... continuing a Real Oldie For you!

1) ... to League of Nerds and Realistic Opportunist on Hovind (part 1) · 2) ... continuing a Real Oldie For you! · 3) ... continuing with Shane Wilson : very short overview of Dating Methods + Flaws

Hans-Georg Lundahl
13 déc. 2013

+realisticoppurtunist Ah, you were around testing it five thousand years ago?

Seriously, I gave two or three different suggestions:

• 1) God made the telomeres simply shorter - less telomerase as to quantity - for the starting point
  
  
• 2) God changed its susceptibility to the shortening processes: shortening is in principle the same before Flood and now, but concretely simply faster now than then
  
  
• 3) God added to the shortening processes or detacted from such as delay shortening, like more X-rays and less O2 / Nitrogen and less air pressure.

God does not need any of these things to be "divine mechanisms" to be able to do that. The basic law of nature is "creature cannot oppose its Creator". Or in other words "I believe in God Father ALMIGHTY" etc.

realisticoppurtunist

• 1) What? "Well, the rascals are misbehaving, better lop off some DNA"
  
  
• 2) How? That would mean changing the laws of chemistry. Which would be lethal to every living thing.
  
  
• 3) This one makes no sense at all. How would increased atmospheric O2 have any effect on telomere deletion? Or Nitrogen? Or air pressure? More X-Rays? Coming from where?

Oh, and you said "Ah, you were around testing it five thousand years ago?"

That isn't relevant. There is no evidence whatsoever that it changed, and not even a chemical change in DNA Polymerase would make the problem better or worse. 

Hans-Georg Lundahl

• 1) Basically yes, except I would be more precise than "DNA" namely "telomerase".
  
  
• 2) I would say God could do that without changing the laws of chemistry and without any change of such - supposing there were it - being lethal. Not just omnipotent, but omniscient and all wise too.
  
  
• 3)
  • a) As I said, telomere's delete due to some diverse factors, and O2 levels might be combatting one of them. Which N (is it N2?) does not do that.
    
    
  • b) Also worse exposure to X-rays seems to have an effect, which was one case for the Hovind theory about the water canopy. You see the species that live the longest are those least likely to absorb X-rays. Trees, turtles, elephants, shellfish.
    
    Coming from where - on Hovind's theory from same place it always came from, cosmic radiation, but reaching earth more after water canopy is gone, on my view from stars obedient to God putting out some more of it.
    
    That would also fit well with C14 buildup starting mainly after the Flood.
  

"There is no evidence whatsoever that it changed"

If human life span changed from the reach between well above fivehundred and nearly one thousand to a reach between 60 and 120, obviously something changed.

If science means contradicting and ignoring no true data, that is not anything a Christian can honestly get around and just ignore.

"There is no evidence whatsoever that it changed"

If human life span changed from the reach between well above fivehundred and nearly one thousand to a reach between 60 and 120, obviously something changed.

If science means contradicting and ignoring no true data, that is not anything a Christian can honestly get around and just ignore.

realisticoppurtunist

[answering this last point]

Hmm... maybe because nobody lived to be over 500. The only evidence you have for that is cryptic bible passages that you infer timeframes from. There is NO valid evidence that people ever lived that long at any point in time. 

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The Bible is valid evidence for that, since it is true History.

It is validated as true History insofar as it is the word of God. It is validated as the word of God because accepted so by the Catholic CHurch since its beginning. And the Catholic Church is - like its Hebrew predecessor, Israel, then Judah - validated by the miracles that have followed it. And of course by its Divine founder Jesus Christ and His Resurrection. A Christian has no option except accepting those life spans as genuine. If you do not, cuts no ice with me.

[One could add that its human pretentions of being valid history aren't bad either.]

Shane Wilson
4 oct. 2016

There demonstrably was no global flood.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Then demonstare that!

Shane Wilson

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

No extreme genetic bottle-necking of all life on earth, as would be expected from a world-wide flood in human history.

Despite what Hovind claims, the various geologic layers are not formed by a massive flood. We have erosion, uplift, and other markers in between them.

The fact that numerous cultures around the globe were around during the supposed flood and never got wiped out.

