SCIENCE IN THE BIBLE

[MorningGlory]

37 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said:

I've been there for Decades.

 

regards

Well, that's debatable but I will wish you a Merry Christmas anyway, Enoch.  Time for Peace on Earth.

 

[Enoch2021]

4 minutes ago, MorningGlory said:

Well, that's debatable

It's most assuredly not.

 

Quote

but I will wish you a Merry Christmas anyway, Enoch. 

Understand the sentiment and gesture here...but this "Christmas" thing is quite troubling (Just a Couple):

1.  Nowhere in Scripture is it stated that we should celebrate Christ's Birth.

2.  The 25 of December isn't Christ's Birth Day anyway. (It's 11 September 3 BC; SEE Revelation 12.  And obviously opens up a whole other can of worms)

3.  (Jeremiah 10:1-4) "Hear ye the word which the LORD speaketh unto you, O house of Israel:  {2} Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them.  {3} For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe.  {4} They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not."

These ^^^^^ are just the 'Tip of the Iceberg'.

 

Quote

Time for Peace on Earth.

Not gonna happen...

(Matthew 10:34) "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."

 

regards

[MorningGlory]

12 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said:

It's most assuredly not.

 

Understand the sentiment and gesture here...but this "Christmas" thing is quite troubling (Just a Couple):

1.  Nowhere in Scripture is it stated that we should celebrate Christ's Birth.

2.  The 25 of December isn't Christ's Birth Day anyway. (It's 11 September 3 BC; SEE Revelation 12.  And obviously opens up a whole other can of worms)

3.  (Jeremiah 10:1-4) "Hear ye the word which the LORD speaketh unto you, O house of Israel:  {2} Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them.  {3} For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe.  {4} They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not."

These ^^^^^ are just the 'Tip of the Iceberg'.

 

Not gonna happen...

(Matthew 10:34) "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."

 

regards

There are plenty of 'debate Christmas' threads already.  This one is 'Science in the Bible'.

[Enoch2021]

12 minutes ago, MorningGlory said:

There are plenty of 'debate Christmas' threads already.

That's interesting, I wasn't aware.  There really isn't much of a debate. 

 

Quote

This one is 'Science in the Bible'.

Yes, I know.  

Is there plenty of "Wishing you a Merry Christmas" Threads?

 

regards

[one.opinion]

On 12/23/2017 at 7:21 PM, Tristen said:

“I'm curious where you derived the numbers since the article does not include them. The article is much more concerned with the anatomical features of the fossils rather than dates. The closest thing I see to dates is a mention that the fossils are Late Cambrian, instead of Ordovician”

Middle Ordovician is ~460-470mya. This paper was one of the first to push vertebrates into back into the Cambrian.

The years you supplied are not from the article, as you suggested. The abstract does mention a definitive fossil from "Early - Middle Ordovician", which is clearly different from "Middle Ordovician". It might be a good idea to stick with what references actually say, rather than using your own dates.

 

On 12/23/2017 at 7:21 PM, Tristen said:

“Even if the dates you are proposing are accurate, that is a little over a 6% difference. Again, not a significant stretch.”

This is a deceptive use of math.

No, the percent difference is a much more honest use of math than giving a numerical year range. A 40 million year difference is much greater for an event that hypothetically occurred 10 million years ago versus 470 million years ago. A percentage can apply to any age and show the extent of an age adjustment.

 

On 12/23/2017 at 7:21 PM, Tristen said:

My argument doesn't fall because you required “bone-related” examples – which are less striking than the examples I already provided.

I didn't say your argument fell, so why are you defending it as though I did? The reason I asked for "bone-related" examples is because it is a much more concrete observation, without counter-explanations. There should be numerous examples of "Cambrian sheep", according to young earth explanations, but none are in evidence. Any bone-related examples would be rather striking, indeed! The first paper you provided wasn't convincing, even with your supplemented date ranges that the authors did not provide. I'll check out the next paper you provided soon.

[Tristen]

2 hours ago, one.opinion said:

The years you supplied are not from the article, as you suggested. The abstract does mention a definitive fossil from "Early - Middle Ordovician", which is clearly different from "Middle Ordovician". It might be a good idea to stick with what references actually say, rather than using your own dates.

No, the percent difference is a much more honest use of math than giving a numerical year range. A 40 million year difference is much greater for an event that hypothetically occurred 10 million years ago versus 470 million years ago. A percentage can apply to any age and show the extent of an age adjustment.

