Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Humans Caused Extinction of Australia’s Prehistoric Giant Animals

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
    I don't feel ashamed, just disappointed i'll never get to see them.

    I'm more disappointed about the moas, though - just a few hundred years off.



    I'm not disappointed that I never saw a dinosaur, or a passenger pigeon, or a dodo. There are far too many other things in life to be disappointed by than animals that once existed that are no longer.


    Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
      OK, and where do you get it from that the fine texture of loess cannot have been there during Flood?
      Simply, the physics of sedimentation. I am a geomorphologist, and I have spent a good deal of my career studying how sediments form in different environments.

      First, it is not only fine texture loess, but uniform stratifed clay, fine textured silt (loess) can only form by sorting in wind blown deposits of pure silt. There are no known possible flood deposits that can result in pure silt deposits nor varved clay deposits. Its pure Newtonian physics and not complicated.
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        Simply, the physics of sedimentation. I am a geomorphologist, and I have spent a good deal of my career studying how sediments form in different environments.

        First, it is not only fine texture loess, but uniform stratifed clay, fine textured silt (loess) can only form by sorting in wind blown deposits of pure silt. There are no known possible flood deposits that can result in pure silt deposits nor varved clay deposits. Its pure Newtonian physics and not complicated.
        Have you seen the instant stratification experiments by the French Colleague of yours?

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PVnBaqqQw8

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBv-4jrzmNw

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7SGB_uMRNU

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dG6tfolc1i4
        http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

        Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
          http://www.sci-news.com/paleontology...rds-03267.html

          Now, 20,000 to 50,000 carbon years (and with or without U-Pb/Th-Pb carbon seems to be 50,000) is the carbon range for Flood, according to creationists.
          OK, they used two dating methods to cross check their dating. 50,000 years is within the range of carbon dating. The limits of carbon dating is ~60,000 years. I would have preferred that they also use K-Ar dating. These sediments are continuous and uniform well below and above the sediment strata involved with no evidence of a flood environment.
          Last edited by shunyadragon; 01-24-2017, 10:36 AM.
          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

          go with the flow the river knows . . .

          Frank

          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
            OK, they used two dating methods to cross check their dating.
            The Uranium one being fairly owrthless.

            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
            50,000 years is within the range of carbon dating. I would have preferred that they also use K-Ar dating.
            K-Ar is basically worthless, as witness Mount St Helen.

            That means that 0.236 % of modern carbon is now possible to detect.

            From Flood event you should have 54/55% of what the C14 content was back then, and it can well have varied enough for both 0.236 and 8.898 % modern carbon turning up as extremes (unless one prefers to say the items with 8.898 % now are post-Flood).

            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
            These sediments are continuous and uniform well below and above the sediment strata involved with no evidence of a flood environment.
            Well that would show that the sediments is from a Flood both above and below the fossils.
            http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

            Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

            Comment


            • #21
              Citing a few articles from http://creation.com (use their search for exact references):

              "The analytical report from the laboratory indicated detectable radiocarbon had been found in the fossil wood, yielding a supposed 14C ‘age’ of 33,720 ± 430 years BP (before present)."
              1.692 % now = c. 3.4+% at Flood.

              "The 14C ‘dates’ for the diamonds of 55,700 years were still much older than the biblical timescale. This misses the point: we are not claiming that this ‘date’ is the actual age; rather, if the earth were just a million years old, let alone 4.6 billion years old, there should be no 14C at all! Another point is that the 55,700 years is based on an assumed 14C level in the atmosphere."
              55700 years = 0.119 % now = 0.24+% at Flood.

              "More recently, Brian Thomas and Vance Nelson carbon dated a number of dinosaur fossils including two specimens from Triceratops horridus.3 The two specimens gave a date in years of 33,570±20 and 41,010±220."
              33570 BP = 1.723% now = 3.4+% back then.
              41010 BP = 0.701 % now = 1.4+% back then.

              "A team of researchers gave a presentation at the 2012 Western Pacific Geophysics Meeting in Singapore, August 13–17, at which they gave 14C dating results from many bone samples from eight dinosaur specimens. All gave dates ranging from 22,000 to 39,000 years, right in the ‘ballpark’ predicted by creationists."
              22000 BP = 6.986% now = 15% back then if from Flood = perhaps later?
              39000 BP = 0.894% now = 2% if from Flood.

