be logically inconsistent with your world view. I asked for any evidence. And to this point, you have been completely disinclined to provide any, and insist that my persistence can only by motivated by my desire to set a trap for you. I do not understand your hesitancy to address this particular topic. I found the following quote in the article you provided: This is at least an explanation based on some reasoning. All I've asked for is some type of evidence supporting this type of hypothesis. I have not asked you to tie yourself into a logical pretzel in order to explain your hypothesis.
  9. one.opinion

    Polystrate Fossils: Proof of Noah's Flood

    Wrong. I do not understand your thought process that interprets any questions I have that might be difficult to answer as some sort of "gotcha" trap. If you are sensing a trap, it originates from your imagination, and not my attempts to linguistically trap you. This inherent distrust in my ability to have an honest discussion erodes my desire to do so. I'll make this post short. Incorrectly telling others what they think has to be some type of logical argumentation fallacy. I'm certain you could identify it. I ask because I'm confident that you and I are not the only people to have ever had this discussion. I am guessing that someone, at some time, has found evidence that they believe supports a relatively recent bridge and I'm asking (repeatedly) if you are aware of any evidence. To save us both the trouble, I'm now just going to take your obfuscation as a "no". It seems as though this model would directly contradict a literal interpretation of Genesis 7:23 - "He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground". It is also problematic in the "ice bridge" model that would clearly destroy the necessary plant life. I'm not hoping for an answer here, but introducing a point to ponder. After a global flood, there would clearly need to be a long era of lowering sea levels. It seems that the sea level would have to drop a certain level for a land bridge to be present (a recent ice bridge seems only remotely as possible), and then rapidly reverse to cover up the bridge again before placental mammals could cross. A final side note - I'm sure you are aware that marsupials are also mammals and meant "placental mammals" in several places.
  10. one.opinion

    Polystrate Fossils: Proof of Noah's Flood

    Incorrect, I am just asking if you have any evidence available for the existence of a land bridge within the last 3500-4000 years. I truly do not need help rephrasing a straightforward question. Isn't this just a fancy way of saying "I don't have any evidence suggesting a land or ice bridge within the last 3500-4000 years"? Does your model involve a small population of marsupial-kind that has evolved into around 200 species of extant marsupials and multiple other extinct varieties? How would you explain the lengthy primary succession involved in the development of the current Australian biomes? Is there evidence of glacial retreat from the Australian land mass? How would you respond to anthropologists that believe aborigines have been in Australia for about 60,000 years? Is this the hypothesis for a Pangea to modern geography model? I haven't read much about this from a YEC perspective. According to this explanation, wouldn't we have small animal fossils all on top - insects and rodents and such, with humans down close to the bottom with the other large mammals? Is that a pattern seen somewhere? I simply agree frequently with experts in their respective fields. And before you mention the "popular appeal" fallacy, let me remind you that in technical matters, if your explanation contradicts a high majority of the experts, your arguments would work best with solid evidence behind it - not mere conjecture, regardless of how logical you feel it is. Bad form on my part, you have my apology. I really would like to see some evidence supporting your supposition, and at least a good hypothesis why the placental mammals are so sparse. Would you agree that we can accurately measure radioactive decay rates (even for isotopes with VERY long half-lives) and the speed of light today? I am also certain you are aware that rock dating with multiple isotopes leads to very precise date estimates. How do you explain that?
  11. one.opinion

