Tiktaalik: was the discovery of tiktaalik exclusive only to Evolution?

CrowCross said:
If you need to ask that question....then you don't know about GPR. That means once again you're pretty much wasting my time.
Click to expand...

Actually, having studied Physics at University and having volunteered on a few archaeological digs in the UK I know a fair amount about Ground Penetrating Radar.

For example, I know that in ideal conditions GPR can reach a depth of about 10m, but at that limit it is only really good at detecting large structures. GPR is very limited by clays (high conductivity of the soil causes signal loss) and rocky soils (rocks cause the signal to be dispersed), often limiting the maximum depth to less than 2m.

One of the key things about GPR is that it really only gives you an indication of an "anomaly", so if you really want to know what it is you have to actually dig to confirm what it is. i.e. Something that looks like it might be a grave cut could turn out to be nothing more than an old rotten tree stump (as happened at a dig I once worked on).

So, let's try the questions you tried to ignore again:

What technology are they using to penetrate deep into the soil? And how deep exactly?

Do you have a link to the paper that they published detailing their discoveries?

Oh, and one more: what is the name of the lead archaeologist?
 
CrowCross said:
You do know the flood started out as many local flood, grew to world wide in size and then as the waters receded returned to a local floods...you do know that? Yes?
Click to expand...
And it all happened within a single year. Any local flood outside that year was just a local flood. If you want evidence of the Genesis flood, then you need dated evidence from the correct year.
 
TeabagSalad said:
Actually, having studied Physics at University and having volunteered on a few archaeological digs in the UK I know a fair amount about Ground Penetrating Radar.

For example, I know that in ideal conditions GPR can reach a depth of about 10m, but at that limit it is only really good at detecting large structures. GPR is very limited by clays (high conductivity of the soil causes signal loss) and rocky soils (rocks cause the signal to be dispersed), often limiting the maximum depth to less than 2m.

One of the key things about GPR is that it really only gives you an indication of an "anomaly", so if you really want to know what it is you have to actually dig to confirm what it is. i.e. Something that looks like it might be a grave cut could turn out to be nothing more than an old rotten tree stump (as happened at a dig I once worked on).

So, let's try the questions you tried to ignore again:

What technology are they using to penetrate deep into the soil? And how deep exactly?

Do you have a link to the paper that they published detailing their discoveries?

Oh, and one more: what is the name of the lead archaeologist?
Click to expand...
For someone who claims to "Actually, having studied Physics at University and having volunteered on a few archaeological digs in the UK"...one would think you'd be more on the ball concerning this topic. Perhaps you should ask for a refund from your tuition. A tree stump doesn't look like a pattern of rooms.
 
rossum said:
And it all happened within a single year. Any local flood outside that year was just a local flood. If you want evidence of the Genesis flood, then you need dated evidence from the correct year.
Click to expand...
I once found a rock I pulled from the strata of a road cut that had inscribed on it...made in 2348 BC....Now here I thought the flood occurred in 2350 BC.
 
CrowCross said:
For someone who claims to "Actually, having studied Physics at University and having volunteered on a few archaeological digs in the UK"...one would think you'd be more on the ball concerning this topic. Perhaps you should ask for a refund from your tuition. A tree stump doesn't look like a pattern of rooms.
Click to expand...
I am also interested in the answers to these specific questions:
TeabagSalad said:
What technology are they using to penetrate deep into the soil? And how deep exactly?

Do you have a link to the paper that they published detailing their discoveries?

Oh, and one more: what is the name of the lead archaeologist?
Click to expand...
 
CrowCross said:
I once found a rock I pulled from the strata of a road cut that had inscribed on it...made in 2348 BC....Now here I thought the flood occurred in 2350 BC.
Click to expand...
Again confirming that you have no dated evidence from the flood year. All you have is evidence of floods, that might be local floods from another year, or be from the flood year. That means that you do not have any reliable evidence. Yes there was a flood somewhere somewhen, but you have no way to tell if it was from a small local flood or from a worldwide flood.

You will need better evidence than this. Hint: you are unlikely to get it from YEC websites, they are not really into dating things.
 