And this isn't even getting into the fact that the ship wouldn't be able to support that much life within it, nor would it be seaworthy. Then throw in the fact that it would have killed pretty much all sealife on earth.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

« No extreme genetic bottle-necking of all life on earth, as would be expected from a world-wide flood in human history. »

How about the demise of elephant relatives like mammoths ? Or the radical if such lowering of T Rex and Bronto population ?

« Despite what Hovind claims, the various geologic layers are not formed by a massive flood. »

Despite what you seem to claim, we don’t get palaeontological layers from more than one supposed era per dig down. We don’t get Permian under Triassic, despite them being side by side in Karoo. OK, we do get trilobites under elasmosaurs, but that would be because of how they live in sea (example : Napoleon Basin [see below]).

« We have erosion, uplift, and other markers in between them. »

You seem to suppose that Flood means precisely ONE gush of water and no more. The kind of streams under water which could deposit such layers also could erode things. And tectonic plates seem to have been shifting, which could account for uplift.

« The fact that numerous cultures around the globe were around during the supposed flood and never got wiped out. »

OK, Flood was 2957 BC. Which culture do you consider as having been around back then, and how do we know it is not a five hundred to thousand years later ?

« And this isn't even getting into the fact that the ship wouldn't be able to support that much life within it »

If hares and rabbits come from one pair aboard Ark, mice (of all chromosomal races), rats and shrews again from one pair and if the one pair of sauropods (probably smaller variety than bronto), the one pair of whatever it is T Rex and Allosaurus belong to, and so on, were young babies when on board Ark, and a few more things like that, that problem is solved.

By the way, it is not a ship, it is a box (that is what ark means) and was not able to navigate, since God was doing the navigation by providence.

« nor would it be seaworthy. »

If it had been navigating against waves and currents instead of floating with them, see previous answer.

« Then throw in the fact that it would have killed pretty much all sealife on earth. »

Apart from what was caught in mud, no. Like an elasmosaur in Napoleon Basin* or a whale or two in the Alps.

I suppose you mean things like salinity, but a greater salinity of seas would have developed over the millennia since the Flood.

[I meant Bonaparte Basin, but was misled by association with a Swedish name for millefeuille]

Shane Wilson

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
How about the demise of elephant relatives like mammoths ? Or the radical if such lowering of T Rex and Bronto population

Your comment has nothing at all to do with genetic bottlenecking.

In any population of organisms you have various genes, which is the genetic diversity (different genes). When you reduce populations to small numbers, you are removing many of the genes entirely from the genepool. This creates a genetic bottleneck, which we can actually see in the DNA. The cheetah suffers from a fairly bad bottleneck, thought. And this is thought to be from an event taking them to under a thousand, thousands of years ago. If Noah's flood were real, nearly every life form on earth should be suffering from even worse bottlenecking than the cheetah.

[I didn't bother to answer, but my point could have been that might have been one part of the case with, if not mammoths, that could be later in ice age, at least T Rex and Bronto : at least if Cheetahs are really endangered due to bottlenecking.]

You seem to suppose that Flood means precisely ONE gush of water and no more. The kind of streams under water which could deposit such layers also could erode things. And tectonic plates seem to have been shifting, which could account for uplift.

Floods give very distinctive markers in the layers, the layers we have aren't all flood layers.Hell, in many we can find footprints and such, which you don't get when you have a flood layer.

OK, Flood was 2957 BC. Which culture do you consider as having been around back then, and how do we know it is not a five hundred to thousand years later

The Egyptians for one. In Brazil, we have Brazilian pyramids which predate the flood (3000 BCE), something that wouldn't have survived the flood. In fact, the Native Americans were living in North America before and after the supposed flood ever happened. Yet, they weren't wiped out.

If hares and rabbits come from one pair aboard Ark, mice (of all chromosomal races), rats and shrews again from one pair and if the one pair of sauropods (probably smaller variety than bronto), the one pair of whatever it is T Rex and Allosaurus belong to, and so on, were young babies when on board Ark, and a few more things like that, that problem is solved.

First, genetics doesn't support this at all, and you still have issues with them not fitting. Not to mention no good ventilation, which means everyone dies from CO2 poisoning or Methane poisoning, or even better, a giant explosion from the methane once a lamp is lit.

