PDA

View Full Version : Question on the flood



talmudicmishna
Mar 17th 2009, 03:31 PM
I see a lot of discussions related to the feasability of the story of Noah's ark ( how the animals were collected, how the ark was built, etc). My questionis a little different...

Why was the flood needed? Why did God not just use his power to rid the Earth of sinners without resorting to a flood- this would have saved plants and millions of animals (as well as being alot easier for Noah and his family!).

Secondly- Humans were already seen as sinners in the eyes of God ever since the fall. Why not just wipe out all humans (noah included) and start over? By starting over, original sin would be wiped out and humans would no longer suffer as a result.
Hope everyone is having a good day! Hope my questions make sense.

teddyv
Mar 17th 2009, 04:29 PM
I see a lot of discussions related to the feasability of the story of Noah's ark ( how the animals were collected, how the ark was built, etc). My questionis a little different...

Why was the flood needed? Why did God not just use his power to rid the Earth of sinners without resorting to a flood- this would have saved plants and millions of animals (as well as being alot easier for Noah and his family!).
Some random thoughts. I understand there are a lot of parallels of the imagery of the Flood story to that of Christ's death and resurrection as well as that of baptism. Also the use of the term the "ark" seems to show up with respect to God and his covenants.


Secondly- Humans were already seen as sinners in the eyes of God ever since the fall. Why not just wipe out all humans (noah included) and start over? By starting over, original sin would be wiped out and humans would no longer suffer as a result.
That's a good question. I guess God shows his nature that he earnestly seeks people who trust in him and will save them. I think this is pretty important truth for us to know. God is in the business of redeeming his creation, including us.


Hope everyone is having a good day! Hope my questions make sense.
Cheers!:)

HisLeast
Mar 17th 2009, 04:49 PM
I'll take a crack at it. I declare these are only my own best guesses though. :)


Why was the flood needed? Why did God not just use his power to rid the Earth of sinners without resorting to a flood- this would have saved plants and millions of animals (as well as being alot easier for Noah and his family!).
One way to look at it is that God DID use his power to rid the Earth of sinners. Can't imagine any of it would have happened without His direct influence. As for the scale of destruction, I hypothesize that God restrains Himself in various ways when interacting with creation, but we aren't privy to how or why. There may even be a practical side of it that we aren't aware of. If you think of a programmer who's built a piece of software that isn't working. He might know there's a core component that works fine, but its not worth the time or effort to check the other 50,000 lines of code... so he removes the good component and starts over.


Secondly- Humans were already seen as sinners in the eyes of God ever since the fall. Why not just wipe out all humans (noah included) and start over? By starting over, original sin would be wiped out and humans would no longer suffer as a result.
Hope everyone is having a good day! Hope my questions make sense.
Some things to consider.
1) Over the course of scriptures we see many people who God sees as righteous, despite the fall: David, Abraham, Elijah, Noah. If God wiped out Noah and his family, would he have made Himself a liar and untrustworthy God?
2) Starting over would indicate to me that all is lost. If all was lost, did God's plan fail? Instead we see hope and salvation survive 40 days of rain and starting over almost from scratch.
3) Maybe its not about "people not having to suffer". Maybe its about ensuring that God's apex creation learns something it was destined and created to know.

That's my 0.02 anyhow.

th1bill
Mar 17th 2009, 05:20 PM
I see a lot of discussions related to the feasability of the story of Noah's ark ( how the animals were collected, how the ark was built, etc). My questionis a little different...

Why was the flood needed? Why did God not just use his power to rid the Earth of sinners without resorting to a flood- this would have saved plants and millions of animals (as well as being alot easier for Noah and his family!).

Secondly- Humans were already seen as sinners in the eyes of God ever since the fall. Why not just wipe out all humans (noah included) and start over? By starting over, original sin would be wiped out and humans would no longer suffer as a result.
Hope everyone is having a good day! Hope my questions make sense.
... The best way to check both of my answers is to read the Bible through, not two chapters of the Old Testament and one of the New each day. Read three chapters a day of the same book and you will easily complete the task in one year.
... The answer to the first is that God is not a human. God has demonstrated His mercy ever since Eve ate from the tree and caused Adam to follow her in that sin. God knew before any of the sins were done that they would be done and yet He loved the humans so much, knowing that a few of them would love Him also that He permitted them to go their way. Now, you know I am guessing but I would say that God wanted to demonstrate how powerful He could be, He certainly did that.
... On your second question, not so, say I. In all of man's history your idea of perfection fails. There sprung up on the earth, after the Tower of Bable incident tribes of men, everywhere, and yet everyone of them grew in their sins. And yes, God could have killed even Noah and his bunch and started over with a new pair of perfect human beings but God's plan would have been set off course.
... God created man for Him to love, to love Him and to worship Him. Before you can have true, heart felt worship, you must have love. For love to exist and to flourish you must have the option not to do so, free will.
... But when God created man he gave him the need to worship, evidenced by the pagan rituals observed around the world. If all there was to love was God then man could not exercise his free will and the love would be meaningless. So, yes, God could have killed everyone on the earth and started completely over but because God is the God of mercy He extended that mercy to Noah and through Noah, to his family and in this manor, God's mercy has remained unbroken.
... These are the things that God has shown to me and I hope this helps you in your quest. God bless.

mike1983
Mar 17th 2009, 10:53 PM
I think God used a flood because:

- The obvious reason: "And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually - Gen 6:5", so there wasn't any reason to keep them alive. The bible also sometimes highlites animals being as 'corrupted' synchronous to men, thus the plants would probably also be corrupted due to sin. All is corrupted but Noah and his family.

- The symbolical reason: As Rev 17:15 states: "And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues." So in a symolic sense all the people of the world (the water) flooded the world with evil.

As God says a measurement of punishment (for the wicked) is an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Or as we say in Dutch "A cookie of your own dough". What else would be a better punishment for the wicked?

As for your second question, original sin wouldn't be wiped out because satan and his followers would still be here. On a whole different perspective: why would God start over? He has a plan from the beginning and it is going to succeed! He planted His mustardseed (Adam) on the earth and the plant will one day encompass the earth. Adam - Noah - Abraham - David - Jesus - YOU! To cut the tree and plant a new one would be useless :D

God bless

Romber
Mar 18th 2009, 12:31 AM
Why was the flood needed? Why did God not just use his power to rid the Earth of sinners without resorting to a flood- this would have saved plants and millions of animals (as well as being alot easier for Noah and his family!).

I believe the flood was also in place for a symbol of what is to come


Secondly- Humans were already seen as sinners in the eyes of God ever since the fall. Why not just wipe out all humans (noah included) and start over? By starting over, original sin would be wiped out and humans would no longer suffer as a result.

But is this entirely so? When sin entered, the sustaining power left. Essentially this means decay began, and mutations became rampant. Getting rid of all humans would not get rid of all the effects of sin as all the plants and processes in this world still are "groaning" from the effects of sin. If you truly wanted to start over you would have to entirely erase the world and start over that way.

BRO ETE
Mar 19th 2009, 11:17 PM
I believe the flood was also in place for a symbol of what is to come

You are closer to the knowledge of the truth.

Biblically, the event that transpired on the day's of Noah has a great similarity of the things which about to come. But First, let's ask this simple question...

why did God instruct Noah to build an Ark? What's is his purpose?

Second, why did Noah, while building the Ark preached to people the impending destruction?

And why in the world only eight souls entered the Ark and the rest did not?

What is the great significant does this past history which was the first extinction of mankind except the 8 souls relays to us to whom we shall also be facing the same destruction at the end of the age?


Secondly- Humans were already seen as sinners in the eyes of God ever since the fall. Why not just wipe out all humans (noah included) and start over? By starting over, original sin would be wiped out and humans would no longer suffer as a result.


But is this entirely so? When sin entered, the sustaining power left. Essentially this means decay began, and mutations became rampant. Getting rid of all humans would not get rid of all the effects of sin as all the plants and processes in this world still are "groaning" from the effects of sin. If you truly wanted to start over you would have to entirely erase the world and start over that way.


In simple terms, as long as human have this flesh made of earth, the same is true, we are subject to sin cause flesh is weak, but right at the same time, God's grace remains superior to sin, meaning: Our punishment due to our sins are long overdue, but how come we, sinners, have never received it yet? Here's the reason....

1 Timothy 2:3 For this [is] good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Conclusion: God want's all men to come and to know the truth regarding how man can be saved, and as long as the sun rises in the east and set in west...that is God's mercy to mankind...until the day Noah closed the Ark and the rain falls and all men died...in the same manner, the Son of Man will appear which is the signal of the closing of the door of "chances" for salvation and the ending of God's grace to sinners then all men will die the second death in the lake of fire.

That is about to come and at the very doors.

Psalms Fan
Mar 20th 2009, 07:19 PM
Why a flood and not something else? It is my belief that all in the OT points to Christ and the New Covenant. Christ uses the story of the flood as a metaphore for judgement. It came swiftly, and only those prepared survived. Peter uses the story as a means to teach about baptism. So at the very least, that's two reasons why God chose to use a flood.

Why not destroy all mankind and start over? God was not interested just in a perfect race. He was interested in a perfected race. In other words, the point of humanity is not mankind, the The Man, Jesus of Nazareth. God desired to show forth not just his ability to give what is deserved, but his grace, mercy and compassion. We are objects of His mercy, and that brings Him glory (see Romans 9-11).

BRO ETE
Mar 21st 2009, 04:05 AM
Why a flood and not something else? It is my belief that all in the OT points to Christ and the New Covenant. Christ uses the story of the flood as a metaphore for judgement. It came swiftly, and only those prepared survived. Peter uses the story as a means to teach about baptism. So at the very least, that's two reasons why God chose to use a flood.

But the bottomline is, man must benefit on that historical events, if men will not know where to enter to be protected from the coming fire of God's wrath, the way the 8 souls entered the Ark of their salvation, then they are the most unfortunate person in the face of the earth.

As the saying goes, history will repeat itself all over again.



Why not destroy all mankind and start over? God was not interested just in a perfect race. He was interested in a perfected race. In other words, the point of humanity is not mankind, the The Man, Jesus of Nazareth. God desired to show forth not just his ability to give what is deserved, but his grace, mercy and compassion. We are objects of His mercy, and that brings Him glory (see Romans 9-11).

Amen.

Evolution
Mar 23rd 2009, 07:40 PM
I see a lot of discussions related to the feasability of the story of Noah's ark ( how the animals were collected, how the ark was built, etc). My questionis a little different...

Why was the flood needed? Why did God not just use his power to rid the Earth of sinners without resorting to a flood- this would have saved plants and millions of animals (as well as being alot easier for Noah and his family!).

Secondly- Humans were already seen as sinners in the eyes of God ever since the fall. Why not just wipe out all humans (noah included) and start over? By starting over, original sin would be wiped out and humans would no longer suffer as a result.
Hope everyone is having a good day! Hope my questions make sense.

Well, we can't know, but I think it was more for Noah and his family than anyone else...

webers_home
Apr 3rd 2009, 12:41 PM
.
Earth's creator decreed that Christ would be crucified as a ransom to rescue men's souls from retribution before construction even began.

†.Rev 13:8 . .And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

What that means is that Christ's crucifixion wasn't an ambulance sent to the scene of an accident; nor was it some sort of damage control. God foresaw the fall of Man before He even created the first one, and formulated a scheme to rescue him from eternal suffering right from the get-go.

In a number of places in the Bible, water is seen as a cleansing agent to purify things. The Flood was like that; a great big car wash; and was the creator's first prime example of washing by water. From that point on, water, as a metaphor, is seen as a pretty important agent in the divine plan.

†.John 13:8 . .If I do not wash you, you have no part with me.

†.Eph 5:25-26 . .Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word

†.Titus 3:5 . .Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy he spared us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost

Ironically, water was a source of death for the antediluvians while it was a source of life for Noah and his family. The same water that drowned the others, buoyed Noah and his family above it to safety. Wood floats; so Noah rode out the wrath of God like a child riding a little pony. The pony's hooves crushed everybody else like insects; while the same pony bore Noah upon its back where its hooves couldn't touch him.

†.1Pet 3:17-22 . . For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, in order that he might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in The Spirit; in which also he went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.

. . Which corresponds to the baptism that now saves you— not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience —through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to him.

The baptism that Peter is talking about in that passage is not Christian water baptism. The reason I know that is because Noah didn't get wet. No, he was inside the Ark where the water couldn't touch him. The people who got wet drowned.

The "baptism" that now saves me is not water baptism, but rather, the baptism of the Holy Ghost.

†.Titus 3:5 . .according to His mercy he spared us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost

The Spirit's baptism put me "in" Christ where I rode out the judgment of God on the cross with Jesus. Just as the Ark took the brunt of God's anger for Noah, so Christ took the brunt of God's anger for me. The key word in this process is "in". It's necessary to be "in" Christ to benefit from his crucifixion because just as those on the outside of the Ark perished, so those on the outside of Christ are on a path to the reservoir of flaming liquid spoken of in Rev 20:11-15.

Wearing the Christian label is not the same thing as being "in" Christ. What I'm talking about here is a supernatural aspect of Christianity that can't be obtained by joining a church and getting baptized with water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. No, what I'm talking about here goes way beyond the physical sphere.

Anyway, I've no doubt God planned the Flood from the very beginning as He looked forward to the day when He would use the Flood as a picture to explain how His son's crucifixion works to rescue people from the wrath to come.

RE: Why not just wipe out all humans (noah included) and start over?

No can do; for four very important reasons. Number 1: it was essential that Abraham be Adam's kin. Number 2, it was essential that the Jews be Adam's kin. Number 3, it was essential that Mary be Adam's kin; and Number 4: it was essential that Christ be Adam's kin too.

The problem is: Christ can die only for his fellow men. He cannot die for people to whom he has no relation. In other words, supposing there were sinful aliens out there in the cosmos somewhere on the planet Krypton. Well, Christ couldn't die for them because he's not one of their own. The family of Adam is his own; not the aliens.

RE: Hope my questions make sense.

They're excellent questions. Way too many professing Xians stick their heads in the sand and block out questions like yours. I believe God wants those questions asked, and I believe He wants them answered—especially at times like Easter and Christmas. Christians are supposed to be lights in the world while they're in the world. A Christian with his head in the sand is switched off and powered-down.

†.Mtt 5:15 . .Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.

†.1Pet 3:15 . .Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.

The kind of hope Peter is talking about in that mandate is not a cross-your-fingers kind of hope. No, the Greek word for hope in that verse is elpis (el-pece') which means to anticipate (usually with pleasure); and to expect with confidence. Note the elements of anticipation, expectation, and confidence. Only Christians who know for sure that they have Heaven in the bag can have elpis hope. All other Xians are just wishful and there's no use in asking them to give a reason for having that kind of hope because everybody already has that kind of hope.

C.L.I.F.F.

Sam07
Apr 3rd 2009, 03:08 PM
Hi everyone,

You have raised some very interesting questions so let’s consider the wisdom and knowledge of our father.

Why was the flood needed?

Remember the whole earth was originally covered in water there was no light or life until God spoke the word, but also take into account Adams body become a living soul when God breathed into his nostrils. Genesis 1:1-3 2:7

So one of the most effective ways to destroy breath or life in all creatures is to remove the oxygen hence a flood or returning the earth back to its original state, unsure how this may have affected the fish except to say the fresh water could have had consequences on it.

Why not just wipe out all humans (Noah included) and start over?

The reason why Noah was saved besides the obvious was because God had told the serpent he would put enmity between the women’s seed and his seed and that her seed would bruise his head and his seed would bruise her heel indicating Gods plan of Salvation for humanity. Genesis 3:15

Therefore this prophesy wouldn’t be possible if Noah was wiped out too, and God had already spoken the word so a seed from her line had to be saved in order for this to be fulfilled so humanity could be reconciled back to God, that’s why Noah’s life was preserved and his children with him so they could repopulate the earth and continue her seed from generation to generation until the birth of Jesus Christ. Genesis 3:15 Mat 1:1-16

Just some food for thought.

Peace

Sam

chad
Apr 4th 2009, 11:06 AM
[quote=talmudicmishna;2014971]
Why was the flood needed?

(Gen 6:1 KJV) And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

(Gen 6:2 KJV) That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

(Gen 6:3 KJV) And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

(Gen 6:4 KJV) There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

(Gen 6:5 KJV) And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

(Gen 6:6 KJV) And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

(Gen 6:7 KJV) And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

(Gen 6:8 KJV) But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

(Gen 6:9 NIV) This is the account of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God.

Why did God not just use his power to rid the Earth of sinners without resorting to a flood- this would have saved plants and millions of animals (as well as being alot easier for Noah and his family!).

(Gen 6:9 KJV) These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.

(Gen 6:11 KJV) The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.

(Gen 6:12 KJV) And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

(Gen 6:13 KJV) And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

Secondly- Humans were already seen as sinners in the eyes of God ever since the fall. Why not just wipe out all humans (noah included) and start over? By starting over, original sin would be wiped out and humans would no longer suffer as a result.

(Gen 6:17 KJV) And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

(Gen 6:18 KJV) But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.

(Gen 9:12 KJV) And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:

(Gen 9:13 KJV) I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.

(Gen 9:14 KJV) And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:

(Gen 9:15 KJV) And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.

(Gen 9:16 KJV) And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.

(Gen 9:17 KJV) And God said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth.

Word of Light
Apr 8th 2009, 10:51 AM
Why was the flood needed? Why did God not just use his power to rid the Earth of sinners without resorting to a flood- this would have saved plants and millions of animals (as well as being alot easier for Noah and his family!).


Here's my theory. First, you need to read Genesis 1 slowly and carefully to understand what the Earth looked like prior to the flood.

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Here God creates the universe, the stars, the planets, and our Earth.

2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
Apparently, at this time, the Earth was just a giant ball of water. And God can seen in the "dark".

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
But God decided to turn on the lights.

4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day
Here, God created the concept of time.

6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

Here, God created what we call the sky. But wait, look carefully. God said, the sky was sandwiched between two layers of water. So literally, there was a water canopy surrounding our Earth. Can you imagine how beautiful the sky must have looked at that time? It surely must have glistened with every ray of light. Just look at the ocean and how it reflects light. Imagine seeing something like an ocean but way up above the sky shining like a giant jewel with the light of the sun refracting through it!

9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.
Here, God created landmass so we would have a place to walk on. Notice that the Bible makes the distinction between the "water under the sky" and the water above the sky. So landmass was created to separate the water under the sky.

Now that we have established that knowledge, let's get back to your question. Fast forward to Genesis 6.

1 When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years."
Here, Noah has already been born. Population on Earth has grown. And people are just doing whatever they want. God is grieved by the wickedness of man. And God decides to change the maximum human lifespan from 1000 years to a maximum of 120 years. 1000 years? Was that a typo? No. The oldest man to have lived up to this time was Methuselah, who lived 969 years (Genesis 5:27). How is this possible? I'll get to that later. So the important point here is, God decided to limit the human lifespan to 120 years.

4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.
5 The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. 6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. 7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them." 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.

So this is God's CTRL+ALT+DEL. Rebooting...but God saved some templates -- namely Noah, his family, and the animals in the ark.

So back to the flood. Why was it needed? My theory is that the water canopy around our Earth was a shield against cosmic radiation. It protected the inhabitants of Earth and allowed humans to live up to 1000 years. But because God wanted to limit the human lifespan, God took away the protective shield. And so through the flood, God merged the water above the sky with the water under the sky. And without that shield, the cosmic radiation bombards our Earth and us and causes us to age faster so that the number of years humans can live is effectively shortened. Who knew about cosmic radiation back then? God did because He created the universe! :)

Itinerant Lurker
Apr 8th 2009, 11:44 AM
My theory is that the water canopy around our Earth was a shield against cosmic radiation. It protected the inhabitants of Earth and allowed humans to live up to 1000 years. But because God wanted to limit the human lifespan, God took away the protective shield. And so through the flood, God merged the water above the sky with the water under the sky. And without that shield, the cosmic radiation bombards our Earth and us and causes us to age faster so that the number of years humans can live is effectively shortened. Who knew about cosmic radiation back then? God did because He created the universe! :)

Not only would a water canopy require constant supernatural support as it defies the laws of physics but cosmic radiation doesn't really have anything to do with the process of aging.

J_sunshine4Christ
Apr 8th 2009, 10:56 PM
Well...God loves us. He has, time and time again, given his people chance after chance after chance. To me, this is just another test of faith. Not just for Noah, but for all the people. They had the chance to follow by faith. Those who would, would survive the flood, those who didn't would die. ...that's my view God Bless!

Word of Light
Apr 9th 2009, 02:13 AM
Not only would a water canopy require constant supernatural support as it defies the laws of physics but cosmic radiation doesn't really have anything to do with the process of aging.

Yes, I've heard that before. I have debated on that point with a Christian friend of mine before. But you do realize that God is supernatural, right?

As for the aging thing, I have read that organic matter seems to deteriorate faster in space because of its long term exposure to cosmic radiation. If you are a scientist, show me your proof that cosmic radiation has no effect on the aging process. I am not a scientist. All I know is what I have read about in news published by reputable organizations (like NASA).

If you can't believe the Word of God as it is written, what do you believe in?

Itinerant Lurker
Apr 9th 2009, 12:23 PM
Yes, I've heard that before. I have debated on that point with a Christian friend of mine before. But you do realize that God is supernatural, right?


Right, but he is also a God of truth right? If there was a vapor canopy suspended by a supernatural force God managed to accomplish this in a way that not only covered up any evidence for it but managed, at the same time, to imprint a false history onto the world.



As for the aging thing, I have read that organic matter seems to deteriorate faster in space because of its long term exposure to cosmic radiation. If you are a scientist, show me your proof that cosmic radiation has no effect on the aging process. I am not a scientist. All I know is what I have read about in news published by reputable organizations (like NASA).


Sure, people who live at high altitudes exposed to more cosmic radiation don't have particularly shorter life spans than people living at lower altitudes. Additionally, there's a big difference between the amount of radiation whipping around outer space and what actually makes it down to earth. Radiation is going to have an effect if you over expose yourself to it like out in space or if you lay out in the sun every day with no sun screen, but baring Noah et al not being smart enough to get out of the sun once and a while so as not to develop skin cancer I'm not seeing how this would actually be a factor.

Word of Light
Apr 9th 2009, 05:48 PM
Right, but he is also a God of truth right? If there was a vapor canopy suspended by a supernatural force God managed to accomplish this in a way that not only covered up any evidence for it but managed, at the same time, to imprint a false history onto the world.
Um...are you saying you don't believe that what is written in the Bible is the truth? Because, I'm just restating what was written. Secondly, wouldn't it be presumptuous to assume that a human could fully comprehend the ways of God? Just because humans have not found any "evidence", doesn't mean that evidence doesn't exist. Maybe humans don't know where to look or what to look for.



Sure, people who live at high altitudes exposed to more cosmic radiation don't have particularly shorter life spans than people living at lower altitudes. Additionally, there's a big difference between the amount of radiation whipping around outer space and what actually makes it down to earth. Radiation is going to have an effect if you over expose yourself to it like out in space or if you lay out in the sun every day with no sun screen, but baring Noah et al not being smart enough to get out of the sun once and a while so as not to develop skin cancer I'm not seeing how this would actually be a factor.
Of course the amount of radiation passing all the way through the atmosphere is not severe enough to cook anything. But it did become more intense, by whatever margin was necessary to reduce the human lifespan. After the flood, the length of the human lifespan started dropping significantly with each generation.

Either you believe the Bible is the truth or you don't. The Bible is not just a book. It is the Word of God. And God is not a liar.

losthorizon
Apr 9th 2009, 11:13 PM
Right, but he is also a God of truth right?



And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Gen 7But didn’t the God of Truth reveal to us a universal flood “over all the earth”. If the Flood was merely “a local flood” it would mean God would have repeatedly reneged on the promise never to send such a flood again because history records many “local floods” but only one “universal flood.”

I would remind you that we both have already agreed there was a universal flood discovered by science that took place less than 12,000 years ago. Cesare Emiliani (founder of paleoceanography) clearly found evidence for a *universal flood* (his words). Surely God didn’t tell us something that wasn’t true – surely God didn’t deceive us. No I think he told us the truth – “all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven” were covered with water.

Regarding the core samples of sediments found in the Gulf of Mexico, Cesare Emiliani states:
“… the oxygen isotope ratios of the foraminifera shells show a marked temporary decrease in the salinity of the waters of the Gulf of Mexico. It clearly shows that there was a major period of flooding from 12,000 to 10,000 years ago... There was no question that there was a flood and there is no question that it was a universal flood."

Itinerant Lurker
Apr 10th 2009, 01:25 AM
Um...are you saying you don't believe that what is written in the Bible is the truth?


I think things can be true without being literally word-for-word correct.



Secondly, wouldn't it be presumptuous to assume that a human could fully comprehend the ways of God? Just because humans have not found any "evidence", doesn't mean that evidence doesn't exist. Maybe humans don't know where to look or what to look for.


No, it's not presumptuous. . .it's based on a huge knowledge base concerning paleontology and geology and a breathtaking amount of evidence that we would simply have to wish away or ignore in order to maintain a literal view of this account.



Of course the amount of radiation passing all the way through the atmosphere is not severe enough to cook anything. But it did become more intense, by whatever margin was necessary to reduce the human lifespan. After the flood, the length of the human lifespan started dropping significantly with each generation.


Again, solar radiation just doesn't have that much of an effect on human life spans. Do people who live in Washington state which experiences a high level of cloud cover year round live any longer than people who live in Arizona? Why do you think solar radiation has anything to do with aging?



Either you believe the Bible is the truth or you don't. The Bible is not just a book. It is the Word of God. And God is not a liar.

Sure, but the bible is not the only form of revelation God provided to us. He also gave us His creation and mentioned a few times that we can arrive at truthful conclusions by observing that creation. When observation and revelation are contradictory something has to give; either the observation is wrong, the revelation is wrong, or the interpretation is wrong.

Itinerant Lurker
Apr 10th 2009, 01:35 AM
I would remind you that we both have already agreed there was a universal flood discovered by science that took place less than 12,000 years ago. Cesare Emiliani (founder of paleoceanography) clearly found evidence for a *universal flood* (his words).


The universal flood Cesare Emiliani is talking about is not the same kind of "universal flood" you are talking about. You are talking about a flood that covered the entire earth, killing every living thing on land that wasn't on board the ark. Emiliani, meanwhile, is talking about a rise in global sea levels caused by the melting of the ice sheets during the last interglacial period. The last time you brought up Emiliani's work as supportive of a literal view of Noah's flood it ended something like this:


-----------------------------------


"A flood covering the entire earth is not what Emiliani is suggesting. He is talking about a global rise in sea level, but nothing on the scale you suggest.



I also understand from his research that he refers to only one universal flood less than 12,000 years ago just as mentioned in the bible.


Then you'd better re-read his research. By definition the interglacial periods would be marked by sea level rise and the glacial periods would be marked by a drop in sea level.

"Thick ice sheets covered North Africa and adjacent regions of South America. Sea level dropped, and the vast inland seas that covered much of the continents withdrew." (Planet Earth, p. 491)

Note: this is in reference to a glacial period which occurred towards the end of the Ordovician (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordovician) (488.3±1.7 to 443.7±1.5 million years ago).



I hardly think his description of a world-wide flood could be described as “a mundane rise in global sea levels” – he certainly did not describe it that way – he appears to think it was a unique event – no?


No, this is just one of about 30 ices ages that Emiliani saw as "increasing in severity" over time. As each ice age melted one would expect sea levels to rise accordingly with the influx of melted fresh water increased. This fits very nicely with my characterization of a "comparably mundane rise in global sea levels" - and by "comparably" (which you somehow left out of your quote) I mean as compared to a one year event.

On the bright side, I managed to track down just how much Emiliani's research into oxygen isotope levels indicated sea levels rose during this flooding event. I'm going to throw humility to the wind here and proclaim them as awesomely supportive of one Itinerant Lurker simply because it was no easy thing to track them down and I'm more than a little proud of it.

"By 12,000 years ago, more than 50% of the ice had returned to the ocean and the sea level had risen to -60 m."

I think it's notable to point out that "-60 m" means that at this point global sea levels had risen to 60 meters below their present level.

"At that point, another major meltdown ocurred, and a great flood took place down the Mississippi Valley. . .The sea level rose rapidly from -60 m to -40 m." (Planet Earth, p. 543)

So there we have it; the totality of this universal flood produced a rise in sea levels which brought them up to 40 meters short of what they are today. Are you still claiming that Emiliani is talking about the same global flood you are?
http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=2022348&postcount=172

-------------------------------------


Unless you are prepared to address how Emiliani's "global flood" managed to flood the entire earth while at the same time remaining 40 meters BELOW current sea levels please refrain from throwing out this quote mine as evidence of a literal interpretation of the global flood account.

losthorizon
Apr 10th 2009, 03:02 AM
The universal flood Cesare Emiliani is talking about is not the same kind of "universal flood" you are talking about.


Wrong – Emiliani found evidence for a universal flood less than 12,000 years ago and the Bible records The Flood – a universal flood that took place less than 12,000 years ago. “Emiliani and his colleagues theorized that a sudden influx of meltwater from the ice sheet could have rapidly raised sea levels, sparking myths of a great deluge.” Try to move forward.


Then you'd better re-read his research. By definition the interglacial periods would be marked by sea level rise and the glacial periods would be marked by a drop in sea level.

LOL - but Emiliani’s deep-sea cores proved a rapid rise of sea level less than 12,000 years ago – the opposite of what you float. Listen closely to his words -”A huge amount of ice-melt water rushed into the Gulf of Mexico and produced a sea-level rise that spread around the world with the speed of a tidal wave.” What part of “sea-level rise” and “speed of a tidal wave” do you misunderstand? Why would Emiliani and his colleagues suggest his findings could have been responsible for “sparking myths of a great deluge”? It appears your great find regarding a”drop in sea level” just imploded – oops.

What do the words/phrases - CATASTOPHIC, RAPID RISE OF SEA LEVEL, GREAT DELUGE and SWAMPED CONTINENTS mean to you?


I'm going to throw humility to the wind here...

"pride will come before the fall"
______________________________


A Canadian geologist proposes hills formed from huge Ice Age floods that sharply raised global sea levels and could have spawned myths of a swamped continent.

There's nothing in recorded history that matches the size of these floods

The ratios of oxygen isotopes in these organisms suggested that sometime around 11,500 years ago, a large amount of freshwater entered the gulf, says Cesare Emiliani of the University of Miami in Coral Gables. On the basis of the isotope studies, Emiliani and his colleagues theorized that a sudden influx of meltwater from the ice sheet could have rapidly raised sea levels, sparking myths of a great deluge.


Hills point to catastrophic ice age floods (Excerpt)

Fields of low hills that cover parts of inland Canada and the northern United States may seem quite distant from the watery world of Atlantis. Yet a Canadian geologist proposes these hills formed from huge Ice Age floods that sharply raised global sea levels and could have spawned myths of a swamped continent.

"There's nothing in recorded history that matches the size of these floods," says John Shaw of Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario, who has estimated the extent of the floods from the size of the ridges.

Called drumlins--a word derived from Old Irish -- these hills appear in concentrated fields in North America, Scandinavia, Britain and other areas once covered by ice. When seen from above, the aligned knolls sometimes look like a basket of eggs lying on their sides and pointing in the same direction. Some drumlins are made of sediments deposited onto bedrock; others are ridges carved out of the rock.

Most geologists believe drumlins developed gradually from the grinding action of heavy ice sheets as they moved over the land. But in the last several years, Shaw and others have proposed the controversial idea that floods of water flowing beneath the ice created many of the North American drumlins and possibly others around the world. They base this hypothesis on the shapes drumlins share with other land forms sculpted by meltwater.

According to Shaw, heat from the Earth formed huge lakes of meltwater that remained trapped beneath the North American ice sheet. As the sheet began to retreat near the end of the glacial age, the water broke through and flowed in torrents down to the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Ocean. While flowing under the ice cap, water would have surged in vast, turbulent sheets that sculpted and scoured drumlins. Each flood lasted until the weight of the ice cap once again shut off the outlet of the covered lake, Shaw says.