I didn't say your argument fell, so why are you defending it as though I did? The reason I asked for "bone-related" examples is because it is a much more concrete observation, without counter-explanations. There should be numerous examples of "Cambrian sheep", according to young earth explanations, but none are in evidence. Any bone-related examples would be rather striking, indeed! The first paper you provided wasn't convincing, even with your supplemented date ranges that the authors did not provide. I'll check out the next paper you provided soon.

“The years you supplied are not from the article, as you suggested. The abstract does mention a definitive fossil from "Early - Middle Ordovician", which is clearly different from "Middle Ordovician". It might be a good idea to stick with what references actually say, rather than using your own dates.”

The Forey & Janvier reference stated 460mya. I couldn't find the other ("in press") reference. I took 470mya as the border between Early and Middle Ordovician epochs (giving you 10 million years). If it makes you feel any better, take it back another 15 million years to the start of the Early Ordovician. That still makes the total range extension around 55 million years.

Saying from Early – Middle Ordovician to early Cambrian is meaningless if not quantified by real numbers.

 

“the percent difference is a much more honest use of math than giving a numerical year range. A 40 million year difference is much greater for an event that hypothetically occurred 10 million years ago versus 470 million years ago.”

It's not “honest” because it doesn't accurately reflect real time.

“A 40 million year difference” remains “A 40 million year difference” (i.e. exactly the same sized “event”), regardless of the starting point. Percentages, in this context, falsely inflate or deflate the actual time because of the irrelevant artefact of the start reference. 40 million years will always be the same, stupendous amount of time, whether the putative reference point is 10 years or 10 billion years.

 

“A percentage can apply to any age and show the extent of an age adjustment.”

Only relative to the start reference. It's largely irrelevant to the actual size of the range extension.

 

“I didn't say your argument fell, so why are you defending it as though I did?”

I provided two examples of fossils over a billion years out-of-place. You then tried to narrow the criteria to bone-related examples. I suspected you were trying to “set-up” the conversation by pressuring me to provide less impressive examples, and I was right – because now you will only accept the argument if I can provide a bone-related range extension that meets some, as yet undefined, criteria.

 

“The reason I asked for "bone-related" examples is because it is a much more concrete observation, without counter-explanations.”

It makes absolutely no difference to the quality of my argument. One of my billion-year examples was counter-explained by a range extension, the other was left a mystery. Whether they are bone-related examples or not makes no difference to the availability of explanations.

 

“There should be numerous examples of "Cambrian sheep", according to young earth explanations, but none are in evidence.”

What “young earth explanations”? I haven't heard any “explanations” from young earth creationists expecting “numerous examples of "Cambrian sheep"”

 

“The first paper you provided wasn't convincing, even with your supplemented date ranges that the authors did not provide.”

And there's the rub. This is why I spent so much time trying to narrow the criteria before providing references. I suspected it was a trap. I knew without specific criteria, you could arbitrarily dismiss anything I provide as not “convincing”.

[one.opinion]

12 hours ago, Tristen said:

“the percent difference is a much more honest use of math than giving a numerical year range. A 40 million year difference is much greater for an event that hypothetically occurred 10 million years ago versus 470 million years ago.”

It's not “honest” because it doesn't accurately reflect real time.

I'm not sure how you are asserting that percent change is somehow "not honest", it just is. It absolutely reflects real time, when you have an initial value.

 

12 hours ago, Tristen said:

“There should be numerous examples of "Cambrian sheep", according to young earth explanations, but none are in evidence.”

What “young earth explanations”? I haven't heard any “explanations” from young earth creationists expecting “numerous examples of "Cambrian sheep"”

If a majority of fossils were made because of a single, global flood, then paleontologists would likely find dinosaur (or invertebrate Cambrian) fossils mixed with fossils of modern organisms. Instead, paleontologists find stratified forms of life. That stratification is still observed, even if vertebrate fossils are pushed back 6-7% in age.

12 hours ago, Tristen said:

And there's the rub. This is why I spent so much time trying to narrow the criteria before providing references. I suspected it was a trap. I knew without specific criteria, you could arbitrarily dismiss anything I provide as not “convincing”.