    Polystrate Fossils: Proof of Noah's Flood

    Genesis 7:23 - He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground Genesis 8:21 - Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done. It could be argued that Genesis 7:23 gives some wiggle room for living things not technically "on the face of the ground", but Genesis 8:21 does say "every living creature". I don't see any way to argue around it. No, what is exclusive to YEC is the idea that massive land bridges were present as recently as 4,000 year ago. The ice bridge model would require a temporary connection to an even colder land mass, mass invasion of this Antarctica-like land mass by marsupials, but virtually no other mammals, rapid warming and successional development of new ecosystems to support the marsupials (like eucalyptus forests) -- all within the last 4,000 years. This is assuming that the migration of the marsupials took place instantaneously. Realistically, the time frame for this all to have occurred would be several hundred years shorter. I'm not a geologist or an ecologist, but I'm close to certain there is no evidence supporting this highly improbable scenario. I would expect the same for sessile marine organisms, but although the massive amounts of sediment moved by such a cataclysm would certainly trap some swimming organisms, it would be logical to assume that many of these would fare better, even in a massive flood, than terrestrial organisms. Massive sediment flow in a terrestrial environment meets little resistance from air, but would meet substantial resistance in an aquatic environment. Sure, the sediment flow into an ocean would be extreme enough to bury organisms in a coastal habitat, but there would likely be massive areas of open ocean where a large portion of organisms would be undisturbed. I'm not an expert in botanical paleontology, either, but I'm going to assume that the experts in the field would rely on more than one single gymnosperm forest, since there are still plenty of conifer forests presently on the planet. This article may have some of the information you are curious about. https://repository.si.edu/bitstream/handle/10088/7416/paleo_2005_DiMichele_et_al_PCAS_56(Suppl_I)_HR.pdf I would expect the sediment flow caused by the flood and the major event needed for fossilization would not be able to physically separate human and dinosaur corpses as neatly as the fossil record indicates. I understand that YEC scientists have many hypotheses in order to attempt to explain observed facts in a light that aligns more closely with the presupposition of a 6,000-ish year old earth. But in order to maintain this scientific viewpoint, it requires numerous, repeated interpretations that are less plausible than the "secular" model. For example, ice and/or land bridges that only marsupials may cross, dinosaur and hominid fossils in completely separate rock layers because they didn't cohabitate, cataclysmic sediment flow that carefully separates dinosaur and hominid due to differential density, massively fluctuating radioisotope decay rates or massively fluctuating speed of light. All of these assumptions are less plausible than the "secular" model, with little to no evidence, but every single one of these is required to maintain the YEC scientific viewpoint.
  12. one.opinion

    Polystrate Fossils: Proof of Noah's Flood

    Why do you assume that the passage is using erets to refer to the entire planet instead of a regional area?
  13. one.opinion

    Polystrate Fossils: Proof of Noah's Flood

    But we don't know which mountains - there is not enough provided in what is written to conclusively state that the mountains in verse 20 include all "the mountains" over the entire planet, or "the mountains" in a smaller geographic erets.
  14. one.opinion

    Polystrate Fossils: Proof of Noah's Flood

    Again, "erets" could refer to the entire globe, or could refer to a much smaller area. It is not clear if the reference is to ALL mountains or to the mountains in the area that Noah inhabited.
  15. one.opinion

    Polystrate Fossils: Proof of Noah's Flood

    So what reasonable explanation do you have for the lack of placental mammals that migrated over the land or ice bridge that the marsupials traveled over? What evidence is there of a land or ice bridge that has disappeared in the last 4,000 years? Were the marsupials running for their lives from the placentals and managed to win the trans-continental race by thousands of miles? Or was it just a closer race and the bridge was somehow destroyed after they crossed? I think it is possible, but implausible. I would expect expert swimmers to fare best under global flood conditions, and terrestrial organisms to be particularly vulnerable. Since fossils are typically found in sedimentary rock, that indicates that sediments are involved in most fossilization events. The mudslides and other types of events that would result in burial of organisms in sediments would occur much faster in terrestrial environments. I would also expect dinosaurs to have roughly equal to better mobility than humans, yet they were all buried in lower levels of sediment, without any sign of mixing as would be expected in a catastrophic event. Another major problem with this view is the plants. Obviously, angiosperms are no more mobile than other plants, yet there are layers of fossils that contain only gymnosperms (particularly cycads). No, differential mobility is not a model with competitive plausibility. God didn't destroy all living creatures in the flood, despite the language of Genesis 8:21 and 7:23. It certainly seems as though God is using hyperbole to make His point. That depends on what mountains we are talking about here - Mesopotamia or planet-wide. The word "erets" used as earth in this passage is flexible and could easily refer to a smaller geographical area than the whole earth. If the reference is regional, then the water would cover the mountains in that region, and not necessarily the entire globe. A global flood would present a number of additional problems that are difficult to explain. Here is a link that goes into some considerable detail why the authors consider the flood to be regional. Some of the arguments are somewhat simplistic, but there are several good points. https://ecclesia.org/truth/flood.html