298 Million Yr Old Forest Found

[anonym]

Before I give the article a more thorough reading, push, I’d like to know your thoughts on the following points (I’m not going to waste time on a skimmer):

“There is statistically significant evidence that α may have been very slightly smaller in the past, but only by about 1 part in 10^5.”

This is after looking back as far as 12 billion years.

"For example, the geological results do not conflict with the quasar results or the atomic clock experiments because they probe very different epochs in the history of the universe. It is possible that the value of α was changing relatively rapidly (by 1 part in 105) in the first few billion years after the Big Bang, and that the fractional change has been 100 times smaller since the time of the Oklo reactor about two billion years ago."

What do you think the implications are for the bold part as far as our discussion?

The underlined part?

[quote]Nevertheless
…they provide important complementary constraints on any variations of α and show that it cannot have changed by much more than 10% in either case.[/quote]

So this figure they are observing to be different can’t be much more off than 10%?

What would this do for the margin of error of something measured at 300 million years?

[quote]
This translates to an upper limit on any fractional change in the value of α of the order 10â??7 over about 4.6 billion years[/quote]

[Charlie_Horse]

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
I am an atheist and do not believe in these imaginary sabertooth pandas!!!

Rolls eyes at foolish believers.

[/quote]

Do you live in the Canadian Bible belt?[/quote]

I do, but didn’t grow up here, and even if I did I still wouldn’t believe in no sabertooth pandas!!!

As far as I know the only sabertooth animals are cat like or reptile or snake. No bears.

Just saying. 0_o

[Christine]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Christine wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Christine wrote:

Okay. You can insult and marginalize me all you want…
[/quote]

I believe this is precisely what YOU did early in this thread.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.[/quote]

You were personally insulted because you are a young earth creationist?

[/quote]

No.

Do they have to be directed at me personally before your remarks are considered insultory?

Have you read your posts on atheists?

Is this thread about atheism/theism?

Can you find a quote from me where the first bullet out of my gun is insultory? Or do I get down in the mud now and then once I realize that that’s what the game is?

And you think me making jokes about young earth creationists is insulting to you? I don’t go crying every time you insult atheists.

No crying from me. I just find it entertaining to point out hypocrisy. And ignorance.

Okay. You’re right. As always, you could never be proven wrong.

It’s not about that. It’s about folks spoutin’ off 'bout stuff of which they are blatantly ignorant and not knowing how to think.
[/quote]

Pushie, my dear. I have already said you were right. I don’t know how to think. You have made this clear. There have been plenty of threads where you you have thrown the first insult. But really, you would say that the insult was deserved, so why bother? You have insulted me plenty of times on these forums. I usually choose simply not to take the bait and give no response.

Can I articulate my views as well as others. Probably not. I am dyslexic and it does interfere at times with my ability to articulate my thoughts in a cohesive way. Does this make me me shallow and stupid? According to you, yes.

[anonym]

[quote]pushharder wrote:
This link from the University of North Carolina addresses some of your questions.

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html#Why%20methods%20in%20general%20are%20inaccurate[/quote]

“This material does not necessarily represent any organization, including the University of North Carolina and the State of North Carolina.”

Correction: it is from some individual affiliated with the school in some way.

It is NOT an official page.

And don’t think I’m going to play along with this stupid game you play during these discussions – if you have something to say, say it. Don’t start spamming us with links saying it refutes what we’re saying.

Prove that you have both read what you are preaching AND that you understand it.

[Tex_Ag]

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
I am an atheist and do not believe in these imaginary sabertooth pandas!!!

Rolls eyes at foolish believers.

[/quote]

Do you live in the Canadian Bible belt?[/quote]

I do, but didn’t grow up here, and even if I did I still wouldn’t believe in no sabertooth pandas!!!

As far as I know the only sabertooth animals are cat like or reptile or snake. No bears.

Just saying. 0_o

[/quote]

Modern pandas are related to pre-dogs, so there is hope.

I am trying to find a NG article about giant marsupials. May take some time.

[Hellfrost]

[quote]imhungry wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Hellfrost wrote:
Push, let’s forget the number 298 million years. Geologically, how long do you think it would require to cover an entire forest under a mountain of coal? This wasn’t just a few feet under the ground. If they were using heavy machinery to dig deep, we are looking at a lot of sediment build up over a very long time.[/quote]

There has been some remarkable research conducted that shows that the oft repeated zillions of years purported requisite for coal to form may indeed be wrong. It has been done in the laboratory in a relatively short time. If the right conditions are present it can happen quicker than what we’ve come to expect.