No trap was intended. As I've mentioned before, I am certainly not an expert in paleontology. Because of the thoroughness of your studies and investigation, I figured you would know if examples of "out of place" bones existed. It turns out you didn't know of any. You were kind enough to provide papers on extending the estimated age of vertebrates, and I responded in a fair critique. If you are feeling trapped, it is not because I set one. I'm puzzled why simple questions are assumed to be a part of an elaborate scheme.

I took a quick look at your second vertebrate paper last night and that one is more convincing of your point than the first. I'll take a deeper look and move on to the eukaryote paper after that.

[Enoch2021]

24 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

If a majority of fossils were made because of a single, global flood, then paleontologists would likely find dinosaur (or invertebrate Cambrian) fossils mixed with fossils of modern organisms.

They do...

"Did you know that flamingos, sandpipers, penguins, cormorants, parrots, owls and many other creatures living today, including numerous types of mammals, reptiles, amphibians and arthropods are found in supposedly 65-plus-million-year-old rock layers, when dinosaurs and other “pre-historic” beasts once roamed the earth?"
http://www.creationstudies.org/Education/living_fossils.html

 

Quote

Instead, paleontologists find stratified forms of life. That stratification is still observed, even if vertebrate fossils are pushed back 6-7% in age.

Show...?

 

regards

 

[one.opinion]

2 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:

They do...

"Did you know that flamingos, sandpipers, penguins, cormorants, parrots, owls and many other creatures living today, including numerous types of mammals, reptiles, amphibians and arthropods are found in supposedly 65-plus-million-year-old rock layers, when dinosaurs and other “pre-historic” beasts once roamed the earth?"
http://www.creationstudies.org/Education/living_fossils.html

Thanks, Enoch, I’ll take a look!

[Tristen]

8 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I'm not sure how you are asserting that percent change is somehow "not honest", it just is. It absolutely reflects real time, when you have an initial value.

 

If a majority of fossils were made because of a single, global flood, then paleontologists would likely find dinosaur (or invertebrate Cambrian) fossils mixed with fossils of modern organisms. Instead, paleontologists find stratified forms of life. That stratification is still observed, even if vertebrate fossils are pushed back 6-7% in age.

No trap was intended. As I've mentioned before, I am certainly not an expert in paleontology. Because of the thoroughness of your studies and investigation, I figured you would know if examples of "out of place" bones existed. It turns out you didn't know of any. You were kind enough to provide papers on extending the estimated age of vertebrates, and I responded in a fair critique. If you are feeling trapped, it is not because I set one. I'm puzzled why simple questions are assumed to be a part of an elaborate scheme.

I took a quick look at your second vertebrate paper last night and that one is more convincing of your point than the first. I'll take a deeper look and move on to the eukaryote paper after that.

“I'm not sure how you are asserting that percent change is somehow "not honest", it just is. It absolutely reflects real time, when you have an initial value.”

When dealing with range extensions, the pertinent information is how much time has the range been extended by. The “initial value” is an ancillary artefact that you have used in an attempt to make the actual amount of real time appear insignificant. In reality, we are talking range extensions of tens-of-millions-of-years. How much time putatively elapsed after that is completely irrelevant to the real size of the extension.

 

“If a majority of fossils were made because of a single, global flood, then paleontologists would likely find dinosaur (or invertebrate Cambrian) fossils mixed with fossils of modern organisms.”

So you are presenting me with a model, claiming the model to be mine, then denigrating the model? That's a classic Strawman strategy.

 

“No trap was intended. As I've mentioned before, I am certainly not an expert in paleontology. Because of the thoroughness of your studies and investigation, I figured you would know if examples of "out of place" bones existed. It turns out you didn't know of any. You were kind enough to provide papers on extending the estimated age of vertebrates, and I responded in a fair critique. If you are feeling trapped, it is not because I set one. I'm puzzled why simple questions are assumed to be a part of an elaborate scheme.”

Of course it was a trap. I provided overwhelming examples supporting my point. You didn't like the implication of those examples, so dismissed them on some arbitrary, unjustified basis – and requested a more specific criteria of evidence. As you pushed for examples, I pushed for clarification of criteria. But I was silly enough to provide an example before narrowing the criteria. So now the trap is sprung – you can, in the absence of specific criteria, dismiss any evidence I provide as not being “significant”. And now even claim I don't “know of any” examples, having only considered two papers for the same example.

Well played. I will know better next time.