              I also need to give credits to:

              https://www.math.upenn.edu/~deturck/.../carbdate.html
              http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

              Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
                I am very familiar with his work and conclusions. His experiments are valid for the formation of sandstone deposits in juxtaposition of different sizes of sand particles in coastal and riverine environments all over the world and throughout geologic history within a sandstone formation. Beyond this his experiments did not involve clay and silt size particles, and how loess and varved clay deposits form. Yes large silt deposits can form as wind blown silt in juxtaposition within on formation, but not in juxtaposition with sand deposits nor varved clay deposits. Varved clay deposits with seasonal varves cannot form in juxtaposition as as sands, and wind blown silt deposits can.

                No, his research and experiments do not bring to question the whole geologic column, since the formations in the column involve limestone, shale, loess, sandstone, and by the way volcanic deposits. The research cited only deals with juxtaposition deposition in graded sandstone deposits, and not the superposition of 1,000s of feet of cyclic deposits vastely different environments that produce limestone, finely stratified shales, coal deposits, sandstones, and volcanic deposits. Juxtaposition deposition of sand and silt within a formation has long been known and well understood for many years and is not a controversial issue.
                Last edited by shunyadragon; 01-24-2017, 11:23 AM.
                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                  Ut is becoming more apparent that humans are more responsible for the extinction of the large mammals.

                  Source: http://www.sci-news.com/paleontology/humans-extinction-megafauna-04554.html



                  “The Australian collection of megafauna some 50,000 years ago included 1,000-pound kangaroos, 2-ton wombats, 25-foot-long lizards, 400-pound flightless birds, 300-pound marsupial lions and Volkswagen-sized tortoises,” said University of Colorado Boulder Professor Gifford Miller, lead co-author on the study.

                  “More than 85% of Australia’s mammals, birds and reptiles weighing over 100 pounds went extinct shortly after the arrival of the first humans.”

                  “Whether humans were responsible for the demise of the Pleistocene megafauna across Australia has been debated for many years,” said lead co-author Dr. Sander van der Kaars, a researcher at Monash University, Australia.

                  “Our study found that the demise of the megafauna in southwest Australia took place from 45,000 to 43,100 years ago and was not linked to major changes in climate, vegetation or biomass burning but is consistent with extinction being driven by ‘imperceptible overkill’ by humans.”

                  The researchers analyzed a continuous and precisely dated sediment core collected offshore southwest Australia that captures the last 150,000 years in high resolution.

                  Environmental proxies preserved in the sediments track environmental change and the abundance of megafauna.

                  © Copyright Original Source

                  It is obvious they died because they were obese.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                    No, his research and experiments do not bring to question the whole geologic column, since the formations in the column involve limestone, shale, loess, sandstone, and by the way volcanic deposits. The research cited only deals with juxtaposition deposition in graded sandstone deposits, and not the superposition of 1,000s of feet of cyclic deposits vastely different environments that produce limestone, finely stratified shales, coal deposits, sandstones, and volcanic deposits
                    Does sandstone and does silt use different physics of deposition?
                    http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

                    Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                      It is obvious they died because they were obese.
                      Hmmmm ... didn't think of that one!
                      http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

                      Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
                        Does sandstone and does silt use different physics of deposition?
                        All materials regardless of size and density respond to the same physics of deposition. The influence of gravity and the velocity of the water determine the different settling rates of different size and density of the particles. This is the reason sandstone deposits do not contain silt nor clay. The smallest, and less dense clay requires still waters to settle out at much slower rate over time, and that is why varved clay deposits only form in lakes and inland waters that are relatively calm. If the water has any velocity at all the clay will stay in suspension.
                        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                        go with the flow the river knows . . .

                        Frank

                        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
                          OK, and where do you get it from that the fine texture of loess cannot have been there during Flood?
                          As Wikipedia explains:

                          Source: Loess


                          Loess is an aeolian sediment formed by the accumulation of wind-blown silt, typically in the 20–50 micrometer size range, twenty percent or less clay and the balance equal parts sand and silt.



                          Source

                          © Copyright Original Source


                          Loess and paleosols require pretty dry conditions to form and accumulate which is not what one would find during a global flood.

                          I'm always still in trouble again

                          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                            As Wikipedia explains:

                            Source: Loess


                            Loess is an aeolian sediment formed by the accumulation of wind-blown silt, typically in the 20–50 micrometer size range, twenty percent or less clay and the balance equal parts sand and silt.



                            Source

                            © Copyright Original Source


                            Loess and paleosols require pretty dry conditions to form and accumulate which is not what one would find during a global flood.
                            What if the flood used dehydrated water?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                              What if the flood used dehydrated water?
                              Dry water would explain why geologists cannot find evidence for it

                              I'm always still in trouble again

                              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                And we did it without global warming!
                                That's what
                                - She

                                Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                                - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                                I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                                - Stephen R. Donaldson

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X