Through simple calculations described in the September GEOLOGY, Shaw estimates that 84,000 cubic kilometers of water must have discharged during the creation of one large drumlin field in northern Saskatchewan. Upon reaching the ocean, this flood would have raised global sea levels by 23 centimeters during a few days or weeks, he says.

In some ways, Shaw's hypothesis echoes ideas raised 14 years ago by a group of oceanographers who studied the ancient remains of one-celled animals buried under sediment on the floor of the Gulf of Mexico. The ratios of oxygen isotopes in these organisms suggested that sometime around 11,500 years ago, a large amount of freshwater entered the gulf, says Cesare Emiliani of the University of Miami in Coral Gables. On the basis of the isotope studies, Emiliani and his colleagues theorized that a sudden influx of meltwater from the ice sheet could have rapidly raised sea levels, sparking myths of a great deluge.

When Emiliani's group proposed the theory, glacial experts responded that the sun could not melt the ice sheet fast enough to create such a sea-level rise. Shaw's hypothesis relieves this problem by proposing that vast amounts of meltwater were stored under the ice.

COPYRIGHT 1989 Science Service, Inc.

Itinerant Lurker
Apr 10th 2009, 04:35 AM
Wrong – Emiliani found evidence for a universal flood less than 12,000 years ago and the Bible records The Flood – a universal flood that took place less than 12,000 years ago. “Emiliani and his colleagues theorized that a sudden influx of meltwater from the ice sheet could have rapidly raised sea levels, sparking myths of a great deluge.” Try to move forward.


Move forward with what? The fact remains that the same evidence you cite as evidence for a global flood indicates sea levels rose to 40 meters below current levels. A flood that raises sea level to BELOW current levels isn't going to cover everything on earth. As such Emiliani's research does not support your argument and does, in fact, readily contradict many of your assertions.



By definition the interglacial periods would be marked by sea level rise and the glacial periods would be marked by a drop in sea level.




LOL - but Emiliani’s deep-sea cores proved a rapid rise of sea level less than 12,000 years ago – the opposite of what you float.


[/quote]You need to slow down and actually start reading my posts before you reply. I'll give you a chance to re-read my post and correct this statement.

Any use of Emiliani's work that doesn't address the glaring sea-level problem I've pointed out numerous times is a waste of your time.

Word of Light
Apr 10th 2009, 04:49 AM
Move forward with what? The fact remains that the same evidence you cite as evidence for a global flood indicates sea levels rose to 40 meters below current levels. A flood that raises sea level to BELOW current levels isn't going to cover everything on earth. As such Emiliani's research does not support your argument and does, in fact, readily contradict many of your assertions.

You need to slow down and actually start reading my posts before you reply. I'll give you a chance to re-read my post and correct this statement.

Any use of Emiliani's work that doesn't address the glaring sea-level problem I've pointed out numerous times is a waste of your time.


OK guys, I think we need to slow everything down. The important thing to remember is that there was flood. As to how God made it happen...ask Him when you get the chance.

losthorizon
Apr 10th 2009, 11:57 AM
Move forward with what? The fact remains that the same evidence you cite as evidence for a global flood indicates sea levels rose to 40 meters below current levels. A flood that raises sea level to BELOW current levels isn't going to cover everything on earth. As such Emiliani's research does not support your argument and does, in fact, readily contradict many of your assertions.


But words do mean something – right? John Shaw and Cesare Emiliani are not bible-waving fundies – they are first-class scientists and their evidence demonstrates a flood less than 12,000 years ago of “catastrophic” immensity like “nothing recorded in history” since that time. A flood that was “universal” as in worldwide. It was a flood that “rapidly raised sea levels, sparking myths of a great deluge”. It was a flood that “raised global sea levels and could have spawned myths of a swamped continent.” What do these words mean to you? Could a drop in sea-level "swamp a continent"? Do you not simply reject any evidence presented that violates the dogma of your worldview? Scientists should go where the evidence leads – right?


Any use of Emiliani's work that doesn't address the glaring sea-level problem I've pointed out numerous times is a waste of your time.
Listen to his words once again – “A huge amount of ice-melt water rushed into the Gulf of Mexico and produced a sea-level rise that spread around the world with the speed of a tidal wave.” What part of sea-level rise do you not understand here? Your sea-level “problem” is really a non problem. The flood came it did its damage and the waters (including sea-levels) receded - that’s how floods work… the flood waters receded and “the tops of the mountains became visible” to Noah.

billy-brown 2
Apr 10th 2009, 12:52 PM
Congrats . . . this is a really great thread . . . with much to think on, indeed.

Continue on . . .

:hmm:

Itinerant Lurker
Apr 10th 2009, 12:55 PM
But words do mean something – right? John Shaw and Cesare Emiliani are not bible-waving fundies – they are first-class scientists and their evidence demonstrates a flood less than 12,000 years ago of “catastrophic” immensity like “nothing recorded in history” since that time. A flood that was “universal” as in worldwide. It was a flood that “rapidly raised sea levels, sparking myths of a great deluge”. It was a flood that “raised global sea levels and could have spawned myths of a swamped continent.” What do these words mean to you? Could a drop in sea-level "swamp a continent"?


Either you don't know the difference between "interglacial" and "glacial" periods or you simply didn't read my post carefully. Let me explain, during a glacial period temperatures drop and ice sheets expand, as more water becomes trapped in the ice sheets less water is processed through the water cycle, hence less water returns to the oceans, hence sea levels drop. Emiliani uses the term "interglacial" to refer to periods inbetween ice ages specifically because he was one of the first to recognize that ice ages re-occur. During an interglacial period temperatures rise due to variations in the earth's orbit, called Milankovitch Cycles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles), all that water starts to melt and sea levels start to rise.

"A glaciation consists to a sequence of glacial and interglacial ages, during which ice advances and retreats, and as a consequence, sea level goes up and down"
Cesare Emiliani, Planet Earth p. 491

Emiliani often refers to the results of this interglacial period as unique because his research indicates that over the last thirty or so ice ages the glacial and interglacial periods are getting more and more pronounced. Additionally, the effects of glacial and interglacial periods are world wide in scope and produce both world wide drops in sea levels (glacial periods) and raised sea levels (interglacial periods). However, one cannot read Emiliani's work in any kind of comprehensive way and still conclude that this research supports a global flood that actually covered the entire earth. For one thing there's not enough water locked up in the ice sheets to produce this effect, even during the most severe glacial period indicated by his research. For another, the absolute maximum height of sea level rise 12,000 years ago, according to Emiliani himself as I've quoted to you five or six times now, is 40 meters below current sea levels (That's about 131 feet for those who aren't familiar with metric).

"By 12,000 years ago, more than 50% of the ice had returned to the ocean and the sea level had risen to -60 m. At that point, another major meltdown occurred, and a great flood took place down the Mississippi Valley. . .The sea level rose rapidly from -60 m to -40 m. The minor peak between 12 and 11 cm in figure 24.8 is the isotropic signature of this event."
Cesare Emiliani, Planet Earth p. 543



Do you not simply reject any evidence presented that violates the dogma of your worldview? Scientists should go where the evidence leads – right?
Quite the opposite, as I've shown above. The evidence this scientist presents shows a rise in sea levels to 131 feet below current levels 12,000 or so years ago. That's not evidence of the global flood you talk about. If you'd like to dispute this evidence, or explain why that last few hundred feet left no trace of itself behind, I'm all ears.

Consequently, I agree on Emiliani on just about every point here; multiple ice ages have occurred, it's perfectly appropriate to sub-divide earth's history into glacial and interglacial periods, these periods mark a rise and fall in sea levels, the glacial cycles are growing in intensity, and it's very probable that the melting of the ice sheets 12,000 to 10,000 years ago produced some fantastic flooding that could be responsible for various traditions of flood stories. What I don't agree with is your conclusions which take some of Emiliani's quotes as gospel and ignore large swaths of his actual research. You quote mined something you thought would support your model, I actually researched his evidence to see if it did agree with your model. The results of that research are excessively clear: Emiliani's work on oxygen isotope ratios does not support a global flood that covered all land on earth and killed everything living on land that wasn't inside the ark. If you would like to dispute this please do so by engaging on the evidence instead of characterizations of this or that post. Some questions you could answer are:

1. If Emiliani's work on isotope ratios in shells provides an accurate description of raised sea levels 12,000 years ago why don't they show a global flood that covered the entire earth?
2. Is there some process/mechanism that could have masked the floods presence so that it would leave no evidence behind for Emiliani to find?
3. Why don't we find massive fossil burial grounds containing representatives of all the organisms your model claims lived at the time of the flood associated with the strata Emiliani was studying?
4. Is Emiliani's other work on glaciation stretching back millions of years just as reliable as his work on this point? If not, why?
5. Is there any other evidence that might support an increase in global sea levels above 131 feet below current levels 12,000 years ago?

losthorizon
Apr 11th 2009, 01:11 AM
Either you don't know the difference between "interglacial" and "glacial" periods or you simply didn't read my post carefully.


Actually I do understand glacial-interglacial cycles and I have read enough of your posts to know from whence you came and to where you are going. You remain confused. You operate under the mistaken notion that the God of Truth has deceived mankind by claiming that He caused a “worldwide” flood when he could only muster up some regional local flooding in some unnamed and insignificant tributary of the Black Sea that drowned a few head of cattle and a couple of goats.

You also depict a God who repeatedly reneges on His promise to our race via Noah that he would never destroy “all the earth” by a flood again. If your “flood” was merely a local/regional tributary flood as you insist then God’s promise has been broken over and over because history has recorded many region floods that have killed millions. But the biblical fact remains – there was one *universal flood* over all the earth and now we see science catching up with the Bible just as it has had to do in the past.
Huang He floods

(1887, 1931, 1938), series of devastating floods in China caused by the overflowing of the Huang He (Yellow River), the country’s second longest river. These three floods collectively killed millions and are considered to be the three deadliest floods in history and among the most destructive natural disasters ever recorded. ~ 2009. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 10 Apr. 2009 We have a Canadian professor who has found evidence that a huge Ice Age flood sharply raised global sea levels and this catastrophic event could have “spawned myths of a swamped continent.” We have American researchers from the University of Miami who have evaluated isotope studies taken from core samples from the Gulf of Mexico that also confirms a sudden influx of meltwater from the ice sheets that “rapidly raised sea levels, sparking myths of a great deluge.”

You can continue to spin your rhetoric but the facts remain the facts – there was a universal flood less than 12,000 years ago on this planet – this event is recorded in the Bible, the scientific record and the oral/written history of over eighty world cultures. According to John Shaw (Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario), this universal flood was unmatched by any other flood recorded in human history. Cesare Emiliani (University of Miami) and his colleagues theorized this sudden influx of water rapidly raised sea levels to deluge proportions. What does "deluge" mean in your vocabulary?
deluge - Something that overwhelms as if by a great flood. To overrun with water; inundate. Deluge In the Bible, the great flood that occurred in the time of Noah.The atheist/humanist professor of biochemistry, Isaac Asimov (and sometimes sci-fi writer) has this evaluation of the work of Casare Emiliani and John Shaw in his work, “Frontiers II” (see excerpt below). Please answer these questions from Asimov’s evaluation:

When he said – “a vast flood of water had entered the Gulf of Mexico and raised the sea level markedly” – is he stating that a vast amount of water entered the Gulf and raise sea levels “markedly”? What does 'markedly' mean in your vocabulary? Does the phrase 'raised the sea level' mean that the sea-level was raised - markedly?

What does Asimov mean by the phrase – “vast flood that beggars anything we can imagine”?

The Amazon River, the largest on Earth, takes ten years or more to discharge 20,000 cubic miles of water into the Atlantic Ocean. This universal flood that took place less than 12,000 years ago could have released 20,000 cubic miles or more of water in a matter of a few days! Do you think this great influx of water would cause a rise in sea-level - markedly?

Do you think humans who witnessed this universal deluge of catastrophic magnitude that was unequalled before or after could have used this event to record the idea of ”drowned continents and a universal flood” over all the earth?
____________________


[I]n 1975, Casare Emiliani, of the University of Miami, studies the fossil remnants of microscopic organisms under the sediments of the floor of the Gulf of Mexico. From his studies, he concluded that...[11,000] years ago,...the Gulf of Mexico contained water that was much less salty than it is today. He suggests that the ice sheets had undergone sudden melting and that a vast flood of water had entered the Gulf of Mexico and raised the sea level markedly.

The suggestion was largely ignored because it was difficult to imagine the ice melting that fast, but, in 1989, John Shaw...made a suggestion as to...how such floods might come about.

The region where once the ice sheets were found have a scattering of low hills called "drumlins." These are usually supposed to have been formed by [the] grinding action of glaciers as they came and went. Shaw, however, feels [that] they may, more easily, have been formed by a rush of water.
He suggests that the ice sheets did, indeed, melt very slowly but that the water did not necessarily run off, soak into the ground, pour into rivers and reach the sea as rapidly as it formed.

Instead, water might have slowly settled down to the bottom of the ice sheet, soaked into the ground until it reached the bedrock and slowly accumulated there. There would, thus, form what was, essentially, a lake of water under the ice sheet, and this would be prevented, by ice dams, from spreading outward.

Eventually, though, as the glaciers continued very slowly to melt, sections of the ice dam would waken and...break. The lake of ice water that had been pent up would then pour out seaward in a vast flood that beggars anything we can imagine.

Shaw has calculated that something like [20,000] cubic miles of water may have poured out of the ice all at once to form the drumlin fields of northern Saskatchewan....

The Amazon River, the largest on Earth, takes ten years to discharge [20,000] cubic miles of water into the Atlantic Ocean, but the ice lake may have discharged it in a matter of a few days only.

Human beings retreating inland before the inflowing water may have reminisced and exaggerated afterward, giving rise to tales of drowned continents and universal flood. ~ Isaac and Janet Asimov, Frontiers II (New York, 1993)

Itinerant Lurker
Apr 11th 2009, 03:44 AM
You can continue to spin your rhetoric but the facts remain the facts – there was a universal flood less than 12,000 years ago on this planet – this event is recorded in the Bible, the scientific record and the oral/written history of over eighty world cultures. According to John Shaw (Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario), this universal flood was unmatched by any other flood recorded in human history. Cesare Emiliani (University of Miami) and his colleagues theorized this sudden influx of water rapidly raised sea levels to deluge proportions. What does "deluge" mean in your vocabulary?


In my vocabulary "deluge" comes across as a really big flood, in Emiliani's vocabulary and research this deluge brought sea levels up to 131 feet below present sea levels. Multiple sources of calculating sea levels can be plotted to show a historical chart of sea levels throughout history. Such charts do record spikes where large melt water floods caused global sea levels to rise, but what we don't see is a spike anywhere that would bring sea levels in this time frame up past current sea levels.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png

Additionally, it should be noted that Shaw's work is still somewhat controversial and, to my knowledge, deals merely with the rate at which melt water could accumulate instead of increasing the amount of sea level rise already postulated by Emiliani.

"Sea level rise during the CRE’s was at rates >45 mm/a and total rise during an event was as much as the 13.5 (72.5) m recorded for the 14.2 ka event."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n14_v136/ai_8002743/?tag=content;col1
As such, I don't see how Shaw's work brings anything new to the discussion, much less anything that actually supports your point. Other than advancing a controversial theory on how large amounts of melt water might accumulate and be released at once, how does this help you prove a global flood that covered the entire earth?


The atheist/humanist professor of biochemistry, Isaac Asimov (and sometimes sci-fi writer) has this evaluation of the work of Casare Emiliani and John Shaw in his work, “Frontiers II” (see excerpt below). Please answer these questions from Asimov’s evaluation:





[i]n 1975, Casare Emiliani, of the University of Miami, studies the fossil remnants of microscopic organisms under the sediments of the floor of the Gulf of Mexico. From his studies, he concluded that...[11,000] years ago,...the Gulf of Mexico contained water that was much less salty than it is today. He suggests that the ice sheets had undergone sudden melting and that a vast flood of water had entered the Gulf of Mexico and raised the sea level markedly.

The suggestion was largely ignored because it was difficult to imagine the ice melting that fast, but, in 1989, John Shaw...made a suggestion as to...how such floods might come about.

The region where once the ice sheets were found have a scattering of low hills called "drumlins." These are usually supposed to have been formed by [the] grinding action of glaciers as they came and went. Shaw, however, feels [that] they may, more easily, have been formed by a rush of water.
He suggests that the ice sheets did, indeed, melt very slowly but that the water did not necessarily run off, soak into the ground, pour into rivers and reach the sea as rapidly as it formed.


Here's your source: http://www.bearfabrique.org/Catastrophism/floods/mfloods.html

I'm seeing zero points that support a global flood that covered the entire earth as opposed to a comparatively mundane rise in sea levels to BELOW current levels due to melting ice sheets throughout our current interglacial period.

losthorizon
Apr 11th 2009, 01:28 PM
In my vocabulary "deluge" comes across as a really big flood, in Emiliani's vocabulary and research this deluge brought sea levels up to 131 feet below present sea levels. Multiple sources of calculating sea levels can be plotted to show a historical chart of sea levels throughout history. Such charts do record spikes where large melt water floods caused global sea levels to rise, but what we don't see is a spike anywhere that would bring sea levels in this time frame up past current sea levels.


But in a catastrophic worldwide flood as recorded in the Bible the flood came – it destroyed - and it receded - all in the course of months not years. And where does the Bible say all this water came from and where might it all have gone as the waters of the flood receded? I think the key mechanism that remains unknown to science so far is “the fountains of the great deep” that were “broken up”. What were these fountains of the great deep? Science may give us a clue – in a paper published in NEW SCIENTIST titled “Deep Water” scientists have discovered billions of water droplets some trapped inside minerals deep within the earth. They estimate there is enough subterranean water “to replace the surface oceans more than ten times.”
In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights. Gen 7:11-12
________________________

Deep waters

New Scientist/30 August 1997 by Lou Bergeron

Santa Cruz, California

DEEP inside the Earth, the pressure is excruciating. Squeezed into strange shapes and forms, the rocks are so hot that they crawl like super-thick treacle. It is an inferno worthy of Dante, but it also contains something surprising. What's the last thing you would expect to find in this hellish environment? Water. Vast amounts of the stuff. In fact, more than 400 kilometres inside the Earth there may be enough water to replace the surface oceans more than ten times.

But this water is not a series of immense seas. Rather, it is scattered in droplets, some as small as a single molecule, with most trapped inside crystal lattices of rare minerals that only form under intense pressures. How much there is down there is still fiercely debated. But these inner "oceans" could help to explain long-standing puzzles about Earth's formation, the causes of deep earthquakes hundreds ...

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15520974.900-deep-waters.html

Additionally, it should be noted that Shaw's work is still somewhat controversial and, to my knowledge, deals merely with the rate at which melt water could accumulate instead of increasing the amount of sea level rise already postulated by Emiliani.
Again, you are missing the forest for the trees. Words do mean something. These scientists are using *words* to describe what they have found:


universal flood

catastrophic flood

rapid rise of sea level

great deluge

swamped continents

20,000 cubic miles of water released in a matter of a few days
nothing in recorded history that matches the size of this flood

vast flood that beggars anything we can imagine

Are these scientists simply exaggerating their discovery or have they found evidence for a universal flood unequalled in all of earth’s history that happened less than 12,000 years ago. This is my point – we can argue the scientific particulars of this flood until the cows come home but the facts remain the facts – there was a universal catastrophic flood less than 12,000 years ago on this planet as recorded in the Bible and as recorded by science. Can we agree there was a universal flood of great magnitude less than 12,000 years ago? Do you consider 20,000 cubic miles of water released in a matter of a few days significant? It takes the Amazon 10 years to release that much water.:)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/Tectonic_plate_boundaries.png

Itinerant Lurker
Apr 13th 2009, 12:15 AM
I think the key mechanism that remains unknown to science so far is “the fountains of the great deep” that were “broken up”. What were these fountains of the great deep? Science may give us a clue – in a paper published in NEW SCIENTIST titled “Deep Water” scientists have discovered billions of water droplets some trapped inside minerals deep within the earth. They estimate there is enough subterranean water “to replace the surface oceans more than ten times.”


Any theories on how you would get all those tiny droplets of water out of the rock layers they are embedded in without releasing enough heat to turn the surface of earth into molten slag?



Can we agree there was a universal flood of great magnitude less than 12,000 years ago?


Yes, as I've stated before there's plenty of evidence for significant sea level rise corresponding with the melting of ice sheets formed during the last ice age. All that evidence, however, points toward a gradual rise in sea levels over the last 15,000 or so years, at times punctuated by large floods possibly caused by large build ups of meltwater. At no point do we see evidence of floods causing sea levels to rise higher than present levels and the specific evidence you cited reveals that possibly the largest of these localized meltwater dam releases caused a huge influx of freshwater into the gulf of Mexico around 12,000 years ago that had a global effect of raising see levels to 40 meters (131 feet) below current sea levels. Can you agree that this is what your sources of evidence assert instead of a flood that raised global sea levels above current levels?



Do you consider 20,000 cubic miles of water released in a matter of a few days significant? It takes the Amazon 10 years to release that much water.:)


How much do you think 20,000 cubic miles of water is going to raise global sea levels?



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/Tectonic_plate_boundaries.png

I'm not understanding the significance of these pictures. . .pretty as they may be. Are you getting ready to push for a runaway subduction flood model?

losthorizon
Apr 13th 2009, 12:58 AM
Any theories on how you would get all those tiny droplets of water out of the rock layers they are embedded in without releasing enough heat to turn the surface of earth into molten slag?


At this point in world history – per biblical revelation - there is no reason to get all those tiny droplets of water out of the rock layers. Water will not be the element used to destroy the earth in the next installment.


Yes, as I've stated before there's plenty of evidence for significant sea level rise corresponding with the melting of ice sheets formed during the last ice age. All that evidence, however, points toward a gradual rise in sea levels over the last 15,000 or so years, at times punctuated by large floods possibly caused by large build ups of meltwater. Then it is your 'professional' opinion that these well-respected scientists were simply ‘cooking the books’ with their descriptions of a one-time cataclysmic flood? In the words of Asimov this flood discovered by Emiliani and Shaw was no less than a “vast flood that beggars anything we can imagine” - one big enough to “swamp continents”. Is this more work by “shoddy scientists” – in your professional opinion? ;)


How much do you think 20,000 cubic miles of water is going to raise global sea levels?
According to John Shaw these drumlins—are concentrated in North America, Scandinavia, Britain and other areas once covered by ice. I would think a combined release of “20,000 cubic miles of water” combined with the "opening of the windows of heaven" would supply enough water to do the job. When Emiliani stated the flood he found evidence for caused a "rapid rise of sea level" sending a tidal wave around the world did he really mean there was a rapid rise in sea level? The Flood is recorded history - right?


I'm not understanding the significance of these pictures. . .pretty as they may be.
They are like your silly Darwinian dino-bird with feathers glossy – simply for fluff. The fact remains the fact - the Bible and science record a worldwide flood that took place on this planet less than 12,000 years ago - glad we can agree on this one. You will have to work a little harder to convince me that dinos sprouted feathers and became chickens.

Itinerant Lurker
Apr 13th 2009, 01:13 AM
At this point in world history – per biblical revelation - there is no reason to get all those tiny droplets of water out of the rock layers. Water will not be the element used to destroy the earth in the next installment.


So at the end of the day your evidence is no evidence at all. Why not just go back to a supernaturally supported vapor canopy? If tiny droplets of groundwater actually did provide the raw materials for a global flood what would we expect the effect of releasing them to be?



Then it is your 'professional' opinion that these well-respected scientists were simply ‘cooking the books’ with their descriptions of a one-time cataclysmic flood? In the words of Asimov this flood discovered by Emiliani and Shaw was no less than a “vast flood that beggars anything we can imagine” - one big enough to “swamp continents”. Is this more work by “shoddy scientists” – in your professional opinion? ;)
I've quoted to you the actual research of Emiliani and Shaw where they note that isotope levels indicate a rise in sea level to a maximum of 40 meters below present levels. In this thread alone I've already been over this three times in post #22 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=2040725&postcount=22), #28 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=2041051&postcount=28), and #30 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=2041849&postcount=30).



"By 12,000 years ago, more than 50% of the ice had returned to the ocean and the sea level had risen to -60 m. At that point, another major meltdown occurred, and a great flood took place down the Mississippi Valley. . .The sea level rose rapidly from -60 m to -40 m. The minor peak between 12 and 11 cm in figure 24.8 is the isotropic signature of this event."
Cesare Emiliani, Planet Earth p. 543


Why is this so hard for you to wrap your head around? Adjectives are not evidence! Quoting descriptive language scientists use to describe an event is ridiculous as an argument against their raw data. The data of those scientists you quote show a flood 131 feet short of today's sea levels.



According to John Shaw these drumlins—are concentrated in North America, Scandinavia, Britain and other areas once covered by ice. I would think their combined “20,000 cubic miles of water” combined with the "opening of the windows of heaven" would supply enough water to do the job.
Really? I think Shaw disagrees with you on that point.

"Through simple calculations described in the September GEOLOGY, Shaw estimates that 84,000 cubic kilometers of water must have discharged during the creation of one large drumlin field in northern Saskatchewan. Upon reaching the ocean, this flood would have raised global sea levels by 23 centimeters during a few days or weeks, he says."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n14_v136/ai_8002743/?tag=content;col1

Does it bother you at all that I can disprove your argument using your own sources alone? Should that tell you something about the strength of that argument?

losthorizon
Apr 13th 2009, 01:59 AM
So at the end of the day your evidence is no evidence at all. Why not just go back to a supernaturally supported vapor canopy?


No at the end of the day I rest my case on the evidence of John Shaw and Cesare Emiliani and the history recorded in the Bible. Emiliani clearly states – “there was no question that there was a flood and there is no question that it was a universal flood." Was this flood he found “universal”? Of course it was. Shaw states the flood was of such magnitude that it “could have spawned myths of a swamped continent". Do you think a flood that could swamp even a small continent would raise sea levels significantly? Of course it would. Emiliani and his colleagues theorized that such a sudden influx of meltwater could have rapidly raised sea levels, sparking myths of a great deluge. What is your idea of a ‘deluge’ that was large enough to spawn flood myths all over the world? No my friend words do mean something and your figures prove nothing – the flood occurred quickly and recede just as quickly. Were Emiliani and Shaw wrong in their descriptions - do their words mean anything to you? I am going to go out on a limb and agree with the description of these scientists and apply it to what I read in the Book –
“And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. Gen 7:19-20 (KJV)
BTW - you never answered my question did the God of Truth reveal to man a universal flood “over all the earth”? If the Flood was merely “a local flood” it would mean God would have repeatedly reneged on His promise never to send such a flood again because history records many “local floods” but only one “universal flood.” Does God deceive man when He says the waters prevailed “upon all the earth and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered”?

Itinerant Lurker
Apr 13th 2009, 12:37 PM
No at the end of the day I rest my case on the evidence of John Shaw and Cesare Emiliani and the history recorded in the Bible. Emiliani clearly states – “there was no question that there was a flood and there is no question that it was a universal flood." Was this flood he found “universal”?


Emiliani also clearly states that this universal flooding effect brought global sea levels up to 40 meters below current sea levels. Can you acknowledge that?



Of course it was. Shaw states the flood was of such magnitude that it “could have spawned myths of a swamped continent".


Shaw also clearly states that even his hypothesized 80,000 cubic kilometers of water dumping into the ocean would only raise global sea levels by 23 centimeters. Can you acknowledge that?

I'm getting tired of repeating myself. If you cannot acknowledge these two points about the data Emiliani and Shaw actually present all future use of their work on your part will be replied by links back to the myriad of posts I've presented which detail how they don't actually support the kind of flood you're talking about.



BTW - you never answered my question did the God of Truth reveal to man a universal flood “over all the earth”? If the Flood was merely “a local flood” it would mean God would have repeatedly reneged on His promise never to send such a flood again because history records many “local floods” but only one “universal flood.” Does God deceive man when He says the waters prevailed “upon all the earth and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered”?

I think the flood account details a local flood that appeared to cover everything within a local area. The covenant recorded at the end of this account is clearly made between God and Noah, his family, and "all flesh" and is focused on saying that God isn't going to wipe out a large chunk of humanity again on that kind of scale using a flood like this. It's very likely that this local flooding event was caused by a large meltwater effusion as described by Shaw, and as such was very much unique in it's scale and ferocity. However, evidence, logic, and physical limitations prohibit this being a flood that actually covered the entire earth.

losthorizon
Apr 13th 2009, 10:44 PM
Emiliani also clearly states that this universal flooding effect brought global sea levels up to 40 meters below current sea levels.


I have already addressed your “23 centimeters” when I stated we can argue the scientific particulars regarding this universal flood until the cows come home but the truth remains the truth – there was a cataclysmic universal flooding event recorded by scientists that took place less than 12,000 years ago just as the historical record presented in God’s word records an historical flood that “covered the whole earth” less than 12,000 years ago. It appears that words do not mean anything to you and it also appears you are unable to refute the words of these scientists as they describe this *universal event*.

I am content to agree with Isaac Asimov who certainly was not a Creationist. He described the flood discovered by these scientists as “a vast flood that beggars anything we can imagine.” Now this is a man who was aware of the Huang He floods in China that killed millions. When he says this universal-worldwide flood beggars the imagination he is acknowledging a flood of “biblical proportions” – so to speak. You can flounder with your “23 centimeters” but you can’t refute the description given by these scientists. What do the words/phrases - CATASTOPHIC, RAPID RISE OF SEA LEVEL, GREAT DELUGE and SWAMPED CONTINENTS mean to you?


I think the flood account details a local flood that appeared to cover everything within a local area. The covenant recorded at the end of this account is clearly made between God and Noah, his family, and "all flesh" and is focused on saying that God isn't going to wipe out a large chunk of humanity again on that kind of scale using a flood like this. It's very likely that this local flooding event was caused by a large meltwater effusion as described by Shaw, and as such was very much unique in it's scale and ferocity. However, evidence, logic, and physical limitations prohibit this being a flood that actually covered the entire earth.
LOL – of all the folks who dabble in science I think you so-called “theistic-evolutionists” are far and away the most confused of all. Your atheistic evolutionist friends simply refuse to allow God-speak because those poor souls reject the Creator-God out of hand. Creationists understand God’s revelation to man at face value as it was meant to be understood and reconcile His word with verifiable science or wait for science to catch up with the Bible. But you poor TEs must wrestle with incomplete and oft times inaccurate ‘scientific knowledge’ that must be defined in light of what has been revealed by someone so insignificant as an omnipotent God. You folks just cannot for the life of you realize this universal truth - science is not the measure of God or His word.

And your folly continues as you insist on a “local flood”. Your non-biblical portrayal is of a hapless God who reveals to man a worldwide flood to destroy a sinful world but in reality He could only muster up a small tributary flood that wiped out a few goat-herders. Thus you force God into being a habitual covenant-breaker every time a local flood kills men and women. The Huang He floods (1887, 1931, and 1938) were local floods that killed millions and history records thousands of lesser “local floods” with additional millions killed. God promised Noah He would not destroy mankind as he did in the Flood but if that flood was simply a small gully-washer as you insist then God has broken His covenant - repeadedly. But God does not break His word – therefore you are in error and remain confused on this matter.

You TE folks remain on the slippery slope to unbelief - denying anything and everything in God’s word that cannot be ‘proven’ by science as though science must trump the word of God. Most TEs start out allegorizing Creation and the Flood and end by denying the Resurrection. So sad.

Itinerant Lurker
Apr 14th 2009, 12:29 AM
I have already addressed your “23 centimeters” when I stated we can argue the scientific particulars regarding this universal flood until the cows come home but the truth remains the truth – there was a cataclysmic universal flooding event recorded by scientists that took place less than 12,000 years ago just as the historical record presented in God’s word records an historical flood that “covered the whole earth” less than 12,000 years ago. It appears that words do not mean anything to you and it also appears you are unable to refute the words of these scientists as they describe this *universal event*.

