Fossilization rates and volcanic eruptions

[webmaster]

How many volcanic eruptions occurred since 1956?

There is a recent book called Volcanoes of the World, by Tom Simkin and Lee Seibert. It has a chronology section listing all volcanic eruptions up to the end of 1993. I did not count them all. There are about 200 eruptions listed on each page, and I estimate that there have been about 2600 since 1956, including eruptions that are continuous from year to year.
2004-1956=48 years
2600 eruptions in 48 years.
15,750 eruptions in 6000 years
We can compare the eruptions with recent and see

Current Volcanic Activity since June 6, 1995:
http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/cur ... rrent.html
Roughly that's about 150 eruptions in 9 years.

So let's round it and say 150 eruptions every 10 years.
That's 90,000+ volcanic eruptions in just 6000 thousand years.


Largest Explosive Eruptions Since 1400 AD to 1981 AD
VEI Greater Than or Equal to 5
There has been about 35 since 1400 AD
1981-1400=581
581/35 = 16.6 years between each one
http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/vw_ ... erups.html


What does a VEI of 5 mean?
Plume Height >25 km
Volume 1 km3
Example St. Helens, 1981
http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/eruption_scale.html

So we can conclude that for ever 500 years 35 volcanic eruptions occurs.
In 6000 thousand years that would be 420 volcanic eruptions VEI Greater Than or Equal to 5.

A VEI of 4 is considered cataclysmic!


Here's all the Volcanoes active in the entire world
http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/vol ... egion.html


Fossilization rates???
http://www.asa3.org/archive/asa/200001/0216.html

Redwood trees up to 8 feet in diameter and 100s of feet high
were blown down like matchsticks in the direction of flow of
awave of ash and glass from a major volcano to the north and
east. They were subsequently deeply buried by ash and
preserved by replacement of organic material by fine-grained
silicon and oxygen (chalcedony).
http://www.sonoma.edu/Geology/Wright/PFguide.html

[Helix]

Is there some point you're trying to make?

[tuppence]

Yeah, he was making a point. But it involved science (as in real data), logic, and math, so don't worry yourself about it.

[Aineo]

Is there some point you're trying to make?

How long do geologist say it takes for a tree to become a piece of petrafied wood? How long does it take a redwood tree that is 8' in diameter and 100 ft tall to grow and then become petrafied? Not as long as geologists will assume.

[Jovaro]

I see lots of data indeed, some agreeable data and lots of questionable data.
But I don't see any point.

[Helix]

Apparently, mentioning that there are a lot of active vulcanoes, making rough calculations based on a fragment of data (50 years of data, to calculate 6000 years of vulcanic activity) and mentioning 1 of many ways in which wood can become a fossil, is proof enough for young earth creationists.

Conveniently using only the data they can use, they draw their conclusions and call it science...

[spunky]

As I see you throw out the data that doesn't suit you... it seems it goes both ways.

[Jovaro]

As I see you throw out the data that doesn't suit you... it seems it goes both ways.

The extrapolated and very questionable data you mean?

[webmaster]

Then quote the data that is wrong and quit whining like little babies!

Show thru Science and Logical Math that the facts of the data is wrong.

[webmaster]

Largest Explosive Eruptions Since 1400 AD VEI Greater Than or Equal to 5
http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/vw_ ... erups.html

In 600 years about 35 of them.

Is this data wrong???

Can not this data be used and proved that for a 6000 thousand time frame what the amount of Eruptions would be? Shouldn't the further we go back in time increase the number of Eruptions we encounter? I was conservative in the low number.

So we can conclude that for ever 500 years 35 volcanic eruptions occurs.
In 6000 thousand years that would be 420 volcanic eruptions VEI Greater Than or Equal to 5.

A VEI of 4 is considered cataclysmic!

Does the amount of 420 Eruptions worse then cataclysmic bother you because of the amount of Fossilization that would have occurred?

How is this the wrong data?

Or is it the 90,000+ volcanic eruptions in just 6000 thousand years that bothers you?

[webmaster]

Or should I create an account as a fake atheist and post the facts so that you will accept the data since any Christian who post any facts are automatically wrong?

bigot [n]a prejudiced atheist who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own

[Aineo]

Apparently, mentioning that there are a lot of active vulcanoes, making rough calculations based on a fragment of data (50 years of data, to calculate 6000 years of vulcanic activity) and mentioning 1 of many ways in which wood can become a fossil, is proof enough for young earth creationists.

Conveniently using only the data they can use, they draw their conclusions and call it science...

What do you call the use of physiology in dinosaurs and extrapolating evolution from that without any observed examples of macroevolution?

You and Javaro are inconsistent. I love it when people choose to pontificate and then when faced with some real data they play dumb.

[Jovaro]

I already told you webmaster what data I think is questionable.
All the extrapolated data. If you didn't understand what that meant then you should have asked instead of accusing me of whining.

I never regard extrapolated data as evidence, not when it is used for Creation nor for evolution.

I have said often enough that there is no evidence for evolution, just indications. What is so inconsistent about that???

Talking about inconsistencies: Part of your data is from the tree ring record. Look at the bottom of http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/vw_hyperexchange/largest_erups.html
Tree rings give an unbroken record back more than 11,000 years [Becker and Kromer 1993; Becker et al. 1991; Stuiver et al. 1986].

But you claim that the earth is only 6000 years old???

[spunky]

I presume you are talking about the wild Tasmanian mountain stand of Huon pine trees that has been dated to 10,500 years old. This tree stand was not dated by tree rings or drill core sampling of the tree itself. Instead they took a core sample of a lake below the mountain which contains Huon pine pollen. The oldest tree ring dating on the actual site was around 4000 years old and as far as I know the oldest tree was a 4600 year old Bristlecone pine somwhere in the rockies... but i could be wrong.

Also there are some discrepencies when judging by tree rings.. for instance in a good year trees will produce more then one ring..

[tuppence]

You are right, spunky.

In addition, almost any forest service employee will laugh when you 'tell' him that trees only develop one ring a year.

In the tropics NO rings are produced.

In young pines, up to three may be produced annually, although two is more common.

Rings depend on rain and sun cycles. A warm spring followed by a cool, rainy summer, with an end of summer and beginning of autumn that is warmer and dryer (not terribly uncommon in the mountains) will easily produce two rings in most trees, as they will have two growth spurts. The second ring is almost always thinner than the first, which gives a good clue often overlooked by those involved in dating, that both rings were the products of one year.

