N
Noose001
Guest
I realized and switched sides just to see the funny on the other side.
Last edited:
- Status
N
Noose001
Guest
I intentionally contradicted myself to expose your thoughts. So it is true the above are your thoughts on the beginnings of language.Noose001:
Are you following your own arguments?
It seems there’s no need to contradict what you post. You do it quite convincingly by yourself. We call that a ‘Buffalo’ around here.
F
Freddy
Guest
This is like Alice Through The Looking Glass. Surreal…
O
o_mlly
Guest
Straw manning others never improves one’s credibility as a truth seeker.
G
Gigantals
Guest
Science can be observed and experimented. Steve literally had millions of logs floating around Spirit Lake to support his log mat theory. He had several feel of peat at the lake bed formed within a few months to prove that peat doesn’t require a thousand years to form a few inches. He found erect logs that were either floating vertically or almost completely buried on his dive in the lake, showing how polystrates can form.
Coal, like dinosaur fossils that are supposedly millions of years old, can be carbon dated. They can’t truly be from the Carboniferous ‘period’. Steve Austin and another group of geologists over a period of several years convinced the authorities at the Yellowstone Petrified Forest that the petrified forest itself was not the result of thousands of years of rainforests; one era on top of another. In fact, he mud and ash-flow deposited trees in Toutle Canyon have much in common with the petrified ‘forests’ of the (Yellowstone) Eocene Lamar River Formation. And Spirit Lake bed, when scanned with ground penetrating radar, shows that the vertical trees are buried at different depths in the bed; giving the false impression that they were buried at different times (if it is believed that such layers form slowly; which this scenario clearly shows otherwise).
The conditions of rapid coalification (through observed science) are:
(a) in the presence of clay activated by acid, the reaction of lignin to form ‘coaly’ materials was highly accelerated, even at only 150°C (four weeks instead of two to four months); and
(b) loss of catalytic action of clays occurred when the reaction was carried out in the presence of air.
Thus their overall conclusion was that coal macerals can be produced rapidly from biological source material by a clay-catalyzed thermal reaction in periods of only two to four months (sometimes one month).
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Such rapid production of coal is being investigated as a potential energy source.
Suddenly, the Biblical chronology doesn’t seem that implausible anymore.
Coal, like dinosaur fossils that are supposedly millions of years old, can be carbon dated. They can’t truly be from the Carboniferous ‘period’. Steve Austin and another group of geologists over a period of several years convinced the authorities at the Yellowstone Petrified Forest that the petrified forest itself was not the result of thousands of years of rainforests; one era on top of another. In fact, he mud and ash-flow deposited trees in Toutle Canyon have much in common with the petrified ‘forests’ of the (Yellowstone) Eocene Lamar River Formation. And Spirit Lake bed, when scanned with ground penetrating radar, shows that the vertical trees are buried at different depths in the bed; giving the false impression that they were buried at different times (if it is believed that such layers form slowly; which this scenario clearly shows otherwise).
The conditions of rapid coalification (through observed science) are:
- Softwood lignin heated with clay minerals (particularly montmorillonite) at 150°C for two to eight months in the absence of oxygen was readily transformed into insoluble materials resembling coals of various ranks.
- Longer reaction times produced materials resembling vitrinites of higher rank.
- Simple pyrolysis of lignin without clay at 350 to 400°C yielded only char (most likely fusinite).
- Using kaolinite or illite, independently or mixed with montmorillonite, produced similar results.
(a) in the presence of clay activated by acid, the reaction of lignin to form ‘coaly’ materials was highly accelerated, even at only 150°C (four weeks instead of two to four months); and
(b) loss of catalytic action of clays occurred when the reaction was carried out in the presence of air.
Thus their overall conclusion was that coal macerals can be produced rapidly from biological source material by a clay-catalyzed thermal reaction in periods of only two to four months (sometimes one month).
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Such rapid production of coal is being investigated as a potential energy source.
Suddenly, the Biblical chronology doesn’t seem that implausible anymore.
Last edited:
W
whatistrue
Guest
Exactly. We are talking about language development. You are the only one conflating language development with evolution. Evolution is a biological process; language development is not.
And provided zero evidence, only the repeated gratuitous assertion.
F
Freddy
Guest
I was going to post a relatively long response, but a short one will do.
Carbon dating coal is an exercise in futility. Surely they taught you the limits of the testing method in your course?
Carbon dating coal is an exercise in futility. Surely they taught you the limits of the testing method in your course?
G
Gigantals
Guest
The fact that there is C14 in the coal in the first place either shows that carbon dating is not a closed system and shouldn’t be used as a dating method, or the coal is clearly not millions of years old.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Darwin’s constricted to a few observations of microevolution so he starts with a wild speculation of macroevolution and then builds everything around that. That’s not science.
F
Freddy
Guest
Is this where you bend the facts to suit your beliefs? Because I would bet my house on the fact that you know that there is carbon-14 in any sample of coal. But that with a half life of 5,700 years, after 60,000 years there is not enough for anything approaching a meaningful result.
As a geology student you would have had that explained to you.
F
Freddy
Guest
Gee, I thought you’d headed of to wait for the next evolution thread.Freddy:
Darwin’s constricted to a few observations of microevolution so he starts with a wild speculation of macroevolution and then builds everything around that. That’s not science.
Anyway, if you don’t accept Darwin’s proposals and don’t accept the countless proposals that have been made to bolster his theory over the following 160 years, perhaps you can give us your alternative proposal.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Yeah. But I couldn’t resist pointing out the duplicity in your post.
F
Freddy
Guest
So you were about to give us your alternative…?Freddy:
Yeah. But I couldn’t resist pointing out the duplicity in your post.
N
Noose001
Guest
Yet language is a trait specific to the human species. Which theory deals with species diversification?
The dog ate my homework kind of excuses.
Last edited:
G
Gigantals
Guest
Carbon dating wood found in a coal seam in Crinum Coal Mine, Queensland; and the K-Ar dating of the basalt around it. Bit varied between the two, don’t you think?
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) (Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
This falls on the younger side of 60K, so there is a meaningful amount left, right?
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) (Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
This falls on the younger side of 60K, so there is a meaningful amount left, right?
Last edited:
W
whatistrue
Guest
Is it though? Don’t other primates signal, especially for danger? Don’t bees tell each other where the nectar is in a highly structured form of communication? Language is not restricted to what we would call intelligible speech. As for the second sentence, of course that is evolution. But a new language does not a new species make, so the analogy fails. Evolution is a biological process; language development is decidedly not.
Can you translate this? It doesn’t make sense to me.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Just as soon as we get Fred’s version out of the closet.
N
Noose001
Guest
A bee does not tell another bee, it just releases some chemicals, all species have a gene based communication method including man - and would you believe this, human share the crying gene with our so called ‘close relatives’. This might be the same gene responsible for their communication (grunts in different pitches).
If our ancestor lost the tail as evolution purports, where is the explanation of how we lost the grunts and decided that speech is better, doing away with ineffective evolution.
Last edited:
W
whatistrue
Guest
Incorrect. See Dance Language of the Honey Bee – Bee Health
Is speech really anything other than really complex grunting when all is said and done?
F
Freddy
Guest
Now you wouldn’t have got that from a creationist site by any chance? Is this an example of what you are going to need to do as we alluded to earlier? Omitting the sources for your ‘evidence’?
I’ll leave it to you to explain where it came from.
- Status