Look it up.

Also, under the theory of catastrophism the sediment did NOT need “a very long time” to accumulate.

Look at some to the research at Mt. St. Helens for instance.[/quote]

Not to mention that there were considerably more volcanoes in that time period. If it were just one large volcano, I don’t think it would take that long to cover a forest. Multiple eruptions over time… it’s easy to imagine. [/quote]

The story assumes that 300 million years ago, a volcano erupted that spread ash over a large radius. The entire forest then was perfectly preserved in volcanic ash.

Average depth of coal mine in china is 400m-500m. http://gcep.stanford.edu/pdfs/wR5MezrJ2SJ6NfFl5sb5Jg/10_china_pankexi.pdf

So at half a kilometer deep in the earth, there is a vast quantity of coal, and below the coal is a giant ash preserved forest. The question then becomes, how long does it take for coal to form in nature? Not the synthetic type that are created in a lab, but natural coal.

This man made a synthetic diamond in his garage. How to Make a Synthetic Diamond : 10 Steps (with Pictures) - Instructables That does not mean that diamonds can be made in matter of days in nature.

I don’t know of any volcano to be able to spew 500m worth of volcanic material while also forming coal and other layers of sediments over a short period of time.

Would you agree for this to take place that the minimum requirement would be at least a million years? If not, why?

[Christine]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Christine wrote:

Pushie, my dear. I have already said you were right. I don’t know how to think. You have made this clear. There have been plenty of threads where you you have thrown the first insult. But really, you would say that the insult was deserved, so why bother? You have insulted me plenty of times on these forums. I usually choose simply not to take the bait and give no response.

Can I articulate my views as well as others. Probably not. I am dyslexic and it does interfere at times with my ability to articulate my thoughts in a cohesive way. Does this make me me shallow and stupid? According to you, yes. [/quote]

You’re missing the point. You and those who have similar world views about origins have convinced yourselves that faith plays no part in your ethos - that you are shining examples of scientific objectivity.

AND

You have derided those who admit faith IS part of their ethos. This places you squarely in the pool of hypocrisy.

When I point this out whether on GAL or PWI the hackles go up and the cackling begins.

I’ll be straight up with you - I think the world of you but if you or anyone else for that matter gets the cackling and insults going as happened on this thread I don’t have a problem calling a spade a spade. It’s that simple, if you’re going to cackle with insults make sure you have the intellectual wherewithal to back it up.

And yes, I do believe many people are sheeple. They’ve had the uniformitarian mindset shoved down their throat for several decades now and have forgotten, or never learned, the art of critical thinking.

The bottom line on this particular thread is if you’re gonna wade in and throw the first punch, in this case a sucker punch, don’t be so doggoned offended if someone decides to smack you back. If you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen.

XXXOOO[/quote]

I am not the one who is being offended here. It is you. You continue to make assumptions about me with no facts to back them up.

I have conceded faith a million times over. My faith (if that is the word you need to hear) lies in a system which continuously attempts to disprove itself. Okay. This word is so important to you. There it is. And not the first time it has been offered.

But yes, you are right. As always.

[Tex_Ag]

Last thing and then I am done. I am assuming that Push read a comment I made in the church thread and I will clarify it here. I do not scoff at the idea of God/creator/higher being, my hesitation is with how humans interpret the possibility. As I stated, some of what religions teaches are beautiful, especially about love and compassion. I believe Jesus had a thing or do to say about this. My concern is how little love, compassion, empathy, or willingness to understand there are differences between people by those who claim to be following his path. Jesus invited us the opportunity to walk him, I do not remember him saying to judge others with scorn and belittlement if you are not certain what path another is on.

Somebody let me know about the status of the sabortooth Pandas.

[Charlie_Horse]

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
I am an atheist and do not believe in these imaginary sabertooth pandas!!!

Rolls eyes at foolish believers.

[/quote]

Do you live in the Canadian Bible belt?[/quote]

I do, but didn’t grow up here, and even if I did I still wouldn’t believe in no sabertooth pandas!!!

As far as I know the only sabertooth animals are cat like or reptile or snake. No bears.

Just saying. 0_o

[/quote]

Modern pandas are related to pre-dogs, so there is hope.

I am trying to find a NG article about giant marsupials. May take some time.[/quote]

There were sabertooth marsupials.

This is what you mean but more like something sharing a common ancestry with the marsupials.

Thylacosmilus

[Charlie_Horse]

This is the order they belong too not quite marsupials.