I am content to agree with Isaac Asimov who certainly was not a Creationist. He described the flood discovered by these scientists as “a vast flood that beggars anything we can imagine.” Now this is a man who was aware of the Huang He floods in China that killed millions. When he says this universal-worldwide flood beggars the imagination he is acknowledging a flood of “biblical proportions” – so to speak. You can flounder with your “23 centimeters” but you can’t refute the description given by these scientists. What do the words/phrases - CATASTOPHIC, RAPID RISE OF SEA LEVEL, GREAT DELUGE and SWAMPED CONTINENTS mean to you?


You can read those same scientist you quote explain their data here (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=2043142&postcount=34), where they clearly show that the evidence indicates that this melting period following the last ice age 15,000-10,000 years ago did not raise sea levels higher than they are today.

The rest of your post doesn't really seem on-topic, nor did it make much sense.

losthorizon
Apr 14th 2009, 12:40 AM
You can read those same scientist you quote explain their data here (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=2043142&postcount=34), where they clearly show that the evidence indicates that this melting period following the last ice age 15,000-10,000 years ago did not raise sea levels higher than they are today.


I don’t think their data contradicts their interpretations and those words you want to run away from remain there un-refuted. Move forward.


The rest of your post doesn't really seem on-topic, nor did it make much sense.
Everything posted is related and though you may wish to ignore it you certainly understand fully what was stated.:)

Itinerant Lurker
Apr 14th 2009, 04:07 AM
I don’t think their data contradicts their interpretations and those words you want to run away from remain there un-refuted. Move forward.


Their data contradicts your interpretations. Again, you are using adjectives as evidence instead of the actual data. Feel free to reference my previous posts to see where both Shaw and Emiliani note that the flooding effects they described did not raise global sea levels beyond today's sea level. Your constant omission of any mention of this isn't going to make it go away - you can't cite oxygen isotope levels in shells as evidence for a global flood but then ignore the fact that those same isotope levels indicate a peak flood of 131 feet below today's sea level whilst at the same time appearing to use any kind of consistent method of argument.

If you are trying to present evidence like this to an unbeliever they would necessarily have to come to the conclusion that your model/religion is incredibly weak as it's adherents have to resort to dishonest tactics to defend it. By engaging on points of evidence you commit yourself to making sure that evidence actually supports your conclusion instead of just quote mining adjectives you kind of like and ignoring the accompanying data. This is why actually knowing your science is so very important to believers who are defending or sharing their faith in such discussions. I don't care near as much about you reaching the same conclusions I do as much as I care about how you reach that conclusion. If you took these kinds of blatant inconsistencies outside a Christian message board into the "real world" you'd get absolutely crushed, as would the veracity of your faith in the eyes of whomever happened to be nearby.

If you're going to try and make the case for physical evidence of your view you can't do it half way: either observable evidence supports your view or it does not, you're perfectly welcome to advance physical evidence that supports your view while at the same time criticize those who hold to physical evidence that contradicts your view as being "on a slippery slope to unbelief" but you're not going to convince anyone of the veracity of your argument that way.

teddyv
Apr 14th 2009, 04:18 AM
Most TEs start out allegorizing Creation and the Flood and end by denying the Resurrection. So sad.
Now back up that statement. Or is this the same rhetoric as on previous threads - making wholesale allegations and then refusing to back it up? (I am referring in particular to your allegation that every scientist is fudging their results).

losthorizon
Apr 14th 2009, 10:27 PM
Their data contradicts your interpretations. Again, you are using adjectives as evidence instead of the actual data.


LOL – you’re only digging your hole deeper and deeper here Lurker. I can’t believe your worldview is so fragile that you would fail to acknowledge the truth. The adjectives I use are the very adjectives of the scientists. This is a simple concept – I am not using my own adjectives and I am not pulling adjectives out of thin air. I am simply quoting these scientists *word for word*. Their adjectives are used (by them) to clarify and further define the subject under consideration. The subject under consideration and the subject being clarified by these scientists is a *historical flood* "that beggars anything we can imagine" and it took place less than 12,000 years ago. If you have problems with the adjectives used to describe this historical flood then your beef is with the scientists not me – I don’t put words into their mouth. They have examined the evidences discovered and THEY modify the nouns with adjectives and use descriptive words and phrases such as:

universal flood
catastrophic flood
rapid rise of sea level
great deluge
swamped continents
20,000 cubic miles of water released in a matter of a few days
nothing in recorded history that matches the size of this flood
vast flood that beggars anything we can imagine
When Isaac Asimov reviewed the scientific data he came to the conclusion that this cataclysmic flooding event was nothing less than “a vast flood that beggars anything we can imagine”. I will remind you that Asimov was not only a scientist he was also a sci-fi writer so his imagination was fairly broad. What do you think he meant when he said this event was beyond what the mind can imagine? And Cesare Emiliani uses the modifier *universal* when describing this flood – do you not think he meant *worldwide*? Of course he did. Words do mean something.
There was no question that there was a flood and there is no question that it was a universal flood." ~ Cesare EmilianiOnce again – I am simply providing two truths here – (1) There was a universal flood that “beggars anything we can imagine” that happened less than 12,000 years ago – this is a fact of historical science. (2) Recorded history via the word of God tells of a universal flood during the “days of Noah" (less than 12,000 years ago) that destroyed all human life except those on the Ark. These two historical/scientific records you have failed to refute. Why don’t you just admit the two are historical fact and stop digging and we can move beyond your fragile worldview. :)
First Rule of Holes: When you have dug yourself a hole, the first thing is to stop digging.

losthorizon
Apr 14th 2009, 11:39 PM
Now back up that statement. Or is this the same rhetoric as on previous threads - making wholesale allegations and then refusing to back it up? (I am referring in particular to your allegation that every scientist is fudging their results).
And heeeres Teddy. You know my friend you pop up with your little one liner but you say little. I think I have read at least a dozen of your posts and you have not once stated your position on anything. Are you a Genesis allegorizer as well? You use the moniker ‘gneiss guy’ are you a rockhound? Why don’t you post and defend your position – if you agree with Lurker he can use a little help.

Regarding your inquiry into fudging scientists that would be off-topic but start a thread and we can discuss the Darwinian scientists who fudged Piltdown Man and Piltdown Bird. Or we can start with my favorite – the disproven and silly "recapitulation theory" promoted by the part-time snake oil salesman and Darwinian ‘scientist’, Ernst Haeckel and his infamous faked drawings. Let me know when you start that thread - maybe we can figure out what you are all about...
Not only did Haeckel add or omit features, Richardson and his colleagues report, but he also fudged the scale to exaggerate similarities among species, even when there were 10-fold differences in size. Haeckel further blurred differences by neglecting to name the species in most cases, as if one representative was accurate for an entire group of animals. In reality, Richardson and his colleagues note, even closely related embryos such as those of fish vary quite a bit in their appearance and developmental pathway. "It (Haeckel's drawings) looks like it's turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in biology," ~ Science, 5 September, 1997
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/Haeckel_drawings.jpg

HisLeast
Apr 15th 2009, 12:37 AM
Losthorizon....

Just so you know, from an outsider looking in, there's only one person here who's posts are consistently laced with the intention of making people feel bad. Typically when I see people focus so much on that (and I know this from years of experience of doing it myself) it means there's little confidence in one's case.

In the words of Sgt Joe Friday of Dragnet: "Just the facts".

So how about it.

losthorizon
Apr 15th 2009, 12:56 AM
Losthorizon....

Just so you know, from an outsider looking in, there's only one person here who's posts are consistently laced with the intention of making people feel bad. Typically when I see people focus so much on that (and I know this from years of experience of doing it myself) it means there's little confidence in one's case.

In the words of Sgt Joe Friday of Dragnet: "Just the facts".

So how about it.
Well HL – it may appear harsh from your viewpoint but sometimes tough-love gets folks to think a bit more critically. I am confident in what is recorded in the Bible and I feel the discovery of this historical flood is well presented by these and other scientists. If you are questioning the facts I have presented (and you are) then I would invite you to show me the error of my way. I stand by everything I have posted and will be happy to defend what ever you perceive to be non-factual.

Itinerant Lurker
Apr 15th 2009, 01:05 AM
LOL – you’re only digging your hole deeper and deeper here Lurker. I can’t believe your worldview is so fragile that you would fail to acknowledge the truth. The adjectives I use are the very adjectives of the scientists. This is a simple concept – I am not using my own adjectives and I am not pulling adjectives out of thin air. I am simply quoting these scientists *word for word*. Their adjectives are used (by them) to clarify and further define the subject under consideration. The subject under consideration and the subject being clarified by these scientists is a *historical flood* "that beggars anything we can imagine" and it took place less than 12,000 years ago. If you have problems with the adjectives used to describe this historical flood then your beef is with the scientists not me – I don’t put words into their mouth. They have examined the evidences discovered and THEY modify the nouns with adjectives and use descriptive words and phrases such as:

universal flood
catastrophic flood
rapid rise of sea level
great deluge
swamped continents
20,000 cubic miles of water released in a matter of a few days
nothing in recorded history that matches the size of this flood
vast flood that beggars anything we can imagine



None of those descriptions are in dispute. Time and time again I've affirmed these descriptions, the point of contention between us is whether or not the evidence upon which these descriptions are based supports a global flood that covered the entire earth. I think it's significant that while you quote the adjectives used by these scientists over and over again you have failed to even once note that those same scientists say these flooding effects caused global sea levels to rise to 40 meters below today's sea level. If you could explain how a sea level of -40 meters could cover the entire earth I might take your argument a little more seriously.

If you would like to view the actual quotes of Emiliani and Shaw (your sources) which point this out feel free to visit one of the plethora of previous posts on the subject (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=2043142&postcount=34).

HisLeast
Apr 15th 2009, 01:12 AM
Well HL – it may appear harsh from your viewpoint but sometimes tough-love gets folks to think a bit more critically. I am confident in what is recorded in the Bible and I feel the discovery of this historical flood is well presented by these and other scientists. If you are questioning the facts I have presented (and you are) then I would invite you to show me the error of my way. I stand by everything I have posted and will be happy to defend what ever you perceive to be non-factual.

"and you are": Well I'm glad you have me all figured out LH, even though I've done nothing to dispute ANYTHING in this thread except for your purpose driven mistreatment of Itinerant Lurker and TeddyV. Pretend that its "tough love" if you must, but it doesn't look like it to the silent observer.

I believe all truth is true because God made it so. I will therefore fear no inquiry, discovery, question, or investigation. There's no need for insult nor an erroneous assertion that talking tough will make your case more convincing.

losthorizon
Apr 15th 2009, 01:47 AM
None of those descriptions are in dispute. Time and time again I've affirmed these descriptions, the point of contention between us is whether or not the evidence upon which these descriptions are based supports a global flood that covered the entire earth.


And as I have repeatedly stated – the particulars of the flood is not the point. I never made the claim that Emiliani or Shaw found evidence of a flood equal to or greater than the flood account as presented in Holy Writ. The point made based on the facts of historical science is simply a universal flood (worldwide) of cataclysmic proportions was a real event at some time less than 12,000 years ago.

losthorizon
Apr 15th 2009, 01:52 AM
"and you are": Well I'm glad you have me all figured out LH, even though I've done nothing to dispute ANYTHING in this thread except for your purpose driven mistreatment of Itinerant Lurker and TeddyV. Pretend that its "tough love" if you must, but it doesn't look like it to the silent observer.


But you are not a silent observer you’re a poster on this thread and my posts are exactly what you requested – “just the facts”. I don’t pretend "tough love” to be anything other than what it is - tough love. It is not for everyone and obviously not for you. :)

teddyv
Apr 15th 2009, 04:07 AM
And heeeres Teddy. You know my friend you pop up with your little one liner but you say little. I think I have read at least a dozen of your posts and you have not once stated your position on anything.
My position on the matter is actually irrelevant. My posts to you have been to request you back up your reckless, sweeping allegations that scientists are regularly fudging data (in the locked thread) and in this thread's case that Christians's having a view toward a non-literal creation event or global flood (i.e. one covering even the highest mountains) will somehow lead to denying the resurrection.


Are you a Genesis allegorizer as well?
I don't know if I would classify myself as an "allegorizer". I lean more toward a retelling of the typical Ancient Near East cosmology except God unequivocally stating that He made everything, rather than a bunch of gods, and that humans are actually important, rather than an afterthought (effectively a redeeming of the common creation stories of the time). This profound and fundamental theological point is of greater importance than whatever mechanism God used to get to where we are.


You use the moniker ‘gneiss guy’ are you a rockhound?
I'm a geologist though my main field of experience is in the more practical application of mineral exploration. I accept an old earth pretty much as you will read in any first-year geology text book. Evolution, I really don't have much practical experience - I'm not a biologist so I can't comment on the intricacies. I have studied paleontology, but again, we don't deal with the evolutionary aspects because we use fossils for the more pragmatic purposes of dating and correlating strata. However, I do accept that scientists in these fields (Christian or non-Christian) can uncover God's truth as revealed in creation (His general revelation) assuming they limit themselves to the limits of scientific inquiry.


Why don’t you post and defend your position – if you agree with Lurker he can use a little help.
Lurker is doing just fine and in my opinion has the patience of a saint. He needs no help because he is relying on the facts and the facts speak for themselves. If he gets something incorrect that I can correct or clarify I will jump in.


As far as the matters of this thread, I accept there was likely a significant flood at some point in history that was the source of Biblical story of Noah. I can accept that God could even flood the entire world, but based on geological and geomorphological evidence in the world around us, that is not readily apparent, as well detailed by IL. If God did it as a complete global flood and drowned the earth, then it was a pure miracle. I can live with that too. But if you start arguing with existing geological evidence to prove this, you will (and have) failed.

If you are arguing for a global sea level rise and one that does not effectively cover all land up to the highest mountains then I can come around to that. Throughout history,people have tended to live near the ocean and a surge of even a few feet could have dire consequences for those living there (see Bangladesh). I lean toward a glacial dam burst (or a series) for a likely scenario of the Flood event. No doubt, extremely large, catastrophic and likely utterly destroyed many people.


Regarding your inquiry into fudging scientists that would be off-topic but start a thread and we can discuss the Darwinian scientists who fudged Piltdown Man and Piltdown Bird. Or we can start with my favorite – the disproven and silly "recapitulation theory" promoted by the part-time snake oil salesman and Darwinian ‘scientist’, Ernst Haeckel and his infamous faked drawings. Let me know when you start that thread - maybe we can figure out what you are all about...

Not only did Haeckel add or omit features, Richardson and his colleagues report, but he also fudged the scale to exaggerate similarities among species, even when there were 10-fold differences in size. Haeckel further blurred differences by neglecting to name the species in most cases, as if one representative was accurate for an entire group of animals. In reality, Richardson and his colleagues note, even closely related embryos such as those of fish vary quite a bit in their appearance and developmental pathway. "It (Haeckel's drawings) looks like it's turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in biology," ~ Science, 5 September, 1997

So you have three cases. that were found out to be false and have since been discredited and abandoned. Science is a marvelous self-correcting thing isn't it. Oh I'm sure there are few more out there, but to cast this net out to effectively say that scientists are regularly fudging their data strains your credibility. Plus, it is not borne out in reality.


(By the way "gneiss guy" - for those unfamiliar, gneiss is pronounced "nice" - I thought was a great pun, and I love puns - too many Asterix comics growing up, I guess :))

Itinerant Lurker
Apr 15th 2009, 10:49 AM
And as I have repeatedly stated – the particulars of the flood is not the point. I never made the claim that Emiliani or Shaw found evidence of a flood equal to or greater than the flood account as presented in Holy Writ. The point made based on the facts of historical science is simply a universal flood (worldwide) of cataclysmic proportions was a real event at some time less than 12,000 years ago.

If whether or not this flood actually covered the earth is not a point that matters then we have no problems. I think it very likely that the flood account has it's origins in the myriad floods caused by melting ice sheets, I just don't think those floods actually managed to cover the entire earth. . .or even reach modern sea levels.

Another point, I'm not at all sure it's accurate to describe these events as universally cataclysmic. I think Emiliani and Shaw are pretty clear that the actual cataclysms were somewhat local (i.e. the large meltwater dams) while their global effects, though significant, were somewhat more subdued. For example, I saw a flash flood once turn a tiny stream into a six foot deep torrent that literally carried off a fairly large Isuzu Trooper. Would I describe this as a "cataclysmic flood"? Probably, yes. Did this flood have a cataclysmic effect on global sea levels? No.

losthorizon
Apr 15th 2009, 10:58 PM
I'm a geologist though my main field of experience is in the more practical application of mineral exploration.




Well Teddy – I appreciate your post and now we know where you are coming from. I assumed you were a geologist and I did pick up on your 'pun' – very clever. I now know who to call on for technical input in your specialty.


My posts to you have been to request you back up your reckless, sweeping allegations that scientists are regularly fudging data (in the locked thread) and in this thread's case that Christians's having a view toward a non-literal creation event or global flood (i.e. one covering even the highest mountains) will somehow lead to denying the resurrection.I appreciate you keeping me honest but you can go back and review by comments on “fudging scientists” and it was not a blanket charge at all. To deny there are shoddy or dishonest scientists is to deny reality. Like other professions, scientists in general are honest but there are exceptions as I have pointed out and I will be more than happy to provide more quacks for you to review (but not on this thread – off-topic). Regarding those who are on the slippery slope to unbelief - my post was in reference to “theistic evolutionists” (TE) and comes from observational experience. If you think I have misrepresented the truth, please point it out and we can discuss. Do you consider yourself to be a TE as others do who are posting on this thread?

losthorizon
Apr 15th 2009, 11:10 PM
If whether or not this flood actually covered the earth is not a point that matters then we have no problems.


My posts have stated over and over - there was a universal flood that “beggars anything we can imagine” less than 12,000 years ago per historical science and Holy Writ tells of a universal flood during the “days of Noah" (also less than 12,000 years ago) that destroyed all human life except those on the Ark. :)

teddyv
Apr 15th 2009, 11:37 PM
Well Teddy – I appreciate your post and now we know where you are coming from. I assumed you were a geologist and I did pick up on your 'pun' – very clever. I now know who to call on for technical input in your specialty.

I appreciate you keeping me honest but you can go back and review by comments on “fudging scientists” and it was not a blanket charge at all. To deny there are shoddy or dishonest scientists is to deny reality. Like other professions, scientists in general are honest but there are exceptions as I have pointed out and I will be more than happy to provide more quacks for you to review (but not on this thread – off-topic). Regarding those who are on the slippery slope to unbelief - my post was in reference to “theistic evolutionists” (TE) and comes from observational experience. If you think I have misrepresented the truth, please point it out and we can discuss. Do you consider yourself to be a TE as others do who are posting on this thread?

As far as the "fudging scientists", as I recall from other posts, you were making rather strong implications that there are significantly more "quacks" than honest, diligent, and thorough scientists conducting solid research. I don't deny that shoddy scientists exist, just not to the extent you implied. I would have to review the other threads again to present examples but as you have said, off-topic. And I don't know if a thread is needed. Perhaps I am just sensitive to the use of rhetorical or hyperbolic language in these discussions because I feel they do not add anything. These are supposed to be discussions, not debates.

To some of your other comments/points:

I really don't know if I would be a TE or not - I don't really strongly identify with that label. Anyway, this thread is about the Flood and does not pertain to being a TE or not so I won't bother going OT with my thoughts on evolution. I think I spoke my piece on the Flood in my previous post. I certainly don't go the complete literal route for the Genesis creation and Flood accounts.

I have read from TE's here and elsewhere and I do not see them slipping away from faith in the resurrection, so my observations are certainly the opposite to yours. There is always the danger of course-but I think the danger is just as great in the other direction as well. I think those Christians who do not espouse literal acceptance of the creation and flood can be treated pretty poorly by their brothers and sisters. Observing fellow Christians question whether you are a Christian because you don't hold to a literal reading of the creation story I find exceptionally disheartening. And my experience is that these views by TE's (or other similar positions) are not accepted trivially but have been based on much careful thought, prayer and discernment on their part.

Cheers.

losthorizon
Apr 16th 2009, 12:43 AM
As far as the "fudging scientists", as I recall from other posts, you were making rather strong implications that there are significantly more "quacks" than honest, diligent, and thorough scientists conducting solid research.


I would suggest you review what I posted - I think you will find your evaluation inaccurate.


There is always the danger of course-but I think the danger is just as great in the other direction as well. I think those Christians who do not espouse literal acceptance of the creation and flood can be treated pretty poorly by their brothers and sisters.
Agreed. The way one interprets Genesis is not a salvific matter.


I have read from TE's here and elsewhere and I do not see them slipping away from faith in the resurrection, so my observations are certainly the opposite to yours.
Well we will have to agree to disagree – evolutionists of the Darwinian persuasion (including some TEs) consider *purpose* in evolution to be anathema (“evolution did not have man in mind”) but the Bible reveals a God who was/is active in creation – a creation of great purpose with man the crown jewel of His work – man is of such significance to God that He gave His dear Son as our propitiation through faith in his blood. I have conversed with TEs on this board whose “evolution” concept cannot be distinguished from the evolution of anti-theist Richard Dawkins with the exception of a little timid god-spiel – eg, "God may have kinda/sorta started the evolution ball rolling then He quickly went on a long vacation for a few billion years." But that is not the God revealed to man. I think Arthur Keith was brutally honest…
"Evolution is unproved and is unprovable. We believe in it because Creation is unthinkable." ~ Sir Arthur KeithBut as we have both agreed – this thread is about the Flood. God bless.

teddyv
Apr 16th 2009, 04:08 PM
With apologies to IL (who manages to stay on topic), perhaps I can drag myself back to topic. What I want to know from LostHorizon is a summary of what's being discussed, because I sense that I am getting lost :).

LH, please correct me if I am wrong.

I understand you are suggesting a global flood in the past 12,000 years. I think everyone here agrees on that.

What I cannot ascertain is if you believe that this flood in fact flooded the whole earth to the point of covering all the land and destroying all humanity, save Noah and his family (obviously the literal reading).

If you are advancing this by using the various researchers you have quoted, then you have a problem because as IL has shown multiple times, these researchers make no indication that the seas rose to rather exception heights required (in fact, the biggests rise is still below current sea levels).

Could you please clarify what exactly you believe happened? Or at least direct me to where you have stated a specific position.

Many thanks.:)

Jorge S
Apr 16th 2009, 09:16 PM
The biblical record of the flood leaves no other option than to understand it as a global cataclysm. To what extent this is reflected in the known evidence at the current level of scientific development has proven to be a matter of contention. Several hypotheses have been proposed by creationist sources but they all have problems and a fitting model is still lacking. Mainstream science, on the other hand, sticks for the most part to gradualism in spite of the obvious signs of the earth's catastrophic past.

The problem, therefore, seems to me more paradigmatic than evidentiary. If there was an universal punitory flood as described in Genesis, I would certainly expect the earth to look globally as it does now: layers of petrified 'mud', incomplete and discontinuos fossil record, geographical features caused by massive amounts of water, geological signs of violent crustal activity, etc. In addition, certain species would exhibit a carnivore behaviour and the human lifespan would not on average surpass 120 years.

Thanks for the attention.

Itinerant Lurker
Apr 16th 2009, 11:24 PM
Mainstream science, on the other hand, sticks for the most part to gradualism in spite of the obvious signs of the earth's catastrophic past.


There is a very widespread misconception that uniformitarianism does not allow for catastraphy. In fact, a uniformitarian view of earth's history encompasses long periods of gradual change punctuated by large catastrophes. Catastrophism, on the other hand, suffers from an extremely myopic view of how processes that shaped the earth operated in the past as it's timeline requires all catastrophies with no gradual changes at all.



The problem, therefore, seems to me more paradigmatic than evidentiary. If there was an universal punitory flood as described in Genesis, I would certainly expect the earth to look globally as it does now: layers of petrified 'mud',


The geological column is not made up of simply petrified mud. We have large layers of limestone, formed from organic materials, in addition to desert sandstone, formed from buried wind blown sand, capped with more marine limestone. This indicates cyclic periods of changing conditions from desert to marine to desert environments stretching back millions of years that doesn't at all jive with a young earth perspective.



geographical features caused by massive amounts of water,


I'm aware of zero geographical features caused by water erosion that require a global flood to have formed.



geological signs of violent crustal activity, etc.


This is actually a major problem for a young earth view. When you compress all the tectonic activity we have evidence for to within the small window of time a YEC view allows for you release enough energy to return the surface of earth to its previously molten state.



In addition, certain species would exhibit a carnivore behaviour and the human lifespan would not on average surpass 120 years.

Why would certain species begin to exhibit carnivore behaviors and human life spans be affected by a global flood?

losthorizon
Apr 17th 2009, 03:07 AM
LH, please correct me if I am wrong.

I understand you are suggesting a global flood in the past 12,000 years. I think everyone here agrees on that.

What I cannot ascertain is if you believe that this flood in fact flooded the whole earth to the point of covering all the land and destroying all humanity, save Noah and his family (obviously the literal reading).


I don’ think any correction is needed, Teddy – historical science records a flood universal in scope that beggars anything we can imagine <12,000 years ago and the historical record preserved in Holy Writ describes a universal flood “in the days of Noah” (less than 12,000 years ago) that destroyed “all flesh” save those in the Ark. It is remains unknown with the current evidence available if the two are one and the same event. Why would one not take the obvious literal reading?

losthorizon
Apr 17th 2009, 03:54 AM
There is a very widespread misconception that uniformitarianism does not allow for catastraphy. In fact, a uniformitarian view of earth's history encompasses long periods of gradual change punctuated by large catastrophes. Catastrophism, on the other hand, suffers from an extremely myopic view of how processes that shaped the earth operated in the past as it's timeline requires all catastrophies with no gradual changes at all.


Isn’t it true that the main difference between uniformitarianism and catastrophism is that the former requires the *presupposition* of vast time periods (billions of years) and the latter can operate with or without billions of years? Why does the Darwinian worldview require uniformitarianism for its very survival? Maybe our resident geologist can weigh in.
presupposition: to believe or suppose in advance

The geological column is not made up of simply petrified mud. We have large layers of limestone, formed from organic materials, in addition to desert sandstone, formed from buried wind blown sand, capped with more marine limestone. This indicates cyclic periods of changing conditions from desert to marine to desert environments stretching back millions of years that doesn't at all jive with a young earth perspective.
But isn’t this whole notion of geologic scale/geological column based on circular reasoning?
"The charge that the construction of the geologic scale involves circularity has a certain amount of validity. ...Thus, the procedure is far from ideal and the geologic ranges are constantly being revised (usually extended) as new occurrences are found." ~ David M. Raup, University of Chicago (paleontologist) Btw - what happended to Crawfish - I miss his insightful posts?

teddyv
Apr 17th 2009, 05:30 AM
Isn’t it true that the main difference between uniformitarianism and catastrophism is that the former requires the *presupposition* of vast time periods (billions of years) and the latter can operate with or without billions of years? Why does the Darwinian worldview require uniformitarianism for its very survival? Maybe our resident geologist can weigh in.

presupposition: to believe or suppose in advance
But isn’t this whole notion of geologic scale/geological column based on circular reasoning?

"The charge that the construction of the geologic scale involves circularity has a certain amount of validity. ...Thus, the procedure is far from ideal and the geologic ranges are constantly being revised (usually extended) as new occurrences are found." ~ David M. Raup, University of Chicago (paleontologist)
Btw - what happended to Crawfish - I miss his insightful posts?
Only a quick post right now.

Uniformitarianism predates Darwin by something like 80 years. IIRC, it was formally proposed by James Hutton in 1783 or so. Darwin's Origin of the Species showed up 150 years ago (1859).

losthorizon
Apr 17th 2009, 01:20 PM
Only a quick post right now.

Uniformitarianism predates Darwin by something like 80 years. IIRC, it was formally proposed by James Hutton in 1783 or so. Darwin's Origin of the Species showed up 150 years ago (1859).
But is Hutton’s statement "the present is the key to the past" really accurate under the catastrophism taught in the Bible? Doesn’t “modern uniformitarianism” aka, actualism differ from Hutton’s original work and doesn’t both concepts fail to account for the possibly or impact of a universal flood as presented in Holy Writ? :)

Walstib
Apr 17th 2009, 01:34 PM
I would go as far as to say the concept of uniformitarianism is as old as the hills. Forgive me teddy knows I am on a roll for geology jokes...

My quick definition--- Forgiving supernatural influence one can rely on the same physical principals happening over and over again. Gravity is explained within this logic. The apple always falls at a certain speed, size....

Without the general concept we would not know what a miracle was.

Now a global food to me would have to be a miracle for the reason we needed more water. Evidenced by the wonderful information presented in this thread about glaciation cycles.

As I understand things showing geological evidence for a global flood by nature would be really hard. It only lasted around a year or so. No time for real erosion, a layer of silt on what is normally dry land maybe.

For example a short time north of where I live close to where the bedrock is scraped clean by the last glacier. I dig anywhere undeveloped around here and I get to undisturbed soil deposited by the glacier within a foot. That is the layer that would include the flood evidence. It's right under all our feet is what I'm saying, not somewhere deep in the layers of geological history.

I'm not saying this proves it's not there, I'm saying trying to find evidence for it one way or the other would not be easy.

I can believe in a one year miraculous global flood and not feel compromised with lack of geological evidence.

teddyv
Apr 17th 2009, 04:23 PM
I don’ think any correction is needed, Teddy – historical science records a flood universal in scope that beggars anything we can imagine <12,000 years ago and the historical record preserved in Holy Writ describes a universal flood “in the days of Noah” (less than 12,000 years ago) that destroyed “all flesh” save those in the Ark. It is remains unknown with the current evidence available if the two are one and the same event. Why would one not take the obvious literal reading?
The literal reading requires the mountains be covered. Also is this observation from Noah's perspective on the ark of from God's perspective (i.e. looking out the window of the ark versus a more global perspective)? But even if it from Noah's perspective and assuming the ark rested upon the present Mt Ararat the waters would have to have risen to greater than 5,137 metres (16,854'). There just is no way that the earth could have produced this much water in the literal time required and left no evidence unless it was a purely supernatural/miraculous event.

losthorizon
Apr 17th 2009, 04:42 PM
The literal reading requires the mountains be covered. Also is this observation from Noah's perspective on the ark of from God's perspective (i.e. looking out the window of the ark versus a more global perspective)? But even if it from Noah's perspective and assuming the ark rested upon the present Mt Ararat the waters would have to have risen to greater than 5,137 metres (16,854'). There just is no way that the earth could have produced this much water in the literal time required and left no evidence unless it was a purely supernatural/miraculous event.
I think we both agree that God is not required to explain the workings of the universe to His creation (that's the task of science) and the Bible is not a science textbook. I doubt that science will ever progress to the point where it can explain the miraculous but the question remains - what mechanism(s) caused “the fountains of the great deep" to be broken up and what exactly were “the windows of heaven” that were opened. Again, as I mentioned earlier there is enough water deep inside the earth to replace all the oceans 10 times over – that’s a lot of water. Where did it all come from and what was the purpose of this water in the distant past?

teddyv
Apr 17th 2009, 05:20 PM
But is Hutton’s statement "the present is the key to the past" really accurate under the catastrophism taught in the Bible?
I don't see why not. I don't think the Bible specifically advances catastrophism. Certainly the Bible speaks of catastrophes - earthquakes, floods etc. often in relation to God's judgement but this does not make the rule. I think Hutton was aware that catastrophic events occur but are not required to be the only method of modifying the landscape around us.


Doesn’t “modern uniformitarianism” aka, actualism differ from Hutton’s original work and doesn’t both concepts fail to account for the possibly or impact of a universal flood as presented in Holy Writ? :)

I looked up actualism as I wasn't familiar with the term as such but I'm not sure of the relevance. I don't see in any definitions of actualism that it is the modern version of uniformitarianism. Are you applying it in the sense that if there is no evidence of a flood therefore it wasn't possible or did not exist? I'm not a philospher. Maybe someone can enlighten me.

