Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 38
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564

    High altitude fossils

    The following article is a few years old, but recent enough to be considered "new" in terms of scientists having to rethink the speed of history of the planet.

    Fossils Found In Tibet Revise History Of Elevation, Climate
    June 12, 2008 — About 15,000 feet up on Tibet's desolate Himalayan-Tibetan Plateau, an international research team led by Florida State University geologist Yang Wang was surprised to find thick layers of ancient lake sediment filled with plant, fish and animal fossils typical of far lower elevations and warmer, wetter climates.

    Back at the FSU-based National High Magnetic Field Laboratory, analysis of carbon and oxygen isotopes in the fossils revealed the animals' diet (abundant plants) and the reason for their demise during the late Pliocene era in the region (a drastic climate change). Paleo-magnetic study determined the sample's age (a very young 2 or 3 million years old).
    That fossil evidence from the rock desert and cold, treeless steppes that now comprise Earth's highest land mass suggests a literally groundbreaking possibility:
    Major tectonic changes on the Tibetan Plateau may have caused it to attain its towering present-day elevations -- rendering it inhospitable to the plants and animals that once thrived there -- as recently as 2-3 million years ago, not millions of years earlier than that, as geologists have generally believed. The new evidence calls into question the validity of methods commonly used by scientists to reconstruct the past elevations of the region.
    "Establishing an accurate history of tectonic and associated elevation changes in the region is important because uplift of the Tibetan Plateau has been suggested as a major driving mechanism of global climate change over the past 50-60 million years," said Yang, an associate professor in FSU's Department of Geological Sciences and a researcher at the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory. "What's more, the region also is thought to be important in driving the modern Asian monsoons, which control the environmental conditions over much of Asia, the most densely populated region on Earth."
    Yang co-authored the paper with paleontologists from the Department of Vertebrate Paleontology at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, and the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (Beijing). The collaborative research project, which since 2004 has featured summer field study on the remote Tibetan Plateau, is funded by a grant from the Sedimentary Geology and Paleobiology Program of the U.S. National Science Foundation.
    "The uplift chronology of the Tibetan Plateau and its climatic and biotic consequences have been a matter of much debate and speculation because most of Tibet's spectacular mountains, gorges and glaciers remain barely touched by man and geologically unexplored," Yang said.
    "So far, my research colleagues and I have only worked in two basins in Tibet, representing a very small fraction of the Plateau, but it is very exciting that our work to-date has yielded surprising results that are inconsistent with the popular view of Tibetan uplift," she said.
    This summer, Yang and her colleagues from Los Angeles and Beijing will conduct further fieldwork in areas near the Tibetan Plateau. "The next phase of our work will focus on examining the spatial and temporal patterns of long-term vegetative and environmental changes in and around the region," she said. "Such records are crucial for clarifying the linkages among climatic, biotic and tectonic changes."
    There is much still to learn and understand about those changes.
    "Many of the places we've visited in Tibet are now deserts, and yet we found those thick deposits of lake sediments with abundant fossil fish and shells," Yang said. "This begs the question: What came first and caused the disappearance of those lakes? Global climate change? Or, tectonic change?"

    What about both climate change and tectonic activity taking place for a period of 12 months at the time of the Great Flood? Serious damage would have been done. What about the shaping going on as a result of 12 months tidal activity? It is difficult to imagine what went on during those conditions of moving land masses and tidal flows. We know what a few minutes of Tsunami can do.

    David

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,313
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    The following article is a few years old, but recent enough to be considered "new" in terms of scientists having to rethink the speed of history of the planet.




    What about both climate change and tectonic activity taking place for a period of 12 months at the time of the Great Flood? Serious damage would have been done. What about the shaping going on as a result of 12 months tidal activity? It is difficult to imagine what went on during those conditions of moving land masses and tidal flows. We know what a few minutes of Tsunami can do.

    David
    Hello David,

    Erosion, accumulation of sedimentary layers, depth and height of tectonic movement are only some of the methods used for dating age and time-periods of particular events. Most importantly, IF there was a "Great Flood" of biblical proportions in earths history, its evidence would be manifest everywhere worldwide ... especially if such a flood happened only 6,000 years ago. Currently such evidence is lacking.

    Rose
    Never trust anything you are afraid to question ~

    To know oneself is to know the universe...


    Live Fully...Love Extravagantly...For the sake of Goodness

    Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Matt.10:16

    Come let us reason together...Isa.1:18
    ********************************
    My new Blog site: God and Butterfly

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    Hello David,

    Erosion, accumulation of sedimentary layers, depth and height of tectonic movement are only some of the methods used for dating age and time-periods of particular events. Most importantly, IF there was a "Great Flood" of biblical proportions in earths history, its evidence would be manifest everywhere worldwide ... especially if such a flood happened only 6,000 years ago. Currently such evidence is lacking.