Maybe there’s another you are thinking of?

Sparassodonta

[HoustonGuy]

[quote]anatonym wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Be careful with assumptions. They CAN come back and bite you.

School of Physics | Science - UNSW Sydney

I only took a moment to skim it, but before I take the time to fully digest it I’d like to know your thoughts on the following, push:

“This translates to an upper limit on any fractional change in the value of Ã?± of the order 10^â??7 over about 4.6 billion years.”

and

“Nevertheless they provide important complementary constraints on any variations of Ã?± and show that it cannot have changed by much more than 10% in either case.”

and

“For example, the geological results do not conflict with the quasar results or the atomic clock experiments because they probe very different epochs in the history of the universe. It is possible that the value of Ã?± was changing relatively rapidly (by 1 part in 105) in the first few billion years after the Big Bang, and that the fractional change has been 100 times smaller since the time of the Oklo reactor about two billion years ago.”

Thanks.

[/quote]
When rounded, the answer is nine.

[Professor_X]

[quote]Hellfrost wrote:

[quote]imhungry wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Hellfrost wrote:
Push, let’s forget the number 298 million years. Geologically, how long do you think it would require to cover an entire forest under a mountain of coal? This wasn’t just a few feet under the ground. If they were using heavy machinery to dig deep, we are looking at a lot of sediment build up over a very long time.[/quote]

There has been some remarkable research conducted that shows that the oft repeated zillions of years purported requisite for coal to form may indeed be wrong. It has been done in the laboratory in a relatively short time. If the right conditions are present it can happen quicker than what we’ve come to expect.

Look it up.

Also, under the theory of catastrophism the sediment did NOT need “a very long time” to accumulate.

Look at some to the research at Mt. St. Helens for instance.[/quote]

Not to mention that there were considerably more volcanoes in that time period. If it were just one large volcano, I don’t think it would take that long to cover a forest. Multiple eruptions over time… it’s easy to imagine. [/quote]

The story assumes that 300 million years ago, a volcano erupted that spread ash over a large radius. The entire forest then was perfectly preserved in volcanic ash.

Average depth of coal mine in china is 400m-500m. http://gcep.stanford.edu/pdfs/wR5MezrJ2SJ6NfFl5sb5Jg/10_china_pankexi.pdf

So at half a kilometer deep in the earth, there is a vast quantity of coal, and below the coal is a giant ash preserved forest. The question then becomes, how long does it take for coal to form in nature? Not the synthetic type that are created in a lab, but natural coal.

This man made a synthetic diamond in his garage. How to Make a Synthetic Diamond : 10 Steps (with Pictures) - Instructables That does not mean that diamonds can be made in matter of days in nature.

I don’t know of any volcano to be able to spew 500m worth of volcanic material while also forming coal and other layers of sediments over a short period of time.

Would you agree for this to take place that the minimum requirement would be at least a million years? If not, why?[/quote]

I would like to bring one thing to your attention though…geologists find the exact same rock on shores in California as in parts of Europe. Often, these layers are turned in on each other so that the oldest rock is now closer to the top.

We live on a planet with a churning surface. It has moved drastically over time in waves. Some of you seem to be jumping to conclusions as if we actually have even our own history all figured out.

Why so much faith in science alone when we are still infants in knowing ourselves?

Maybe 1,000 years from now we will know all there is about how we got here…but not now. We aren’t even close.

For the record…I watch TONS of Discovery channel shows on our Earth’s history. It is fascinating…and they spend quite a bit of time showing just how much our planet’s surface has changed.

[Professor_X]

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
My concern is how little love, compassion, empathy, or willingness to understand there are differences between people by those who claim to be following his path.[/quote]

Interesting. Humans are flawed creatures…so you judge a religion by the faults of creatures who will no doubt have faults.

I personally don’t like many churches for many of the same reasons.

The difference?

I can separate the religion and the teachings from the faults of man.

You seem to blame the religion because those people exist.

[Dr_Matt581]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

…Radioactive decay is measurable and quantifiable and verifiable. There is a vast body of evidence to support it…

[/quote]

It’s verifiable to the extent that it meets preconceived criteria.

It is NOT verifiable in the distant past.

Shucks, be honest and admit that this type of dating has only been going on for a few short decades - a small blip in the course of history.