There certainly is evidence of a catastrophic floods in the past, particularly the glacial dam bursts at the closing of the last ice age. There is not evidence of a global deluge that covered the mountains as required by a literal reading of the Biblical account. This does not negate a supernatural event.

teddyv
Apr 17th 2009, 05:32 PM
I think we both agree that God is not required to explain the workings of the universe to His creation (that's the task of science) and the Bible is not a science textbook. I doubt that science will ever progress to the point where it can explain the miraculous but the question remains - what mechanism(s) caused “the fountains of the great deep" to be broken up and what exactly were “the windows of heaven” that were opened. Again, as I mentioned earlier there is enough water deep inside the earth to replace all the oceans 10 times over – that’s a lot of water. Where did it all come from and what was the purpose of this water in the distant past?
The "fountains of the deep" as I understand it, are a construct of the Ancient Near East people (both the Egyptians and Babylonians have this as part of their cosmology). Likewise the windows of the heavens is similarly part of this construct (concept of the firmament).

Here is a link to a reference from a book I recently read further explaining the ANE cosmologies with respect to the Bible. I don't know if it answers anything in particular here, but gives you an idea of where I am coming from.
http://67.199.69.61/origins/downloads/Origins_chap06_art03_cosmology.pdf

Cheers.

Jorge S
Apr 17th 2009, 08:12 PM
... In fact, a uniformitarian view of earth's history encompasses long periods of gradual change punctuated by large catastrophes. Catastrophism, on the other hand, suffers from an extremely myopic view of how processes that shaped the earth operated in the past as it's timeline requires all catastrophies with no gradual changes at all.
The only evidence we have is that of a post-flood earth. Whatever features we now see are the results of smaller-scale geological processes acting upon a planet profoundly changed by one major, non-repetitive, God-driven cataclysm at a given moment in history.


The geological column is not made up of simply petrified mud. We have large layers of limestone, formed from organic materials, in addition to desert sandstone, formed from buried wind blown sand, capped with more marine limestone. This indicates cyclic periods of changing conditions from desert to marine to desert environments stretching back millions of years that doesn't at all jive with a young earth perspective. I'm aware of zero geographical features caused by water erosion that require a global flood to have formed.Petrified 'mud' was my generic term for sedimentary rock, which makes up the larger percentage of rocks within the earth's surface and includes the variations you mentioned. Large scale sedimentation is something to be expected from a global flood.


This is actually a major problem for a young earth view. When you compress all the tectonic activity we have evidence for to within the small window of time a YEC view allows for you release enough energy to return the surface of earth to its previously molten state.Your hypothetical scenario is blatantly denied by the fact that we are still here. Since nobody knows how the pre-flood earth was like, it becomes a futile exercise to extrapolate current postulates into the past.


Why would certain species begin to exhibit carnivore behaviors and human life spans be affected by a global flood?Genesis 6:3, 9:3-5

Jorge S
Apr 17th 2009, 08:17 PM
... There just is no way that the earth could have produced this much water in the literal time required and left no evidence unless it was a purely supernatural/miraculous event.
... There is not evidence of a global deluge that covered the mountains as required by a literal reading of the Biblical account. This does not negate a supernatural event.
What 'evidence' are you ready to accept?

Itinerant Lurker
Apr 17th 2009, 10:52 PM
The only evidence we have is that of a post-flood earth. Whatever features we now see are the results of smaller-scale geological processes acting upon a planet profoundly changed by one major, non-repetitive, God-driven cataclysm at a given moment in history.


Even given a global flood that actually covered the entire earth, it stands to reason that things should have survived to tell us about what was going on before this point in history. For instance, the geological column extends for more than a mile. Unless you claim that the flood actually laid down all of these mostly sedimentary rock layers within less than a year of activity we should be able to go back and look at these rock layers in order to learn about how things happened long long long before 12,000 years ago. In fact, as has been pointed out earlier, the YEC time frame for the flood is so recent that the evidence we're for isn't sedimentary rock but instead is actual sediment (dirt).



Petrified 'mud' was my generic term for sedimentary rock, which makes up the larger percentage of rocks within the earth's surface and includes the variations you mentioned. Large scale sedimentation is something to be expected from a global flood.


That's a very very bad generic term as it seems more than a little misleading. True, large amounts of sediment should be expected to get moved around and laid down a lot in a large scale flood. That being said, we should then expect to find sediment laid down according to at least some sort of hydrodynamic principles on a global scale corresponding to a certain point in history within the last few thousand years. If YEC scientists had been able to find this missing sedimentary evidence I'm pretty sure we would have heard about it long ago. As of yet I've seen none of the plausible predictions made by a super-catastrophic global flood model borne out by observation.



Your hypothetical scenario is blatantly denied by the fact that we are still here.


Right, which is a good indicator that all this activity was spread out over long periods of time just like the evidence indicates instead of occurring all at once or within a few thousand years.



Since nobody knows how the pre-flood earth was like, it becomes a futile exercise to extrapolate current postulates into the past.


So. . .according to your view there are no testable predictions a global flood model would have? We have a fairly good idea what the earth was like for a pretty long time. When do you think this flood occurred?



Genesis 6:3, 9:3-5

If I'm getting your point you're saying that we would expect that animals would start displaying carnivorous behavior and human life spans to shorten if there was a global flood because God tells Noah that he can eat animals and that people aren't going to live very long, yes? There's two problems I see with such arguments, the first is that this is a scriptural point not an evidenciary one. This leads into the second problem in that, if you were actually arguing this point with a non-believer, it would be percieved as non-sensical because of it's circular nature.

Either way, this does nothing to explain how a global flood would produce behaviors and lifespans we already know were present long before a young earth view claims these events took place.

losthorizon
Apr 18th 2009, 02:27 AM
I don't see why not. I don't think the Bible specifically advances catastrophism.


I don’t think one can read Genesis 7 and conclude the Bible does not specifically advance catastrophism – it does advance catastrophism.
catastrophism - the doctrine that certain vast geological changes in the earth's history were caused by catastrophes rather than gradual evolutionary processes. ~ Copyright © 2009, Dictionary.com

I looked up actualism as I wasn't familiar with the term as such but I'm not sure of the relevance. I don't see in any definitions of actualism that it is the modern version of uniformitarianism. Are you applying it in the sense that if there is no evidence of a flood therefore it wasn't possible or did not exist? I'm not a philospher. Maybe someone can enlighten me.
I am referring to the “principle of actualism” as it relates to uniformitarianism. Both concepts are related in Hutton's ideas on geology (Plutonism) - these ideas were later clarified in Lyell's writings.
Uniformitarianism is a generalization of the principle of actualism (geology), which states that all past geological action was like all present geological action. The principle of actualism is the cornerstone of paleoecology.~ Wikipedia


There certainly is evidence of a catastrophic floods in the past, particularly the glacial dam bursts at the closing of the last ice age. There is not evidence of a global deluge that covered the mountains as required by a literal reading of the Biblical account. This does not negate a supernatural event.
If there was a supernatural flood (which you do not rule out) and the Flood described in Genesis is literal what is missing in the geological record to support the Flood? Do you think the geologic scale involves circularity as Raup admits? :hmm:

losthorizon
Apr 19th 2009, 01:55 AM
For instance, the geological column extends for more than a mile.


The geological column sounds good in textbooks but if we are going to use it as a real-world scale for measuring time how are we going to avoid the obvious and unavoidable circular reasoning involved – ie - the rocks are dated by the fossils, but the fossils are dated by the rocks…
"The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning if it insists on using only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales. ~ ~ J.E. O'Rourke

As of yet I've seen none of the plausible predictions made by a super-catastrophic global flood model borne out by observation.
But isn’t the biblical flood supported by empirical evidence based on observation?
empirical: originating in or based on observation or experience ~ Miriam Webster

Itinerant Lurker
Apr 19th 2009, 02:40 PM
The geological column sounds good in textbooks but if we are going to use it as a real-world scale for measuring time how are we going to avoid the obvious and unavoidable circular reasoning involved – ie - the rocks are dated by the fossils, but the fossils are dated by the rocks…


We don't use strata to date fossils and fossils to date strata. We use stratiography to determine relative ages (http://paleobiology.si.edu/geotime/main/foundation_dating2.html) and methods such as radiometric dating to determine absolute ages (http://paleobiology.si.edu/geotime/main/foundation_dating3.html).
http://paleobiology.si.edu/geotime/m...n_dating1.html (http://paleobiology.si.edu/geotime/main/foundation_dating1.html)




"The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning if it insists on using only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales. ~ ~ J.E. O'Rourke


What is this, the fourth blatant quote mine you've thrown out? Why is O'Rourke such an authority all of the sudden? Is it because he wrote a terribly put together paper, two sentences of which seem to agree with your misconceptions of dating methods?

Read the rest of the paper, O'Rourke makes numerous errors about stratiography but he certainly does not agree with your premise.

"The charge of circular reasoning in stratigraphy can be handled in several ways. it can be ignored, as not the proper concern of the public. It can be denied, by calling down the Law of Evolution. Fossil dates rocks, not vice-versa, and that's that. It can be admitted, as a common practice. The time scales of physics and astronomy are obtained by comparing one process with another. They can be compared with the geologic processes of sedimentation, organic evolution, and radioactivity. Or it can be avoided, by pragmatic reasoning."

Source: J.E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism vs. Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of science, January 1976.


I really can't stress enough that this comes from the same paper as your previous quote. Nor should the date of this paper (1976) be overlooked.



But isn’t the biblical flood supported by empirical evidence based on observation?
empirical: originating in or based on observation or experience ~ Miriam Webster

We have empirical evidence for major floods occurring during different time periods throughout the past. We do not have empirical evidence for a global flood that actually covered the entire earth between 15,000-4,000 years ago.

Jorge S
Apr 19th 2009, 05:30 PM
Unless you claim that the flood actually laid down all of these mostly sedimentary rock layers within less than a year of activity.
Yes. I do support the idea that all those fossil-bearing strata of sedimentary rock were laid down by the Noahic Flood.


As of yet I've seen none of the plausible predictions made by a super-catastrophic global flood model borne out by observation.
Lack of a fully working model doesn't mean implausibility. Uniformitarian fundamentalists have had their share of evidentiary refutal without revoking their position.


There's two problems I see with such arguments, the first is that this is a scriptural point not an evidenciary one. This leads into the second problem in that, if you were actually arguing this point with a non-believer, it would be percieved as non-sensical because of it's circular nature.
The scriptural point is what matters. It provides consistency to the biblical postulate that progressive decay, death and strife are the wages of sin. Therefore God could not have created the earth and its inhabitants by mechanisms resulting from His chastening of violence and lawlessness. I would never feel ashamed of arguing that point with non-believers.

Non-literalists tend to trivialize the sheer magnitude and purpose of the Flood. God meant destruction and He accomplished it according to His sovereign will and awesome power. At the end of that fateful year the survivors of the ark were biologically altered and stepped into a changed earth.


Either way, this does nothing to explain how a global flood would produce behaviors and lifespans we already know were present long before a young earth view claims these events took place.
How do you know they were present without the Bible telling you?

Jorge S
Apr 19th 2009, 06:57 PM
We don't use strata to date fossils and fossils to date strata. We use stratiography to determine relative ages (http://paleobiology.si.edu/geotime/main/foundation_dating2.html) and methods such as radiometric dating to determine absolute ages (http://paleobiology.si.edu/geotime/main/foundation_dating3.html).
http://paleobiology.si.edu/geotime/m...n_dating1.html (http://paleobiology.si.edu/geotime/main/foundation_dating1.html)

Not everything can be dated absolutely and correlations need to be done to establish the age of individual rocks, regions and fauna. Index fossils are hence used for such adjustments (biostratigraphy or paleontologic stratigraphy) so that radiometric dates are not too off.

From the same article you quoted:
"The problem is that only some types of rocks and fossils can be numerically dated, so all other evidence of ancient life must be related to age-dated material by the techniques of relative dating."

Therefore there is an element of circularity which has often been singled out by skeptics of old ages.

losthorizon
Apr 19th 2009, 07:13 PM
We don't use strata to date fossils and fossils to date strata. We use stratiography to determine relative ages and methods such as radiometric dating to determine absolute ages.


"...fossils have been and still are the best and most accurate method of dating and correlating the rocks in which they occur ...I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils." New Scientist (Derek Ager).It appears that “we” does not include *all scientists* because many think fossils are the "best and most accurate method of dating and correlating the rocks in which they occur" (circular). You do admit “circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales” – right? (Hint: it’s a given - move forward). Radiometric dating takes us back to the *faith issue* once again as presented in the doctrine of uniformitarianism. Have decay rates remained constant over the eons; do we know the isotope amounts “in the beginning”; and was any given sample preserved in a “closed system” without contamination? You are making many assumptions based on many Darwinian presumptions based on much illogical circularity. This all brings us to the question that begs – how much faith are we going to put into the doctrine of uniformitarianism and Darwinian lore? I don’t think I have that much faith – how about you, partner?


What is this, the fourth blatant quote mine you've thrown out? Why is O'Rourke such an authority all of the sudden? Is it because he wrote a terribly put together paper, two sentences of which seem to agree with your misconceptions of dating methods?
Lol – is every scientist who disagrees with your dogma a “shoddy scientist”, Lurker?


We have empirical evidence for major floods occurring during different time periods throughout the past. We do not have empirical evidence for a global flood that actually covered the entire earth between 15,000-4,000 years ago.
But we do have empirical evidence (historical) based on observation that there was a universal flood that covered the earth - "And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered." Like all Darwinians you appear to hold a skewed form of *scientism* - ie – the notion that the scientific method is the only way one finds true knowledge.
Scientism
Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. Scientism's single-minded adherence to only the empirical, or testable, makes it a strictly scientifc worldview, in much the same way that a Protestant fundamentalism that rejects science can be seen as a strictly religious worldview. Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be apprehended by the scientific method. In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth.

Itinerant Lurker
Apr 20th 2009, 12:12 AM
Yes. I do support the idea that all those fossil-bearing strata of sedimentary rock were laid down by the Noahic Flood.


What about all the non-fossil bearing strata below that? In the Grand Canyon we have almost a mile of strata with no fossils to speak of (until the uppermost layers).



Lack of a fully working model doesn't mean implausibility. Uniformitarian fundamentalists have had their share of evidentiary refutal without revoking their position.


When your model doesn't work at all it's not plausible. Scientific theories are judged based on their explanatory power, if your model can't explain anything why should anyone bother with it?

I have no idea what a Uniformitarian fundamentalist is.



The scriptural point is what matters. It provides consistency to the biblical postulate that progressive decay, death and strife are the wages of sin. Therefore God could not have created the earth and its inhabitants by mechanisms resulting from His chastening of violence and lawlessness. I would never feel ashamed of arguing that point with non-believers.


You shouldn't feel ashamed pointing that out to non-believers, but don't expect it to have any effect whatsoever. Using the Bible to prove the Bible is true doesn't work very well in an apologetics situation. Lots of books are internally consistent, not all books are externally consistent. Those external consistencies are what you should be looking for and pointing out.



How do you know they were present without the Bible telling you?
[/quote]

Evidence. We see lots of creatures today who survive only on meat (obligate carnivores), in addition to all biological systems being based on producer-consumer relationships. Finally, we find all kinds of creatures in the fossil record that have obviously carnivorous characteristics.

As to human life spans, I've toyed with the idea that this acknowledgment of a decrease in life expectancy reflects the shift from hunter-gatherers to urban agricultural societies which typically produce a higher population with a lower life expectancy. However, I don't see how one would "expect" a global flood to produce lower life expectancies except that God supernaturally caused people to not live as long. Such an explanation does not rely on observational evidence but on scriptural interpretation and, as such, doesn't seem well suited for apologetics.

Itinerant Lurker
Apr 20th 2009, 12:20 AM
Not everything can be dated absolutely and correlations need to be done to establish the age of individual rocks, regions and fauna. Index fossils are hence used for such adjustments (biostratigraphy or paleontologic stratigraphy) so that radiometric dates are not too off.

From the same article you quoted:
"The problem is that only some types of rocks and fossils can be numerically dated, so all other evidence of ancient life must be related to age-dated material by the techniques of relative dating."

Therefore there is an element of circularity which has often been singled out by skeptics of old ages.

Not every kind of rock can be accurately tested using the techniques we have. For example, metamorphic rocks are usually kind of problematic because they've undergone enormous amounts pressure and heat. Let's say you pull some fossils out of metamorphic rock and want to date them but the characteristics of the site prohibit usual testing methods. One way to determine the ages of these fossils is to see if they are associated with an index fossil, that is, a fossil that is always found during the same time period. If so then it's a good bet that your fossil is around the same age.

In cases like this you would technically be using a fossil to date strata, but the only reason we even have index fossils is because we keep finding them over and over and over again in the same age range. So, if you really want to be accurate, you're still using strata to date the original fossils, just not directly.

Another way to date problematic strata is to look at layers above and below and see if they are suitable for radiometric testing. If you can figure out their absolute dates you can pretty well lock down the age of the intervening rock.

Itinerant Lurker
Apr 20th 2009, 01:37 AM
"...fossils have been and still are the best and most accurate method of dating and correlating the rocks in which they occur ...I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils." New Scientist (Derek Ager).It appears that “we” does not include *all scientists* because many think fossils are the "best and most accurate method of dating and correlating the rocks in which they occur" (circular).


The Ager piece you quote (New Scientist, Nov.10, p.425, 1983) concerns itself with showing how geologists like Ager are better off using fossils to date strata that physicists who use isotope ratios. I'm not seeing anywhere at all how this is circular in this article. To start with let's throw out a little more of the context of your quote:

"No palaeontologist worthy of the name would ever date his fossils by the strata in which they are found. It is almost the first thing I teach my first-year students. Ever since William Smith at the beginning of the 19th century, fossils have been and still are the best and most accurate method of dating and correlating the rocks in which they occur. Oil companies spend millions of pounds employing palaeontologists to date the sediments found in their boreholes. Palaeontology is many things, but its most practical application is in providing a dating service second to none.

As for having all the credit passed to physicists and the measurement of isotopic decay, the blood boils! Certainly such studies give dates in terms of millions of years, with huge margins of error, but this is an exceedingly crude instrument with which to measure our strata and I can think of no occasion when it has been put to immediate practical use. Apart from very "modern" examples, I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils. In fact, fossils such as small marine invertebrate and plant spores and pollen are constantly used as precision tools in dating the rocks. We are measuring in millimetres while the physicists are measuring kilometres."

If anything this looks like an endorsement of the reliability of using relative dating techniques. Nor can you really throw all this on the "darwinian scientists" as people started noticing long before Darwin was even born that certain fossils are always found in certain strata. Take William Smith, as an example, who crisscrossed England surveying for canals. Smith took particular notice of fossil locations in strata to the point that if you gave him a group of fossils he would be able to tell you what order you had found them in.

"Fossils have been long studied as great curiosities, collected with great pains, treasured with great care and at a great expense, and shown and admired with as much pleasure as a child's hobby-horse is shown and admired by himself and his playfellows, because it is pretty; and this has been done by thousands who have never paid the least regard to that wonderful order and regularity with which nature has disposed of these singular productions, and assigned to each class its peculiar stratum."
William Smith, notes written January 5, 1796
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/smith.html

Prior to the publication of Origin of the Species scientists of the day already had a lengthy model of the age of the earth based on these observations. What the theory of evolution did was to provide an explanation for why these fossils appeared in this kind of order.

Beyond showing that using fossils is a fairly accurate technique that can be used to produce real-world results such as helping to identify strata for oil companies, Ager also notes how using fossils to date strata was instrumental in the development of the theory of continental drift:

"What is particularly infuriating at the present time is the way the physicists seem to claim all the glory for the late 1950s. Now you would think that the physicists actually invested continental drift while the geologists stumbled stupidly in the rear studying their fossils, which incidentally have provided some of the best evidence of all, ever since fossil land plants, such as Glossopteris, were found on all the scattered pieces (South America, Africa, India, Australia, and Antarctica) of the once-united southern continent we called "Gondwandaland". This was long, long before residual magnetism reversal were ever dreamed of."

So. . .thanks for propping up the reliability of relative dating methods I guess but I'm just not seeing how this helps you at all. If anything you're kind of making my argument for the reliability of dating techniques for me.



Radiometric dating takes us back to the *faith issue* once again as presented in the doctrine of uniformitarianism. Have decay rates remained constant over the eons; do we know the isotope amounts “in the beginning”; and was any given sample preserved in a “closed system” without contamination?
Radiometric dating has improved quite a bit since Ager's article, in the late 1970's they started being able to calibrate them against other dating methods that don't rely on radioactive decay like varves and ice cores, amazingly we get an incredibly consistent correlation.

http://www.geo.arizona.edu/palynology/geos462/c14FairbQSR05.gif
Yes, decay rates have remained the same over eons. We can view decay rate information transmitted in the radiation emitted from distant stars millions of light years away, they don't show any change. Additionally, decay rates have never been observed to vary anywhere except possibly the interior of very very very large stars among a select number of isotopes.

Since radiometric dating methods look at the parent/daughter ratio the original amount of the parent isotope doesn't actually matter.

Contamination is a problem, but scientists work hard to prevent it. Additionally, if all samples were contaminated they would not yeild consistent results in line with other dating methods that do not rely on radioactive decay such as dendrochronology and ice cores.



Lol – is every scientist who disagrees with your dogma a “shoddy scientist”, Lurker?
No, I'm not in the habit of accusing every scientist who disagrees with my world view of intentionally misrepresenting their findings. I look at evidence, things like the entirety of an article instead of the one or two sentences that happen to agree with me. It takes more time but by doing so I don't misrepresent my position as dishonestly representing other's work so as to further my own view. This harkens back to Bernard Ramm's explanation of why Christianity first lost the battle of the Intellectuals back in the 19th century:

"The big problems of science and biology must be argued in terms of a broad philosophy of science. The evangelical always fought the battle on too narrow a strip. He argued over the authenticity of this or that bone; this or that phenomenon in a plant or animal; this or that detail in geology. The empirical data are just there, and the scientists can run the evangelical to death in constantly turning up new material. The evangelicals by fighting on such a narrow strip simply could not compete with the scientists who were spending their lifetime routing out matters of fact."

Bernard Ramm, The Imperative Necessity of a Harmony Between Christianity and Science



But we do have empirical evidence (historical) based on observation that there was a universal flood that covered the earth - "And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered."
So the only empirical evidence for a global flood is the bible? How is this going to help you when discussing this event with a non-Christian or even a Christian with a different interpretation of this account? You're basically citing your interpretation as evidence for your interpretation, why should anyone who doesn't already hold to your interpretation pay any notice?

fishbowlsoul
Apr 20th 2009, 02:30 AM
Like all Darwinians you appear to hold a skewed form of *scientism* - ie – the notion that the scientific method is the only way one finds true knowledge.

Scientism
Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. Scientism's single-minded adherence to only the empirical, or testable, makes it a strictly scientifc worldview, in much the same way that a Protestant fundamentalism that rejects science can be seen as a strictly religious worldview. Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be apprehended by the scientific method. In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth.


Why do you think Lurker holds the view of scientism? This is a serious claim to make about a fellow Christian. I have not seen anything in Lurker's posts that make the claim that science has the ultimate truth in all aspects of life especially philosophically. Lurker has just responded to incorrect information.

losthorizon
Apr 20th 2009, 03:02 AM
The Ager piece you quote (New Scientist, Nov.10, p.425, 1983) concerns itself with showing how geologists like Ager are better off using fossils to date strata that physicists who use isotope ratios.


But the fact still remains – scientists still date the rocks by the fossils and the fossils are dated by the rocks (circular) thus leaving you back at square one - circularity remains inherent in the derivation of time scales. Sorry but you will need to dig a little deeper.


Since radiometric dating methods look at the parent/daughter ratio the original amount of the parent isotope doesn't actually matter.But it does matter – errors have been and are still being noted – errors that would give “the appearance of age”. Do you deny there are errors caused by contamination and fractionation?
Contamination and fractionation issues are frankly acknowledged by the geologic community. For example, if a magma chamber does not have homogeneously mixed isotopes, lighter daughter products could accumulate in the upper portion of the chamber. If this occurs, initial volcanic eruptions would have a preponderance of daughter products relative to the parent isotopes. Such a distribution would give the appearance of age. As the magma chamber is depleted in daughter products, subsequent lava flows and ash beds would have younger dates. ~ Elaine G. Kennedy (Geoscience Reports)


Contamination is a problem, but scientists work hard to prevent it. Additionally, if all samples were contaminated they would not yeild consistent results in line with other dating methods that do not rely on radioactive decay such as dendrochronology and ice cores.Yes - contamination is quite a problem so tell me more – what exactly do you mean when you say “scientists work hard to prevent it”? That appears to be a very ambiguous statement. Doesn’t geological literature report many ages that are simply impossible or highly unlikely? How much faith in radiometric dating must I have to be become a true believer? What about "fictitious" isochrons?
The geological literature is filled with references to Rb-Sr isochron ages that are questionable, and even impossible. Woodmorappe (1979, pp. 125-129) cites about 65 references to the problem. Faure (1977, pp. 97-105) devotes this chapter to seven possible causes for "fictitious" isochrons. Zheng (1989, pp. 15-16) also cites 42 references.

Zheng (pp. 2-3, 5) also discusses the frequent occurrence of a variable Sr-86 (another non-radioactive isotope of strontium) that is critical to the situation. He comes closest to recognizing the fact that the Sr-86 concentration is a third or confounding variable in the isochron simple linear regression. Austin (1994, 1992, 1988), Butler (1982), and Dodson (1982) also discuss the discordant and long ages given by the Rb/Sr isochron. Snelling (1994) discusses numerous false ages in the U-Pb system where isochrons are also used. ~ "A SUFFICIENT REASON FOR FALSE RB-SR ISOCHRONS" by G. HERBERT GILLhttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/Sm_Nd_Great_Dyke_Isochron.png
Sm/Nd isochron plotted of samples [11] from the Great Dyke, Zimbabwe. The age is calculated from the slope of the isochron (line) and the original composition from the intercept of the isochron with the y-axis.


So the only empirical evidence for a global flood is the bible?
Are you saying the Bible does not represent a reliable historical record? And sure there is other evidence - there is historical evidence from science of a “universal blood” < 12,000 years ago - “a vast flood that beggars anything we can imagine” (Isaac Asimov).

losthorizon
Apr 20th 2009, 03:14 AM
Why do you think Lurker holds the view of scientism?


I am not sure why Lurker holds any of his views but I have found that most folks who have a weak scientism worldview also tend to have a strong Darwinian worldview - both views are considered by some to be one and the same.:)

Athanasius
Apr 20th 2009, 04:09 AM
I am not sure why Lurker holds any of his views but I have found that most folks who have a weak scientism worldview also tend to have a strong Darwinian worldview - both views are considered by some to be one and the same.:)

I haven't seen anything in Lurker's posts suggesting he believes in any form of scientism. Play nice as that is, as has been said above, a serious accusation to make about another believer. I would hate to move or close another one of these threads, especially with all the conclusions we've drawn hitherto.

teddyv
Apr 20th 2009, 06:34 PM
But the fact still remains – scientists still date the rocks by the fossils and the fossils are dated by the rocks (circular) thus leaving you back at square one - circularity remains inherent in the derivation of time scales. Sorry but you will need to dig a little deeper.

Generally speaking the rocks have been relatively dated by the fossils well before any radiometric date was applied. Later radiometric methods have confirmed that the relative age-dating is correct, except that now there are absolute dates attached to various rocks. I don't see this as circular. As others have noted, fossils are an excellent tool for correlating strata. Fossils and their strata can rarely be absolutely dated because you can't obtain absolute dates of sedimentary material except in the more recent past.

Itinerant Lurker
Apr 20th 2009, 07:46 PM
But the fact still remains – scientists still date the rocks by the fossils and the fossils are dated by the rocks (circular)


That's just plain wrong. Scientists use two different types of dating methods to date rocks, relative and absolute. Sometimes absolute dating isn't possible because of the nature of the strata, sometimes sending every fossil from a site to be tested for an absolute age is cost-prohibitive and absurdly repetitive. In such cases we can fix a general date to fossils using stratiography or index fossils.


But it does matter – errors have been and are still being noted – errors that would give “the appearance of age”. Do you deny there are errors caused by contamination and fractionation?
No, I don't. Errors can occur but the fact remains that around 95% of all tests show ages consistent with an old earth view. Additionally, radiometric dating techniques are remarkably consistent with numerous other dating techniques that do not rely on radioactive decay, such as dendrochronology, varves, and ice cores. Saying that all samples are contaminated does not explain either of these strong correlations.



Yes - contamination is quite a problem so tell me more – what exactly do you mean when you say “scientists work hard to prevent it”?
It's pretty standard practice to preserve samples destined for dating so as to prevent variables that might skew the test results from cropping up. I'm not seeing why this is such an earth-shatteringly jarring revelation.



The geological literature is filled with references to Rb-Sr isochron ages that are questionable, and even impossible. Woodmorappe (1979, pp. 125-129) cites about 65 references to the problem. Faure (1977, pp. 97-105) devotes this chapter to seven possible causes for "fictitious" isochrons. Zheng (1989, pp. 15-16) also cites 42 references.


This simply isn't much of a problem. False isochrons caused by the mixing of two materials which posses different isotropic compositions do occur. But scientists can tell pretty easily if a sample is giving a false reading due to mixing and discard it.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html#mixing




http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/Sm_Nd_Great_Dyke_Isochron.png
Sm/Nd isochron plotted of samples [11] from the Great Dyke, Zimbabwe. The age is calculated from the slope of the isochron (line) and the original composition from the intercept of the isochron with the y-axis.
And this is supposed to show. . . .?



Are you saying the Bible does not represent a reliable historical record?
Not a literally word for word accurate historical record, no, not for this account.



And sure there is other evidence - there is historical evidence from science of a “universal blood” < 12,000 years ago - “a vast flood that beggars anything we can imagine” (Isaac Asimov).There is evidence for local flooding events and global sea level changes throughout history but nothing approaching a global flood that actually covered the entire earth. We've been through this before, the evidence does not fit your argument for a flood covering everything.

Itinerant Lurker
Apr 20th 2009, 10:47 PM
Like all Darwinians you appear to hold a skewed form of *scientism* - ie – the notion that the scientific method is the only way one finds true knowledge.No, I'm no scientismist. I just think that if you're going to use empirical evidence to support your view that you should use empirical evidence that actually exists instead of distorting or misrepresenting researchers work. On a personal note, I think that a large segment of Christianity simply cannot cope with modern scientific findings concerning the history of our world and, indeed, the universe. This inability leads to two typical responses to evidence which directly contradicts their interpretations; either evidence is distorted to fit their view or evidence is denied as unreliable. I think the current rates of young Christians who turn away from Christ as they progress through higher education speaks to the ultimate weakness of both responses. Like Ramm said, the empirical data are just there and the scientist can run the evangelical to death in constantly turning up new material. Unless Christianity figures out a more consistent and, I daresay honest, way to deal with that data this will continue to be the norm.

Using non-evidence like quote mines from papers and/or articles that don't actually support your conclusion or selectively choosing which conclusions of which scientists to hold up as authoritative based solely on whether or not they agree with you will get you absolutely crushed in a real debate anywhere outside a Christian forum. If you want to use evidenciary arguments for apologetics get your facts straight first, otherwise you'll do more harm than good.

Anyway, that's my two cents. I'm not particularly concerned about what label it earns me. Besides, I'm pretty sure no one's going to top "part of the AntiChrist Education System" anytime soon.

losthorizon
Apr 21st 2009, 01:17 AM
I don't see this as circular.