I do urge those who are interested in this subject to take the time to enjoy the following links. Different arguments are presented:

http://www.mystae.com/restricted/stream ... ating.html

from here (http://geography.otago.ac.nz/Courses/28 ... asics.html) , which is a very good site explaining dendrochronology comes this reminder:
The growth of trees can be affected by slope gradient, sun, wind, soil properties, temperature and snow accumulation. The more a trees rate of growth has been limited by such environmental factors, the more variation in ring to ring growth will be present. This variation is referred to as sensitivity and the lack of ring variability is called complacency. Trees showing sensitive rings are those affected by conditions like slope gradient, poor soils, little moisture. Those showing complacent rings have generally constant climatic conditions such as a high water table, good soil, or protected locations.

also from that webpage is the following:
This principle is important to dendrochronology because ring widths can be crossdated only if one or more environmental factor become critically limiting, persists sufficiently long and acts over a wide enough geographic area to cause ring widths or other features to vary the same way in many trees.

The principle spoken of is uniformitarianism -- that things go on basically the same way they have since the beginning.

However there is something else to consideer. In our old home, we planted about eight birch trees in a small 'grove' outside the front door. They all started the same size, were all paper bark weeping European birches, and were all planted the same day.

Two were situated over the septic tank. The others were only a few feet away, to the west.

In fifteen years, the trunks of those over the septic tank were about six inches in diameter and the trees were at least fifty feet tall. Arborists used to stop by and ask us how we did that! The ones to the west ranged from 1-3 inches in diameter. When we moved, last spring, they ranged from about 30-30 feet tall. They received the same amount of water from the same sprinklers.

And NO ONE who has ever studied dendrochronology would, given cross sections or bores of these eight trees, have guessed they were from the same place, planted at the same time.

In other words, there are a LOT of factors affecting tree growth, including growing in the shade of other like trees. Dendrochronology is NOT something I would put any faith in at all! It's fun, but not necessarily at all accurate.

As far as the volcanoes go, it should be remembered that uniformitarianism does not apply here, either. There is evidence from the Pacific Ring of Fire that there have been times in the past when massive volcanism has occurred all at once.

[webmaster]

I already told you webmaster what data I think is questionable.
All the extrapolated data. If you didn't understand what that meant then you should have asked instead of accusing me of whining.

I never regard extrapolated data as evidence, not when it is used for Creation nor for evolution.

I have said often enough that there is no evidence for evolution, just indications. What is so inconsistent about that???

Talking about inconsistencies: Part of your data is from the tree ring record. Look at the bottom of http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/vw_hyperexchange/largest_erups.html
Tree rings give an unbroken record back more than 11,000 years [Becker and Kromer 1993; Becker et al. 1991; Stuiver et al. 1986].

But you claim that the earth is only 6000 years old???

First I never claimed the earth was 6 thousand years old, I just used the number as a starting point.

Christians use the 6000 thousand years based upon genealogy in the bible.
That number is based upon saying my grandfather Jesse lived for 60 years, my father Norman lived for 65 years and I lived for 70 years.
60+65+70=195 years.
Problem is that trail could just be listed from my grandfather Jesse to me.
60+70=130 years.
or worse Jesse's father directly to me.

The 6 thousand years could end up being 10+ thousand years just since the exodus with Moses took place.



Otherwise Here is exactly what was said at the bottom, notice the BOLD and underline.

Modified from Table 3 in Newhall, CG, and S Self, 1982, The volcanic explosivity index (VEI): An estimate of explosive magnitude for historical volcanism: Journal of Geophysical Research 87, 1231-1238.

Additional eruptions added from tree ring data reported in Table 2 of Briffa, KR, PD Jones, FH Schweingruber & TJ Osborn, 1998, Influence of volcanic eruptions on Northern hemisphere summer temperature over the past 600 years: Nature 393, 450-455.
Note that other large eruptions occurred during the last 600 years, according to tree ring and ice core data, but are not indicated here because the source volcano is unknown (e.g. 1809).

The amount of 420 Eruptions worse then cataclysmic over 6000 thousand years was a low estimate and there probaly was a lot more.

[Jovaro]

The amount of 420 Eruptions worse then cataclysmic over 6000 thousand years was a low estimate and there probaly was a lot more.

[Aineo]

The amount of 420 Eruptions worse then cataclysmic over 6000 thousand years was a low estimate and there probaly was a lot more.

Interesting how you emphasized estimate in webmaster's post. Most of what science uses to date the age of the universe is based on "assumptions".

[webmaster]

* The Northern Hemisphere has very likely been markedly warmer in the late twentieth century than at any time in the preceding 900 years. * Major explosive volcanic eruptions have played a much larger part in affecting climate in earlier centuries than recently - they have been relatively rare this century.

http://mars.reefkeepers.net/USHomePage/ ... hange.html

The amount of 420 Eruptions worse then cataclysmic over 6000 thousand years was a low estimate and there probaly was a lot more.
http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/eruptioncriteria.cfm

Tree-ring dating (“dendrochronology”) : this is a subjective (not objective, hence not technically scientific) dating method. Results depend on who does the dating. Also, multiple tree-rings can grow in one year or none can grow at all. Fossil trees often have no growth rings.


Fast fossils : there are many full-colour photographs in the Creation magazine of, for example, a fossilised Australian hat, a fossilised side of ham, fossilized car keys from a 1960s American car, 100 year old fossilised sacks of flour, a fossilised role of copper wire, fossilized teddy bears from England, fossilised ships bells from an 1850’s shipwreck (the Isabella Watson), fossilised Australian farm water-wheels, large long stalagmites and stalactites formed within only a few decades, and a 70-year old Australian tree trunk with axe-marks in it but which is now completely petrified.
http://www.sloppynoodle.com/csotalk2-9.shtml

[Jovaro]

Interesting how you emphasized estimate in webmaster's post. Most of what science uses to date the age of the universe is based on "assumptions".

In that case we can say that everything is based on assumptions.
I would agree with that btw.

[tuppence]

Sort of depends on whether the assumptions are based on known facts or wannabe scenarios, though...

[IAMFREE]

Hello again. In the Andies mountains some interesting items were found. These items were found two miles above sea level. The items are oysters, the thing that makes them interesting is that they were fossilized and eleven feet long. Enjoy.

[webmaster]

:D Hello again. In the Andies mountains some interesting items were found. These items were found two miles above sea level. The items are oysters, the thing that makes them interesting is that they were fossilized and eleven feet long. Enjoy.

What oysters bar could I find these at? Yum!

[tuppence]

IAMFREE, I would like to encourage you to post references with material like that, so we can all see where it was reported. I'm not doubting you, but this is something I would be interested in finding out more about.

Thanks!

[IAMFREE]

I'll gather them and report back soon.

[IAMFREE]

Start herehttp://www.s8int.com/mega2.html
http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/Frog.html
just some interesting stuff that gets pushed aside.

[tuppence]

Thank you VERY much. OOPArts (out of place artifacts) is a very popular subject among many. I would offer one caution, though, and that is that we must ask that the artifacts be photographs 'in situ' and verified as being part of that formation or place. There have been too many fakes. This particular website, however, seems to have some pretty good photographs. I have not looked at them all, but definitely the oysters are not faked!