Doesn’t mean it MUST be flawed but in the words of Dirty Harry:

[/quote]

Would you please share with me the preconceived criteria and assumptions you think are made involving radioactive decay? There are some, but probably not what you think and I will post a thorough list of them tomorrow, but right now I have work to do, plus I am looking over information about that link you posted with an excerpt by John Webb so I will probably be unable to address them until tomorrow. [/quote]

This link from the University of North Carolina addresses some of your questions.

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html#Why%20methods%20in%20general%20are%20inaccurate[/quote]

Thank you for that. I am actually very familiar with Dr. Plaisted and his work. He is a very smart man who got his PhD from Stanford in computer science. He has gotten himself in a lot of trouble (and I do mean a lot) by pretending to be an expert in fields he has absolutely no experience in, such as evolution, radioactive dating, cosmology, and a host of other fields and writing articles about them making false claims and using false or unverified data. He has done no research whatsoever in any field other than computer science. Unfortunately, he is smart enough to convince people that do not know anything about those topics that he is right and has done much harm to both legitimate scientists and his own religion as a result. He posted a bunch of articles on his university’s website leading many people to think they were legitimate scientific articles. He was severely reprimanded and is lucky to still have a job. I know the university had his articles removed from the main areas of the website, but I do believe that they may still be linked to on his personal page (which I am guessing they are since the link you posted had cs.unc.edu in it. Since I an only knowledgeable in nuclear physics, I will not pretend to be an expert on evolution and other fields like Dr. Plaisted does and will address his article on radioactive decay/dating methods. It is very long and filled with a lot of false information so it will take me a while to finish, plus I am going to address the excerpt you posted by John Webb first, which is actually based on real and honest scientific inquiry and experimentation rather than a man abusing his position and titles of Doctor and Professor to spread lies and misinformation.

[Professor_X]

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

Thank you for that. I am actually very familiar with Dr. Plaisted and his work. He is a very smart man who got his PhD from Stanford in computer science. He has gotten himself in a lot of trouble (and I do mean a lot) by pretending to be an expert in fields he has absolutely no experience in, such as evolution, radioactive dating, cosmology, and a host of other fields and writing articles about them making false claims and using false or unverified data. He has done no research whatsoever in any field other than computer science. Unfortunately, he is smart enough to convince people that do not know anything about those topics that he is right and has done much harm to both legitimate scientists and his own religion as a result. He posted a bunch of articles on his university’s website leading many people to think they were legitimate scientific articles. He was severely reprimanded and is lucky to still have a job. I know the university had his articles removed from the main areas of the website, but I do believe that they may still be linked to on his personal page (which I am guessing they are since the link you posted had cs.unc.edu in it. Since I an only knowledgeable in nuclear physics, I will not pretend to be an expert on evolution and other fields like Dr. Plaisted does and will address his article on radioactive decay/dating methods. It is very long and filled with a lot of false information so it will take me a while to finish, plus I am going to address the excerpt you posted by John Webb first, which is actually based on real and honest scientific inquiry and experimentation rather than a man abusing his position and titles of Doctor and Professor to spread lies and misinformation.
[/quote]

I have no clue whether you are right or wrong…but I am surprised you haven’t presented any resources supporting your post.

[Hellfrost]

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Hellfrost wrote:

[quote]imhungry wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Hellfrost wrote:
Push, let’s forget the number 298 million years. Geologically, how long do you think it would require to cover an entire forest under a mountain of coal? This wasn’t just a few feet under the ground. If they were using heavy machinery to dig deep, we are looking at a lot of sediment build up over a very long time.[/quote]

There has been some remarkable research conducted that shows that the oft repeated zillions of years purported requisite for coal to form may indeed be wrong. It has been done in the laboratory in a relatively short time. If the right conditions are present it can happen quicker than what we’ve come to expect.

Look it up.

Also, under the theory of catastrophism the sediment did NOT need “a very long time” to accumulate.

Look at some to the research at Mt. St. Helens for instance.[/quote]

Not to mention that there were considerably more volcanoes in that time period. If it were just one large volcano, I don’t think it would take that long to cover a forest. Multiple eruptions over time… it’s easy to imagine. [/quote]

The story assumes that 300 million years ago, a volcano erupted that spread ash over a large radius. The entire forest then was perfectly preserved in volcanic ash.

Average depth of coal mine in china is 400m-500m. http://gcep.stanford.edu/pdfs/wR5MezrJ2SJ6NfFl5sb5Jg/10_china_pankexi.pdf

So at half a kilometer deep in the earth, there is a vast quantity of coal, and below the coal is a giant ash preserved forest. The question then becomes, how long does it take for coal to form in nature? Not the synthetic type that are created in a lab, but natural coal.