I don’t see how you can possibly miss it, Teddy – you’re a geologist and the circularity goes like this – Darwinian evolution is documented by evolutionary geology and evolutionary geology is documented by Darwinian evolution (circular).
"Are the authorities maintaining, on the one hand, that evolution is documented by geology and, on the other that geology is documented by evolution? Isn’t this a circular argument?" ~ Larry Azar (Bioscience)

Generally speaking the rocks have been relatively dated by the fossils well before any radiometric date was applied. Later radiometric methods have confirmed that the relative age-dating is correct, except that now there are absolute dates attached to various rocks. I don't see this as circular. As others have noted, fossils are an excellent tool for correlating strata. Fossils and their strata can rarely be absolutely dated because you can't obtain absolute dates of sedimentary material except in the more recent past.
But the fossils used for correlating strata are non-repeatable historical events and the geological column itself only exists in books and is based on the “doctrine of uniformitarianism” that is based on great faith. Where is the science? Radiometric dating would not even be practical if the geologic column had not first been established and it’s all based on assumptions, circularity and uniformitarian lore. Even Eldredge recognizes the circularity involved in “rock dating” –
Don’t tell me they date those layers by carbon dating or potassium argon dating, or rubidium strontium, or lead 208, or lead 206, or U235 or U238; that’s not how they date them! They date the rock layers by the fossils in every case... ~ Niles Eldredge

The geologic column assumes the three principles of stratigraphy. Two of these have been proved wrong, and one has never been tested… The Geological Column seems to be only a mental abstraction. There are sufficient assumptions made in classifying fossils and rocks to justify questioning its legitimacy. There are also sufficient anomalies to show that the timescale is wrong and that the fossil order depicted in the Geologic Column is at best a local phenomenon. In short, the Geologic Column is found only in books and web-sites and does not really exist. ~ CreationWiki

http://creationwiki.org/Geological_column

losthorizon
Apr 21st 2009, 01:49 AM
No, I'm no scientismist. I just think that if you're going to use empirical evidence to support your view that you should use empirical evidence that actually exists instead of distorting or misrepresenting researchers work.


No distorting here, partner and whatever similarities exist between your views and a very distinct form of scientism are best reserved for another thread. As far as my evidence – I have presented historical evidence (Holy Writ) for a universal flood per the Genesis account and I have provided the historical science account of a world-wide flood that “beggars anything we can imagine” that took place less than 12,000 years ago. You have yet to refute either account. Can you?


On a personal note, I think that a large segment of Christianity simply cannot cope with modern scientific findings concerning the history of our world and, indeed, the universe.
Off-topic but I will take the bait. Christians reject the Darwinian worldview “concerning the history of our world and, indeed, the universe” because it is a godless worldview that floats the non-scientific notion that the universe is the result of random accidents; life arose spontaneously via chance chemical processes without man in mind; and all life-forms are descended from a common ancestor – all the way from bananas to birds. Darwinism remains what it has always been - a secular religion (atheism) that was meant to replace Christianity from its very inception. It should be rejected. The question that begs – do you buy it, Lurk and if you do - why?
Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion — a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint — and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it — the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. ~ How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? BY Michael Ruse - philosopher of science, particularly of the evolutionary sciences

fishbowlsoul
Apr 21st 2009, 03:09 AM
As far as my evidence – I have presented historical evidence (Holy Writ) for a universal flood per the Genesis account and I have provided the historical science account of a world-wide flood that “beggars anything we can imagine” that took place less than 12,000 years ago. You have yet to refute either account. Can you?

The only evidence you presented is to show that you know how to use Google to quote mine scientific articles. Articles that actually refute your position.




Off-topic but I will take the bait. Christians reject the Darwinian worldview “concerning the history of our world and, indeed, the universe” because it is a godless worldview that floats the non-scientific notion that the universe is the result of random accidents; life arose spontaneously via chance chemical processes without man in mind; and all life-forms are descended from a common ancestor – all the way from bananas to birds. Darwinism remains what it has always been - a secular religion (atheism) that was meant to replace Christianity from its very inception. It should be rejected. The question that begs – do you buy it, Lurk and if you do - why?

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion — a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint — and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it — the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. ~ How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? BY Michael Ruse - philosopher of science, particularly of the evolutionary sciences



If this is Ruse's view then he is wrong. He maybe using hyperbole here like some folks here in the south say college football is a religion. Some folks are so intensely involved in following their particular team that it does become a sort of religion to them. Anything not just the studying of evolution can become a religion to someone.

losthorizon
Apr 21st 2009, 03:41 AM
The only evidence you presented is to show that you know how to use Google to quote mine scientific articles. Articles that actually refute your position.


Do you know what else they say in the South – ‘talk is cheap’. Prove me wrong – the articles presented speak for themselves and yes – words do mean something.

universal flood
catastrophic flood
rapid rise of sea level
great deluge
swamped continents
20,000 cubic miles of water released in a matter of a few days
nothing in recorded history that matches the size of this flood
vast flood that beggars anything we can imagine

And what about that historical evidence – care to refute the historicity of the Bible? "And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered."


He maybe using hyperbole here like some folks here in the south say college football is a religion. Some folks are so intensely involved in following their particular team that it does become a sort of religion to them. Anything not just the studying of evolution can become a religion to someone.
No my friend – the professor is not using hyperbole he is providing facts – the fact that Darwinism is a secular religion and was such from the beginning. Ruse started out a Christian and fell into the so-called “theistic-evolutionist” slippery slope and he now refers to himself as an ex-Christian. Sad but true.
__________________

teddyv
Apr 21st 2009, 04:12 AM
I don’t see how you can possibly miss it, Teddy – you’re a geologist and the circularity goes like this – Darwinian evolution is documented by evolutionary geology and evolutionary geology is documented by Darwinian evolution (circular).

"Are the authorities maintaining, on the one hand, that evolution is documented by geology and, on the other that geology is documented by evolution? Isn’t this a circular argument?" ~ Larry Azar (Bioscience)
But the fossils used for correlating strata are non-repeatable historical events and the geological column itself only exists in books and is based on the “doctrine of uniformitarianism” that is based on great faith. Where is the science? Radiometric dating would not even be practical if the geologic column had not first been established and it’s all based on assumptions, circularity and uniformitarian lore. Even Eldredge recognizes the circularity involved in “rock dating” –

Don’t tell me they date those layers by carbon dating or potassium argon dating, or rubidium strontium, or lead 208, or lead 206, or U235 or U238; that’s not how they date them! They date the rock layers by the fossils in every case... ~ Niles Eldredge

The geologic column assumes the three principles of stratigraphy. Two of these have been proved wrong, and one has never been tested… The Geological Column seems to be only a mental abstraction. There are sufficient assumptions made in classifying fossils and rocks to justify questioning its legitimacy. There are also sufficient anomalies to show that the timescale is wrong and that the fossil order depicted in the Geologic Column is at best a local phenomenon. In short, the Geologic Column is found only in books and web-sites and does not really exist. ~ CreationWiki

http://creationwiki.org/Geological_column

Quit changing the topic. You made the claim of circular reasoning in the use of radiometric (absolute) and fossils (relative) dating. I have tried to explain why it is not. Now you are going off on a tangent of evolution and geology being circular.

teddyv
Apr 21st 2009, 04:22 AM
No distorting here, partner and whatever similarities exist between your views and a very distinct form of scientism are best reserved for another thread. As far as my evidence – I have presented historical evidence (Holy Writ) for a universal flood per the Genesis account and I have provided the historical science account of a world-wide flood that “beggars anything we can imagine” that took place less than 12,000 years ago. You have yet to refute either account. Can you?

If you actually could witness the breaking of one of these glacial ice dams, Asimov's quote would be highly appropriate - it would be awesome to say the least.
Here is a bit of information on a recognized glacial flood from Washington State. It gives some idea as to the estimated scale of the event:



The megaflood’s statistics are staggering. Arriving from the northeast, a wall of water tall enough to leave gravel bars 120 metres high ripped across Washington at 120 kilometres per hour, eroding more than 80 cubic kilometers of earth and rock in two or three days. The torrent left a scoured 25,000-square-km landscape riddled with deep canyons -- known as coulees -- carved out of the hard bedrock.

http://www.publicaffairs.ubc.ca/ubcreports/2007/07apr05/megaflood.html

Itinerant Lurker
Apr 21st 2009, 10:52 AM
As far as my evidence – I have presented historical evidence (Holy Writ) for a universal flood per the Genesis account and I have provided the historical science account of a world-wide flood that “beggars anything we can imagine” that took place less than 12,000 years ago. You have yet to refute either account. Can you?


I hold to a different interpretation of the Genesis flood account so I'm not sure why I would need to "refute" it. As for your references to Emiliani and Shaw, I've dealt at length with how their work supports massive local floods that had a global effect on sea levels. However, that effect was to raise global sea levels to below current sea levels, not above them. You can re-read some of those plethora of explanations here (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=2041849&postcount=30) and/or here (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=2043142&postcount=34)

Itinerant Lurker
Apr 21st 2009, 08:03 PM
But the fossils used for correlating strata are non-repeatable historical events


What does this even mean? In what way is a fossil a non-repeatable historical event and how does that undermine our ability to use them in constructing a history of our world?



and the geological column itself only exists in books and is based on the “doctrine of uniformitarianism” that is based on great faith. Where is the science?
The science is pretty much staring you in the face if you cared to look for it. Because the earth's crust is always in motion (albeit, rather slow motion) and because the geological column represents such an extended period of time we wouldn't expect it to be represented in its entirety at every location on earth. Things get shifted and uplifted but we have enough of an overlap to construct an accurate column in quite a few places. Take the Western US as an example, here we see a clear overlap between the Grand Canyon, Zion National Park, and Bryce Canyon:

http://www.fas.org/irp/imint/docs/rst/Sect2/correlation.jpg
http://www.fas.org/irp/imint/docs/rst/Sect2/Sect2_1b.html



Additionally, there are locations all over the world where nearly the whole column can be seen with real eye balls, here's a few:



The Ghadames Basin in Libya
The Beni Mellal Basin in Morocco
The Essaouira Basin in Morocco(Broughton and Trepanier, 1993)
The Tunisian Basin in Tunisia
The Oman Interior Basin in Oman
The Western Desert Basin in Egypt
The Adana Basin in Turkey
The Iskenderun Basin in Turkey
The Moesian Platform in Bulgaria
The Carpathian Basin in Poland
The Baltic Basin in the USSR
The Yeniseiy-Khatanga Basin in the USSR
The Farah Basin in Afghanistan
The Helmand Basin in Afghanistan
The Yazd-Kerman-Tabas Basin in Iran
The Manhai-Subei Basin in China
The Jiuxi Basin China
The Tung t'in - Yuan Shui Basin China
The Tarim Basin China
The Szechwan Basin China
The Yukon-Porcupine Province Alaska
The Williston Basin in North Dakota (Haimla et al, 1990, p. 517)
The Tampico Embayment Mexico
The Bogata Basin Colombia
The Bonaparte Basin, Australia (above this basin sources are Roberston Group, 1989)
The Beaufort Sea Basin/McKenzie River Delta(Trendall 1990)
The Parana Basin North, Paraguay and Brazil( (Wiens, 1995, p. 192)
The Cape Karroo Basin (Tankard, 1995, p. 21)
The Argentina Precordillera Basin (Franca et al, 1995, p. 136)
The Chilean Antofagosta Basin (Franca et al, 1995, p. 134)
The Pricaspian Basin (Volozh et al, 2003)

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/Basin6.jpg
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/geo.htm



Radiometric dating would not even be practical if the geologic column had not first been established
Wait. . .so now the geologic column has been established? I thought it didn't exist?



and it’s all based on assumptions, circularity and uniformitarian lore. Even Eldredge recognizes the circularity involved in “rock dating” –
Don’t tell me they date those layers by carbon dating or potassium argon dating, or rubidium strontium, or lead 208, or lead 206, or U235 or U238; that’s not how they date them! They date the rock layers by the fossils in every case... ~ Niles Eldredge



That's a misquote, you're quoting a Kent Hovind argument and quoting it badly. The text you're attributing to Eldredge is Hovind trying to set up a quote mine. Here's the actual text, pay attention to the quote marks.



Don’t tell me they date those layers by carbon dating or potassium argon dating, or rubidium strontium, or lead 208, or lead 206, or U235 or U238; that’s not how they date them! They date the rock layers by the fossils in every case. “Paleontologists cannot operate this way. There is no way simply to look at a fossil and say how old it is unless you know the age of the rocks it comes from.” Quote goes on. “And this poses something of a problem. If we date the rocks by their fossils how can we then turn around and talk about patterns of evolutionary change through time in the fossil record.”4 That’s Niles Eldredge, one of the biggest evolutionists there is. American Museum of Natural History in New York. He knows it’s circular reasoning.
http://www.arrivalofthefittest.com/seminar4.html


The text in red is the actual Eldredge quote taken from Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria. However, it's pretty obvious that Hovind's claim about using fossils to date strata every time is bogus since Eldredge states in the same paper Hovind cites that:

"Sometimes igneous rocks, rocks we can date chemically, intrude into sedimentary rocks, and in such a fashion some hard-core ‘absolute’ dates—expressed in terms of millions of years—are available for all subdivisions of geological time.”


So basically no, that's a misquote based on a quote mine.




The geologic column assumes the three principles of stratigraphy. Two of these have been proved wrong, and one has never been tested…
I think you're referring to the Law of Stratigraphy. I'm very interested to know which of these principles have been proven wrong.

losthorizon
Apr 21st 2009, 11:16 PM
Quit changing the topic. You made the claim of circular reasoning in the use of radiometric (absolute) and fossils (relative) dating. I have tried to explain why it is not. Now you are going off on a tangent of evolution and geology being circular.
But Teddy – it’s all the same topic – we are discussing *evolutionary geology* and circularity and the circular logic employed is hard to miss. Listen closely, ‘Darwinian evolution is documented by evolutionary geology and evolutionary geology is documented by Darwinian evolution’ (circular). Larry Azar and J.E. O'Rourke certainly understands this concept - it's really hard to miss,
“…evolution is documented by geology…geology is documented by evolution? Isn’t this a circular argument?" ~ Larry Azar

"The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning if it insists on using only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales. ~J.E. O'RourkeThe truth is the entire Darwinian Paradigm is based on assumptions, speculations and circularity mixed with tidbits of science. I would think all scientists would reject metaphysics that is peddled as science. What do you think?
Circularity: Using a premise to prove a conclusion that in turn is used to prove the premise: a circular argument.


If you actually could witness the breaking of one of these glacial ice dams, Asimov's quote would be highly appropriate - it would be awesome to say the least.
Thanks for the link – and I certainly agree with Asimov’s assessment that the flood discovered by Emiliani and Shaw, et al was beyond human imagination and universal in scope. :)

losthorizon
Apr 21st 2009, 11:35 PM
I hold to a different interpretation of the Genesis flood account so I'm not sure why I would need to "refute" it.
But your “different interpretation” does not render the literal interpretation false. You need to convince us (with facts) that yours is the correct interpretation. Do you deny the Bible is recorded history from the very Mind of God? Can you defend your obviously very weak position?


As for your references to Emiliani and Shaw, I've dealt at length with how their work supports massive local floods that had a global effect on sea levels.
The research of Emiliani and Shaw supports a universal flood that was so “catastrophic in scope” that it easily could have been the originator of the “Great Deluge” that is recorded in over 80 cultures – a flood that destroyed all but a few protected by God (or gods depending on the culture). It was so great in magnitude that it could have started stories of “swamped continents” (Atlantis, etc). Just the part of this flood researched by Shaw is estimated to have unleashed 20,000 cubic miles of water in the matter of a few days. By contrast the Amazon takes over 10 years to release that much water into the ocean. It has been suggested that before the cataclysmic "opening of the fountains of the great deep”, that ocean valleys were not as deep as today and the mountains were not as high - sea fossils (trilobites, crinoids, etc) have been found high up on Mt. Everest. Crinoids (sea lilies) normally exist as deep as 6000 meters *below the sea*. Do you consider Emiliani and Shaw to be competent or is their work 'shoddy'?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f4/Crinoid_drawing.jpg

losthorizon
Apr 22nd 2009, 12:07 AM
Additionally, there are locations all over the world where nearly the whole column can be seen with real eye balls, here's a few


Your words – “nearly the whole column” are very revealing. You didn’t read the entire article referenced did you? Now you have weakened your argument. Let me reprint it here…
Geologists sometimes claim to have found the entire geological column at certain sites, but what they really mean is that they have found layers that they can assign to all ten geologic ages. The following list is as found at The Entire Geologic Column in North Dakota.

1. The Ghadames Basin in Libya.
2. The Beni Mellal Basin in Morocco.
3. The Tunisian Basin in Tunisia.
4. The Oman Interior Basin in Oman.
5. The Western Desert Basin in Egypt.
6. The Adana Basin in Turkey.
7. The Iskenderun Basin in Turkey.
8. The Moesian Platform in Bulgaria.
9. The Carpathian Basin in Poland.
10. The Baltic Basin near the territories of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.
11. The Yeniseiy-Khatanga Basin in Russia.
12. The Farah Basin in Afghanistan.
13. The Helmand Basin in Afghanistan.
14. The Yazd-Kerman-Tabas Basin in Iran.
15. The Manhai-Subei Basin in China.
16. The Qingxi Basin in China.
17. The Tung t'in-Yuan Shui Basin in China.
18. The Tarim Basin in China.
19. The Szechwan Basin in China.
20. The Yukon-Porcupine Province in Alaska.
21. The Williston Basin in North Dakota.
22. The Tampico Embayment in Mexico.
23. The Bogata Basin in Colombia.
24. The Bonaparte Basin in Australia.
25. The Beaufort Sea Basin/McKenzie River Delta

Of the 25 claimed locations, stratigraphic information was available on only six of them. There is little if any mention of fossils other than micro fossils such as pollen. Often the rocks seem to have been assigned their geologic age by comparing them with rocks from other locations. Most of these are hundreds of miles away and there is no direct observation of a physical connection. In some cases the "ages" are assigned to a rock layer based on the strata above or below it. The truth remains the truth, Lurker - the Geologic Column is found only in books and web-sites and does not really exist in the real world where most of us exist and evolutionary geology is based on assumptions, circularity and Darwinian lore pawned off as science.

Itinerant Lurker
Apr 22nd 2009, 03:04 AM
LOL – “nearly the whole column” is very revealing – yes? You didn’t read the entire article referenced did you?


Yes I did, nor did I find it very convincing.



Geologists sometimes claim to have found the entire geological column at certain sites, but what they really mean is that they have found layers that they can assign to all ten geologic ages.



Yes and? What exactly is the earth shattering problem with finding layers representative of all geological ages in one location?



Of the 25 claimed locations, stratigraphic information was available on only six of them.
Really? You could only find stratigraphic info on six of them?

The Ghadames Basin in Libya

Geochemical studies have been made by Ferjaoui and others (2001) which indicates that oil and gas discovered in the Ghadamis Basin were sourced by two major rock units: the Middle-Upper Devonian and Basal Silurian hot shales. During the Late Silurian and Lower Devonian several transgression/regression cycles caused continental deposition over much of the area which was followed by marine deposition through to Carboniferous times (Moffat and Johns, 2001). Sea level changes produced the major reservoirs of the Ghadamis Basin in the Upper Silurian (Acacus Formation) and Lower Devonian (Tadrart Formation). Continental sand accumulated in the Triassic while in the Jurassic and Cretaceous accumualtion of lagoonal dolomites, evaporites and shales was dominant (Kirmani and Elhaj, 1988).

http://strata.geol.sc.edu/Libya-Hassan/Libyan-Figures/Fig20.gif
http://strata.geol.sc.edu/Libya-Hassan/Ghadamis-Basin-Libya.html


The Essaouira Basin in Morocco(Broughton and Trepanier, 1993).

http://maps.ihs.com/basin-monitor/africa/essaouira-basin-monitor-report.html

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VDT-4HJ4HPB-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=5125da9746d5130d0d24e3149ace9b7a

MORPHOSTRUCTURAL EVOLUTION OF
WESTERN MOROCCAN PHOSPHATED BASINS
(EXAMPLE: GANTOUR AND ESSAOUIRA BASINS)
E.H. Boumaggard (1), E. Jourani (2); M. Mchichi (2), D. Akrim (2), N. Hamoumi (3)

(1) Laboratory of Georessources, FSTG, Cadi Ayad University, Morocco, (2) Office Chérifien des Phosphates group (OCP), (3) Geology Department, Faculty of Science, Mohammed V
University, Morocco. (boumaggard@fstg-marrakech.ac.ma/ Fax : +212-4443-3170)

That took about ten minutes using Google, I'm sorry that the folks over at Creationwiki weren't able to locate information on many of these sites but I think they need to look a little harder before making these kinds of assertions. There's a very detailed description of the entire column as seen in North Dakota which includes problems found therein for a global flood here:

The W. H. Hunt Trust Estate Larson #1 will in Section 10 Township 148 N Range 101 W was drilled to 15,064 feet deep. This well was drilled just west of the outcrop of the Golden Valley formation and begins in the Tertiary Fort Union Formation. The various horizons described above were encountered at the following depths (Fm=formation; Grp=Group; Lm=Limestone):

Tertiary Ft. Union Fm ..........................100 feet
Cretaceous Greenhorn Fm .......................4910 feet
Cretaceous Mowry Fm........................... 5370 feet
Cretaceous Inyan Kara Fm.......................5790 feet
Jurassic Rierdon Fm............................6690 feet
Triassic Spearfish Fm..........................7325 feet
Permian Opeche Fm..............................7740 feet
Pennsylvanian Amsden Fm........................7990 feet
Pennsylvanian Tyler Fm.........................8245 feet
Mississippian Otter Fm.........................8440 feet
Mississippian Kibbey Lm........................8780 feet
Mississippian Charles Fm.......................8945 feet
Mississippian Mission Canyon Fm................9775 feet
Mississippian Lodgepole Fm....................10255 feet
Devonian Bakken Fm............................11085 feet
Devonian Birdbear Fm..........................11340 feet
Devonian Duperow Fm...........................11422 feet
Devonian Souris River Fm......................11832 feet
Devonian Dawson Bay Fm........................12089 feet
Devonian Prairie Fm...........................12180 feet
Devonian Winnipegosis Grp.....................12310 feet
Silurian Interlake Fm.........................12539 feet
Ordovician Stonewall Fm.......................13250 feet
Ordovician Red River Dolomite.................13630 feet
Ordovician Winnipeg Grp.......................14210 feet
Ordovician Black Island Fm....................14355 feet
Cambrian Deadwood Fm..........................14445 feet
Precambrian...................................1494 5 feet
http://chem.tufts.edu/science/Geology/GeologicColumn.htm

You can also view a very detailed description of these layers rife with stratigraphic data. This pretty much blows any argument against the reality of a geological column out of the water.



The truth remains the truth, Lurk – your argument is running on empty and the Geologic Column is found only in books and web-sites and does not really exist in the real world where most of us exist and evolutionary geology is based on assumptions, circularity and Darwinian lore pawned off as science - next.
I'm pretty sure North Dakota is as "real world" as it gets. . .at least it seemed that way the last time I was there.



No partner – the words are from Eldredges – they are not made up - and the circularity goes on and on. Who the heck is Kent Hovind?
The website you're cut & pasting from is either lying to you or made an honest mistake by omitting the rest of the quote. Kent Hovind is the guy you are quoting, apparently without knowing it.

Itinerant Lurker
Apr 22nd 2009, 03:21 AM
But your “different interpretation” does not render the literal interpretation false.


True, but the evidence does render the literal interpretation false.



The research of Emiliani and Shaw supports a universal flood that was so “catastrophic in scope” that it easily could have been the originator of the “Great Deluge” that is recorded in over 80 cultures – a flood that destroyed all but a few protected by God (or gods depending on the culture). It was so great in magnitude that it could have started stories of “swamped continents” (Atlantis, etc).


Right, it's possible melting ice sheets caused huge floods that sparked some flood stories. That same research show these floods raising sea levels to 131 feet short of modern sea levels. We've been over this many times before, why do you keep omitting this fact from your references to Emilaini's work?



Just the part of this flood researched by Shaw is estimated to have unleashed 20,000 cubic miles of water in the matter of a few days. By contrast the Amazon takes over 10 years to release that much water into the ocean.


True, and, as I've pointed out many times, Shaw also stated that an influx of 80,000 cubic kilometers of water released during this flooding event would have raised global sea levels by 23 centimeters.



It has been suggested that before the cataclysmic "opening of the fountains of the great deep”, that ocean valleys were not as deep as today and the mountains were not as high - sea fossils (trilobites, crinoids, etc) have been found high up on Mt. Everest. Crinoids (sea lilies) normally exist as deep as 6000 meters *below the sea*. Do you consider Emiliani and Shaw to be competent or is their work 'shoddy'?


I'm not aware of how Emiliani or Shaw's work addresses mountain building. If you could enlighten my I would appreciate it.

Marine fossils can be found on mountain tops because those mountains have not always been there. Mountains are formed from uplift, in the case of Everest two tectonic plates have been running into each other at about the speed your fingernails grow for a really long time. Where they collided they started piling up stuff and uplifting rock to eventually form mountains. The rock these tremendous forces uplifted was once the bottom of a shallow sea, hence the marine fossils.
http://www.mountainnature.com/geology/platetectonics.htm

If the fossils you're talking about were from a flood a few thousand years ago they wouldn't be fossilized yet, they would be mixed with sediment (dirt) instead of actually being embedded in mountain strata, and they wouldn't be on a mountain top. Big floods have this weird way of carrying material to the lowest point as they drain instead of the highest point.

Itinerant Lurker
Apr 22nd 2009, 03:43 AM
“…evolution is documented by geology…geology is documented by evolution? Isn’t this a circular argument?" ~ Larry Azar


Come on man, this is getting ridiculous. Do you even know who Larry Azar is? Do you realize this quote is taken from an article titled "Biologists, Help!" which appeared in the Nov. 1978 issue of BioScience? Both this quote and the title of his article are actual questions, not rhetorical assertions. When writing this Azar was a philosophy teacher and was actually writing to ask for clarification. Later letters to the editor in the same publication answered Azar's questions. Quote mine supreme.



"The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning if it insists on using only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales. ~J.E. O'Rourke


Sigh. Another quote mine, O'Rourke makes a lot of rather odd comments about stratigraphy in the 1976 issue of "American Journal of Science" from which this quote was taken but he certainly does not actually argue for the unreliability of testing methods due to circular reasoning. From the same article:

"The charge of circular reasoning in stratigraphy can be handled in several ways. it can be ignored, as not the proper concern of the public. It can be denied, by calling down the Law of Evolution. Fossil dates rocks, not vice-versa, and that's that. It can be admitted, as a common practice. The time scales of physics and astronomy are obtained by comparing one process with another. They can be compared with the geologic processes of sedimentation, organic evolution, and radioactivity. Or it can be avoided, by pragmatic reasoning."
Feel free to address these problems and contradictions before you repost these quote mines at a later date.

losthorizon
Apr 22nd 2009, 04:42 AM
True, but the evidence does render the literal interpretation false.


Assumptions are not proof my friend. You have proven nothing but assumed much. You have not proven the biblical account wrong. Again I ask – what proof do you offer that the biblical flood account is not to be taken literally? You also didn’t answer my question – is the Bible a reliable historical record revealed to man by the Mind of God (is it God-breathed)? And we do have evidence from science of a catastrophic flood less than 12,000 years ago.


Right, it's possible melting ice sheets caused huge floods that sparked some flood stories. Agreed – there was a universal catastrophic flood that could easily have been responsible for the flood stories recorded in dozens of cultures around the world. The Huang He floods that devastated China causing the deaths of millions did not spark even one universal deluge myth. Why? Was it because those massive floods pale in comparison to the Flood under discussion?


Marine fossils can be found on mountain tops because those mountains have not always been there. Mountains are formed from uplift, in the case of Everest two tectonic plates have been running into each other at about the speed your fingernails grow for a really long time.
Bingo - very good – “the mountains have not always been there” and the oceans depths may not have always been what they are today. You base your assumptions on the doctrine of uniformitarianism and I prefer the biblical model of catastrophism. In my model the tectonic plates acted quickly as the “fountains of the deep” were broken, the oceans deepened. Mountains became much higher and deep canyons were formed rather quickly by massive water erosion.


If the fossils you're talking about were from a flood a few thousand years ago they wouldn't be fossilized yet, they would be mixed with sediment (dirt) instead of actually being embedded in mountain strata, and they wouldn't be on a mountain top.
Again, you are *assuming* uniformitarianism without any evidence. Where is your evidence? Remember - assumptions prove nothing. If these geological events were caused by a flood through mechanisms unknown to science (fountains of the deep, etc) then the fossils could have embedded exactly as they are found today. Do you think the historical biblical account of a worldwide flood best fits uniformitarianism or catastrophism?
Catastrophism - the doctrine that certain vast geological changes in the earth's history were caused by catastrophes rather than gradual evolutionary processes. ~ Copyright © 2009, Dictionary.com

Uniformitarianism is a generalization of the principle of actualism (geology), which states that all past geological action was like all present geological action. The principle of actualism is the cornerstone of paleoecology.~ WikipediaAnd now we are back to your circularity – the doctrine of uniformitarianism proves Darwinian science becuase Darwinian science proves the doctrine of uniformitarianism. ;)

Itinerant Lurker
Apr 22nd 2009, 11:05 AM
The Huang He floods that devastated China causing the deaths of millions did not spark even one universal deluge myth. Why? Was it because those massive floods pale in comparison to the Flood under discussion?


A lot of it has to do with the advent of writing systems. The Huang He floods occurred in 1931, and were written about, recorded, and measured. 12,000 years ago no one had a way to comparably write down what happened having instead to use oral traditions that necessarily got a little out of hand the further away in time one got from the actual events. Although I would have to say that the glacial melting floods 12,000 years ago were much much larger than anything we've seen in modern times.



Bingo - very good – “the mountains have not always been there” and the oceans depths may not have always been what they are today. You base your assumptions on the doctrine of uniformitarianism and I prefer the biblical model of catastrophism. In my model the tectonic plates acted quickly as the “fountains of the deep” were broken, the oceans deepened. Mountains became much higher and deep canyons were formed rather quickly by massive water erosion.
So basically you assume that mountains formed from an undetectable miraculous process that left a false history. And on a personal level that is perfectly fine, but you cannot then make the claim that evidence exists for this event. If you take Mt. Everest alone without even worrying about the rest of the Himalayas your talking about basically five miles of rock. If you unleash that much tectonic activity in your time frame you release enough energy to actually melt the entire mountain. Basic physics indicates your view is not tenable according to the evidence.



Again, you are *assuming* uniformitarianism without any evidence. Where is your evidence? Remember - assumptions prove nothing. If these geological events were caused by a flood through mechanisms unknown to science (fountains of the deep, etc) then the fossils could have embedded exactly as they are found today.
So. . .you're arguing for "a flood caused through mechanisms unknown to science" and saying there is evidence for this? Come on. No mechanism for a flood I have ever heard of is going to account for fossils embedded in sedimentary rock at the top of a mountain. Let's look at the steps needed to get there:

1. Marine organism dies in marine environment
2. Organism is buried in marine environment
3. The sediment in which it was buried has many many more layers of sediment deposited on top of that
4. Pressure from the higher layers eventually causes sediment to concrete into sedimentary rock
5. Uplift pushes that rock five miles into the air
6. Erosion and weathering wear away top layers of sedimentary rock, exposing fossil

What global flood mechanism can account for that?