However, they are probably also not from Noah's Flood! Yes, they were buried catastrophically, but it would have been after the Flood and before the mountain ranges like the Andes were shoved up by the crustal plate movement we find mentioned in Genesis 10:25. The catastrophe that came between those two was at the time of Babel. It is very possible that the geologic activity following the Flood could have buried these giant oysters. But my suspician would be that the oysters were buried during the geologic activity following the asteroid hit and rampant volcanism that marked the Babel catastrophe. This would have put them in a position not only to be raised by the uplift that occurred later, but also in a position to be uncovered by that uplift. If they had been buried by too many sediments (they are on the continental edge where the majority of geologic activity took place), then they would not be on the surface now.

[IAMFREE]

There are also fossilized jellyfish that would have benn buried extremly fast to preserve.

[IAMFREE]

Thank you VERY much. OOPArts (out of place artifacts) is a very popular subject among many. I would offer one caution, though, and that is that we must ask that the artifacts be photographs 'in situ' and verified as being part of that formation or place. There have been too many fakes. This particular website, however, seems to have some pretty good photographs. I have not looked at them all, but definitely the oysters are not faked!

However, they are probably also not from Noah's Flood! Yes, they were buried catastrophically, but it would have been after the Flood and before the mountain ranges like the Andes were shoved up by the crustal plate movement we find mentioned in Genesis 10:25. The catastrophe that came between those two was at the time of Babel. It is very possible that the geologic activity following the Flood could have buried these giant oysters. But my suspician would be that the oysters were buried during the geologic activity following the asteroid hit and rampant volcanism that marked the Babel catastrophe. This would have put them in a position not only to be raised by the uplift that occurred later, but also in a position to be uncovered by that uplift. If they had been buried by too many sediments (they are on the continental edge where the majority of geologic activity took place), then they would not be on the surface now.

I thank you for your caution. I do not believe all that I find but I do cross referance(as best I can) with secular work as well.

[IAMFREE]

Here is one for the jellyfish in Wisconsin.
http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/Science/FJelly.html
P.S. I do not claim to be a scientist or even educated in the field. I am only some one that Christ has removed the evolutionary scales from my eyes. I'm a Commercial Diver.
This next one is a close-up. http://www.ianjuby.org/jellyfis.html

[IAMFREE]

My other referances to this thread would be the events of Pompeii and Mt. Saint Helens. Layers of strata rapidly laied out.

[IAMFREE]

Apparently, mentioning that there are a lot of active vulcanoes, making rough calculations based on a fragment of data (50 years of data, to calculate 6000 years of vulcanic activity) and mentioning 1 of many ways in which wood can become a fossil, is proof enough for young earth creationists.

Conveniently using only the data they can use, they draw their conclusions and call it science...

Here is a little read for you. http://trueorigin.org/dating.asp#How%20radiometric%20dating%20works%20in%20general

[IAMFREE]

ooops

[tuppence]

LOL, I helped Tim set up TrueOrigin and have been one of the contributors! I do, also, highly recommend the site for solid information rather than the sort of material on a lot of other creation websites. There are a variety of contributors. Keep your eye on Ashby Camp, for instance. He really does his research and I respect him entirely.

However, although dinosaurs and man were contemporaneous, please do NOT use the Paluxy river tracks as evidence! They are highly disputed and much better evidence exists!

[IAMFREE]

However, although dinosaurs and man were contemporaneous, please do NOT use the Paluxy river tracks as evidence! They are highly disputed and much better evidence exists!

I'm not sure what you mean. Help me understand.

[tuppence]

The Paluxy tracks are not dino and man in all probability. Please read this page: http://www.grisda.org/origins/14033.htm

Art Chadwick is a personal friend and a highly qualified double doctorate -- one of them being in geology and the other in microbiology. He has inspected the tracks.

In the meantime, Baugh and those he is associated with have NEVER even submitted a paper on these tracks to either of the creation journals. They have both pleaded with him to submit material so that it can be examined and reviewed. They have consistently ignored and/or refused.

Art is a highly respected scientist among both evolutionists and creationists. He is a creationist himself but very concerned that things be scientifically verified. The Paluxy tracks are not only not verified but not what the Baugh team claims they are!

In the meantime, we have records from Alexander the Great's army of a run-in with some kind of giant monster when they were on their way to India. We have paintings of various land and sea 'monsters' which are quite accurate when compared to the fossil record -- on vases from Rome! We have the records of 'dragons' from China. And the list goes on and on.

Please, PLEASE don't use the Paluxy material as evidence! Don't use ANYTHING from the Baugh group as evidence -- they are not reliable at all. They are the people who, along with Kent Hovind and a few other popularizers, have helped give creationism such a bad name and allowed it to become a laughingstock among some.

[IAMFREE]

Thanks.

[Helix]

In the meantime, we have records from Alexander the Great's army of a run-in with some kind of giant monster when they were on their way to India. We have paintings of various land and sea 'monsters' which are quite accurate when compared to the fossil record -- on vases from Rome! We have the records of 'dragons' from China. And the list goes on and on.

Ahh, this reminds me of a passage in a creationist book I came across. Usings myths about 'dragons' to indicate that dinosaurs and humans lived together. What a strange world that would be... Every life form that ever lived, brought together in one place. I would be a bit crowded though.
And it would form a very bizarre ecosystem.

This is what the dictionary says about dragons (www.dictionary.com) :

1. A mythical monster traditionally represented as a gigantic reptile having a lion's claws, the tail of a serpent, wings, and a scaly skin.
2. -a. A fiercely vigilant or intractable person.
-b. Something very formidable or dangerous.
3. Any of various lizards, such as the Komodo dragon or the flying lizard.
4. Archaic. A large snake or serpent.


[Middle English, from Old French, from Latin draco, dracon-, large serpent, from Greek drakon. See derk- in Indo-European Roots.]

First of all: Dragon meant 'large snake' originally. Not 'fire-breathing, flying monster.'

Furthermore: No life form has ever been seen 'breathing fire'. Or smoke. Vapour, yes. On cold days. But lizards are cold blooded animals, that rely on the sun to warm up. They can hardly produce any heat, let alone fire.

Dragons are often descibed as flying animals. The only reptiles that ever evolved true flight were pterosaurs (strictly speaking not even real dinosaurs). If you know what these animals look like, it is hard to believe that they are what inspired the believe in dragons as we see them depicted.

The largest pterosaur (Quetzalcoatlus) lived in America, but there are hardly any dragon myths from America. The only account I can think of is the Toltec and Aztec god quetzalcoatl. (see how they named the reptile after the god?) This was a 'feathered snake-god'.
The myth describes a plumed/feathered god. Either it was just a myth, or reptiles DID indeed have feathers. (Which incidentally supports the view that dinosaurs could have evolved into birds)

What does the rest of the forum think? Where the dragons from mythology the dinosaurs that must have lived before Noah? (And why do you think that?)