This man made a synthetic diamond in his garage. How to Make a Synthetic Diamond : 10 Steps (with Pictures) - Instructables That does not mean that diamonds can be made in matter of days in nature.

I don’t know of any volcano to be able to spew 500m worth of volcanic material while also forming coal and other layers of sediments over a short period of time.

Would you agree for this to take place that the minimum requirement would be at least a million years? If not, why?[/quote]

I would like to bring one thing to your attention though…geologists find the exact same rock on shores in California as in parts of Europe. Often, these layers are turned in on each other so that the oldest rock is now closer to the top.

We live on a planet with a churning surface. It has moved drastically over time in waves. Some of you seem to be jumping to conclusions as if we actually have even our own history all figured out.

Why so much faith in science alone when we are still infants in knowing ourselves?

Maybe 1,000 years from now we will know all there is about how we got here…but not now. We aren’t even close.

For the record…I watch TONS of Discovery channel shows on our Earth’s history. It is fascinating…and they spend quite a bit of time showing just how much our planet’s surface has changed.[/quote]

So you are implying that most sediments over time are brought to the surfaced. Correct?

The only way sediments would be brought up back to earth are either through some sort of major earthquake, or if they are near volcanic activity that recycles material back up. I was looking for more information about the earths surface churning over, but the majority point to the earths crust. Sediments are cemented together and compacted and hardened over time by the weight and pressure of up to thousands of feet of additional sediments above them. How sediment forms – Te Ara Encyclopedia of New Zealand

Pertaining to this topic, most likely the forest is being shoved further down the earth since there does not appear to be any active volcanoes near by.

[Professor_X]

[quote]Hellfrost wrote:

So you are implying that most sediments over time are brought to the surfaced. Correct?[/quote]

Where did I write most?

The only way sediments would be brought up back to earth are either through some sort of major earthquake, or if they are near volcanic activity that recycles material back up. I was looking for more information about the earths surface churning over, but the majority point to the earths crust. Most sedimentary rocks are formed by a long period of time, pressure, and heat that happen deep inside the earths crust.

Pertaining to this topic, most likely the forest is being shoved further down the earth since there does not appear to be any active volcanoes near by.

? How do you know what was near it that long ago? How do you know whether or not there were major catastrophes or earthquakes that changed the area?

My point is, no, you don’t know for sure. No one does. Not yet anyway.

[Hellfrost]

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Hellfrost wrote:

So you are implying that most sediments over time are brought to the surfaced. Correct?[/quote]

Where did I write most?

The only way sediments would be brought up back to earth are either through some sort of major earthquake, or if they are near volcanic activity that recycles material back up. I was looking for more information about the earths surface churning over, but the majority point to the earths crust. Most sedimentary rocks are formed by a long period of time, pressure, and heat that happen deep inside the earths crust.

Pertaining to this topic, most likely the forest is being shoved further down the earth since there does not appear to be any active volcanoes near by.

? How do you know what was near it that long ago?[/quote]

I am trying to avoid the topic of religion, but I am trying to discuss that the forest is older than 10,000 years old. Which time period are you pertaining to?

I also modified my post a little, but it seems you beat me to it.

[Professor_X]

[quote]Hellfrost wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Hellfrost wrote:

So you are implying that most sediments over time are brought to the surfaced. Correct?[/quote]

Where did I write most?

The only way sediments would be brought up back to earth are either through some sort of major earthquake, or if they are near volcanic activity that recycles material back up. I was looking for more information about the earths surface churning over, but the majority point to the earths crust. Most sedimentary rocks are formed by a long period of time, pressure, and heat that happen deep inside the earths crust.

Pertaining to this topic, most likely the forest is being shoved further down the earth since there does not appear to be any active volcanoes near by.

? How do you know what was near it that long ago?[/quote]

I am trying to avoid the topic of religion, but I am trying to discuss that the forest is older than 10,000 years old. Which time period are you pertaining to?

I also modified my post a little, but it seems you beat me to it.[/quote]

What does my post have to do with religion?

Yet when I brought this up earlier, I got responses as if there was no need to mention it.

It doesn’t matter exactly how old it is…your comments about the sediment are too out of touch with the MEGA CHANGES TO THE PLANET IN THAT TIME to jump to some conclusion as if we actually know exactly what happened.

We have no clue exactly how many rocks from space have hit this planet and changed the surface. In fact, many scientists now believe that is how water got here to start with…huge collisions with meteors containing ice.