By the way, it is not a ship, it is a box (that is what ark means) and was not able to navigate, since God was doing the navigation by providence.

And yet it still wouldn't be sea worthy in a rough sea, especially not with the debris floating around which would easily puncture the hull.

I suppose you mean things like salinity, but a greater salinity of seas would have developed over the millennia since the Flood.

The salinity change would have killed sea life. The stuff in the oceans would have died from the rapid decrease in salinity, and the fresh water life would have died from the rapid increase. Not to mention the extreme temperature and pressure changes, the ph change, and lots of other issues that would kill everything.

And then of course, the coal reefs would also have died.

There is a reason nobody in their right mind who knows anything about science accepts the flood myth.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Passing on Cheetahs for now.

"Floods give very distinctive markers in the layers, the layers we have aren't all flood layers.Hell, in many we can find footprints and such, which you don't get when you have a flood layer."

Key word "a" Flood layer. The Flood of Noah would have made more than one, if sufficiently turmoiled.

"The Egyptians for one."

According to their King Lists or according to C14?

"In Brazil, we have Brazilian pyramids which predate the flood (3000 BCE), something that wouldn't have survived the flood."

C14 I presume.

"In fact, the Native Americans were living in North America before and after the supposed flood ever happened. Yet, they weren't wiped out."

And once again, just C14.

In all these and any similar cases, the key factor is mostly only C14, occasionally also a non-Hebrew historiography.

The latter worked a bit like when Saxo divided up Frodo Haddingson the Peaceking, into Frodo I Haddingson and Frodo II of the Peace. In the sequels of each, you find kings of different parts of Denmark, but Saxo wants to give Denmark the appearance of having an old unity.

So dynasties that were really parallel come to be listed as if serial.

The key to the C14 problem is simply the buildup of C14 in athmosphere.

"First, genetics doesn't support this at all, and you still have issues with them not fitting."

As far as I know, genetics do support hares and rabbits having common ancestry, since there seems to be an intermediate species, interfertile with both.

As to not all fitting, that depends on how many couples there were, which depends on how many kinds. Which reduces to previous question.

"Not to mention no good ventilation, which means everyone dies from CO2 poisoning or Methane poisoning, or even better, a giant explosion from the methane once a lamp is lit."

Except if there was lots of room in the Ark, which a feasability study by Woodmorappe suggests there was, this would not be the case.

"And yet it still wouldn't be sea worthy in a rough sea, especially not with the debris floating around which would easily puncture the hull."

You are still treating it as if it were a ship, navigating in any other direction than what was floating around. It was in fact - floating around.

"The salinity change would have killed sea life."

If it had happened fast enough during Flood, rather than slower after Flood.

"The stuff in the oceans would have died from the rapid decrease in salinity, and the fresh water life would have died from the rapid increase."

Or both survived as salinity increased slowly in seas but not in rivers and lakes.

"Not to mention the extreme temperature and pressure changes, the ph change, and lots of other issues that would kill everything."

In some places they did. Fortunately, restricted ones.

"And then of course, the coal reefs would also have died."

The present coral reefs have an age which has been calculated by YECs as exactly fitting the Flood.

"There is a reason nobody in their right mind who knows anything about science accepts the flood myth."

There is a reason why one learns to be on guard against rhetoric in schools.

Now back to genetic bottleneck of Cheetah.

I don't think God is a bungler and I do think the bottleneck of the CHeetahs is more recent than Flood - or that Flood struck Cheetas worse than some other critters.

And just maybe - as I was suggesting - struck dinos of diverse kinds so badly they never fully recovered. Though obviously, I don't believe there was a dinosaur world I believe the dinos lived about the areas we find them in - and other critters in other areas.

Shane Wilson

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
You do realize that Carbon 14 dating is highly accurate when used correctly right? And we can use additional methods to double check, such as dendrochronology.

And the rates at which YECs pretend the corals grew doesn't match up to the actual evidence at all. Your side is so dishonest when it comes to science because it attempts to force everything into your little preconceived notions rather than follow the evidence where it leads.

You still don't get it, you don't get the genetic diversity that we see today from a handful of animals just a few thousand years ago, it doesn't work, period. Genetics destroys your little flood myth.