    Rose
    Hello Rose

    I think there is a lot more evidence of a world-wide flood than you care to admit.

    Here is one link to a website that brings up a lot of facts that have to be explained; http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYo...wide_flood.htm

    A world-wide flood is hard to replicate in the laboratory. Freak storms show what damage and layering sedimentary layering can be done in a matter of hours. Scale this up by factor of hundreds of times to account for the duration of the flood and the continual upheaval that was taking place. The Great Flood was probably more violent than we could imagine. I do not know how many times greater we should allow for the amount of water sloshing about compared to the comparative calm of the seas today. The bottom of the oceans now are comparatively calm, but imagine tsunamis a hundred times greater than any tsunami witnessed over recent years.

    The flood would account for world-wide strata found on different continents. The amount of material shifted from one place to another is unlikely to show uniformity over the whole surface of the planet. A small Tsunami does not leave a uniform trail behind it. Evolutionists can say that over millions of years there have been many localized floods to account for strata in different continents, but how is this proven any more than the Great Flood can be disproven?

    David

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,313
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Hello Rose

    I think there is a lot more evidence of a world-wide flood than you care to admit.

    Here is one link to a website that brings up a lot of facts that have to be explained; http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYo...wide_flood.htm

    A world-wide flood is hard to replicate in the laboratory. Freak storms show what damage and layering sedimentary layering can be done in a matter of hours. Scale this up by factor of hundreds of times to account for the duration of the flood and the continual upheaval that was taking place. The Great Flood was probably more violent than we could imagine. I do not know how many times greater we should allow for the amount of water sloshing about compared to the comparative calm of the seas today. The bottom of the oceans now are comparatively calm, but imagine tsunamis a hundred times greater than any tsunami witnessed over recent years.

    The flood would account for world-wide strata found on different continents. The amount of material shifted from one place to another is unlikely to show uniformity over the whole surface of the planet. A small Tsunami does not leave a uniform trail behind it. Evolutionists can say that over millions of years there have been many localized floods to account for strata in different continents, but how is this proven any more than the Great Flood can be disproven?
    David
    One of the main things that disproves a 6,000 year old global flood is the age of the fossils found in the strata. It doesn't matter how quickly a cataclysmic event cuts through or thrust up the earth, the fossils buried in those layers of strata are still millions of years old, which is confirmed by the agreement of various methods of dating. The site that you linked to is run by young earth creationists ... no credible scientist believes that the earth is only six thousand of years old! People were drawing cave art longer ago than that.

    Take care,
    Rose
    Never trust anything you are afraid to question ~

    To know oneself is to know the universe...


    Live Fully...Love Extravagantly...For the sake of Goodness

    Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Matt.10:16

    Come let us reason together...Isa.1:18
    ********************************
    My new Blog site: God and Butterfly

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    One of the main things that disproves a 6,000 year old global flood is the age of the fossils found in the strata. It doesn't matter how quickly a cataclysmic event cuts through or thrust up the earth, the fossils buried in those layers of strata are still millions of years old, which is confirmed by the agreement of various methods of dating. The site that you linked to is run by young earth creationists ... no credible scientist believes that the earth is only six thousand of years old! People were drawing cave art longer ago than that.

    Take care,
    Rose
    Hello Rose
    The Creation could have taken place 6,000 years ago. This does not mean the earth is not far older than that. I think it is and so you are not speaking with someone who accepts a young earth; only the possibility of a young creation.

    The problem with layering and the dating of fossils is the circular reasoning. The problem for Evolutionists is all the information that has been published which are no more than ideas as those ideas get changed over time. Has the dating of fossils been abandoned by dating according to the layer in which they are found?

    One consideration that must be taken into account is the age of the dirt. We all eat and breath. We are formed from the material we consume. What if the dirt we eat is millions of years old. That would make our mineral content millions of years old. I can understand why dating things as millions of years old happens. I am not so understanding of the reliability of the dating methods which rely on a steady state or a know starting point. What if molten isotopes get mixed up in the mantle of the earth. It cannot be assumed that the starting point of where one element changes into an isotope began with zero percent of that isotope. A small percentage of isotope being present from the beginning will make the sample appear much older that it actually is.

    It cannot be assumed the earth's atmosphere has always been as it is now. A reduced atmosphere millions of years ago could account for changes in the presence of isotopes etc.