Again, you are *assuming* uniformitarianism without any evidence. Where is your evidence? Remember - assumptions prove nothing. If these geological events were caused by a flood through mechanisms unknown to science (fountains of the deep, etc) then the fossils could have embedded exactly as they are found today. Do you think the historical biblical account of a worldwide flood best fits uniformitarianism or catastrophism?
Catastrophism - the doctrine that certain vast geological changes in the earth's history were caused by catastrophes rather than gradual evolutionary processes. ~ Copyright © 2009, Dictionary.com

Uniformitarianism is a generalization of the principle of actualism (geology), which states that all past geological action was like all present geological action. The principle of actualism is the cornerstone of paleoecology.~ WikipediaAnd now we are back to your circularity – the doctrine of uniformitarianism proves Darwinian science becuase Darwinian science proves the doctrine of uniformitarianism. ;)
Your definitions for Catastrophism and Uniformitarianism are outdated, here's a better explanation:

Uniformitarianism was started in 1795 by James Hutton's Theory of the Earth. The idea was championed by later authors, such as Charles Lyell, and basically what they meant was that the past should be explained by processes which can be seen in the present day.
Some geologists of Lyell's school did indeed carry things too far, and insist on only slow, gradual processes. The residue of that, in the 1900's, was mostly the attitude that catastrophe explanations should not be used until other explanations were ruled out. But it's not worth arguing about the views of long-dead scientists. The important point is what living ones say.


They know from recent history that volcanoes can make abrupt changes to landscapes, and that a river flood can dump yards of mud in the space of days. So, it is obvious that some rocks formed more quickly than others. Lyell himself said so in 1830 in his Principles of Geology.


In the last few decades, there has been much more appreciation of this variability of rate. We now explain the scablands of Washington by the sudden bursting of a huge glacial dam. It is now a common idea that a meteorite killed off the dinosaurs. We also appreciate that conditions were once different. For instance, the atmosphere of the early earth had no free oxygen.


So, modern geology is not just about slow, gradual processes. That said, it is clear that slow processes exist. For instance, the Santa Barbara basin is today acquiring sediment at one foot per century.


Physicists sometimes use the same word. When they use it, they mean that reality is lawful - that there is some set of laws which uniformly apply everywhere, and which have always applied.
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/uniform.html

losthorizon
Apr 22nd 2009, 04:11 PM
You can also view a very detailed description of these layers rife with stratigraphic data. This pretty much blows any argument against the reality of a geological column out of the water.


After reviewing your sites the *geological column* remains what it has always been - a mental abstraction based on a "hypothetical classification scheme" and is only found in books and on web-sites.
The geologic column exists in only one place on earth— in the textbooks. The geologic column consists of the layers (strata) of rocks from the crystalline basement rocks to the most recently deposited soils. The actual geologic column, representing the maximum thickness of all of the layers, would be over 100 miles thick, which occurs nowhere on earth. Now, parts of the 10 major layers are present on top of one another (up to 16 miles thick), but the column, as a whole, is a composite of local layers that are assumed to fit one atop the other. The index fossils that are said to be evidence of the age of a given strata are rarely found directly above older index fossils in the same area. To relate the index fossils, the layers from one area must be artificially placed above those from another area. Roughly 1% of the earth’s surface is covered by the 10 layers in succession, but these areas have not all been classified accurately based on the index fossils and other signs of life found in them. ~ John Woodmorappe

Itinerant Lurker
Apr 22nd 2009, 04:16 PM
And we do have evidence from science of a catastrophic flood less than 12,000 years ago.


I have a question about this as related to your criticism of dating methods. How do you know that the evidence presented by Emiliani can be dated to 12,000 years ago? Doesn't he use the very methods you criticize to arrive at this date?

Itinerant Lurker
Apr 22nd 2009, 04:24 PM
After reviewing your sites the *geological column* remains what it has always been - a mental abstraction based on a "hypothetical classification scheme" and is only found in books and on web-sites.


So. . .the fact that you can actually drill 15,000 feet down in North Dakota and come up with the complete geological column with all the layers in the same order containing the same fossils we would expect to find there are abstractions?




The geologic column exists in only one place on earth— in the textbooks. The geologic column consists of the layers (strata) of rocks from the crystalline basement rocks to the most recently deposited soils. The actual geologic column, representing the maximum thickness of all of the layers, would be over 100 miles thick, which occurs nowhere on earth.


Why would we expect the entire geological column with each layer at it's maximum possible depth to be present in a single location on earth? That's absurd.



Now, parts of the 10 major layers are present on top of one another (up to 16 miles thick), but the column, as a whole, is a composite of local layers that are assumed to fit one atop the other.


Drilling through basins such as the one referenced previously in North Dakota shows actual layers that fit one atop the other in a continuous series.



To relate the index fossils, the layers from one area must be artificially placed above those from another area. Roughly 1% of the earth’s surface is covered by the 10 layers in succession, but these areas have not all been classified accurately based on the index fossils and other signs of life found in them. ~ John Woodmorappe

Again, in the example from North Dakota that I provided we don't need to place fossils from one area "over" or "under" fossils in another because we are talking about ONE AREA, one continuous set of layering where all those fossils are found right where we'd expect them to be.

losthorizon
Apr 22nd 2009, 04:32 PM
Come on man, this is getting ridiculous. Do you even know who Larry Azar is? Do you realize this quote is taken from an article titled "Biologists, Help!" which appeared in the Nov. 1978 issue of BioScience?


I am acquainted with Azar’s work and his quote in BioScience is reiterated in his 2005 work, EVOLUTION AND OTHER FAIRY TALES. What you fail to understand my friend is we are discussing *conceptualization* here and the truth Azar points out - evolution is documented by geology…geology is documented by evolution – is as circular today as it was in 1978. The concept has not changed at all. Both Eldredge and O'Rourke understand your dilemma.
"And this poses something of a problem: If we date the rocks by the fossils, how can we then turn around and talk about the patterns of evolutionary change through time in the fossil record?" ~ Niles Eldredge (Time Frames)

"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling that explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism." ~ J. E. O'Rourke


Another quote mine, O'Rourke makes a lot of rather odd comments about stratigraphy in the 1976 issue of "American Journal of Science
Is the quote his words as spoken? Is O’Rourke a “shoddy scientist” because he too disagrees with your dogma? What part of “the rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks” (circular) do you not understand?


So basically you assume that mountains formed from an undetectable miraculous process that left a false history. And on a personal level that is perfectly fine, but you cannot then make the claim that evidence exists for this event.
Well partner, I reckon my assumptions are as valid has your assumption. There are scientists who believe there was a cataclysmic and rapid change in geography and sea levels at the time of the Flood. Unlike you I do not get too dogmatic about historical science that is based on non-repeatable events and did not have scientists present to record exactly what was happening. We do however have God’s witness (Holy Writ) that certainly describes a history of catastrophism as opposed to your faith-based doctrine of uniformitarianism. You can, on a personal level believe what you will through faith in Darwinian lore and that is perfectly fine but you have never presented viable evidence to support your dogma of uniformitarianism as science. Do you not have evidence?


If you take Mt. Everest alone without even worrying about the rest of the Himalayas your talking about basically five miles of rock. If you unleash that much tectonic activity in your time frame you release enough energy to actually melt the entire mountain. Basic physics indicates your view is not tenable according to the evidence.
But you are working under the circularity of uniformitarianism/Darwinism which has not been supported with anything other than your assumptions and assumptions do not constitute evidence except in Darwinian lore. If the Bible is correct (and it is) and catastrophism rules the day (and it does) then we really do not understanding the patterns of strike-slip tectonics as it relates to earthquake activity and volcanic belts affecting a global geology. Give me some evidence to support your assumptions. Can you do that?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/Plate_tectonics_map.gif


What global flood mechanism can account for that?
That's the million dollar question isn’t it? As stated earlier – this mechanism(s) is currently unknown to science but I have no doubt that science will once again catch up with the Bible – maybe not in our lifetimes but it will.


Your definitions for Catastrophism and Uniformitarianism are outdated, here's a better explanation:

Uniformitarianism was started in 1795 by James Hutton's Theory of the Earth. The idea was championed by later authors, such as Charles Lyell, and basically what they meant was that the past should be explained by processes which can be seen in the present day.
Some geologists of Lyell's school did indeed carry things too far, and insist on only slow, gradual processes. The residue of that, in the 1900's, was mostly the attitude that catastrophe explanations should not be used until other explanations were ruled out. But it's not worth arguing about the views of long-dead scientists. The important point is what living ones say. The import point you fail to mention is that Darwin’s “Origins” would have been dead on arrival if it were not for Lyell’s uniformitarianism (a fact that Darwin acknowledged more than once). So again we are back to circularity – Darwinism is documented by uniformitarianism and uniformitarianism is document by Darwinism. But uniformitarianism has been proven Kaput and now we see the demise of Darwinism following closely behind.:)

Unless I missed it somewhere you never answer my question – is the Bible a reliable historical record revealed to man by the Mind of God (is it God-breathed)?

teddyv
Apr 22nd 2009, 05:23 PM
I may be dense, but you keep repeating that evolution documents geology as if there is no other evidence that documents geology.

Geological evidence of a long history and development of the earth does not hinge on evolution. It hinges on multiple streams of evidence through geological as well as other scientific disciplines. Radiometric dating comes from a completely different line of evidence than evolution. Documenting common fossils from similar strata on a practical level has nothing to do with evolution. Stratigraphic relationships have nothing the do with evolution (BTW, IL asked and I'd like to hear as well what stratigraphic principles have been disproven). Astronomical observations have nothing to do with evolution. But all these point to an old earth and universe. These conclusions were reached independently.

By the way, that was a nice graphic of the earth's plates and probably one of the strongest pieces of evidence of "uniformitarianism". Slow, but measurable movement of the crustal plates results in the development of mountain chains, creation and destruction of oceanic plates, movement along faults with occasional "catastrophic" elements such as volcanoes and earthquakes (and related events).

Itinerant Lurker
Apr 22nd 2009, 07:53 PM
"And this poses something of a problem: If we date the rocks by the fossils, how can we then turn around and talk about the patterns of evolutionary change through time in the fossil record?" ~ Niles Eldredge (Time Frames)



Thank you for at least quoting Eldredge correctly this time. Curiously you once again omitted part of that same article in which he discusses how we are able to use absolute dating to date strata.



"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling that explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism." ~ J. E. O'Rourke
Again, you've quoted the parts of O'Rourke that you like and completely ignored portions of the same paper you cite which contradict your claims. Nice quote mine but not really evidence.


We do however have God’s witness (Holy Writ) that certainly describes a history of catastrophism as opposed to your faith-based doctrine of uniformitarianism. You can, on a personal level believe what you will through faith in Darwinian lore and that is perfectly fine but you have never presented viable evidence to support your dogma of uniformitarianism as science. Do you not have evidence?
Even if I hadn't presented any evidence you do a fairly good job of it for me when you throw up a very nice graphic of known tectonic activity over the last million years.

I think some of the conflict you see between uniformitarianism and catastrophism is completely artificial and is due to a misconstrued understanding of both terms. For instance, you seem to keep wanting to dig up extremely dated ideas/quotes concerning uniformitarianism while ignoring what modern scientists actually hold to. As the explanation I quoted previously explained:

". . .it's not worth arguing about the views of long-dead scientists. The important point is what living ones say."

When we really look at what those living scientists say about uniformity it doesn't much resemble the picture you keep trying to paint.

"They know from recent history that volcanoes can make abrupt changes to landscapes, and that a river flood can dump yards of mud in the space of days. So, it is obvious that some rocks formed more quickly than others. Lyell himself said so in 1830 in his Principles of Geology.

In the last few decades, there has been much more appreciation of this variability of rate. We now explain the scablands of Washington by the sudden bursting of a huge glacial dam. It is now a common idea that a meteorite killed off the dinosaurs. We also appreciate that conditions were once different. For instance, the atmosphere of the early earth had no free oxygen.


So, modern geology is not just about slow, gradual processes. That said, it is clear that slow processes exist. For instance, the Santa Barbara basin is today acquiring sediment at one foot per century."
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/uniform.html


Here we see that uniformitarianism views earth's history as a long series of slow gradual changes punctuated by definite and extreme periods of catastrophy. Catastrophism, on the other hand, has to necessarily deny any kind of gradualistic change and instead casts all evidence as the result of sudden catastrophic changes which directly contradicts observation because we can see even now how geological formations very similar to those we find in the distant past are being formed slowly. Whereas some geological formations, like desert sandstone, buried canyons, and large mountains simply cannot have formed within a catastrophic time frame without violating some serious laws of physics.



If the Bible is correct (and it is) and catastrophism rules the day (and it does) then we really do not understanding the patterns of strike-slip tectonics as it relates to earthquake activity and volcanic belts affecting a global geology.
How is strike-slip tectonics going to help your argument that Mt. Everest was formed in under a year? Seriously, I'd like to know. I'm assuming you're not going to throw plate tectonics out the window completely and, instead, go for the claim that tectonics used to be catastrophically active in the past (flood) and have calmed down since then. This is problematic since we had a lot of evidence for slow tectonic activity for long periods of time such as island formations over "hot spots" like Hawaii.



Give me some evidence to support your assumptions. Can you do that?
Well there's no mechanism to cause catastrophic plate tectonic activity like your talking about but there are known mechanisms for causing slow plate activity like we observe today. There's also evidence for extremely long periods of slow tectonic activity that extend far beyond your YEC time line such as the Hawaii island chain which has formed slowly as the Pacific plate has moved across a stationary "hot spot" (If you look at your previous graphic on tectonic activity it actually shows this).

"The age trend of the volcanoes is thought to be due to the way in which the islands are built on the moving sea floor of the North Pacific Ocean: the Pacific Ocean is mostly floored by a single tectonic plate (known as the "Pacific Plate") that is moving over the layer in the Earth known as the Asthenosphere. This movement takes it to the northwest compared to the layers below it at a rate of 5 to 10 cm/yr (the rate depends on where you are on it). As the plate moves over a fixed spot deeper in the Earth where magma (molten lava) forms, a new volcano can punch through this plate and create an island."

http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/HCV/volc_age.gif
http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/HCV/haw_formation.html


http://boojum.as.arizona.edu/%7Ejill/NS102_2006/Lectures/Lecture8/Matt%27s_Island_Diagram.gif

Those are two rather glaring problems with your assertions of rapid tectonic activity & mountain building right there without even getting into the physics of how much heat energy such activity would have released.

Itinerant Lurker
Apr 22nd 2009, 09:51 PM
But uniformitarianism has been proven Kaput and now we see the demise of Darwinism following closely behind.:)


Uniformitarianism has been proven "kaput"? Perhaps the old 19th century view, but I'd love to see how the modern understanding of uniformitarianism has been proven false.

Fsbirdhouse
Apr 23rd 2009, 03:51 AM
I have not read this whole thread, but I would ask this question.
Does God do things in vain?
God wiped out a world full of sinners, but did the act wipe out sin?
The great flood of Noah's day was not an act of wrath as many suppose.
It was an act of love, an act of rescue.
It was done EXACTLY as needed.
The key to understanding the flood is found (for the most) in Genesis 6:12.
Read very carefully.
How did all flesh (the meaning here is ALL FLESH, not just humans) become corrupt after their/His way.
The birds, the fish, the beasts of the field and every man upon the earth. Certainly these things could only come about through the activities of man.
I believe the bible when it says the first men in the newness of their creation lived to be over 900 years.
If men were so vital in their physical perfection, what about their intellectual capacities?
In a nutshell, there seems every reason to believe the Antediluvian generations created a highly advanced technological culture capable of genetic engineering on a global scale as evidenced by both the Atlantean, lemuria, and Mu legends. These legends may very well be but a dark shadow of what was once a global reality.
If our degenerated race in this generation stand on the threshold of such powers, what of the ancients?
The very real goal of science is unlimited access to stem cells to produce medicines that will do wonders of healing....but at what cost?
Stem cells hybridize with our own (not just float along separately) and must be living to do their work. There is research under way now that would horrify you all to know it, but it involves putting human genetic material into the great apes (namely the Bonobo) to produce an off-the-shelf and never ending supply of not only stem cells, but body parts tailor made to each individual (using YOUR genes), heart, liver, lungs, eyes, etc.
A speech endowed creature able to follow complex directions for use in the military, domestic service, space exploration, and we have not imagined the half.
Humanzee he is called.
But here's the fly in the buttermilk. Once joined to your body, you are no longer human, but chemeric. No turning back.
In three generations the human race could become genetically extinct if such medicines are used.
And what of Noah? Was the grace he found in the eyes of the Lord his purity in that generation? Just what were those pictures carved on the walls, palaces, and city gates of the great cites of post flood men.
Were they reminders of what had destroyed the preflood world?
Half men/beasts and combinations of animals in unnatural forms.
ECC 1: 9-10.
What are we doing now?

losthorizon
Apr 24th 2009, 05:02 PM
Uniformitarianism has been proven "kaput"? Perhaps the old 19th century view, but I'd love to see how the modern understanding of uniformitarianism has been proven false.
There is no reason to beat a dead horse here – I think we have agreed on at least three points – (1) The Bible records a historical flood of cataclysmic scale less than 12,000 years ago. (2) Historical science records a historical flood of cataclysmic scale less than 12,000 years ago. And (3) Nineteenth century uniformitarianism that was essential to Darwin has been soundly defeated. History – both scientific and biblical – records a past history on this planet that includes catastrophism and once again science has caught up with the Bible.

Itinerant Lurker
Apr 24th 2009, 07:46 PM
There is no reason to beat a dead horse here – I think we have agreed on at least three points – (1) The Bible records a historical flood of cataclysmic scale less than 12,000 years ago. (2) Historical science records a historical flood of cataclysmic scale less than 12,000 years ago. And (3) Nineteenth century uniformitarianism that was essential to Darwin has been soundly defeated. History – both scientific and biblical – records a past history on this planet that includes catastrophism and once again science has caught up with the Bible.

Your still stuck on a 19th century view of uniformity. No one holds to the view of only slow gradual changes anymore, instead uniformitarian theories view earth's history as a series of gradual and catastrophic episodes. None of this has damaged the 21st century theory of biological evolution, nor would acknowledging the existence of catastrophic events have damaged the 19th century theory. Evolution relies on long periods of time and constantly changing environments, which is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence.

losthorizon
Apr 24th 2009, 09:55 PM
Your still stuck on a 19th century view of uniformity. No one holds to the view of only slow gradual changes anymore, instead uniformitarian theories view earth's history as a series of gradual and catastrophic episodes. None of this has damaged the 21st century theory of biological evolution, nor would acknowledging the existence of catastrophic events have damaged the 19th century theory. Evolution relies on long periods of time and constantly changing environments, which is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence.
Your statement appears to be an oversimplification. Anytime folks use phrases like “overwhelmingly supported by the evidence” when describing historical science it’s time to hang on to your wallet. As mentioned before, simplistic assumptions are not proof of anything other than naivety. Science has never ruled out the possibility that processes have been active in the past that man has never witnessed (the breaking up of the fountains of the great deep, etc) or that geological processes have operated at rates other than what is observed today. To miss these points is to miss much.

teddyv
Apr 24th 2009, 10:13 PM
Your statement appears to be an oversimplification. Anytime folks use phrases like “overwhelmingly supported by the evidence” when describing historical science it’s time to hang on to your wallet. As mentioned before, simplistic assumptions are not proof of anything other than naivety. Science has never ruled out the possibility that processes have been active in the past that man has never witnessed (the breaking up of the fountains of the great deep, etc) or that geological processes have operated at rates other than what is observed today. To miss these points is to miss much.
It may not be ruled out, but how do you test such hypotheses? You need to be able to have a predictive quality to any conclusions. So how do we test for the "breaking up of the fountains of the deep"?

Also, the imply that geological process may have varied signficantly over the years would suggest that laws of physics and chemistry have varied as well (since all geological processes are basically founded upon those). If you want to imply that, how can we really know anything then?

Itinerant Lurker
Apr 24th 2009, 11:38 PM
Your statement appears to be an oversimplification. Anytime folks use phrases like “overwhelmingly supported by the evidence” when describing historical science it’s time to hang on to your wallet. As mentioned before, simplistic assumptions are not proof of anything other than naivety. Science has never ruled out the possibility that processes have been active in the past that man has never witnessed (the breaking up of the fountains of the great deep, etc) or that geological processes have operated at rates other than what is observed today. To miss these points is to miss much.

I pointed out a few of the glaring problems with the kind of catastrophic plate tectonics you're talking about that could form Everest in a year, that same evidence supports a prolonged period of comparatively gradual plate movement. You're under no obligation to respond of course, but let's not just pretend I haven't provided any of that "overwhelming evidence" I mentioned earlier.

As far as I can tell you're theorizing supernatural mechanisms for a global flood. But even supernatural mechanisms should leave some evidence behind, why can't we find any?

Athanasius
Apr 25th 2009, 12:24 AM
I have not read this whole thread, but I would ask this question.
Does God do things in vain?
God wiped out a world full of sinners, but did the act wipe out sin?
The great flood of Noah's day was not an act of wrath as many suppose.
It was an act of love, an act of rescue.
It was done EXACTLY as needed.
The key to understanding the flood is found (for the most) in Genesis 6:12.
Read very carefully.
How did all flesh (the meaning here is ALL FLESH, not just humans) become corrupt after their/His way.
The birds, the fish, the beasts of the field and every man upon the earth. Certainly these things could only come about through the activities of man.
I believe the bible when it says the first men in the newness of their creation lived to be over 900 years.
If men were so vital in their physical perfection, what about their intellectual capacities?
In a nutshell, there seems every reason to believe the Antediluvian generations created a highly advanced technological culture capable of genetic engineering on a global scale as evidenced by both the Atlantean, lemuria, and Mu legends. These legends may very well be but a dark shadow of what was once a global reality.
If our degenerated race in this generation stand on the threshold of such powers, what of the ancients?
The very real goal of science is unlimited access to stem cells to produce medicines that will do wonders of healing....but at what cost?
Stem cells hybridize with our own (not just float along separately) and must be living to do their work. There is research under way now that would horrify you all to know it, but it involves putting human genetic material into the great apes (namely the Bonobo) to produce an off-the-shelf and never ending supply of not only stem cells, but body parts tailor made to each individual (using YOUR genes), heart, liver, lungs, eyes, etc.
A speech endowed creature able to follow complex directions for use in the military, domestic service, space exploration, and we have not imagined the half.
Humanzee he is called.
But here's the fly in the buttermilk. Once joined to your body, you are no longer human, but chemeric. No turning back.
In three generations the human race could become genetically extinct if such medicines are used.
And what of Noah? Was the grace he found in the eyes of the Lord his purity in that generation? Just what were those pictures carved on the walls, palaces, and city gates of the great cites of post flood men.
Were they reminders of what had destroyed the preflood world?
Half men/beasts and combinations of animals in unnatural forms.
ECC 1: 9-10.
What are we doing now?

Uhm, is this before or after Apes took over the world? Sorry for the humorous (don't take it offensively) reply, however, this is just... No.

losthorizon
Apr 25th 2009, 01:18 AM
I pointed out a few of the glaring problems with the kind of catastrophic plate tectonics you're talking about that could form Everest in a year…


You need to get your ducks lined up Lurk before you post - your "glaring problems" will turn on you. I never made the statement that the Himalayas were formed in a year, did I? I did say that some scientists believe the earth’s land mass was significantly different and the oceans were more shallow before the Flood.


As far as I can tell you're theorizing supernatural mechanisms for a global flood. But even supernatural mechanisms should leave some evidence behind, why can't we find any?
Actually, I am not theorizing supernatural mechanisms at all (although it could be). The Flood definitely had a supernatural cause (God) but I have no reason to think the mechanism was supernatural. As far as why the evidence for this mechanism has not been found – I will answer your question with a rhetorical question – has science discovered all the natural phenomena that have ever affected this planet? Of course not – you knew that, right? The massive Chicxulub Crater beneath the Yucatán Peninsula was not discovered by Penfield until the late 1970s. Science will most likely catch up with the Bible on the mechanism some day.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/Yucatan_chix_crater.jpg

Fsbirdhouse
Apr 25th 2009, 01:38 AM
Xel'Naga
Is your no, a disagree with the theory in the post, or that it can't happen now, or that it better not happen now.
There is a fairly strong disagreement in another thread here about the Antediluvians possessing an advanced technology before the flood.
I am convinced they did, and several there are convinced no such technology could have existed.
I have been considering posting as many links to such evidence as I think fits the theory, and watching them jump through hoops trying to debunk them.
If you enjoy humorous replys to posts, just catching up on that thread should set you up nicely.
Trouble is, these fellows are fellow Christians, and even if they weren't ,I have an aversion to feuds.

Athanasius
Apr 25th 2009, 02:27 AM
Xel'Naga
Is your no, a disagree with the theory in the post, or that it can't happen now, or that it better not happen now.
There is a fairly strong disagreement in another thread here about the Antediluvians possessing an advanced technology before the flood.
I am convinced they did, and several there are convinced no such technology could have existed.
I have been considering posting as many links to such evidence as I think fits the theory, and watching them jump through hoops trying to debunk them.
If you enjoy humorous replys to posts, just catching up on that thread should set you up nicely.
Trouble is, these fellows are fellow Christians, and even if they weren't ,I have an aversion to feuds.

Which is the other thread? As for my 'no,' I've no problem believing we could achieve such technological prowess, if that's the right word. Do I believe those before the flood possessed such technology? No, I don't. I mean, short of the Gou'uld... Anyway, my no would be on theological grounds.

A bit of a more personal question, are you familiar with the Urantia cult?

Itinerant Lurker
Apr 25th 2009, 03:20 AM
You need to get your ducks lined up Lurk before you post - your "glaring problems" will turn on you. I never made the statement that the Himalayas were formed in a year, did I? I did say that some scientists believe the earth’s land mass was significantly different and the oceans were more shallow before the Flood.


You also said that some believe that earth's mountains weren't as high and went on to mention Mt. Everest specifically.

"It has been suggested that before the cataclysmic "opening of the fountains of the great deep”, that ocean valleys were not as deep as today and the mountains were not as high - sea fossils (trilobites, crinoids, etc) have been found high up on Mt. Everest. Crinoids (sea lilies) normally exist as deep as 6000 meters *below the sea*."
http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=2051010&postcount=96

Later you made statements indicating that all this catastrophic activity took place during the flood.

"In my model the tectonic plates acted quickly as the “fountains of the deep” were broken, the oceans deepened. Mountains became much higher and deep canyons were formed rather quickly by massive water erosion."
http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=2051325&postcount=101

Regardless, my central point remains - there is no evidence for the kind of catastrophic tectonic activity you describe and a lot of evidence against it. You can reference my previous post about the Hawaii islands for one piece of this evidence.



Actually, I am not theorizing supernatural mechanisms at all (although it could be). The Flood definitely had a supernatural cause (God) but I have no reason to think the mechanism was supernatural.


Every explanation you've provided so far relies on the supernatural and is directly contradicted by the physical evidence.



As far as why the evidence for this mechanism has not been found – I will answer your question with a rhetorical question – has science discovered all the natural phenomena that have ever affected this planet? Of course not – you knew that, right? The massive Chicxulub Crater beneath the Yucatán Peninsula was not discovered by Penfield until the late 1970s. Science will most likely catch up with the Bible on the mechanism some day.


Are you trying to say that we didn't know about asteroid impacts until 1978? Was there direct evidence against large asteroid impacts prior to it's discovery or did this find actually correlate with other geological data that supported a large asteroid impact during this time period due to the high iridium content of the K-T boundary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-T_boundary)?

teddyv
Apr 25th 2009, 03:35 AM
You need to get your ducks lined up Lurk before you post - your "glaring problems" will turn on you. I never made the statement that the Himalayas were formed in a year, did I? I did say that some scientists believe the earth’s land mass was significantly different and the oceans were more shallow before the Flood.


Actually, I am not theorizing supernatural mechanisms at all (although it could be). The Flood definitely had a supernatural cause (God) but I have no reason to think the mechanism was supernatural. As far as why the evidence for this mechanism has not been found – I will answer your question with a rhetorical question – has science discovered all the natural phenomena that have ever affected this planet? Of course not – you knew that, right? The massive Chicxulub Crater beneath the Yucatán Peninsula was not discovered by Penfield until the late 1970s. Science will most likely catch up with the Bible on the mechanism some day.

LostHorizon,

Could you please outline what your theory on the Flood is? You have been regularly demanding others who challenge you in your evidence and ideas what they believe and how they identify themselves but I have not seen a nice consistent position you may hold. As well, you present your evidence but with no obvious trend to some coherent theory or hypothesis. Or are you "just asking questions"?

Thank you.

losthorizon
Apr 25th 2009, 03:44 AM
It may not be ruled out, but how do you test such hypotheses?

I would think we would first have to identify the mechanism that unleashed the fountains of the deep before we could test any hypotheses. There is evidence that huge geysers under intense pressure on Mars unleashed water from deep underground aquifers (fountains of the deep) that released water the equivalent of one hundred times the flow of the Amazon River and accounts for the massive water erosion seen on the surface of the ‘red planet’. I wonder what mechanism has the power to cause that watery catastrophism.
Martian geysers threw muddy material many kilometres into the air and across the red planet's surface

The power of fizz: ancient geysers on Mars
Huge geysers on Mars may have hurled hailstones and mud several kilometres into the air, eroding vast channels onto the planet’s surface.
Evidence for these geysers comes from two sites on Mars where cracks appear to be the starting points for broad river channels that once carried between ten and a hundred times the flow of the river Amazon.

At Cerberus Fossae water reached an area uphill from a 35 kilometre-long crack, suggesting the dramatic force of a geyser. At Mangala Fossa there are sediment deposits most likely caused by mud flows from a powerful geyser.

Scientists from Lancaster University say the geysers were powered by deep underground aquifers, where high pressure allowed the water to absorb carbon dioxide from the underlying magma. When a fracture in the overlying rock allowed the pressurized water to escape to the surface, the carbon dioxide formed bubbles which expanded and accelerated the water to over 200 miles per hour. It’s like shaking up a bottle of lemonade and then releasing the cap – lots of fizz!

http://www.sunearthplan.net/6/1118/The-power-of-fizz-ancient-geysers-on-Mars
http://blog.wired.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/03/18/mars_volcano.jpg

losthorizon
Apr 25th 2009, 04:16 AM
You also said that some believe that earth's mountains weren't as high and went on to mention Mt. Everest specifically.


So after you reviewed all of my posts your answer really should be
"losthorizon - you never once stated anywhere in your posts that Mt Everest was formed in one year.” Thanks for the correction Lurker – you’re a scholar and a gentleman. Lest there be more confusion on your part let me reiterate what I really said – I said - it has been suggested the mountains (including Everest) were not as high before the Flood as they are today and the oceans were not as deep. I did not say mountains did not exist and were completely formed in one year. Remember – line up those ducks before you post. ;)
'Were the crust of Earth to be leveled-with great mountain ranges like the Himalayas and ocean abysses like the Mariana Trench evened out-no land at all would show above the surface of the sea. Earth would be covered by a uniform sheet of water-more than 10,000 feet deep! So overwhelming the ocean seems to be.' ~ Jacques Cousteau

Are you trying to say that we didn't know about asteroid impacts until 1978?
No - I don’t think that is what I said at all. Again - you appear to be misunderstanding my posts. You are a little off game-plan tonight – what’s up? I said (specifically) –
I will answer your question with a rhetorical question – has science discovered all the natural phenomena that have ever affected this planet? Of course not – you knew that, right? The massive Chicxulub Crater beneath the Yucatán Peninsula was not discovered by Penfield until the late 1970s. Science will most likely catch up with the Bible on the mechanism some day.

losthorizon
Apr 25th 2009, 04:25 AM
LostHorizon,

Could you please outline what your theory on the Flood is?


Well Teddy – it’s really not a theory – it is God’s word. As I have mentioned a few times – I am more or less a literalist when it comes to Flood history. In a nutshell:
Genesis 7:19-23 -- "And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered..."

Genesis 7:4 -- "For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights, andevery living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth."

Genesis 7:23 -- "And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark."

Philemon9
Apr 25th 2009, 04:38 AM
Well Teddy – it’s really not a theory – it is God’s word. As I have mentioned a few times – I am more or less a literalist when it comes to Flood history. In a nutshell:
Genesis 7:19-23 -- "And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered..."

Genesis 7:4 -- "For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights, andevery living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth."

Genesis 7:23 -- "And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark."

Why doesn't a literal interpretation match the evidence revealed to us? Is God deceptive? Thanks.