[webmaster]

What a strange world that would be... Every life form that ever lived, brought together in one place. I would be a bit crowded though. And it would form a very bizarre ecosystem.

Why?

[Helix]

Why what?

[Aineo]

Why what?

Why do you think:

What a strange world that would be... Every life form that ever lived, brought together in one place. I would be a bit crowded though. And it would form a very bizarre ecosystem.

[Aineo]

The largest pterosaur (Quetzalcoatlus) lived in America, but there are hardly any dragon myths from America. The only account I can think of is the Toltec and Aztec god quetzalcoatl. (see how they named the reptile after the god?) This was a 'feathered snake-god'.
The myth describes a plumed/feathered god. Either it was just a myth, or reptiles DID indeed have feathers. (Which incidentally supports the view that dinosaurs could have evolved into birds)

What does the rest of the forum think? Where the dragons from mythology the dinosaurs that must have lived before Noah? (And why do you think that?)

How would the Aztec's have known their were "feathered snakes" if they had not seen one, which would actually disprove evolutionary thought that humans and prehistoric animals did not live at the same time.

[Jovaro]

To add something to the fossilisation rates problem. Volcanoes were given as an answer to quick fossilisation, but let's not forget that volcanoes are not everywhere on the world. A relatively extremely small part of this earth is covered by volcanoes.

[Helix]

How would the Aztec's have known their were "feathered snakes" if they had not seen one, which would actually disprove evolutionary thought that humans and prehistoric animals did not live at the same time.

Let's not jump to comclusions too fast! Ganesha is a Hindu god, that is depected as a man with an elephants head. Does this mean there must have been a race of holy man-elephants?

It is more likely that the 'feathered snake' was the bird Pharomachrus mocino, better known as quetzal. Its a tropical bird that lives exactly there were the Aztecs built theire civilisation. It has a tail that can be up to 61 cm (24 inch). The total lengt of the bird is aprox. 1 meter (3 ft.). The shape of the tail can easilly be mistaken for a snake.

To add something to the fossilisation rates problem. Volcanoes were given as an answer to quick fossilisation, but let's not forget that volcanoes are not everywhere on the world. A relatively extremely small part of this earth is covered by volcanoes.

I'm sure the (young earth) creationists will say that the deluge scattered all of the fossils over the world.
I'm very interested to hear what the yecs think about the formation of diamonds (which take very long to form) or how oil was produced. 'Regular scientists' will tell you that oil and coal are the remains of prehistoric vergetation.

[Aineo]

Many "primitive" peoples used the brightly colored feathers of birds for headdresses and capes. So the Aztecs depicting their snake god in the apparel of a king is a better explanation than yours.

The Mesoamerican cultures are an interesting study. They were building pyramids about the same time as the Egyptians and the Aztec’s devised the most accurate calendar ever discovered.

To add something to the fossilisation rates problem. Volcanoes were given as an answer to quick fossilisation, but let's not forget that volcanoes are not everywhere on the world. A relatively extremely small part of this earth is covered by volcanoes.

I'm sure the (young earth) creationists will say that the deluge scattered all of the fossils over the world.
I'm very interested to hear what the yecs think about the formation of diamonds (which take very long to form) or how oil was produced. 'Regular scientists' will tell you that oil and coal are the remains of prehistoric vergetation.

Creationists don’t deny that petroleum and coal are the result of vegetation being transformed, but they would argue that it does not take millions of years for this transformation to occur. I saw a report that one oil company has produced petroleum from vegetation but the cost is prohibitive for commercial production.

Diamonds and other precious stones can be produced in a laboratory. In fact some producers of manmade rubies have taken the production of rubies to the point that not even a gemologist can identify which one is from nature and which one is from a lab.

[God'schild]

Any country bumken can tell you that if you lay a log out in a field, that within 10 years bugs and dry rot will consume it. But the the evolustionist would try to tell us that a log will petrify if left in the field for million and millions of years. You take the same log, drop it into the depth of the ocean, pull it up a few days later, low and behold petrified wood.

Now lets see. Trees + deep water + short time equal petrified wood.
Does the name Noah ring a bell?

[Jovaro]

Any country bumken can tell you that if you lay a log out in a field, that within 10 years bugs and dry rot will consume it. But the the evolustionist would try to tell us that a log will petrify if left in the field for million and millions of years. You take the same log, drop it into the depth of the ocean, pull it up a few days later, low and behold petrified wood.

Now lets see. Trees + deep water + short time equal petrified wood.
Does the name Noah ring a bell?

Did it ever occure to you that logs float?

[Aineo]

Any country bumken can tell you that if you lay a log out in a field, that within 10 years bugs and dry rot will consume it. But the the evolustionist would try to tell us that a log will petrify if left in the field for million and millions of years. You take the same log, drop it into the depth of the ocean, pull it up a few days later, low and behold petrified wood.

Now lets see. Trees + deep water + short time equal petrified wood.
Does the name Noah ring a bell?

Did it ever occure to you that logs float?

Not after they become water logged. I can take you to many lakes on Grand Mesa in Colorado where pine trees are under water, which makes fishing a bit of a challange.

[God'schild]

Any country bumken can tell you that if you lay a log out in a field, that within 10 years bugs and dry rot will consume it. But the the evolustionist would try to tell us that a log will petrify if left in the field for million and millions of years. You take the same log, drop it into the depth of the ocean, pull it up a few days later, low and behold petrified wood.

Now lets see. Trees + deep water + short time equal petrified wood.
Does the name Noah ring a bell?

Did it ever occure to you that logs float?

Did it ever occure to you that a few heavy rocks would cure that problem? The fact is that intence pressure is what petrifies wood, and takes a very short time when put in deep water. Observable fact.

Tokyo harbor sits on pertrified logs that were driven down a realativly short time ago.

[Jovaro]

Not after they become water logged. I can take you to many lakes on Grand Mesa in Colorado where pine trees are under water, which makes fishing a bit of a challange.

Do they become heavy enough do to sink deep?

Did it ever occure to you that a few heavy rocks would cure that problem? The fact is that intence pressure is what petrifies wood, and takes a very short time when put in deep water. Observable fact.

Aha, so Noah went around the globe with his boat to tie heavy rocks to the floating logs?

[God'schild]

no. the logs of noah were still trees, and anchored secure to the earth by their roots. This is seen in the fossel record, unlike evolution which is the secular humanist myth based on nothing more than their own say so.

[Jovaro]

Where are all those millions of trees that got fossilised back then?

[Aineo]

Not after they become water logged. I can take you to many lakes on Grand Mesa in Colorado where pine trees are under water, which makes fishing a bit of a challange.

Do they become heavy enough do to sink deep?

Take a trip to the Dillon Resevoir where dead trees cover the bottom of the lake so I quess the anwer to your questions is yes.