    Getting the balance between what could have happened naturally once something was set in motion and that of creating everything as it appears to be is what we I am trying to do. For example, did God create the oil and gas deposits or have these come about by "natural forces". These forces have to be violent and rapid for fossilization and for fossil fuels to occur. This can be demonstrated in the laboratory. Evolution of these things over millions of years is not demonstrable in the laboratory. I wonder why Dinosaurs were created? They have all been destroyed and we have evidence of them. Those with all the trees that filled the earth got destroyed and the natural forces turned them into fossils and fossil fuels. As I see it, God gave the impetus to get things moving in the time of the flood that caused great upheaval the likes we find hard to imagine.

    It is because the improbability of evolution is so high starting from the Big Bang, as to be unbelievable and to my mind could not have happened that way, which makes the probability of creation more feasible and less improbable than evolution. On both our sides we have questions we cannot answer and that is our problem and that is what we have in common.

    All the best
    David

  6. #6
    Nice. And if you like to read more about such topics, go to a forum where they discuss such, plenty of atheist also there giving their answers about their view
    Its nice to read both sides of the views, but im sticking to young earth theory, i dont think God is a liar, and He has been with mankind since beginning of time, i think man start to write early, and they write down about creation from Adams view, the things that were told amongst human that time, gather together their writings, and after Moses they created the beginning of the bible, and God has been there working on the history with them, untill the apostles wrote the last ones and God now lives amongst us through this writings which will be the best way to describe Him, Jesus is the key to what God for us.
    Here is a link to a forum where there are many creationists.
    http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/...showtopic=2106

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Roberto View Post
    Nice. And if you like to read more about such topics, go to a forum where they discuss such, plenty of atheist also there giving their answers about their view
    Its nice to read both sides of the views, but im sticking to young earth theory, i dont think God is a liar, and He has been with mankind since beginning of time, i think man start to write early, and they write down about creation from Adams view, the things that were told amongst human that time, gather together their writings, and after Moses they created the beginning of the bible, and God has been there working on the history with them, untill the apostles wrote the last ones and God now lives amongst us through this writings which will be the best way to describe Him, Jesus is the key to what God for us.
    Here is a link to a forum where there are many creationists.
    http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/...showtopic=2106
    Hello Roberto

    I have not read a post from you for quite a long time. Maybe there has been so many posts I am missing a lot.

    Some things we have to be definite about and stand our ground based on the plain and simple truth of God's word. On other matters of less importance, there is no harm in speculating on things that have not been revealed. We do not know the time gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, so I can accept a long time interval. It makes no difference to me how long it was.

    I accept that God knows how to make one atom. I see no reason for God not making 1080atoms which accounts for all matter and more in the whole Universe. With that capability, then nothing should be impossible for God and for him to make every molecule. How long would that take? We cannot say. In human terms; a long time. In God's time; perhaps no time at all. My mind boggles at the fact that God can make the sun we see and suns thousands of times larger. How can a God that is so great and powerful, be limited to a man in the form of Jesus? That is why I am not limiting God in that way.

    It is good to keep having a range of opinions and be enlightened while we try and fathom out the unfathomable.

    All the best
    David

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Daytona
    Posts
    1,855
    Quote Originally Posted by Roberto View Post
    Nice. And if you like to read more about such topics, go to a forum where they discuss such, plenty of atheist also there giving their answers about their view
    Its nice to read both sides of the views, but im sticking to young earth theory, i dont think God is a liar, and He has been with mankind since beginning of time, i think man start to write early, and they write down about creation from Adams view, the things that were told amongst human that time, gather together their writings, and after Moses they created the beginning of the bible, and God has been there working on the history with them, untill the apostles wrote the last ones and God now lives amongst us through this writings which will be the best way to describe Him, Jesus is the key to what God for us.
    Here is a link to a forum where there are many creationists.
    http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/...showtopic=2106
    Roberto, Neither do I think God is a liar, but seems to me that he hides things in a way that challenges us to look for truthful solutions. Maybe getting a wife for Adam using a rib, turns out He's a Loving God who's a bit of a tease. Ribbing us so we'll look forward to the Bridegroom. Telling us we're a Temple, and describing the 2 pillars that we use to Walk with Him.. Just count all the different ways He uses "walk", I dare you! Blessings!
    Dux allows: "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out the matter". Pr25:2

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,313
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Hello Rose
    The Creation could have taken place 6,000 years ago. This does not mean the earth is not far older than that. I think it is and so you are not speaking with someone who accepts a young earth; only the possibility of a young creation.
    Hello David

    Do you mean that you think only living organisms are 6,000 years old, but the inorganic matter of which the earth is made is millions or billions of years old?