Itinerant Lurker
Apr 25th 2009, 12:15 PM
So after you reviewed all of my posts your answer really should be
"losthorizon - you never once stated anywhere in your posts that Mt Everest was formed in one year.” Thanks for the correction Lurker – you’re a scholar and a gentleman. Lest there be more confusion on your part let me reiterate what I really said – I said - it has been suggested the mountains (including Everest) were not as high before the Flood as they are today and the oceans were not as deep. I did not say mountains did not exist and were completely formed in one year. Remember – line up those ducks before you post. ;)


And as I said previously, it doesn't matter. Even a time frame of thousands of years for global mountain building doesn't work because we don't have evidence of the kind of massively catastrophic tectonic activity within your time frame.



'Were the crust of Earth to be leveled-with great mountain ranges like the Himalayas and ocean abysses like the Mariana Trench evened out-no land at all would show above the surface of the sea. Earth would be covered by a uniform sheet of water-more than 10,000 feet deep! So overwhelming the ocean seems to be.' ~ Jacques CousteauSo. . .which is it? In order to cover the mountain tops those mountains would have needed to be virtually non-existent 12,000 years ago. If you have evidence (or physics!) to show how this happened I'm all ears.



No - I don’t think that is what I said at all. Again - you appear to be misunderstanding my posts. You are a little off game-plan tonight – what’s up? I said (specifically) –
I will answer your question with a rhetorical question – has science discovered all the natural phenomena that have ever affected this planet? Of course not – you knew that, right? The massive Chicxulub Crater beneath the Yucatán Peninsula was not discovered by Penfield until the late 1970s. Science will most likely catch up with the Bible on the mechanism some day.You're using the Chicxulub Crater to point out that scientists discover new mechanisms for geological features. The problem is that asteroid impacts are not a new mechanism, we've known about them for a very long time. For instance, I think someone probably noticed the Barringer Crater in Arizona somehwere before 1978.

http://www.daviddarling.info/images/Barringer_Crater.gif
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/B/Barringer_Crater.html

Chicxulub and other craters can, however, be hard to distinguish except from space because they are so old so weathering and erosion have taken their toll. Besides, as I pointed out earlier, many scientists were actually looking for a large crater from this time period to match other geological data (K-T boundary) before it was discovered.

Finally, craters actually provide evidence for an old earth/solar system instead of a new one since planetary bodies like earth and the moon show evidence of being impacted by millions of asteroids and meteorites. Some of these impacts, like Chicxulub, are tied to massive extinction events. If you compress all these strikes down from being spread out over billions of years down to a few thousand you run into some serious problems of survivability, among other things.
http://paleo.cc/ce/craters.htm

The Chicxulub asteroid alone would have proved fatal to any human population living at the time,

http://www.pnas.org/content/101/11/F1.medium.gif

now take that and multiply it by a few hundred thousand to account for all the other impacts we have evidence for. Of course, there is another explanation. . .

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_07VoZXfojo4/SUlvjx_exUI/AAAAAAAAA7A/IMbLQ-OjSB8/s400/iridium+bomb.jpg

losthorizon
Apr 25th 2009, 02:02 PM
And as I said previously, it doesn't matter. Even a time frame of thousands of years for global mountain building doesn't work because we don't have evidence of the kind of massively catastrophic tectonic activity within your time frame.

But the evidence provided by your worldview relies heavily on circularity, radiometric dating which is based on assumptions (decay rate remains constant, no contamination, etc), the geological column that is only found in Darwinian slanted textbooks and unproven uniformitarian assumptions. Remember assumptions do not constitute proof of anything.
"Are the authorities maintaining, on the one hand, that evolution is documented by geology and, on the other that geology is documented by evolution? Isn’t this a circular argument?" ~ Larry Azar (Bioscience)

The fact is, the doctrine of uniformitarianism is no more ‘proved’ than some of the early ideas of world-wide cataclysms have been disproved. ~ Edgar B. Heylmun: "Should We Teach Uniformitarianism!"


So. . .which is it? In order to cover the mountain tops those mountains would have needed to be virtually non-existent 12,000 years ago. If you have evidence (or physics!) to show how this happened I'm all ears.
Lol – I don’t think Cousteau was advocating a ‘flat-earth’ – he was simply pointing out the immensity of the waters in earth’s oceans. I don’t think anyone really believes there were not mountains in the distant past. The Bible itself describes the water covering the mountains during the Flood.


You're using the Chicxulub Crater to point out that scientists discover new mechanisms for geological features. The problem is that asteroid impacts are not a new mechanism, we've known about them for a very long time. For instance, I think someone probably noticed the Barringer Crater in Arizona somehwere before 1978.
You completely misunderstand once again. My point was that Chicxulub Crater in an example of a phenomenon that impacted earth’s geography, climate, etc but was not discovered until relatively recently. This is to suggest that an unknown mechanism that caused the ‘breaking up of the fountains of the deep’ may yet be found. Remember it wasn’t until recently that we discovered “Deep Waters” deep inside the earth – enough water to replace the current oceans 10 times over. That’s a heck of a lot of water. How and from where did all this subterranean water come to be deep under the earth - from a massive catastrophic surface flood less than 12,000 years ago...perhaps? :hmm:
Deep waters

New Scientist/30 August 1997

DEEP inside the Earth, the pressure is excruciating. Squeezed into strange shapes and forms, the rocks are so hot that they crawl like super-thick treacle. It is an inferno worthy of Dante, but it also contains something surprising. What's the last thing you would expect to find in this hellish environment? Water. Vast amounts of the stuff. In fact, more than 400 kilometres inside the Earth there may be enough water to replace the surface oceans more than ten times…
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Noahs_Ark.jpg

losthorizon
Apr 25th 2009, 02:23 PM
Why doesn't a literal interpretation match the evidence revealed to us? Is God deceptive? Thanks.
Hi Phil – it’s nice to see your one-question post without-any-presentation-of-your-own-position again. I would answer this way – (1) God is not deceptive. (2) The Flood narrative of Genesis is historical Hebrew narrative and as such should be understood in a literal sense as literal history. And (3) I see no conflict between the Hebrew narrative and science. Maybe you can do something unique to your posting style and actually provide me a brief synopsis of what it is you find deceptive on God’s part related to the flood and science. Do you think God deceived us when He told us the Flood covered “all the earth” and destroyed “all mankind” save those on the Ark? In your theology is God a deceiver? Was there a literal flood in your theology and was Noah an historical person (literally)? Have a wonderful 7th day (literally). ;)

Itinerant Lurker
Apr 25th 2009, 11:59 PM
But the evidence provided by your worldview relies heavily on circularity, radiometric dating which is based on assumptions (decay rate remains constant, no contamination, etc), the geological column that is only found in Darwinian slanted textbooks and unproven uniformitarian assumptions.


We've discussed each of these issues, never once have you actually provided any evidence for your claims that hasn't already been debunked. Radiometric dating correlates with other dating methods that do not depend on radioactive decay like ice cores, varves, and dendrochronology. This is as non-circular as it gets and provides an overwhelmingly powerful argument for the reliability of radiometric dating.

Additionally, we have never observed decay rates to change and only theorize about a few elements that may decay more rapidly in the interior of very large stars. Nor could decay rates change very much without violating some kind of important laws of physics that would have had drastic and, needless to say, observable effects. Consequently, information about decay rates is contained within the radiation emitted by distant stars. Since the light from those stars is sometimes millions of years old would be able to tell if decay rates were different in the past. Unfortunately for your argument we find zero evidence of this.

I have already provided examples all over the world where you can find the geological column in it's entirety in post #94 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=2050861&postcount=94) in addition to a very descriptive article (http://chem.tufts.edu/science/Geology/GeologicColumn.htm) about the geological column found in North Dakota replete with numerous findings therein inconsistent with a global flood in post #98 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=2051208&postcount=98).



You completely misunderstand once again. My point was that Chicxulub Crater in an example of a phenomenon that impacted earth’s geography, climate, etc but was not discovered until relatively recently. This is to suggest that an unknown mechanism that caused the ‘breaking up of the fountains of the deep’ may yet be found.


Yes, but other evidence such as the iridium rich K-T boundary supported the idea of a massive asteroid strike during this time period. The fact that we actually found a massive crater that more or less dates to the same time period as the K-T boundary is an affirmation of an old earth view. Your unknown mechanism, meanwhile, has zero evidence going for it. It is, by definition, a supernatural mechanism that left no evidence behind. That doesn't make much sense to anyone outside a YEC worldview, and as such is a useless argument to make as an appeal for the strength of that worldview.



Remember it wasn’t until recently that we discovered “Deep Waters” deep inside the earth – enough water to replace the current oceans 10 times over. That’s a heck of a lot of water. How and from where did all this subterranean water come to be deep under the earth - from a massive catastrophic surface flood less than 12,000 years ago...perhaps? :hmm:


I'm not fully convinced you're actually understanding just what your "Deep Waters" article summary was referring to. Let me know when you figure out a mechanism to take liquid surface water, break it up into near-microscopic droplets, and embed them in strata miles below the surface within a year.

TheAnswer99
Apr 26th 2009, 03:49 AM
I've always assumed that the symbolism of the flood was more important than the actual act.

I'm an amateur at this whole thing, but I've always seen it as similar to "washing away the sins". We associate water with cleansing, so perhaps that is why God chose it...to cleanse the earth

He could have immediately made everyone spontaneously combust. Or he could have made a global fire. Or he could have caused everyone to starve to death...or any number of scenarios. Just seems to me that there must be some symbolism behind the decision to use a flood...

losthorizon
Apr 26th 2009, 03:07 PM
We've discussed each of these issues, never once have you actually provided any evidence for your claims that hasn't already been debunked. Radiometric dating correlates with other dating methods that do not depend on radioactive decay like ice cores, varves, and dendrochronology. This is as non-circular as it gets and provides an overwhelmingly powerful argument for the reliability of radiometric dating.


Actually, you have ‘debunked’ absolutely nothing but you have assumed much and assumptions prove nothing but naivety. Your “overwhelming evidence” rhetoric only demonstrates an oversimplification based on secondary sources and grade-school textbooks. Radiometric dating is only as accurate as the theoretical constructs on which it was founded and it was founded on an “apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations" - it was founded on absolute naturalism where “materialism is absolute” and great ages are always assumed without 'proofs'.
"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. ~ Richard Lewontin (Professor of Zoology and Biology, Harvard University – 1997)

I have already provided examples all over the world where you can find the geological column in it's entirety in post #94 in addition to a very descriptive article about the geological column found in North Dakota replete with numerous findings therein inconsistent with a global flood in post #98.
As stated earlier the geological column is nothing more than a hypothetical construct found only in textbooks and based on a commitment to materialism.
The mythical geologic column
Dr. Neville Thomas Jones, Ph.D.
________________________________________

In Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 1999, 13(2), 77-82 (and reproduced in trueorigin.org), John Woodmorappe quotes Morris and Parker, in order to define the 'geologic column', thus: "This standard column is supposed to be at least 100 miles [160 km] thick (some writers say up to 200 [320 km]), representing the total sedimentary activity of all of the geologic ages." At the end of his paper he concludes that, "There is no escaping the fact that the Phanerozoic geologic column remains essentially non-existent. It should be obvious, to all but the most biased observers, that it is the anti-creationists who misrepresent the geologic facts. The geologic column does not exist to any substantive extent, and scientific creationists are correct to point this out."

Any such 'column' is claimed to consist of strata, so now consider the words of the renowned French sedimentologist, Guy Berthault (after translation from his native French into English):

"As we have shown in the laboratory, layers of incoming sediment have been wrongly identified as being strata. The scale of geological time and the chronological succession of fossils have been calculated on this mistaken belief, that strata are successive layers of sediment.

"A single layer of sediment can sort itself out into parts of many strata. So the position of fossils, rather than showing evolution, merely indicates the distribution of marine species which lived at different depths.

"If the creatures fossilized in the rocks show no evolutionary sequence, could they have all lived together at the same time? Since we now know that rocks don't need time to form, just enough sediment, there appears to be some reason to believe that they could have all been living together.

"The very fact that [the remains of hundreds of millions of fossilized creatures] were buried in vast quantities of sediment, which has since turned into rock, and that this kind of rock is only made by water, strongly indicates that the catastrophe was a cataclysmic flood, which covered the entire Earth."

Summary

There is no 'geologic column', except, of course, in the minds of young schoolchildren who stream out of the natural history museums after being taught that there is.

I'm not fully convinced you're actually understanding just what your "Deep Waters" article summary was referring to. Let me know when you figure out a mechanism to take liquid surface water, break it up into near-microscopic droplets, and embed them in strata miles below the surface within a year.
Of course I understand – remember I turned you on to “Deep Water” in the first place – you didn’t even know it existed. We don’t know how and why these water droplets became trapped inside crystal lattices but the research is ongoing. Of course all of this is not to say that vast underground water reservoirs do not exist. Where did all that underground water come from and what mechanism put it there? Think God - Flood - “...Then Noah knew that the water had receded from the earth.”
Vast Water Reservoir Discovered Deep in Earth's Mantle
Posted on: Monday, 12 February 2007, 11:09 CST

A seismologist at Washington University in St. Louis has made the first 3-D model of seismic wave damping -- diminishing -- deep in the Earth's mantle and has revealed the existence of an underground water reservoir at least the volume of the Arctic Ocean.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/837147/vast_water_reservoir_discovered_deep_in_earths_man tle/index.html
http://www.redorbit.com/modules/imglib/download.php?Url=/modules/news/upload/6157376dd4b3b595fe8995cca614e7a6.jpg

Philemon9
Apr 26th 2009, 07:36 PM
I think I've finally seen the light of losthorizon's arguments and I have to agree: Science should just be altogether thrown out since we can't trust it.

I mean sure in the last 100 years we've increased the life expectancy by 30 years, and landed on the moon, among other things. But how can we truly *trust* science with so many false assumptions and inherent biases. It would be safer to just throw it out.

losthorizon
Apr 26th 2009, 09:17 PM
I think I've finally seen the light of losthorizon's arguments and I have to agree: Science should just be altogether thrown out since we can't trust it.

I mean sure in the last 100 years we've increased the life expectancy by 30 years, and landed on the moon, among other things. But how can we truly *trust* science with so many false assumptions and inherent biases. It would be safer to just throw it out.
Faulty logic there, Phil – Darwinian science is the “science” under consideration and it has not even taken you out of your driveway let alone to the moon and it hasn’t added even 15 seconds to your life expectancy. If you are a US taxpayer it has taken money out of your pocket so the government can teach your kids a secular religion (The Church of Darwin ) in the public schools. Btw, I left you some questions to answer so we can see what your position really is. Why not just keep on ignoring them per usual. Thanks.
A Chinese paleontologist lectures around the world saying that recent fossil finds in his country are inconsistent with the Darwinian theory of evolution. His reason: The major animal groups appear abruptly in the rocks over a relatively short time, rather than evolving gradually from a common ancestor as Darwin's theory predicts. When this conclusion upsets American scientists, he wryly comments: "In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can criticize the government but not Darwin." ~ Phillip E. Johnson, The Church of Darwin

Suppose this is true -- that if you are a Darwinian, then you cannot be a Christian. How then does one answer the creationist who objects to the teaching of Darwinism in schools? Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If theism cannot be taught in schools (in America) because it violates the separation of church and state, why then should Darwinism be permitted? If Darwinism leads to atheism, does this not also violate the separation of church and state? ~ Michael Ruse, evolutionist and ex-Christian

losthorizon
Apr 26th 2009, 10:40 PM
I've always assumed that the symbolism of the flood was more important than the actual act.

I'm an amateur at this whole thing, but I've always seen it as similar to "washing away the sins". We associate water with cleansing, so perhaps that is why God chose it...to cleanse the earth

He could have immediately made everyone spontaneously combust. Or he could have made a global fire. Or he could have caused everyone to starve to death...or any number of scenarios. Just seems to me that there must be some symbolism behind the decision to use a flood...
Good point – water is associated with cleansing in both the OT and the NT. There is symbolism between the Noachite flood which cleansed the earth and the ordinance of Christian baptism in the NT - "arise and be baptized and wash away your sins" (Acts 22). Baptism is the "pledge to God made from a good conscience." When we come up out of the water of baptism, we arise with Him in the likeness of His resurrection –
“...God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: 1 Peter 3: 20, 21

Itinerant Lurker
Apr 27th 2009, 12:02 AM
Actually, you have ‘debunked’ absolutely nothing but you have assumed much and assumptions prove nothing but naivety. Your “overwhelming evidence” rhetoric only demonstrates an oversimplification based on secondary sources and grade-school textbooks. Radiometric dating is only as accurate as the theoretical constructs on which it was founded and it was founded on an “apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations" - it was founded on absolute naturalism where “materialism is absolute” and great ages are always assumed without 'proofs'.


Your talking about naturalism and materialism, I'm talking about specific ways in which radiometric dating is supported by multiple means of testing. How do your claims of "absolute materialism" specifically apply to all these testing methods? What kind of assumptions would produce consistent testing results in such a broad range of testing methods that rely on different mechanisms?



As stated earlier the geological column is nothing more than a hypothetical construct found only in textbooks and based on a commitment to materialism.
No, its based on scientists going out and looking at strata from all over the world and noticing that certain fossils are always found in the same order. Consequently people have been doing this long before Darwin was even born with much of that work having been done by Creationists.



The mythical geologic column
Dr. Neville Thomas Jones, Ph.D.
________________________________________

In Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 1999, 13(2), 77-82 (and reproduced in trueorigin.org), John Woodmorappe quotes Morris and Parker, in order to define the 'geologic column', thus: "This standard column is supposed to be at least 100 miles [160 km] thick (some writers say up to 200 [320 km]), representing the total sedimentary activity of all of the geologic ages." At the end of his paper he concludes that, "There is no escaping the fact that the Phanerozoic geologic column remains essentially non-existent. It should be obvious, to all but the most biased observers, that it is the anti-creationists who misrepresent the geologic facts. The geologic column does not exist to any substantive extent, and scientific creationists are correct to point this out."



In my opinion Woodmorappe (which is a pseudonym) is extremely unreliable, throwing out his work will pretty much get you laughed at outside YEC circles. Just a heads up.

Additionally, I can't help but notice you're using a second hand source (A quote from Woodmorappe quoting someone else) after just mentioning "oversimplification based secondary sources". Consequently this is an excellent description of Woodmorappe quoting Morris and Parker who are defining the geological column in a somewhat fantasticly odd way just as Woodmorappe does. Essentially they seem to be saying that you have to have a 100% complete column recording every event in geological history and that every layer of strata should represent the maximum thickness displayed anywhere in the world. That's where he comes up with his "100 miles thick" figure which is completely absurd. There's absolutely no reason to expect every layer to be represented in it's maximum thickness because every layer represents long periods of time so some weathering and erosion is going to take place among other things.

This argument actually was addressed in an article I provided earlier, but it is an excessively long one so I can't really fault you for not spotting it.

"The definition of the geologic column that I will use is the one used by Morris and Parker (1987 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/#ref-morris87), p. 163) in the following quotation:
'Now the geologic column is an idea, not an actual series of rock layers. Nowhere do we find the complete sequence. Even the walls of the Grand Canyon included only five of the twelve major systems (one, five, six and seven, with small portions here and there of the fourth system, the Devonian.' They are saying that there is no place on earth where all twelve of the periods are found. Given that the precambrian is always found if one drills deep enough we merely need to find places with the 11 phanerozoic periods. What we will see below is that such situations do occur.


In point of fact Morris and Parker define the geologic column in a silly fashion. There is no place on earth that has sediments from every single day since the origin of the earth. No geologist would require this level of detail from the geological column. But if there are sediments left at a given site once every hundred thousand years or so, then at the scale of the geological column, the entire column would exist. There would still be erosional surfaces contained in that column and that would mean that some days left no sediment at a given location to mark their existence."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/




Any such 'column' is claimed to consist of strata, so now consider the words of the renowned French sedimentologist, Guy Berthault (after translation from his native French into English):

"As we have shown in the laboratory, layers of incoming sediment have been wrongly identified as being strata. The scale of geological time and the chronological succession of fossils have been calculated on this mistaken belief, that strata are successive layers of sediment.

"A single layer of sediment can sort itself out into parts of many strata. So the position of fossils, rather than showing evolution, merely indicates the distribution of marine species which lived at different depths.

"If the creatures fossilized in the rocks show no evolutionary sequence, could they have all lived together at the same time? Since we now know that rocks don't need time to form, just enough sediment, there appears to be some reason to believe that they could have all been living together.

"The very fact that [the remains of hundreds of millions of fossilized creatures] were buried in vast quantities of sediment, which has since turned into rock, and that this kind of rock is only made by water, strongly indicates that the catastrophe was a cataclysmic flood, which covered the entire Earth."

Summary

There is no 'geologic column', except, of course, in the minds of young schoolchildren who stream out of the natural history museums after being taught that there is.
Here's your source: http://www.realityreviewed.com/Geologic%20column.htm

You're posting Bertault's conclusions not his evidence, and he is most definitely wrong. One of the more obvious errors springs from the last paragraph of his in your quote:

"The very fact that [the remains of hundreds of millions of fossilized creatures] were buried in vast quantities of sediment, which has since turned into rock, and that this kind of rock is only made by water, strongly indicates that the catastrophe was a cataclysmic flood, which covered the entire Earth."

Since the geological column is interspersed with desert layers it becomes painfully clear that the above conclusion cannot be applied to the entire geological column. I would love to hear why you think Berthault's ideas should carry so much weight, unless this is just an empty argument from authority.


Of course I understand – remember I turned you on to “Deep Water” in the first place – you didn’t even know it existed.
You brought it up first, assuming this means I was unaware of this phenomena would be erroneous.



We don’t know how and why these water droplets became trapped inside crystal lattices but the research is ongoing. Of course all of this is not to say that vast underground water reservoirs do not exist. Where did all that underground water come from and what mechanism put it there? Think God - Flood - “...Then Noah knew that the water had receded from the earth.”
Vast Water Reservoir Discovered Deep in Earth's Mantle
Posted on: Monday, 12 February 2007, 11:09 CST

A seismologist at Washington University in St. Louis has made the first 3-D model of seismic wave damping -- diminishing -- deep in the Earth's mantle and has revealed the existence of an underground water reservoir at least the volume of the Arctic Ocean.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/837147/vast_water_reservoir_discovered_deep_in_earths_man tle/index.htmlYour article mentions subduction as the basic mechanism. Specifically subduction of the Pacific plate which we know hasn't been subject to the kind of major tectonic activity required to sink all that water within a year in the last ten thousand years. You can reference my previous post on the formation of the Hawaii island chain for evidence of this. As such we do have some ideas about how this water got there, but those ideas do not point towards a global flood.

losthorizon
Apr 27th 2009, 01:47 AM
Your talking about naturalism and materialism, I'm talking about specific ways in which radiometric dating is supported by multiple means of testing. How do your claims of "absolute materialism" specifically apply to all these testing methods? What kind of assumptions would produce consistent testing results in such a broad range of testing methods that rely on different mechanisms?


Actually, I am taking about Darwinian science which is based on absolute naturalism/materialism without design (atheism). Radiometric dating is based on observational science and historical science - it *assumes* historical events that were not observed. These assumptions are reliant on the unproven notion of uniformitarianism. We assume the amount of parent/daughter elements – we assume a constant rate of decay, etc, etc. There were no scientists present “in the beginning” to observe the initial conditions of the earth and if the biblical concept of catastrophism is correct (and it is) then the assumptions made for radiometric could very well be incorrect.
It is obvious that radiometric methods may not be the reliable dating methods they are often claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum using different methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological clock." ~ William Stansfield-The Science of EvolutionWe now have unconfirmed data that “the sun may change what’s unchangeable—the rate of radioactive decay.” :hmm:
Half-life (more or less)
Physicists are stirred by claims that the sun may change what’s unchangeable—the rate of radioactive decay

It’s nuclear physics 101: Radioactivity proceeds at its own pace. Each type of radioactive isotope, be it plutonium-238 or carbon-14, changes into another isotope or element at a specific, universal, immutable rate. This much has been known for more than a century, since Ernest Rutherford defined the notion of half-life—the time it takes for half of the atoms in a radioactive sample to transmute into something else. So when researchers suggested in August that the sun causes variations in the decay rates of isotopes of silicon, chlorine, radium and manganese…A change of less than a percent may not sound like a lot. But if the change is real, rather than an anomaly in the detector, it would challenge the entire concept of half-life and even force physicists to rewrite their nuclear physics textbooks.

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/38341/title/Half-life_(more_o..

http://creationwiki.org/pool/images/c/c6/Isotope_dating.gif


In my opinion Woodmorappe (which is a pseudonym) is extremely unreliable, throwing out his work will pretty much get you laughed at outside YEC circles. Just a heads up.
Is Woodmorappe (which is a pseudonym) also a “shoddy scientist” because he disagrees with your dogma?


You're posting Bertault's conclusions not his evidence, and he is most definitely wrong. One of the more obvious errors springs from the last paragraph of his in your quote
Is the French scienctist, Dr. Guy Berthault also a “shoddy scientist” because he disagrees with your dogma? He certainly has no problem understanding there is evidence for “a cataclysmic flood, which covered the entire Earth.” You appear to be biased against any scientist who sees evidence for a universal flood. Why? “Ce qui mesure le temps, ce sont les durées de sédimentation, sur lesquelles tout le monde est plus ou moins d'accord, et non celles des orogenèses et des « révolutions » biologiques.”
"The very fact that [the remains of hundreds of millions of fossilized creatures] were buried in vast quantities of sediment, which has since turned into rock, and that this kind of rock is only made by water, strongly indicates that the catastrophe was a cataclysmic flood, which covered the entire Earth." ~ Guy Berthault

http://www.sedimentology.fr/

You brought it up first, assuming this means I was unaware of this phenomena would be erroneous. I try not to assume too much but you did appear a little confused when I introduced you to “Deep Water”?


Your article mentions subduction as the basic mechanism. Specifically subduction of the Pacific plate which we know hasn't been subject to the kind of major tectonic activity required within the last ten thousand years. You can reference my previous post on the formation of the Hawaii island chain for evidence of this. As such we do have some ideas about how this water got there, but those ideas do not point towards a global flood.
But your data didn’t include the Mariana and Izu-Bonin subduction systems did it? They are in the Pacific – right? Where did all that water come from – I wonder - could it have been run-off from a universal flood of ‘biblical proportions’? ;)

Philemon9
Apr 27th 2009, 01:57 AM
Faulty logic there, Phil – Darwinian science is the “science” under consideration and it has not even taken you out of your driveway let alone to the moon and it hasn’t added even 15 seconds to your life expectancy. If you are a US taxpayer it has taken money out of your pocket so the government can teach your kids a secular religion (The Church of Darwin ) in the public schools. Btw, I left you some questions to answer so we can see what your position really is. Why not just keep on ignoring them per usual. Thanks.

Oh I'm a TE - sorry if I didn't make that clear through the nature of my posts.

And you truly are naive if you don't understand how evolutionary mechanisms form the very foundation of our understanding of biology, genetics, DNA, human anatomy, etc. And to then say this understanding hasn't lead to better medical care is incomprehensible to me.

It would be like saying our understanding of astrophysics in no way contributed to our ability to fly space shuttles or launch satellites.

Philemon9
Apr 27th 2009, 02:06 AM
There were no scientists present “in the beginning” to observe the initial conditions of the earth and if the biblical concept of catastrophism is correct (and it is) then the assumptions made for radiometric could very well be incorrect.

I'm with ya losthorizon.

Let's take this logic a step further: How can we really be sure the civil war really happened? By my estimation there isn't a single person alive today who can bear witness to the 'initial conditions' of the civil war and therefore our historicity of this period of time is nothing more than assumptions on top of assumptions on top of assumptions.

I also feel compelled to mention how much I love the random "(and it is)" parenthesis in your posts. Nothing drives a point home like saying "Because Stone Cold said so!"

Itinerant Lurker
Apr 27th 2009, 02:40 AM
Actually, I am taking about Darwinian science which is based on absolute naturalism/materialism without design (atheism). Radiometric dating is based on observational science and historical science - it *assumes* historical events that were not observed.
These assumptions are reliant on the unproven notion of uniformitarianism. We assume the amount of parent/daughter elements – we assume a constant rate of decay, etc, etc. There were no scientists present “in the beginning” to observe the initial conditions of the earth and if the biblical concept of catastrophism is correct (and it is) then the assumptions made for radiometric could very well be incorrect.


Again, even if I grant every single one of your criticisms of radiometric dating (which I most certainly do not) this would not explain why radiometric dating is consistent with other forms of dating that do not rely on radioactive decay rates. If all dating methods are based on uniformitarian assumptions that are flawed they shouldn't all agree with each other, the problem for you is that they do.

http://www.geo.arizona.edu/palynology/geos462/c14FairbQSR05.gif




It is obvious that radiometric methods may not be the reliable dating methods they are often claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum using different methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological clock." ~ William Stansfield-The Science of Evolution


Stansfield is simply wrong. This is quite possibly because your quote is so dated, we've come a long way in terms of dating techniques and calibrations since 1977.

We now have unconfirmed data that “the sun may change what’s unchangeable—the rate of radioactive decay.” :hmm:
Half-life (more or less)
Physicists are stirred by claims that the sun may change what’s unchangeable—the rate of radioactive decay

It’s nuclear physics 101: Radioactivity proceeds at its own pace. Each type of radioactive isotope, be it plutonium-238 or carbon-14, changes into another isotope or element at a specific, universal, immutable rate. This much has been known for more than a century, since Ernest Rutherford defined the notion of half-life—the time it takes for half of the atoms in a radioactive sample to transmute into something else. So when researchers suggested in August that the sun causes variations in the decay rates of isotopes of silicon, chlorine, radium and manganese…A change of less than a percent may not sound like a lot. But if the change is real, rather than an anomaly in the detector, it would challenge the entire concept of half-life and even force physicists to rewrite their nuclear physics textbooks.

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/38341/title/Half-life_(more_o (http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/38341/title/Half-life_%28more_o)..


A very interesting article. However, while we may be seeing some variation here it's still not anywhere near drastic enough to account for the massive amounts of actual radioactive decay that have taken place. Additionally, this is still miles from confirmed.

"But Fischbach, Jenkins and their colleagues have a lot of convincing to do, says Hamish Robertson of the University of Washington in Seattle. “There’s no physical basis for the decay rates to vary with anything, let alone with the Earth-sun distance,” he says."



Is Woodmorappe (which is a pseudonym) also a “shoddy scientist” because he disagrees with your dogma?


Woodmorappe is not reliable because his evidence consistently gets torn to shreds. Hang your hat on his work if you want, but no one except YEC's already invested in his worldview will follow suite.



Is the French scienctist, Dr. Guy Berthault also a “shoddy scientist” because he disagrees with your dogma?


Is virtually every other geologist in the world wrong because they disagree with yours? What part of Berhault's work do you find especially strong so as to ignore virtually all other geologists and hold up Berthault as alone authoritative?

I have numerous problems with Berhault's work, names becuase he didn't really do any new experiments or present any data less than 15 years old. Addtionally, Berthault sets out to upend the principles of stratiography not by challenging modern understandings of the field but by attacking how these principles were originally described over three hundred years ago in Nicholas Steno's 1669 work, De Solido Intra Solidium Naturaliter Contento Dissertationis Prodromus.

Pretty much all of his research consists of studying how sediment can be laid down using flumes, basically artificial channels used to study how water transports and deposits sediment. He appears to have managed to figure out how to get sediment to layer up quickly and then jumped straight from there to claiming that because sediment can do this in a controlled little tank it can do it within a world wide catastrophic flood ignoring all the contradictory variables that would necessarily be introduced. He's literally making the leap from a few inches in a laboratory to a few miles in the real world. Berthault hasn't been able to get any of his YEC flood model geology papers published in anything but out of the way foreign journals and has largely been ignored by mainstream geology since the early 1990's. I would highly recommend not using him as a reference in a debate.