[God'schild]

Where are all those millions of trees that got fossilised back then?

what do you mean? Don't understand the question.

[Jovaro]

There must have been whole forests that are petrafied if all those trees were under a deep layer of water.

Where are the petrified forests? Where are all those millions of petrified trees?

[God'schild]

In the fossel record. some as petrified wood, leaves as vermiculite. sap and other liquidy stuff turned to oil and tare. Did I mencheon coal.

[tuppence]

If you folks will allow me to inject a little science in here....

First of all, fossilization in terms of mineralization (as opposed to carbon sheets or imprints) is something we know literally nothing about. There have been NO successful attempts in any lab I am aware of in the scientific literature to fossilize something. We can, and do, get mineral accretions in somewhat short order, but we cannot get biolologic material to fossilize in terms of the material itself being replaced by minerals. And yet this is precisely what we see in petrified trees and many ancient bones!

We do know a few things about the process. It requires both rapid inundation and rapid drainage. That alone means Noah's flood was not responsible. The drainage was NOT rapid! It also requires some kind of highly mineralized matrix to be surrounding the biologic material.

Now we can repeat these steps in all manner of ways, and we still can't get anything to mineralize! It's weird, actually....

Personally, I don't think volcanoes are primary causative agents, although the ash from them, mixed with water upwelling from under the crust and therefore high in mineral content, may be something which enabled fossilization.

About trees/logs. They sure do sink! Up at Spirit Lake, at Mt. St. Helens, there is still, from what I understand, a remnant log mat from the forest that was destroyed and washed down into the lake. However, at the bottom of the lake, within the first months, were a number of trees. They tended to be the ones with large root sections attached, and sometimes still entangled in soil and rock. The interesting thing is that these trees sunk to the bottom and stayed there in upright or almost upright positions. Gradually the silt collected around them, burying them bit by bit. Above, the bark was rubbed off the tree trunks as they jostled together, became waterlogged, and sunk to the bottom in thick layers. Within a year it was starting to coalify.

Around both upright and prone tree trunks.

On the surface, originally, there were trees which did not sink right away, but were nevertheless floating in semi-upright positions, with one end pulled under by the heavier root end. Later these would sink. At a higher level of detritus than the first sinking trees. later others would sink. Each time, when the root system was still attached at all, the result would be an 'upright' tree, with its roots, or part of them, in the muck at the bottom.

When we see this type of thing in petrified forests, we are told that these are successive forestations, taking thousands, if not millions, of years to form layer after layer!

Baloney. We have a demonstration at Spirit Lake that this type of burial can be the result of one catastrophe and only a few years.

Whether or not the logs at Spirit Lake will fossilize, we don't know. But the process we have seen is remarkable and has changed a lot about the way we think of coal formation.

Diamonds? They can and do form quite rapidly under the right natural conditions.

Oil? May not all come from biologic remains.

Here are some links:

Spirit Lake:

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-157.htm -- article by one of the scientists who has kept an ongoing study of the area.

http://www.grisda.org/origins/10009.htm -- another article with some good photos

about diamonds:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1402.asp -- first of all, we are not really SURE how they are formed

http://www.mwtb.org/html/410700.html -- references to two geologists who present the fact that diamonds can be formed and brought to the earth's surface very quickly.

on oil formation:

Generation of methane in the Earth's mantle: In situ high pressure-temperature measurements of carbonate reduction
Henry P. Scott, Russell J. Hemley, Ho-kwang Mao, Dudley R. Herschbach, Laurence E. Fried, W. Michael Howard, and Sorin Bastea
PNAS published September 20, 2004
[Open Access: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0405930101v1.pdf]

Abstract: We present in situ observations of hydrocarbon formation via carbonate reduction at upper mantle pressures and temperatures. Methane was formed from FeO, CaCO3-calcite, and water at pressures between 5 and 11 GPa and temperatures ranging from 500°C to 1,500°C. The results are shown to be consistent with multiphase thermodynamic calculations based on the statistical mechanics of soft particle mixtures. The study demonstrates the existence of abiogenic pathways for the formation of hydrocarbons in the Earth's interior and suggests that the hydrocarbon budget of the bulk Earth may be larger than conventionally assumed.

>From the Conclusion: Methane is expected to form inorganically at
>mantle pressures and temperatures
from any carbonate species, such as FeCO3- siderite or MgCO3-magnesite, in the presence of H2O at oxygen fugacities near the wu stite-magnetite fO2 buffer. Such conditions may be widespread in the mantle and can be moderated by the presence of iron-bearing phases such as Fe2SiO4-fayalite, FeStroilite, or accessory minerals such as FeCr2O4-chromite and FeTiO3-ilmenite. Indeed, our analysis shows that methane production is thermodynamically favorable under a broad range of high pressure-temperature conditions. The calculations indicate that methane production is most favored at 500°C and pressures <7 GPa; higher temperatures are expected to lead to CO2 and CO production through a reforming equilibrium with methane. The wide pressure-temperature-composition stability field of methane documented here has broad implications for the hydrocarbon budget of the planet and indicates that methane may be a more prevalent carbon-bearing phase in the mantle than previously thought, with implications for the deep hot biosphere (25). In particular, isotopic evidence indicating the prevalence of biogenic hydrocarbons pertains to economically exploited hydrocarbon gas reservoirs, largely in sedimentary basins (2); these observations and analyses do not rule out the potential for large abiogenic reservoirs in the mantle. Moreover, the assumption that CO2 is the sole carrier of mantle-derived noble gasses (26, 27) should be reevaluated. Finally, the potential may exist for the high-pressure formation of heavier hydrocarbons by using mantle- generated methane as a precursor. [Ref 25 is to Gold, T. (1999) The Deep Hot Biosphere (Copernicus, New York).]

-----------------
Other reports of this research:

Petroleum under pressure
Belle Dumé is Science Writer at PhysicsWeb
PhysicsWeb, 14 September 2004 http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/8/9/9

Earth's mantle can generate methane
Untapped fossil-fuel reserves could be hidden deep within our planet.
Zeeya Merali
news@nature.com: 14 September 2004 http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040913/ ... 913-5.html

[Helix]

Personally, I don't think volcanoes are primary causative agents [for fossilisation]

So the 'point' webmaster tried to make on page 1 was not much of a point after all...

[Aineo]

Personally, I don't think volcanoes are primary causative agents [for fossilisation]

So the 'point' webmaster tried to make on page 1 was not much of a point after all...

Put what the webmaster posted with what tuppence posted and you can discern that volcanoes may have been the cause for the death of animals that were buried or killed off and were subsequently rapidly buried so fossilization could take place. The two are not mutally exclusive.

