It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in evolution debate

tangled bank wrote:

<quoted text>
3000 ybp -and- 7000 ybp

Dogen wrote:

<quoted text>
The article presented data in 1000 year increments, which still leave out your 4,500 ybp flood since the largest flood(s) look to be about 20,000 years ago.

tangled bank wrote:

<quoted text>
Your source presented one graph of alluvial flooding (3 events) 4100 years ago in Arizona (Sonoran desert/Phoenix area). All the other holocene alluvial floods discussed were from 12.5, 11.1, 10-14, and 9.4 ka.
http://alliance.la.asu.edu/dorn/Ch24_Alluvial...
This doesn't strike me as "global" evidence.
Drought sediment data from around the world, including the great deserts, and during the time of your hypothetical global flood, has been provided. Here's a small sampling;
1. Mineralogy, chemical composition and sedimentary facies analyses of the deposits confirm the regional significance of mid-Holocene aridity between 6000-3800 BP in the Southern Chilean Altiplano (Atacama Desert).
2. Mojave Desert rock varnish documenting a dry period over the last 10 ka
3. During mid-Holocene (4000-6000 ybp), the tropical African climate shifted towards increasingly drier conditions. The onset of the transition is marked by a peak in dust content in Kilimanjaro ice cores, changes in geochemical composition of marine sediments and pollen data throughout the region
4. No flood sediment was reported in the Holocene sedimentary record from Bosten Lake, China (Gobi Desert) between 4.6 - 4.3 ka. Only sediments which documented negative water balance/dry conditions.
5. No flood sediment was found in the holocene sedimentary record from the Tibetan Plateau ~5.4 to ~4.0 cal ka BP. This sediment "marks a transition between favourable, stable hydrological conditions (7.2-~5.4 ka) and lake level decrease (~5.4-4.0 ka). Lower lake levels were a consequence of drier climate with less monsoonal precipitation, higher evaporation rates, and increased moisture recycling in the catchment. Sediments from ~4.0 to ~1.4 cal ka BP) reflects the driest periods recorded, at ~3.7 cal ka BP with Lake shrinkage and salinization.
6. No flood sediment was found in the holocene sedimentary record from Lake Ugii Nuur in central Mongolia, "where a prolonged dry climate prevailed between 5830–3080 14C BP, as indicated by a dramatic increase in Chenopodiaceae pollen percentages at the expense of Pinus, Poaceae, Cyperaceae and other mesophytic forbs pollen percentages. This mid-Holocene drought is further confirmed by diatom and sedimentary variations, both the planktonic/benthic diatom ratio and the deposition rate being the lowest.
No global flood sediment
No global flood

tangled bank wrote:

Re: The unnatural act was the intelligent controlling of conditions (dosage, timing, and duration) in combinations which have not been demonstrated to naturally occur.
<quoted text>
No I'm asking you if you have data to support your assertion that the retinoic acid levels in the Hox gene/retinoic acid/stingray research study were "in combinations which have not been demonstrated to naturally occur."
on the tetrapod-like appendage patterning of sting ray fins, demonstrated that Hox genes can cause, on their own, significant and sudden morphological change in response to a changing environment. Retinoic acid is a naturally occurring constituent of the cellular environment

KAB wrote:

<quoted text>
Can a flood occur during a drought?

Kong_ wrote:

<quoted text>
"
Cleansing ritual from leprosy:
Get two birds. Kill one. Dip the live bird in the blood of the dead one. Sprinkle the blood on the leper seven times, and then let the blood-soaked bird fly away. Next find a lamb and kill it. Wipe some of its blood on the patient’s right ear, thumb, and big toe. Sprinkle seven times with oil and wipe some of the oil on his right ear, thumb and big toe. Repeat. Finally find another pair of birds. Kill one and dip the live bird in the dead bird’s blood. Wipe some blood on the patient’s right ear, thumb, and big toe. Sprinkle the house with blood 7 times."
– Leviticus 14:2-52

KAB wrote:

<quoted text>
Thanks, that reinforces what I already knew.

KAB wrote:

<quoted text>
Are you sure you have the right topic? The data referenced is about buffalo bottlenecks not floods.

KAB wrote:

<quoted text>
Can a flood occur during a drought?

KAB wrote:

<quoted text>
So when scientists do an experiment do you assume they're just doing what comes naturally, even if they don't state that?

thewordofme wrote:

You see KAB that Bible is just a book. A book written by these old priests and goat herders. It has no meaning to humanity anymore, actually it never did.
We can live just fine without the book or the religion behind it. There is NO magic in the world...there never was.

LowellGuy wrote:

<quoted text>
Lev 14:2-32.
God said...
So, would you follow the instructions God detailed in Leviticus, or would you seek out antibiotics? If the Bible is 100% correct in all testable claims, and God himself declares something a cure for leprosy, that is testable. Because it must be true, according to you, you SHOULD, to be intellectually consistent, go with God's treatment. But, would you? Would you put your health where your mouth is?

tangled bank wrote:

Re: My asking KAB for data to support his assertion that Hopi's were the descendants of the survivors of his global flood.
<quoted text>
I thought you always provided data when you were asked for it. Guess not.
Also still waiting for data on seedling immersion in sea water, flood sediment data in other crater lakes, and combinations of retinoic acid which have not been demonstrated to naturally occur.

Dogen wrote:

<quoted text>
Another of your tactics. Throw out a non sequitur and hope no one remembers what was actually going on.

KAB wrote:

<quoted text>
You're entitled to your opinion. Everybody is, but that solves nothing, only data does. Remember, you could be dead wrong.

KAB wrote:

<quoted text>
The Law has been abolished, and a well person doesn't need antibiotics. Reread Lev. 14 carefully and include Lev. 13 this time, and you may understand how apropos my answer is, but I'm not very hopeful.

KAB wrote:

<quoted text>
It's actually a manifestation of my low hanging fruit principle.

Judged:

2

2

2

Dogen wrote:

<quoted text>
You are in virtual ignoring mode. Your response is not meaningful in the context of an attempted response to TBs post.
Why not understand the information and try again.
----------
tangled bank wrote:
Re: data which provides evidence to support the endosymbiotic origin of eukaryoptic cells.
<quoted text>
But the hypothetical consortium you referred to has "extant natural analogues," e.g., "Thiodendron latens" and the membrane-bounded nucleoid in the eubacterium "Gemmata obscuriglobus” which became the chimera's nucleus. So in that respect - the endosymbiotic origin of a nucleus has been demonstrated.
Furthermore - there isn't anyone who doubts the endosymbiotic origin of the eukaryotic cell, especially regarding the mitochondria and chloroplast.
<quoted text>
Thank you for support of the endosymbiotic origin of eukaryotes, a hypothesis which dispels the illusion of evolutionary discontinuity.

LowellGuy wrote:

<quoted text>
What is a hypothesis in science?
A hypothesis need not be observed. In fact, hypotheses CANNOT be observed.
You're dangerously close to crossing over into marksman11 territory.
Is ice magnetic?

KAB wrote:

<quoted text>
I have explained Psalm 104:5 previously based on the ancient Hebrew in which it was originally written. Have you forgotten that?