And your little hand waving on "the flood did it in magical ways" is just ridiculous. People like you should be ashamed for being such a drag on society.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"You do realize that Carbon 14 dating is highly accurate when used correctly right?"

That is one claim I have no reason to believe in, unless correctly means either:

• a) limited to last 2500 years, when doublechecking with indubitable history is an option (carbon date Persepolis, for instance, it only stood for a short time, and therefore its carbon dates can be matched with a rather narrow historic frame); or
  
  
• b) recalibrated with a drastically rising C14 content and even then, due to diverse options on how "curved" the rise was, only as a relative chronology.

Creation vs. Evolution : What Some of You are Thinking / Ce que certains de vous sont en train de penser
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2016/10/what-some-of-you-are-thinking-ce-que.html

"And we can use additional methods to double check, such as dendrochronology."

History of last 2500 years is sufficiently well documented to be a real double check, dendrochronology is not. If not in all series, at least all except Californian Red Wood ones, there are bottlenecks and loose matching allowed.

How often a Californian Redwood tree got rings in the past is a matter we could be wiser about if we knew exactly how climate had been there. I have seen opposed claims, and obviously have more confidence in the creationist one. When it comes to other series, I did some googling myself, but lost the reference.

"And the rates at which YECs pretend the corals grew doesn't match up to the actual evidence at all."

Ah, really?

"Your side is so dishonest when it comes to science because it attempts to force everything into your little preconceived notions rather than follow the evidence where it leads."

Your side has a preconceived notion that evolution from microbe to man happened, which, if true, would have taken extremely long time.

"You still don't get it, you don't get the genetic diversity that we see today from a handful of animals just a few thousand years ago, it doesn't work, period. Genetics destroys your little flood myth."

Depends on how well chosen the matches are and how recent the mutations we see.

"And your little hand waving on "the flood did it in magical ways" is just ridiculous."

I did not say "in magical ways". I said that the Flood event overall was more events than just one flooding event.

"People like you should be ashamed for being such a drag on society."

Some of you seem to want to really rub it in by keeping a creationist blogger unprinted and unpaid for his writing. Not saying specifically you, saying some of you, meaning some on the evolutionist side.

Shane Wilson

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Try using a scientific source.

On dendrochronology, yes a tree can grow more than one ring, or even no rings in a year, however these don't tend to be common at all, and on the average they even out. This is why they also have a percentage of error when using it.

Your side has a preconceived notion that evolution from microbe to man happened, which, if true, would have taken extremely long time.

It isn't a preconveived notion, it is where the evidence clearly points.

You have a single book of debunked myths, we have science which is continually checked, and rechecked for accuracy.

Depends on how well chosen the matches are and how recent the mutations we see.

Wrong, because you still aren't getting the genetic diversity in such a few specimines, even worse when you try to go to "kind" rather than species.

And we can track mutation rates.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Try using a scientific source."

For what specific thing?

"On dendrochronology, yes a tree can grow more than one ring, or even no rings in a year, however these don't tend to be common at all, and on the average they even out. This is why they also have a percentage of error when using it."

I wonder if all Creation Scientists would agree on that one ... after seeing a scientific source about the overlap of two series, sorry, lost reference, and seeing how the matches are loose, I do not.

"It isn't a preconveived notion, it is where the evidence clearly points."

According to your preconcieved notion about where the evidence clearly points.

"You have a single book of debunked myths"

Oh, are you referring to the Bible as that? Then it is clear that your idea of where the evidence clearly points is rather worthless.

I have a bit "more" than that, at least humanly speaking as to arguments a bit more. But you wouldn't like to hear about that, would you?

It could spoil your preconceived notions.

"we have science which is continually checked, and rechecked for accuracy."

On nearly every corner where it can be checked. A few exceptions : you are not checking the historic evidence of the Bible for details of chronology or geology which could become clearer in that light, even to you, as they are to me.

And you are not checking the logical points about the validity of your argumentations brought up by philosophers and creationists.

But on most other corners, where you can check, you do.

Trying to talk down my confidence was not a very wise choice for debate, especially if you are only here by yourself and not part of a group (I saw that other evolutionist claiming to be engaged in trying to "deprogram" me, which would imply some collective effort : in that case, trying to talk down my confidence would perhaps be last resort for your group, and sorry if you are not part of such a thing).