[Helix]

Your reasoning would mean that the process that created all the prehistoric fossils is still going on. Yet we see no evidence that vulcanic activity is fossilizing large amount of animals nowadays.
The calculation on page one (wich used less that 1% of 6000 years to calculate the full 100 %) suggests that vulcanoes have been erupting at the same pace over the last 6000 years. Or would you suggest that the total number of vulcanic eruptions you calculated happened all at once, killing the majority of the animals alive and burrying large amounts of bones, after which all vulcanoes stopped and have been getting active lately?

Either way, it doesn't sound very convincing to me, but maybe you can shed some light on it.

[Aineo]

Wait a couple decades and then when we find fossils as the result of Mt. St. Helen's you will understand the possible connection.

Combine a meteor impact in or near the "ring of fire" with the atmospheric changes that result and you have all the ingredients for the worldwide conditions that resulted in the catastrophes that produced fossils in widely dispersed areas of our globe.

At one time it was believed that mummification was an artificial process, then scientists found "natural" mummies in the Americas, in peat bogs in England, and etc. We still have a lot to learn about our world.

[God'schild]

no prob. it did happen all at once like the bible record says. When God push the earth a few degrease off true north. the contanent was broken up into several land masses. This also caused major fractures in the earths crust. This caused major volcanic eruptions, and threw millions of tons of material into the atmosphere. It also caused the water canapee that surounded the earth, to colapse, and for the first time, rain fell on the earth, which washed all the dabree in the atmosphere into a rockin and rollin ocean. When things calmed a bit, stuf settled into layers making the strata layers we see around the globe today.

A simple grade school experiment can reproduce this in miniture.

Take a glass of water. put some dirt, sand, buck shot, sawdust [stuff like that] Shake vigerously and let settle. It will settle in layers. shake again, settle, layers. Shake again, settle, layers. Shake again,settle, layers.

observable, repetable fact. HARK! true science fact.

[Jovaro]

no prob. it did happen all at once like the bible record says. When God push the earth a few degrease off true north. the contanent was broken up into several land masses. This also caused major fractures in the earths crust. This caused major volcanic eruptions, and threw millions of tons of material into the atmosphere. It also caused the water canapee that surounded the earth, to colapse, and for the first time, rain fell on the earth, which washed all the dabree in the atmosphere into a rockin and rollin ocean. When things calmed a bit, stuf settled into layers making the strata layers we see around the globe today.

A simple grade school experiment can reproduce this in miniture.

Take a glass of water. put some dirt, sand, buck shot, sawdust [stuff like that] Shake vigerously and let settle. It will settle in layers. shake again, settle, layers. Shake again, settle, layers. Shake again,settle, layers.

observable, repetable fact. HARK! true science fact.

There is something special about those layers. Stuff with the highest density gets on the bottom. Stuff with the lowest density on top.

Is this the case with the layers found on earth as well? Didn't think so..

[Helix]

Excellent point there, Jovaro. We often see that one material forms several layers. If these layers hat settled the way God'schild suggests, these layers should formed into one layer.

Here's some proof: http://www.baw.de/vip/abteilungen/wbk/Projekte/Niederfinow-Geologie/geologie_bild3.jpg

I'm sorry I couldn't find an English example. Nonetheless shows it clearly that the Earth is built up layer by layer, over millions of years and that the way they are layered does NOT support your theory, God'schild.

[tuppence]

First of all, Jovaro and Helix, God'schild is right about one thing. The heaviest does not always settle in one particlar place. You can easily prove this to yourself by taking all sorts of material, including dirt and sand and gravel and leaves and twigs, etc. etc. from your yard (or a nearby lot), putting them in a gallon jar, maybe about half way full, pouring in enough water to make it about 3/4 full, closing the lid and giving it a good shaking for about a minute.

Then let it set for a couple of days until it's all settled. You will find some interesting layering that has little or nothing to do with size. I have done this with science classes when I taught and not only did we get surprising results, we got DIFFERENT results each time! Go figure!

However it is absolutely correct to say the geologic column could not have built up in one year. It did not take millions of years, but it was certainly more than one! We have windblown sand layers in between water-deposited layers. We have the large sponge reef layere, IN SITU, across a good bit of Europe, OVER a coalified layer and beneath the dinosaur nests!

It takes a good deal of imagination to try to squish that all into one year with one Flood!

Yes, the Flood happened, but all those layers in the geologic column from Cambrian on were formed afterwards.

[Jovaro]

Did you get different results when using the same materials? In that case I will defenitely try that experiment myself.

I did not say anything about size btw. I said something about density.

[tuppence]

Yup. Go try it several times. It's cheap, easy, and fun.

Not to mention educational!

[Helix]

Ok, I will try the experiment. But before I start; is there any way to explain that a layer - consisting of 1 type of sand- can occur several time in the geological record? (When every layer was formed during 1 big flood?)

[tuppence]

I seriously have a problem with that, too, Helix. But then I don't think the Flood is responsible for anything from Cambrian up...smile...

[Helix]

Ah, so the 'flood' created only those layers that are likely to fit in your model?

[tuppence]

LOL -- oh can you twist things!

I think the geological evidence shows that there was a worldwide flood and that the flood boundary exists between the Precambrian and Cambrian strata. I think everyone here now knows that I am Barry Setterfield's wife, so I'll just reference you to my husband's work on this material. He went at it data first, and this is what he has found:

http://www.setterfield.org/snowballearth.htm

http://www.setterfield.org/earlyhist.html

[Helix]

I've typed in your husband's name in a search engine, and I found this page: http://www.setterfield.org/. I don't know if this is the same person, but that is not important. I mention this site because of the nice quote it had: Science should not tolerate any lapse of precision, or neglect any anomaly, but give Nature's answers to the world humbly and with courage..
(Setterfield quoted Sir Henry Dale, one-time President of the Royal Society of London.)

Explain to me HOW you can think up your creation-theories when you cannot proof god scientifically (who IS an essential part of these theories)? This is what Sir Henry Dale would probably call 'lapse of precision'. I could make up all sorts of wild theories if I didn't have to explain the presence of an omnipotent 'creator.'

[tuppence]

Yes, he's the one.

I think if you read his paper written at the invitation of a senior physicist from Stanford Research Institute International in 1987, you will find no mention of God.

Or of religion.

It's pure science.

http://www.setterfield.org/report/report.html

I think if you look at the papers after that, with the exception of one, I think, there is no mention of any religious thing at all. It is pure data, math, and conclusions

http://www.setterfield.org/scipubl.html

I think if you look in the Discussion section, where he answers questions emailed to him, you will find he does not discuss God or religion unless the subject is brought up by the questioner:

http://www.setterfield.org/discussionindex.htm

In other words, your comment that creation science is driven by belief in God is all wet. Data is data. Math is math. If you wish to dispute his conclusions on scientific grounds, great. But I don't think you will have much luck trying to accuse him of sloppy science!