Gus Bovona said:
I am also interested in the answers to these specific questions:
Click to expand...
There is a video (documentary) out there that shows the GPR being used....and flags placed where the anomalies were found. The side of the ark was also GPR'ed. They may have also employed another technology to see in the ark.

Here is a minute and a half video that shows some results. It's not from the documentary I saw earlier....but it should show the technology and some of what they discovered.

 
CrowCross said:
For someone who claims to "Actually, having studied Physics at University and having volunteered on a few archaeological digs in the UK"...one would think you'd be more on the ball concerning this topic. Perhaps you should ask for a refund from your tuition. A tree stump doesn't look like a pattern of rooms.
Click to expand...

You should go back and read what I wrote. I didn't say that a tree stump looks like a pattern of rooms, but clearly stated that an anomaly which looked like a grave cut actually turned out to be a rotten tree stump.

Now, can you answer the questions I asked:

What technology are they using to penetrate deep into the soil? And how deep exactly?

Do you have a link to the paper that they published detailing their discoveries?

What is the name of the lead archaeologist?
 
rossum said:
Again confirming that you have no dated evidence from the flood year. All you have is evidence of floods, that might be local floods from another year, or be from the flood year. That means that you do not have any reliable evidence. Yes there was a flood somewhere somewhen, but you have no way to tell if it was from a small local flood or from a worldwide flood.

You will need better evidence than this. Hint: you are unlikely to get it from YEC websites, they are not really into dating things.
Click to expand...
Can the Redwoods Date the Flood? (article)
 
CrowCross said:
There is a video (documentary) out there that shows the GPR being used....and flags placed where the anomalies were found. The side of the ark was also GPR'ed. They may have also employed another technology to see in the ark.

Here is a minute and a half video that shows some results. It's not from the documentary I saw earlier....but it should show the technology and some of what they discovered.

Click to expand...
OK, GPR was used. Thank you. Now,
Do you have a link to the paper that they published detailing their discoveries?
Click to expand...
 
CrowCross said:
Can the Redwoods Date the Flood? (article)
Click to expand...
You didn't look very carefully at your link. It says:

In addition to the ancient bristlecone pine, we may say that the giant sequoia, found only in the Sierra Nevadas of California, IS ONE OF THE OLDEST LIVING THINGS ON EARTH!​

Having read that, did you think to check the age of the bristlecone pines mentioned? I suspect not. Bristlecone pines have been dated to 4,900 years old and 4,850 years old. There are older trees with estimated ages of 6,000 years and 5,070 years.

Apart from single trees, there are also clonal trees. The oldest of those is at least 43,000 years old, while another is 13,000 years old.

Your own source gave you a clue and you failed to follow it up. Thank you for providing yet more evidence that there was no global flood, and that the earth was not created 6,000 years ago. The page you should have looked at is List of Oldest Trees which includes references at the bottom.
 
rossum said:
You didn't look very carefully at your link. It says:

In addition to the ancient bristlecone pine, we may say that the giant sequoia, found only in the Sierra Nevadas of California, IS ONE OF THE OLDEST LIVING THINGS ON EARTH!​

Having read that, did you think to check the age of the bristlecone pines mentioned? I suspect not. Bristlecone pines have been dated to 4,900 years old and 4,850 years old. There are older trees with estimated ages of 6,000 years and 5,070 years.

Apart from single trees, there are also clonal trees. The oldest of those is at least 43,000 years old, while another is 13,000 years old.

Your own source gave you a clue and you failed to follow it up. Thank you for providing yet more evidence that there was no global flood, and that the earth was not created 6,000 years ago. The page you should have looked at is List of Oldest Trees which includes references at the bottom.
Click to expand...
So they want ...need...you to believe.

There is no 43,000 year old tree.
 
CrowCross said:
As far as I know...I don't know. I would imagine so.
Currently I have no interest in looking for one. Feel free to look.
Click to expand...
Sure, but what is the name of the lead archaeologist? It'll be hard to ID, even if I find it online somewhere, as the one you are thinking of without a name.
 
CrowCross said:
I don't know Gus....go look it up.
I've provided you with enough material to understand.
Click to expand...
Not backing up what you offer with data or information, and making your interlocutor do find your information, is not part of the scientific attitude.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top