"Wrong, because you still aren't getting the genetic diversity in such a few specimines, even worse when you try to go to "kind" rather than species."

Not really, no. Suppose the ancestor of horses and donkeys was some kind of mulish thing, except not a hybrid like the mule, that would mean the variation narrowed down to horse and down to donkey. Suppose further that the couple on the Ark had as much variation between them as a horse and a donkey, except for not being such. And use the same idea for other kinds.

"And we can track mutation rates."

Usually by tracking a common ancestor who isn't necessarily such and by taking the time when that individual lived by misdating, landing you with too slow a "mutation rate". Tell me more?

Updates:

Shane Wilson

+Hans-Georg Lundahl So your entire argument is "Creation scientists disagree with you" even though they are dishonest from the get go.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

So your entire argument is Creation Scientists are dishonest "from the get go" whatever that phrase means, even if they disagree with you?

Spoof. But perhaps apt even so about your attitude. Even if first and foremost a spoof on what you just said.

Shane Wilson

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Yes they are dishonest because they have their conclusions before they even start. This is the opposite of how actual science works.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Ah, you have finally realised that your evolutionist scientists are dishonest etc. ? [spoof - can we go back to debating actual ARGUMENTS as opposed to throwing apple pies at each other's sceince teams?]

Shane Wilson

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Scientists follow the evidence where it leads.

Creationists try to squeeze everything to fit the Bible. They even have little papers they sign that say they must fit everything into the Bible.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If one believes the Bible is evidence, following the Bible is part of following evidence where it leads.

YOU very clearly try to fit everything into millions and billions of years and man being a late comer on Earth, itself a late comer in universe and civilised man a late comer among men.

Civilisation depending ultiamtely on barbarous Cro Magnons, man depending ultimately on somewhat more clever apes who got some anatomical advantages about how to show it, life depending ultimately on mindless chemicals, these ultimately on Big Bang.

Instead of saying "that is where the evidence leads, and the Creationists aren't doing that", how about arguing about the evidence, rather than belittling opposite team?

We were arguing facts pertinent to possibility of Flood of Noah and its ramifications or not. Now you are "arguing" about the team I belong to. It's like starting to actually play rugby and then go back and start singing a taka about how bad the opposite team is, instead of continuing the match. I don't think New Zealand All Blacks ever did that!

Shane Wilson

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Then circular reasoning is your answer.

And no, I'm not trying to fit everything into billions of years, the evidence is pretty damn clear that the billions of years happened.

If you aren't dishonest, like yourself and other creationists, then an honest look at the evidence about Noah's flood shows that it is a myth. Hands down.

Genetics, physics, archaeology, and pretty much every other area of science that can test this debunks the claim. The only way it works is with "magic" and once you say "magic did it" then you lose absolutely all credibility in having a rational conversation.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Then circular reasoning is your answer."

Then you don't know what the fallacies circular proof and circular definition are.

"And no, I'm not trying to fit everything into billions of years, the evidence is pretty damn clear that the billions of years happened."

N a m e l y ...?

"If you aren't dishonest, like yourself and other creationists, then an honest look at the evidence about Noah's flood shows that it is a myth."

What's dishonest about looking at Flood myths as memories of the Flood?

What exactly does the word "myth" imply to you, as per definition?

"Genetics, physics, archaeology, and pretty much every other area of science that can test this debunks the claim."

We were discussing that and you retreated ...

"The only way it works is with "magic" and once you say "magic did it" then you lose absolutely all credibility in having a rational conversation."

Oh, only ATHEISTS are rational in your view. Then you are trying to fit everything into a certain scenario I just outlined, and which was not limited to just the timescale you commented on.

V e r y funny too, that an Atheist should be talking about reason ... on your view, what exactly is the ontology of reason?

(If you had cared about circular definition as a real fallacy, you might detect one where "scientists follow the real evidence, creationists aren't scientist because they don't do so, they don't do so because the scientists say so, and among the scientists - per definition, namely yours - noone is a creationist").

No more updates here

since Shane Wilson chose to accept the challenge of N a m e l y ? which brings about a newer discussion, upcoming post.