[Helix]

My goal is not to insult you or your husband, Tuppence. I've looked at the links you posted. You are right, he hardly mentions god in scientific explanations. And why would he? The bible does not mention lightspeed, redshift, the decay rate of radio active materials, etc. (But apparantly, does mention the 'stretching of the heavens.')

I apologise for writing the things you interpreted as accusations of 'sloppy science.' Your husband has not based any theories on the existence of a god and appears to make accurate and respectable points. He does refer to the bible to draw paralels, but not to explain things.

There is one important question that I have: How do you explain god? Do you or your husband have any theory on how he 'came to be'?
I myself have some trouble with the thought that the universe 'was just there' or 'started to expand out of nowhere', but the existence of a god needs the same questions: Was he just there, or did he come from somewhere? HOW did god originate, and how can we explain the powers the bible calims he has?

Any thoughts?

[God'schild]

My goal is not to insult you or your husband, Tuppence. I've looked at the links you posted. You are right, he hardly mentions god in scientific explanations. And why would he? The bible does not mention lightspeed, redshift, the decay rate of radio active materials, etc. (But apparantly, does mention the 'stretching of the heavens.')

I apologise for writing the things you interpreted as accusations of 'sloppy science.' Your husband has not based any theories on the existence of a god and appears to make accurate and respectable points. He does refer to the bible to draw paralels, but not to explain things.

There is one important question that I have: How do you explain god? Do you or your husband have any theory on how he 'came to be'?
I myself have some trouble with the thought that the universe 'was just there' or 'started to expand out of nowhere', but the existence of a god
needs the same questions: Was he just there, or did he come from somewhere? HOW did god originate, and how can we explain the powers the bible calims he has?

Any thoughts?

Both evolution, and creation comes down to the point of pre- existance

Evolution denies pre-existant intelegence, and believes that slime somehow existed in and of itself

Creation says that The Creator spoke from the eternal deminsion, all the material deminsion, with purpose and fore thought.

Evolution is an unintelegent hypothesis, for it denies intelegence at the origin of all things.

The evidence of a transendant eternaty, is the inherant desire of this wonderfully designed human brain, to know its Designer. That, after all, was the purpose of the Designer in the first place.

Revelation 3:
20) Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

[tuppence]

Helix, you are asking important questions now, and questions that have been asked and debated for thousands of years. I know you want to approach this entirely logically, so I'll try a bit -- keeping in mind that our elections were yesterday and we stayed up quite late watching results and I am going to bed just as soon as we get Chris (our retarded 20 year old son) in bed! So from a sleepy brain, here's a bit to at least think about.

1. Matter itself is either eternal or not. That is an a/non-a fact. If matter is eternal, then how did it organize itself into the universe and life itself? We know of no self-organizing properties of matter per se. In fact the general tendency of the universe towards net entropy seems to indicate that it started in some kind of highly ordered stated and has been going downhill since. How did this highly ordered matter start? Is it possible for matter to reverse properties as we know them and go from instrinsically ordered to non-ordered and somehow back again?

2. If matter is not eternal and cannot order itself, then something invented/created it as well as ordered it. The Intelligent Design group, to my mind, is looking at the cosmos from this point of view and doing well with this approach. Their claim is that, taking what we know of design and structure, of purpose and plan, in our own experience, if we extrapolate that to the larger realm of the cosmos, we see every evidence of plan and purpose -- of intentional, intelligent design. Thus there is possible evidence from this point of view that there is a Designer of some kind who is partially or fully responsible for all we are aware of.

3. Cause and effect. In physics, in thermodynamics, we see that every effect has a somewhat larger cause, for there is always a loss of energy or order somewhre between cause and effect. If you keep going back and back, you end up with an Ultimate Cause at some point -- where all energy and all order originate.

4. Ethics and morality. We have covered this before, but the presence of the CONCEPT of these things in human beings is unique and does not appear to have a physical basis (as oppsed to a physical translator or transmission). Just as it is impossible for mankind to 'invent' a new primary color, it is impossible for us to invent anything totally new.
We tend to put together things and ideas from pre-existing things and ideas. We are great at re-ordering structures and ideas, but we cannot invent totally new ones. We are not creative in that sense. Following this idea, where did the concept of morality and ethics come from? Neither is helpful in the Darwinian sense of evolution, and yet they are universal withiin men. This indicates very strongly that they may have sources outside of men and imposed upon men.

Thus, Helix, I can indicate God as a logical necessity, but I cannot prove Him, for He is not small enough to manipulate. If He was small enough to be provable, then He would not be God. God is not subject to man, but rather man to God.

It was once said, as the ultimate reduction "I think, therefore I am."

I would offer a corollary: "I think, therefore God is." Not because my thinking invented Him, but rather because He invented my ability to think, to reason, to write to you in abstract symbols using abstract thoughts...

OK, the clock is at 8 p.m. here and I can get Chris to bed and then sleep myself. God bless --

[Helix]

I too have been following the American elections but because of the time difference, it meant staying up all night. (Which almost made me miss my art-sociology class!)

You named a few good points that would suggest an 'Intelligent Design' of the universe. They sound pretty convincing, but I have a few questions...

-

We know of no self-organizing properties of matter per se

This is of course one of the key questions... can matter form complex structures... or at least 'self-organise'... ? I came across this text the other day. It is about complex molucules forming in a nebula: http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2001/vinylalco/ It even speculates about organic molecules, forming in space...

What will happen to your theory if it seems that complexity can indeed occur in nature, without the help of dieties?

And it doesn't answer the most important question: If there is 'Intelligent Design', how did this Intelligence come into existence?

If He was small enough to be provable, then He would not be God.

On what do you base this?

[tuppence]

Finally starting to catch up, and thank you for your patience. That is an interesting article. I seen others regarding this discovery but not that particular one before.

There ARE points of 'self-organization' of matter, as when water becomes ice. Its molecular organization is increased during the freezing process. We see similar things chemically. However they are never random. They follow strict laws of the energies of the nucleus and electrons of each atom involved.

What evolution origins requires in terms of organization is not this at all, but rather not only the random formation and organization of organic substances but the forcing upon them of the life process itself. And that is a whole different ballgame!

Think about it. Please don't do this, but if you put a live fish in a blender and turn it into mush, you have ALL the organic components needed for life, but there is NO WAY you are going to get anything living out of the mess you just made. Man can cause death, not life. Chance can cause death, not life (if chance there be).

So where did the processes we call life originate? Not with the molecules -- that has been pretty firmly established.

So from where?

Either matter is eternal or an organizing Intelligence is. One of them is self-existant, beyond the reach of time. Every man must choose.

Finally, you asked me why I said if God was small enough to be proved, He would not be God.

I said that because proof requires manipulation. Variables must be eliminated so that the only possible outcome is a 'yes' or 'no' regarding the hypothesis. God is not part of the realm of the manipulable, or of variables. He is God.

You might as well ask a vase to prove the potter. If the existence of the vase itself doesn't do it, what would?

If the existence of creation does not prove a Creator, what would?

[Jovaro]

If the existence of creation does not prove a Creator, what would?

Why, nothing of course. Wasn't that the whole problem?

[tuppence]

Then you must also be able to look at the Mona Lisa and believe it was an accident, too.

[Jovaro]

No not really, the whole comparison between paintings - painters and humans - god is quite ridiculous anyway.

-I can see painters paint a painting, I could even paint something myself.
-I can not see God creating anything, I cant create something like God myself.

This whole chaos vs. order thing is pretty weird as well.

Observe the following 2 lines:
-ushdfjkdgtriidfgd
-lmk,.xcnvjurhgih

Which one is more ordered?

[tuppence]

I see. If you can't do it and can't imagine it being done, it is therefore impossible.

You have a great deal of faith in yourself!

[Jovaro]

No, not at all. I was just showing the sillyness of your comparison.

If you see a painting you know that it was done by a painter because your brain knows that paintings are being painted by painters. Your brain acquired that information by seeing a painter or even by painting yourself.

The painting you see is linked to other things in your brain.

The creation can not be linked to anything in your brain, because you never saw something getting created out of nothing, not did you ever create something out of nothing.

This is exactly what I said in the previous post, perhaps you will see my point now?

[tuppence]

Ah, but Jovaro, one of my consistent points here is that we have never seen evolution happen. Variation, yes. Evolution, no.

In fact, we have genetic evidence that evolution cannot happen! We have math probability evidence that evolution cannot happen. And we know that natural selection deletes from the gene pool; it does not add.

Do you have evidence that God cannot be? Or that creation is not the result of His activity?

[Jovaro]

If your evidence against evolution is far from sound.

But that was not the point. The point was that your comparison between a painting a the creation is not a valid one.

If I would make the comparison between the painting and evolution I would be wrong as well. So I don't compare them.

[tuppence]

Jovaro, you are holding on to your faith in evolution without evidence.

I am holding on to my faith in God and creation with enormous evidence.

A painting is much less complex than the thing being painted.
We know an artist is behind the painting.

A cell is enormously more complex than the Louvre.
We know an architect was behind the Louvre.

When I look at the digestive system of a mammal (or any other critter), or the process of photosynthesis in a plant, or the interaction between insects and flowers, I see incredibly enormous complexity and engineering. I have never seen complex engineering happen by chance, without an engineer in back of it.

Everything in my experience teaches me that there is a Creator behind this creation.

Tell me, what, in your experience, allows you to discount the presence of a Creator? Just your personal incredulity?

[Jovaro]

The experience that behind many of the things attributed to God, there is often an explenation that has nothing to do with God.

You are still comparing things you can not compare btw...

Because you know there is a creator behind some of the things you see, you assume that there is a creator behind everything.
You assume, but you present it as a fact, which it is not.

[Helix]

I must say, tuppence, you have a way with words...

I really liked the comparison of the fish in the blender. When I mix it, I would have all the components for life together, but there if no sign of life; no abiogenesis.

Are you really surprised? First life did not originate as 'fish.' Every cell of a fish has its specific function WITHIN the organism. No cell would be inclined to form an autonomous creature!

Jovaro, you are right once again. I hope you don't mind if I quote you a bit.

The experience that behind many of the things attributed to God, there is often an explenation that has nothing to do with God.

The site http://www.godchecker.com gives 63 gods for thunder. We now know that thunder is a normal natural phenomenon. Could 63 different religions be wrong? YES! Apparently, they were.
204 gods are found when you search for 'creation.' Apparently, 204 different gods were held responsible for creation world wide... Are you really sure that that yours is actually the right one, christians?

Tell me, what, in your experience, allows you to discount the presence of a Creator?

You came with the whole 'creator idea', Tuppence, so you should prove it. (and not expect other to disprove it.)

[tuppence]

OK, Helix, take ONE live cell and pierce it. You have all the ingredients necessary for that ONE cell, which is fine by itself.

Now, get those life processes going agin.

As for the rest of your sarcasm, I'm not interested. Although I did not make up a Creator. He made up me. Nor did I ask Jovaro to prove there was not a creator. I asked him what made him discount one. Please read more carefully.

[Helix]

OK, Helix, take ONE live cell and pierce it. You have all the ingredients necessary for that ONE cell, which is fine by itself. Now, get those life processes going agin.

You have no idea wether or not the 'first cells' were like the cells we see today. Single celled organisms nowadays might be very different from 'the first' single celled organisms. Getting an 'evolved' cell to work nowadays is quite a different process than getting a 'first cell' to work. Moreover: The latter process is expected to have taken place by it self!

[tuppence]

That doesn't matter!

If you have everything a cell needs to be alive, why then can't you make it live when all those materials are there, an in the right amounts and structures???

[Helix]

Sure, I'll play along: Do you have a few millennia, Tuppence? life does not have the tendency to flourish in a few decades...

And second: If someone started an experiment right now, that would prove whether or not life could come out of nowhere, we would not be alive to see the result...

And even in a sterile environment, life might not 'come into existence' for thousands of years. Evolution has this irritating tendency to require lots of time...

[tuppence]

Sure, pierce a ilving cell and then wait a year, or thousand. Do you think the chances of those materials coming together as a living organism then improves?

You are not thinking, Helix.

[Helix]

Single celled organisms nowadays might be very different from 'the first' single celled organisms. Getting an 'evolved' cell to work nowadays is quite a different process than getting a 'first cell' to work.

[tuppence]

But it was already living a moment ago. Why can't it be living now? This is not a matter of evolution, but of life processes. What is stopping that pierced cell from living again?

[Jovaro]

But it was already living a moment ago. Why can't it be living now? This is not a matter of evolution, but of life processes. What is stopping that pierced cell from living again?

Haha!

You stopped that cell from living again because you broke it. You could of course try to get it to work again but I doubt your fingers are small enough to do the trick.

But it can however work with humans, go to your local hospital and they will tell you all about it.

[tuppence]

No, Jovaro, you are missing the point. If life were simply a matter of the right chemicals and compounds at the right time, then we could get that cell to live again.

Having spent much too much time IN a hospital bed and more than enough on the other side as well, I know full well the limits of medicine. All we can do is help the body heal in the way it was designed to, and that sometimes fails in the face of an overwhelming assault from disease or injury.

But if life is simply a matter of the right stuff at the right time, which is wht evolutionists claim, then all the right stuff is there for that cell that was just alive. And the closer to the original life we can get, the closer to the right time we obviously are, for the cell will begin to disintegrate rather rapidly once life processes have stopped.

[Jovaro]

I read in another thread that you died on the surgery table and was clapped back alive.

All the parts were there but there was no life. The doctors managed to bring the life back though.

Isn't that the same as piercing a cell and bringing it back to life?

[tuppence]

If you really think so, prove it by doing it with a single celled organism....