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    The problem with layering and the dating of fossils is the circular reasoning. The problem for Evolutionists is all the information that has been published which are no more than ideas as those ideas get changed over time. Has the dating of fossils been abandoned by dating according to the layer in which they are found?
    All methods of dating are used in order to form a coherent picture that confirms the age of the fossil. The dating of fossils is accomplished through a variety of methods: age of the strata, radio metric dating, and genetics to name a few ... all these methods must confirm each other in order to give an accurate date.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    One consideration that must be taken into account is the age of the dirt. We all eat and breath. We are formed from the material we consume. What if the dirt we eat is millions of years old. That would make our mineral content millions of years old. I can understand why dating things as millions of years old happens. I am not so understanding of the reliability of the dating methods which rely on a steady state or a know starting point. What if molten isotopes get mixed up in the mantle of the earth. It cannot be assumed that the starting point of where one element changes into an isotope began with zero percent of that isotope. A small percentage of isotope being present from the beginning will make the sample appear much older that it actually is.
    Apparently you do not understand radiometric dating, because it has nothing to do with the age of the mineral content living organisms eat. As long as organisms are alive and eating or growing the ratio of carbon 14 stays consistent, when an organism dies the cabon 14 begins to decay at a steady rate, so when the dead organism is dated its age can be determined by the amount of carbon 14 in its system.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    It cannot be assumed the earth's atmosphere has always been as it is now. A reduced atmosphere millions of years ago could account for changes in the presence of isotopes etc.

    Getting the balance between what could have happened naturally once something was set in motion and that of creating everything as it appears to be is what we I am trying to do. For example, did God create the oil and gas deposits or have these come about by "natural forces". These forces have to be violent and rapid for fossilization and for fossil fuels to occur. This can be demonstrated in the laboratory. Evolution of these things over millions of years is not demonstrable in the laboratory. I wonder why Dinosaurs were created? They have all been destroyed and we have evidence of them. Those with all the trees that filled the earth got destroyed and the natural forces turned them into fossils and fossil fuels. As I see it, God gave the impetus to get things moving in the time of the flood that caused great upheaval the likes we find hard to imagine.
    Dinosaurs were not created, they evolved like every other living organism on earth. The reason they were destroyed was because of an asteroid that just happened to smash into the earth, if humans were alive at that time we would have been wiped out too! Scientists estimate that around 95% of all species that have ever lived have gone extinct, that points much more strongly to life evolving by chance then it does to a designer that created life just to destroy it.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    It is because the improbability of evolution is so high starting from the Big Bang, as to be unbelievable and to my mind could not have happened that way, which makes the probability of creation more feasible and less improbable than evolution. On both our sides we have questions we cannot answer and that is our problem and that is what we have in common.

    All the best
    David
    If one wants to believe in a god that designed everything, it is much more reasonable to believe in a creator other than the Biblegod, because when one believes in the Biblegod they are required to conform to the Bible's description of how things were made instead of scientific facts. Why restrict yourself to such a narrow view of understanding the universe as was seen through the eyes of primitive men who thought that the sun circled around the earth? If you want to believe in a designer god, be creative and make up one that conforms to the way the universe is made.

    Take care,
    Rose
    Never trust anything you are afraid to question ~

    To know oneself is to know the universe...


    Live Fully...Love Extravagantly...For the sake of Goodness

    Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Matt.10:16

    Come let us reason together...Isa.1:18
    ********************************
    My new Blog site: God and Butterfly

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,313
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post

    I accept that God knows how to make one atom. I see no reason for God not making 1080atoms which accounts for all matter and more in the whole Universe. With that capability, then nothing should be impossible for God and for him to make every molecule. How long would that take? We cannot say. In human terms; a long time. In God's time; perhaps no time at all. My mind boggles at the fact that God can make the sun we see and suns thousands of times larger. How can a God that is so great and powerful, be limited to a man in the form of Jesus? That is why I am not limiting God in that way.

    It is good to keep having a range of opinions and be enlightened while we try and fathom out the unfathomable.

    All the best
    David
    Hi David

    Ah, but you are limiting god! Your god is limited to the perceptions of primitive men who wrote their thoughts down in a collection of writings we now call the Bible. Your god is limited to creating the universe in the manner described to us in the Bible, no matter how wrong science has proved it to be.

    Take care,
    Rose
    Never trust anything you are afraid to question ~

    To know oneself is to know the universe...


    Live Fully...Love Extravagantly...For the sake of Goodness

    Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Matt.10:16

    Come let us reason together...Isa.1:18
    ********************************
    My new Blog site: God and Butterfly

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •