Confirmed: growth rate was different in past around time of flood!

[dad]

Yes.
AS THE STUDY CLAIMS.

NOT as dad says so...

NOT for reasons of belief as the study uses. The item we can glean from the pile here is how they claim growth rates were fast. The rest is of no consequence, reality, value, or merit.

 

[dad]

Someone with an Einstein avatar promoting creationism and biblical literalism?

That's adorable!

Einstein would agree now.

 

[McBell]

NOT for reasons of belief as the study uses. The item we can glean from the pile here is how they claim growth rates were fast. The rest is of no consequence, reality, value, or merit.

Thank you so much for presenting your NOT say so.

 

[McBell]

Einstein would agree now.

bold empty claim presented only to masturbate your ego.

 

[Father Heathen]

Einstein would agree now.

So you presume to speak on behalf of a dead historical figure? All that he said and wrote in life suggest that he would've disagreed with your claims.

 

[blü 2]

Yes we still reproduce and have done so since the first man and woman were created and commanded to do so.

Ah, there's the difference between us ─ you believe in magic and I don't.

It's funny when you think about it ─ it was Greek civilization that provided the ideas on which Western civilization and the Renaissance and the Enlightenment and the modern West were built (and which gave Christianity so many of its ideas, like souls and postmortal judgment and heaven and hell, like the eucharist, and so on). Yet Greek philosophy begins 26 centuries ago, when the Milesians, starting, it's said, with Thales, began explaining the world in natural terms and left the gods to themselves. And the Dark Ages were the period when Christian thought dominated the West and the writings of the ancient Greeks and Romans were suppressed, and their texts deliberately destroyed in many cases.

The trouble with magic as an explanation is that it explains nothing. Genesis has God creating light by saying Let there be light! and creating life by similar commands and molding humans from dust. That's not an explanation unless and until we're told how magic works, and we can understand the process that occurred when the words 'Let there be light' were spoken, and resulted in the EM spectrum.

How do you mold a human from dust?

And why does the result look exactly as it would if humans were produced by evolution instead?

For that matter, why does the bible think the universe is only a few thousand years old? Why does it know nothing of a heliocentric solar system? Why does it say instead (and only) that the earth is immovably fixed at the center of creation? Why does it think the earth is flat, and the sky (firmament) is a hard dome you can walk on, and to which the stars are attached such that if they come loose they'll fall to earth? Why does it have no concept of orbits, or deep space, or the nature of stars? And the answer is obvious ─ that was the science of their day, and science has come a long way since then.

But how would we know if, for example, gestation periods were three months instead of nine months then? How would we know if evolving and adapting did not work somewhat differently then, allowing, for example adaptations to occur ultra fast? (possibly even to the living creature itself rather than just to offspring)

We know that gestation is a phenomenon of placental mammals. The first vivipars appear in the fossil record in the few million years following the Triassic-Jurassic extinction event 205 m years ago; and the first placental mammals are found between 160 and 100 million years ago. Primates start about 65 mya, hominids about 30 mya, genus Homo develops between 25 and 5 mya, and we get to the earliest versions of Homo sapiens maybe 2.5 mya. Modern humans are much more recent, starting around 250 thousand years ago.

The good news: everything above is evidence-based, reasoned, examinable, explicable, and like all of science, a work in progress.

And no magic is involved.

 

[dad]

Thank you so much for presenting your NOT say so.

Thanks for your empty posts/statements of faith.

 

[dad]

bold empty claim presented only to masturbate your ego.

I would explain why to you, but I'm not sure you could afford to rent a clue.

 

[dad]

So you presume to speak on behalf of a dead historical figure? All that he said and wrote in life suggest that he would've disagreed with your claims.

No, nothing he said actually does anything but agree, and of course if he were alive in heaven he would agree with me.

 

[dad]

Ah, there's the difference between us ─ you believe in magic and I don't.

To deny history and Scripture for no reason is magic thinking. Sorry if you think anything beyond the fishbowl is magic. I think bigger.

It's funny when you think about it ─ it was Greek civilization that provided the ideas on which Western civilization and the Renaissance and the Enlightenment and the modern West were built (and which gave Christianity so many of its ideas, like souls and postmortal judgment and heaven and hell, like the eucharist, and so on).

No. Jesus was here before the world began and He gave us the ideas. The Greeks make a good salad though.

Yet Greek philosophy begins 26 centuries ago, when the Milesians, starting, it's said, with Thales, began explaining the world in natural terms and left the gods to themselves. And the Dark Ages were the period when Christian thought dominated the West and the writings of the ancient Greeks and Romans were suppressed, and their texts deliberately destroyed in many cases.

Yes, the Greeks and Babylon and Egypt all started less than a hundred years after Babel. Of course they would have had a lot of gods in keeping with how men rejected the true God.

The trouble with magic as an explanation is that it explains nothing. Genesis has God creating light by saying Let there be light! and creating life by similar commands and molding humans from dust. That's not an explanation unless and until we're told how magic works,

Then admit you can't explain it. That trumps making stuff up to pretend otherwise.

and we can understand the process that occurred when the words 'Let there be light' were spoken, and resulted in the EM spectrum.

No, you can't understand the light of God at creation. This is news?

How do you mold a human from dust?

You don't. He did.

And why does the result look exactly as it would if humans were produced by evolution instead?

Because fallen wicked deluded men believed the lies of hell that sought to cast doubt on God and creation in order to keep people from salvation.

For that matter, why does the bible think the universe is only a few thousand years old? Why does it know nothing of a heliocentric solar system?

He knows it all actually. Science knows little, and the models they cooked up were belief based nonsense.

Why does it say instead (and only) that the earth is immovably fixed at the center of creation?

Because it ain't going anywhere. The universe on the other hand is going bye bye soon.

Why does it think the earth is flat, and the sky (firmament) is a hard dome you can walk on, and to which the stars are attached such that if they come loose they'll fall to earth?

It doesn't. Sorry someone sold you a bridge for cheap.

Why does it have no concept of orbits, or deep space, or the nature of stars?

It does. Science does not.

And the answer is obvious ─ that was the science of their day, and science has come a long way since then.

No. God was not the science of the day. Really. Belief was the order of the day though.

We know that gestation is a phenomenon of placental mammals. The first vivipars appear in the fossil record in the few million years following the Triassic-Jurassic extinction event 205 m years ago

All that means is that some animals entered the fossil record early because some animals (unlike man and most animals) could not leave fossil remains. Nothing to do with imaginary years you claim based on belief alone. Nothing to do with evolution of life. (with the possible exception that the fossilized creatures likely had evolved a lot from the original kinds).

Man was here from the time all other creatures were here.

The good news: everything above is evidence-based, reasoned, examinable, explicable, and like all of science, a work in progress.

Good news is that you are wrong and imposing absurd beliefs onto evidence is not evidence, or reasoned.

And no magic is involved.

In the context of the unknown past nature, there is no magic. There is only short sighed fanatical fishbowl philosophy spread like cancer in willingly deluded men.

 

[Shad]

Ancient shells had a faster growth rate, new study shows.

"The ancient mollusk, from an extinct and wildly diverse group known as rudist clams, grew fast, laying down daily growth rings. The new study used lasers to sample minute slices of shell and count the growth rings more accurately than human researchers with microscopes.
The high resolution obtained in the new study combined with the fast growth rate of the ancient bivalves revealed unprecedented detail about how the animal lived and the water conditions it grew in, down to a fraction of a day.

"We have about four to five datapoints per day, and this is something that you almost never get in geological history. We can basically look at a day 70 million years ago. It's pretty amazing."

Ancient shell shows days were half-hour shorter 70 million years ago: Beer stein-shaped distant relative of modern clams captured snapshots of hot days in the late Cretaceous

The reasons for the observed fast growth rates are speculation. The associated fairy tales about the climate and moon etc are speculations used to try and explain how such a fast rate could have occurred.

Ha

You didn't provide the science that shows the Flood occurred. Try again

 

[McBell]

I would explain why to you, but I'm not sure you could afford to rent a clue.

I am not interested in why you need to masturbate your ego.

 

[blü 2]

To deny history and Scripture for no reason is magic thinking. Sorry if you think anything beyond the fishbowl is magic. I think bigger.

What test can I perform that will determine for me whether any particular text is authentically from God or not?

 

[Father Heathen]

No, nothing he said actually does anything but agree, and of course if he were alive in heaven he would agree with me.

Well your dead grandmother would agree with me.

 

[Heyo]

What test can I perform that will determine for me whether any particular text is authentically from God or not?

What test can I perform that will determine for me whether any particular poster is a troll?
@dad tested positive for me.
My prediction for his answer to you: he won't give one. Everything that could lead to an agreement about the world (and thus an objective agreement that he is wrong) has to be avoided. There is no arguing with him. Also, he doesn't have an audience that could be influenced.

 

[blü 2]

What test can I perform that will determine for me whether any particular poster is a troll?
@dad tested positive for me.
My prediction for his answer to you: he won't give one. Everything that could lead to an agreement about the world (and thus an objective agreement that he is wrong) has to be avoided. There is no arguing with him. Also, he doesn't have an audience that could be influenced.

Put it this way ─ it would be nice if he gave a useful and coherent answer, because then I'd have learnt something.

One doesn't hold one's breath at such moments, but at least I've tried.

 

[dad]

You didn't provide the science that shows the Flood occurred. Try again

The thread is not about how science cannot cover the flood. What, you thought that because sillyscience was to weak to be able to cover the flood that you could deny it?

 

[dad]

I am not interested in why you need to masturbate your ego.

Nor I in why you like to say the word so much and can't post anything sane or relevant.

 

[dad]

What test can I perform that will determine for me whether any particular text is authentically from God or not?

What test can we perform on nature to see if it was the same? Since there is none and you use that premise for models of the past and origins, your claims are not authentic.

You cannot claim God exists or not based on whatever little tests you can do. That is foolishness and pride.

 

[dad]

Well your dead grandmother would agree with me.

Not if she was in heaven.