I try not to assume too much but you did appear a little confused when I introduced you to “Deep Water”?


I was (and remain) confused about how you planned on getting that water either in or out of that strata in a year.



But your data didn’t include the Mariana and Izu-Bonin subduction systems did it? They are in the Pacific – right?

Sure they are, and? Do they show evidence of the kind of break neck speed subduction necessary to drop that much water embedded in ocean floor rock into lower strata? Explain your references a little, I can't tell what you're trying to say here.

losthorizon
Apr 27th 2009, 03:06 AM
I'm with ya losthorizon.

Let's take this logic a step further: How can we really be sure the civil war really happened? By my estimation there isn't a single person alive today who can bear witness to the 'initial conditions' of the civil war and therefore our historicity of this period of time is nothing more than assumptions on top of assumptions on top of assumptions.

I also feel compelled to mention how much I love the random "(and it is)" parenthesis in your posts. Nothing drives a point home like saying "Because Stone Cold said so!"
Well Phile you really make a lot of sense in your many frivolous posts and this one is no exception. During the War Between the States there were actually scientists and historians present to record the carnage but according to Darwinian lore when dinosaurs sprouted feathers started slowly morphing into birds there were no competent scientists present to record this magic trick because ape-men (and ape-women) could not read or write. Why don’t your start a new thread on the CW and combine it with the other confusion you were having with the Spanish Inquisition. I will be happy to join you there and see if we can get you straight (ie, less confused).

Btw - my questions to you are yet unanswered - were they too hard? I can restructure them if they were - let me know. Thanks. ;)

losthorizon
Apr 27th 2009, 03:51 AM
Stansfield is simply wrong. This is quite possibly because your quote is so dated, we've come a long way in terms of dating techniques and calibrations since 1977.


No he really is not wrong – he is quite correct. Where are your proofs that we have “come a long way” (talk is cheap). This sounds like another oversimplification like your “overwhelming evidence” when in fact you only present mediocre high-school level naively. We are in the real world. Stansfield’s words are as true today as they were when they were made – "there is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological clock.” Move forward. Is William Stansfield's work shoddy? Do you agree with his statment - "Probably no more than one percent of geological history can be accurately read in rocks." Wow - one percent is not "overwhelming evidence" is it? ;)
Several methods have been devised for estimating the age of the earth and its layers of rocks. These methods rely heavily on the assumption of uniformitarianism, i.e., natural processes have proceeded at relatively constant rates throughout the earth's history. Some estimates of geological age are derived from calculations based on the present average rate of sediment deposition in oceans, deltas, and lakes. Dividing the thickness of a rock layer (stratum) by the average rate of deposition for that kind of sediment gives an estimate of the length of time required for its formation. The rate of sedimentation, however, is known to vary widely from one locality to another, so that the use of an average rate would very likely lead to considerable errors of estimate. Probably no more than one percent of geological history can be accurately read in rocks. Furthermore, no single location contains the complete geological record. Gaps in the record can sometimes be pieced together using information from other localities that share strata. Certain fossils appear to be restricted to rocks of a relatively limited geological age span. These are called index fossils. Whenever a rock is found bearing such a fossil, its approximate age is automatically established. ~ William Stansfield

A very interesting article. However, while we may be seeing some variation here it's still not anywhere near drastic enough to account for the massive amounts of actual radioactive decay that have taken place. Additionally, this is still miles from confirmed.
If this evidence proves correct it is a major nail in the coffin of uniformitarianism assumptions. Remember – “A change of less than a percent may not sound like a lot. But if the change is real, rather than an anomaly in the detector, it would challenge the entire concept of half-life and even force physicists to rewrite their nuclear physics textbooks.”


Woodmorappe is not reliable because his evidence consistently gets torn to shreds. Hang your hat on his work if you want, but no one except YEC's already invested in his worldview will follow suite.
Is he a shoddy scientist?


Is virtually every other geologist in the world wrong because they disagree with yours?
Actually, there are many scientists who agree in part with Berthault’s conclusions. Didn’t virtually every other scientist of Galileo’s day disagree with his conclusions? Did his conclusion prove correct? Again I ask – do you label every scientist’s work “shoddy” who disagrees with your dogma? If your answer is an affirmative it is a sad answer for one who claims to be a scientist. You obviously do not understand how discovery works.


I was (and remain) confused about how you planned on getting that water either in or out of that strata in a year.
Yes your confusion is obvious. Hang on and we will get you the correct answer.


Sure they are, and? Do they show evidence of the kind of break neck speed subduction necessary to drop that much water embedded in ocean floor rock into lower strata? Explain your references a little, I can't tell what you're trying to say here.
You didn’t answer the question – did your “data” include Mariana and Izu-Bonin?

Philemon9
Apr 27th 2009, 04:19 AM
Well Phile you really make a lot of sense in your many frivolous posts and this one is no exception. During the War Between the States there were actually scientists and historians present to record the carnage but according to Darwinian lore when dinosaurs sprouted feathers started slowly morphing into birds there were no competent scientists present to record this magic trick because ape-men (and ape-women) could not read or write. Why don’t your start a new thread on the CW and combine it with the other confusion you were having with the Spanish Inquisition. I will be happy to join you there and see if we can get you straight (ie, less confused).

Btw - my questions to you are yet unanswered - were they too hard? I can restructure them if they were - let me know. Thanks. ;)

Don't tell me you don't recognize your own fallacious logic?

What questions are we talking about by the way? (I generally skim your posts)

teddyv
Apr 27th 2009, 05:22 AM
LostHorizon,

Since we have come back again to the reliability of radiometric dating can you please tell me why you think that we continue to use these dating methods that according to you (or rather your sources) are completely unreliable? Do you see it as some conspiracy?

Forgive me if I have asked this to you before (I have asked the question elsewhere).

Thank you.:)

Itinerant Lurker
Apr 27th 2009, 10:38 AM
No he really is not wrong – he is quite correct. Where are your proofs that we have “come a long way” (talk is cheap).


It's pretty much common knowledge that not only have we been constantly refining out dating techniques, but we've been able to compare those techniques to each other to recalibrate radioacitve decay dating. I've provided a graph several times now which documents several dating techniques plotted together and clearly shows a strong correlation. Additionally, we know we're getting better because while new techniques shift older dates they don't shift new ones.

"Older dates may change by a few million years up and down, but younger dates are stable. For example, it has been known since the 1960s that the famous Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary, the line marking the end of the dinosaurs, was 65 million years old. Repeated recalibrations and retests, using ever more sophisticated techniques and equipment, cannot shift that date. It is accurate to within a few thousand years. With modern, extremely precise, methods, error bars are often only 1% or so."
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html

Not only are radiometric dates consistent with other methods, they are consistent with each other.
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/crater_chain.html
http://gondwanaresearch.com/radiomet.htm



. Stansfield’s words are as true today as they were when they were made – "there is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological clock.” Move forward. Is William Stansfield's work shoddy? Do you agree with his statment - "Probably no more than one percent of geological history can be accurately read in rocks." Wow - one percent is not "overwhelming evidence" is it? ;)
Stansfield is wrong and extremely outdated. All you're doing is quote mining the conclusions of creationists without engaging any of the numerous problems with their evidence.



If this evidence proves correct it is a major nail in the coffin of uniformitarianism assumptions. Remember – “A change of less than a percent may not sound like a lot. But if the change is real, rather than an anomaly in the detector, it would challenge the entire concept of half-life and even force physicists to rewrite their nuclear physics textbooks.”
All things are possible, not everything is probable. Keep me posted, this is definitely an interesting field of research but you've got a long long long way to go from here to evidence for decay rate change.



Actually, there are many scientists who agree in part with Berthault’s conclusions.
No, there are not. Why is pretty much everyone else wrong and Berthault right? What part of his evidence besides that it agrees with your biblical interpretation do you find strong enough to justify this? Or is this simply an empty argument from authority?



Yes your confusion is obvious. Hang on and we will get you the correct answer.
Please let me know when you figure it out.



You didn’t answer the question – did your “data” include Mariana and Izu-Bonin?Your talking about a convergence zone near Japan so no, data on the formation of the Hawaii islands doesn't contain specific data about them.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0d/MarianaTroughLocation1.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariana_Trough

However, they both involve the Pacific plate, which is the one being subducted, so if all this water was subducted rapidly we wouldn't expect a slow forming Hawaii island chain to present itself which, unfortunately for you, it does. In any event, we have reconstructed their history of subduction.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a8/IBM_history.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izu-Bonin-Mariana_Arc#Geologic_history_of_the_IBM_Arc_system

Clue me in on how this helps you any time.

losthorizon
Apr 28th 2009, 12:52 AM
LostHorizon,

Since we have come back again to the reliability of radiometric dating can you please tell me why you think that we continue to use these dating methods that according to you (or rather your sources) are completely unreliable? Do you see it as some conspiracy?


Hello Teddy – I don’t think I ever made the statement that radioactive dating is “completely unreliable” – it’s not. I did, however say that it is a dating technique based in part on historical science and it *assumes* the amount of parent/daughter elements, the rate of decay, etc have remained uniform over a long period of time. It is dependant on the doctrine of uniformitarianism – a doctrine that is itself unproven. William Stansfield was Emeritus Professor (biology) until the 1990s and I think he makes many good points about the reliability – or more correctly the unreliably of radiometric dating. The professor is hardly a Creationist and I do no think he considered radioactive dating to be “completely unreliable" but he was certainly not afraid to tell the truth.

Do you consider age-dates with errors measured in the “hundreds of millions of years” to be significant? I think his admission that “probably no more than one percent of geological history can be accurately read in rocks” is a significant statement that puts to shame the oversimplifications we have seen on this thread. Those posters who repeatedly (and naively) claim the evidence is “overwhelming” are “true believers” and I sometimes feel they border on clueless.
It is obvious that radiometric methods may not be the reliable dating methods they are often claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum using different methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological clock." ~ William Stansfield-The Science of EvolutionOn a related but different subject do you know anything about SHRIMP? I find it to be a very innovative and cutting edge technology. I would like to hear your professional opinion.

http://www.ga.gov.au/ausgeonews/ausgeonews200603/shrimp.jsp


Do you see it as some conspiracy?


Off-topic but I'll take the bait. I see Darwinism as a worldview whose goal is to eliminate the Christian faith in particular and theism is general. Look at the tactics of the new anti-theists (Dawkins, et al) and compare their tactics with old-school atheists like Antony Flew (recently converted to theism). The Dawkins faction is on a crusade unlike anything seen before and it is no coincidence that these neo atheists come out of atheistic evolutionism. So to answer your question – yes there is a conspiracy led by militant Darwinists who agitate under the pretext of science. They have commandeered evolutionary science as a means to justify their end – the elimination of God from society. Ah, but I digress. ;)
To describe religions as mind viruses is sometimes interpreted as contemptuous or even hostile. It is both. I am often asked why I am so hostile to organized religion...Religion teaches the dangerous nonsense that death is not the end. -- Richard Dawkins, The Devil's Chaplain

Atheist Anti-God Ad Campaign in England
Gil Dodgen

Our good friend Richard Dawkins is on the march once again:

The sides of some of London’s red buses will soon carry ads asserting there is “probably no God,” as nonbelievers fight what they say is the preferential treatment given to religion in British society.

Organizers of a campaign to raise funds for the ads said Wednesday they received more than $113,000 in donations, almost seven times their target, in the hours since they launched the project on a charity Web site. Supporters include Oxford University biologist Richard Dawkins, who donated $9,000.

The money will be used to place posters on 30 buses carrying the slogan “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.” [Says Dawkins]: “This campaign to put alternative slogans on London buses will make people think — and thinking is anathema to religion.”

The religious think tank Theos said it had donated $82 to the campaign, on the grounds that the ads were so bad they would probably attract people to religion. “Stunts like this demonstrate how militant atheists are often great adverts for Christianity.”

http://www.uncommondescent.com/atheism/atheist-anti-god-ad-campaign-in-england/

losthorizon
Apr 28th 2009, 02:50 AM
Stansfield is wrong and extremely outdated. All you're doing is quote mining the conclusions of creationists without engaging any of the numerous problems with their evidence.


But William Stansfield was Emeritus Professor (biology) – he was not a “Creationist” he was a 'mainline' scientist who dared tell the truth. His words are as valid today as they were when originally made and he kept repeating them well into the 1990s – nothing has changed. Move forward and listen to his words – “probably no more than one percent of geological history can be accurately read in rocks.” How much is 1% - not much is it? Is Stansfield a shoddy scienctist becuase he disagrees with your position?


No, there are not. Why is pretty much everyone else wrong and Berthault right?
Now, now – there are many who agree (at lesast in part) and how many scientists agreed with Galileo? Maybe 1% and that’s not many but guess what – Galileo was correct. Listen again to Berthault's words - "The very fact that the remains of hundreds of millions of fossilized creatures were buried in vast quantities of sediment, which has since turned into rock, and that this kind of rock is only made by water, strongly indicates that the catastrophe was a cataclysmic flood, which covered the entire Earth." :)

teddyv
Apr 28th 2009, 04:00 AM
Hello Teddy – I don’t think I ever made the statement that radioactive dating is “completely unreliable” – it’s not. I did, however say that it is a dating technique based in part on historical science and it *assumes* the amount of parent/daughter elements, the rate of decay, etc have remained uniform over a long period of time. It is dependant on the doctrine of uniformitarianism – a doctrine that is itself unproven. William Stansfield was Emeritus Professor (biology) until the 1990s and I think he makes many good points about the reliability – or more correctly the unreliably of radiometric dating. The professor is hardly a Creationist and I do no think he considered radioactive dating to be “completely unreliable" but he was certainly not afraid to tell the truth.

Do you consider age-dates with errors measured in the “hundreds of millions of years” to be significant? I think his admission that “probably no more than one percent of geological history can be accurately read in rocks” is a significant statement that puts to shame the oversimplifications we have seen on this thread. Those posters who repeatedly (and naively) claim the evidence is “overwhelming” are “true believers” and I sometimes feel they border on clueless.

It is obvious that radiometric methods may not be the reliable dating methods they are often claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum using different methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological clock." ~ William Stansfield-The Science of Evolution

Thank you for your response. I am curious why you hang your hat on a quote by a biologist rather than someone who is actually engaged in the area of radiometric dating. I don't know enough about Stansfield to know what expertise he may have in that area, but biology is step removed. Also, I'm sure IL found the date of the Stansfield quote previously (1977) but it is over 30 years since, well, things have moved along since then.

Re: Age date variances of 100's of millions years. Depends on what you are dating. Precambrian rocks? That might not actually be that bad. Phanerozoic? Then you will have problems. Also what are the different techniques that produce this variation. As I've said above, I don't know enough about Stansfield to think he intentionally misrepresenting anything, but it would be nice to know what data he is using to support this conclusion.


On a related but different subject do you know anything about SHRIMP? I find it to be a very innovative and cutting edge technology. I would like to hear your professional opinion.

http://www.ga.gov.au/ausgeonews/ausgeonews200603/shrimp.jsp

I have no personal experience with the use of these devices. I really could not offer a knowledgeable opinion on it other than the method/technology has a proven track record over the past 20+ years.


Off-topic but I'll take the bait. I see Darwinism as a worldview whose goal is to eliminate the Christian faith in particular and theism is general. Look at the tactics of the new anti-theists (Dawkins, et al) and compare their tactics with old-school atheists like Antony Flew (recently converted to theism). The Dawkins faction is on a crusade unlike anything seen before and it is no coincidence that these neo atheists come out of atheistic evolutionism. So to answer your question – yes there is a conspiracy led by militant Darwinists who agitate under the pretext of science. They have commandeered evolutionary science as a means to justify their end – the elimination of God from society. Ah, but I digress. ;)

To describe religions as mind viruses is sometimes interpreted as contemptuous or even hostile. It is both. I am often asked why I am so hostile to organized religion...Religion teaches the dangerous nonsense that death is not the end. -- Richard Dawkins, The Devil's Chaplain

Atheist Anti-God Ad Campaign in England
Gil Dodgen

Our good friend Richard Dawkins is on the march once again:

The sides of some of London’s red buses will soon carry ads asserting there is “probably no God,” as nonbelievers fight what they say is the preferential treatment given to religion in British society.

Organizers of a campaign to raise funds for the ads said Wednesday they received more than $113,000 in donations, almost seven times their target, in the hours since they launched the project on a charity Web site. Supporters include Oxford University biologist Richard Dawkins, who donated $9,000.

The money will be used to place posters on 30 buses carrying the slogan “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.” [Says Dawkins]: “This campaign to put alternative slogans on London buses will make people think — and thinking is anathema to religion.”

The religious think tank Theos said it had donated $82 to the campaign, on the grounds that the ads were so bad they would probably attract people to religion. “Stunts like this demonstrate how militant atheists are often great adverts for Christianity.”

http://www.uncommondescent.com/atheism/atheist-anti-god-ad-campaign-in-england/

This wasn't quite what I was meaning by my question so forgive me for being vague. Regardless it makes an interesting read. My opinion on these hard-core "evolutionary" atheists is that they are really few and have little real impact. The worst (or at least most childish) seem limited to the internet and are probably under 16. I have yet to meet someone like this in the real world.

My question was more in regards to some comments I've seen that suggest us geologists are getting into a backroom somewhere and hashing out the dates so that we create a consistent data that supports our old earth theory.

Itinerant Lurker
Apr 28th 2009, 02:48 PM
But William Stansfield was Emeritus Professor (biology) – he was not a “Creationist” he was a 'mainline' scientist who dared tell the truth. His words are as valid today as they were when originally made and he kept repeating them well into the 1990s – nothing has changed. Move forward and listen to his words – “probably no more than one percent of geological history can be accurately read in rocks.” How much is 1% - not much is it? Is Stansfield a shoddy scienctist becuase he disagrees with your position?


True, Stansfield isn't a creationist but he's still wrong. You quote is also extremely out of date, sorry, 1977 just doesn't cut it. I could probably go back and dig up all kinds of statements from 1977 that are no longer true, and there are many many many easily researched findings that show Stansfield to be wrong. Try to find an updated claim WITH EVIDENCE to back it up to the same effect.



Now, now – there are many who agree (at lesast in part) and how many scientists agreed with Galileo?
Galileo had the benefit of direct observation and a theory that did a better job explaining the data. Berthault has inappropriately applied lab expiriments that don't do anywhere near as good a job explaining geology as modern stratigraphy. That's why he's a fringe figure instead of a scientific celebrity who upended the principles of stratigraphy. Evidence is the trump card, Berthault doesn't have it.

If you disagree you could just answer my question about what part of Berthault's work you find so convincing. Unless, that is, you aren't actually familiar with his evidence and just threw out a quote as an empty argument from authority. If you're going to use authorities as evidence you need to have at least a basic understanding of the evidence behind them.

losthorizon
Apr 29th 2009, 01:30 AM
True, Stansfield isn't a creationist but he's still wrong. You quote is also extremely out of date, sorry, 1977 just doesn't cut it.


But he is not wrong and it does cut it. As an Emeritus Professor in the Biological Sciences (CALPOLY), he has never retracted his statement – it remains as valid today as it was when he made it. You continue to miss the forest for the trees. We are discussing concepts – the concept of radiometric methods is based on the unproven doctrine of uniformitarianism. This is as true today as it was in 1905 when Ernest Rutherford suggested measuring rocks by radioactivity. Listen to Standsfield again…
Q: Are radiometric methods as reliable for dating rocks as they are often claimed to be.

A: "It is obvious that radiometric methods may not be the reliable dating methods they are often claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum using different methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological clock.” ~ William Stansfield

Q: What is one of the main reasons for this unreliability of these methods?

A: "These methods rely heavily on the assumption of uniformitarianism, i.e., natural processes have proceeded at relatively constant rates throughout the earth's history… Furthermore, no single location contains the complete geological record." ~ William Stansfield

Q: What percentage of geological history can be accurately read in rocks?

A: "Probably no more than one percent of geological history can be accurately read in rocks." ~ William Stansfield

losthorizon
Apr 29th 2009, 01:50 AM
I am curious why you hang your hat on a quote by a biologist rather than someone who is actually engaged in the area of radiometric dating. I don't know enough about Stansfield to know what expertise he may have in that area, but biology is step removed. Also, I'm sure IL found the date of the Stansfield quote previously (1977) but it is over 30 years since, well, things have moved along since then.


I don’t hang my hat on Stansfield and actually disagree with some of his writings. In the case of radioactive dating and uniformitarianism we appear to be on the same page even though I held my opinion before I read his work. As an evolutionary scientist I think he has a good understanding of radiometric dating and I consider his opinion a valid opinion. He has moxie for speaking the truth in a Darwinian world where speaking your mind can cost you your career. If you disagree with him then by all means present your position and we can discuss further. As to the fact that his original statement was made in the 1970s – it is a moot point. He has written much since then and has never retracted what he wrote earlier. He is discussing the concept of dating rocks and that concept has not changed.


My question was more in regards to some comments I've seen that suggest us geologists are getting into a backroom somewhere and hashing out the dates so that we create a consistent data that supports our old earth theory.
No Teddy – I don’t recall hearing about geologists in the back room conspiring but if I run across anything I will pass it along. God bless. :)

Itinerant Lurker
Apr 29th 2009, 12:33 PM
But he is not wrong and it does cut it.


Why? I've shown you correlating data on multiple dating methods, I've provided multiple references showing strong correlations between radiometric dating techniques, and I've provided commentaries by actual geologists (not biologists) on some of those dating techniques that describe error bars as being narrowed down to as low as 1% using modern techniques. Most, if not all, of the examples I've used date from after 1977. That's evidence, that's data, all of which you have completely ignored. All you have is quotes, many of which I don't think you really understand because all too often your own sources contradict your claims.

Why is Stansfield so authoritative on this subject? Is it just because these few sentences of his agree with you? What evidence does he present that you find so strong? How does that evidence explain the correlation between radiometric dating and dendrochronology, varves, and ice cores? If Stansfield is correct about radiometric dating why is he not correct about other things? Does he apply a different standard of evidence between them? If so what is this standard?



We are discussing concepts – the concept of radiometric methods is based on the unproven doctrine of uniformitarianism.
You are discussing concepts, I'm showing how your assertions are wrong using evidence concerning specific data. If our assumptions about radiometric dating methods are faulty we shouldn't expect radiometric dates to A) be consistent with each other, or B) be consistent with other dating methods that rely on different mechanisms. On both counts you are completely out of luck as I have repeatedly shown. You can reference post #139 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=2056107&postcount=139) as well as post #144 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=2056327&postcount=144) if you missed this.

teddyv
Apr 29th 2009, 06:44 PM
I don’t hang my hat on Stansfield and actually disagree with some of his writings. In the case of radioactive dating and uniformitarianism we appear to be on the same page even though I held my opinion before I read his work. As an evolutionary scientist I think he has a good understanding of radiometric dating and I consider his opinion a valid opinion. He has moxie for speaking the truth in a Darwinian world where speaking your mind can cost you your career. If you disagree with him then by all means present your position and we can discuss further. As to the fact that his original statement was made in the 1970s – it is a moot point. He has written much since then and has never retracted what he wrote earlier. He is discussing the concept of dating rocks and that concept has not changed.
I don't think he needs to retract anything. His comments are from a while ago. I honestly don't care do a detailed study on his opinions, but the question I have - does he still espouse these opinions today, 30+ years later? Scientists (and anyone else) can be wrong if they don't have all the information. The key is: are they refining their understanding based on new data, or are they dogmatically holding on to outdated data and long-held opinions? In the case of Stansfield, I don't know. Do you?

For example, in my business, we regularly like to define what type of mineral deposit style we are dealing with, because this knowledge helps in the exploration process by suggesting other places to look in order to expand the known resource. On a current project we had a senior geologist convinced that it was a certain type of deposit. He was in the minority opinion, but he backed it up based on his observations and data and made a reasonable case. Further work has now been done and it has leant more weight to the majority opinion as to the deposits nature. Now we don't expect a retraction from that geologist because he did not have access to all the information. At most he'll see the data, realize he was wrong, then we all laugh about it and go for a beer.:)

As IL continues to point out, calibration of radiometric dating continues to improve (and you have even further supported this with you link to the newer SHRIMP II methodology).

losthorizon
Apr 30th 2009, 12:41 AM
I don't think he needs to retract anything. His comments are from a while ago. I honestly don't care do a detailed study on his opinions, but the question I have - does he still espouse these opinions today, 30+ years later? Scientists (and anyone else) can be wrong if they don't have all the information.


I have read some of his work over the years and have never seen a change in his opinion on the unreliability of radioactive dating nor would he have to change it – his criticism for this method of dating rocks is based on the theoretical system behind radiometric dating. As I have mentioned before the theoretical system behind radiometric dating existed before Stansfield's remarks and have not changed to this very day. Nothing has changed “theoretically” in the past 30 years and his words are as true today as when he originally published. The dating system is based on the placement of the *geological column* and this column is simply a mental abstraction found only in textbooks. On top of that the validity of the column is dependant on the validity of the doctrine of uniformitarianism which remains unproven and unprovable. And then on top of those two unproven *assumptions* we have the fallacious circularity that states the age of fossils is determined by the rocks they are embedded in and the age of the rocks is determined by the fossils they contain – this is circular reasoning at its best is it not?

I can present many more witnesses who will agree with Stansfield but it really isn’t necessary – the facts as outlined above remain the facts. The words of Stansfiled remain correct - "It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they claimed to be…There is not absolutely reliable long-term radiological "clock". The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and evolutionist…”
"Are the authorities maintaining, on the one hand, that evolution is documented by geology and, on the other that geology is documented by evolution? Isn’t this a circular argument?" ~ Larry Azar (Bioscience)

"The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning if it insists on using only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales. ~ ~ J.E. O'Rourke

The fact is, the doctrine of uniformitarianism is no more ‘proved’ than some of the early ideas of world-wide cataclysms have been disproved. ~ Edgar B. Heylmun: "Should We Teach Uniformitarianism!"

losthorizon
Apr 30th 2009, 12:53 AM
Why? I've shown you correlating data on multiple dating methods…




Please see my comments to Teddy one post back - and you’re simply back to square-one – your “correlating data on multiple dating methods” is based on the assumption of uniformitarianism – a notion that is unproven and cannot be proven - remember, assumptions are not proofs. Ice core interpretations rely on what? It relies on the assumption of uniformitarianism and is subject to misidentifying the deposit left by large storms, etc that can (and does) easily skew the evidence studied.
‘Fundamentally, in counting any annual marker, we must ask whether it is absolutely unequivocal, or whether non-annual events could mimic or obscure a year. For the visible strata (and, we believe, for any other annual indicator at accumulation rates representative of central Greenland), it is almost certain that variability exists at the sub-seasonal or storm level, at the annual level and for various longer periodicities (2-year, sunspot, etc). We certainly must entertain the possibility of misidentifying the deposit of a large storm or a snow dune as an entire year or missing a weak indication of a summer and thus picking a 2-year interval as 1 year.’ ~ Alley and Koci (Annals of Glaciology)Getting back to the subject of this thread – the age of the earth has absolutely no bearing on the facts of a universal flood that took place less than 12,000 years ago – a fact supported by the historical record (Bible) and historical science as I have presented on this thread.:)

teddyv
Apr 30th 2009, 03:02 PM
I have read some of his work over the years and have never seen a change in his opinion on the unreliability of radioactive dating nor would he have to change it – his criticism for this method of dating rocks is based on the theoretical system behind radiometric dating. As I have mentioned before the theoretical system behind radiometric dating existed before Stansfield's remarks and have not changed to this very day. Nothing has changed “theoretically” in the past 30 years and his words are as true today as when he originally published. The dating system is based on the placement of the *geological column* and this column is simply a mental abstraction found only in textbooks. On top of that the validity of the column is dependant on the validity of the doctrine of uniformitarianism which remains unproven and unprovable. And then on top of those two unproven *assumptions* we have the fallacious circularity that states the age of fossils is determined by the rocks they are embedded in and the age of the rocks is determined by the fossils they contain – this is circular reasoning at its best is it not?

I can present many more witnesses who will agree with Stansfield but it really isn’t necessary – the facts as outlined above remain the facts. The words of Stansfiled remain correct - "It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they claimed to be…There is not absolutely reliable long-term radiological "clock". The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and evolutionist…”

"Are the authorities maintaining, on the one hand, that evolution is documented by geology and, on the other that geology is documented by evolution? Isn’t this a circular argument?" ~ Larry Azar (Bioscience)

"The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning if it insists on using only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales. ~ ~ J.E. O'Rourke

The fact is, the doctrine of uniformitarianism is no more ‘proved’ than some of the early ideas of world-wide cataclysms have been disproved. ~ Edgar B. Heylmun: "Should We Teach Uniformitarianism!"

And around and around and around we go. At this point I see no point in continuing this thread. It's getting meaningless.

losthorizon
Apr 30th 2009, 03:52 PM
And around and around and around we go. At this point I see no point in continuing this thread. It's getting meaningless.
I share your frustration. As I mention about eight posts back – there is no reasoning to keep beating a dead horse. The mental abstraction known as the geological column is founded on the doctrine of uniformitarianism which remains unproven and is not provable. This fact alone renders rock dating an unreliable long-term radiological "clock" and as such…”the uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and evolutionist…” :)

teddyv
Apr 30th 2009, 04:38 PM
I share your frustration. As I mention about eight posts back – there is no reasoning to keep beating a dead horse. The mental abstraction known as the geological column is founded on the doctrine of uniformitarianism which remains unproven and is not provable. This fact alone renders rock dating an unreliable long-term radiological "clock" and as such…”the uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and evolutionist…” :)
If you think that's what my comment is about...:rolleyes:

LostHorizon, I've just come to the point of "what's the point" with you. Itinerant Lurker has repeatedly demonstrated that you regularly are using quote mines which severely hampers your credibility (not specfically the quotes above, but previously). I just don't have the time and patience at this point to starting researching everything on your behalf - that should be your job.

Just trust me that if something comes along in the future that fundamentally shifts our understanding in the nature of radiometric dating, and old earth and universe, I will listen and modify my views based on the best evidence. Until that time...

Cheers.:)

losthorizon
Apr 30th 2009, 11:04 PM
LostHorizon, I've just come to the point of "what's the point" with you. Itinerant Lurker has repeatedly demonstrated that you regularly are using quote mines which severely hampers your credibility (not specfically the quotes above, but previously).


Well Teddy – it’s easy to make wild claims but it is another matter to substantiate those claims. The Lurker does not like my quotes but his weak argument has not provided any evidence that they do not mean exactly what the authors intended them to mean. Maybe you can back up your claim so we can discuss. I think you are incorrect. I have provide quotes from Guy Berthault, William Stansfield, Edgar Heylmun, Larry Azar, J.E. O'Rourke, Steven W. Boyd, Isaac Asimov, Casare Emiliani, John Shaw, Moses and others. Please tell me which quotes are troubling you? Please be specific and we can go into greater detail.

The Canadian scientist, John Shaw found evidence for huge Ice Age floods that sharply raised global sea levels that easily “could have spawned myths of a swamped continent” . Cesare Emiliani (U of Miami) also found evidence of a similar catastrophic flood less than 12,000 years ago that was universal in scope (world-wide) that “rapidly raised sea levels, sparking myths of a great deluge.” Isaac Asimov reviewed the evidence of Shaw and Emiliani and concludes this universal event was – “a vast flood that beggars anything we can imagine.” Moses concurs - a universal flood destroyed all but those in the Ark less than 12,000 years ago. Please tell me what quotes and what evidence “severely hampers my credibility” or are you simply rambling because you have no adequate response to the evidence presented?


I just don't have the time and patience at this point to starting researching everything on your behalf - that should be your job.
But I have never asked you to research anything on “my behalf” – I always do my own research. But you really have added little to the discussion by way of evidence to support your position – a position that you really have not fully defined in detail.


Just trust me that if something comes along in the future that fundamentally shifts our understanding in the nature of radiometric dating, and old earth and universe, I will listen and modify my views based on the best evidence. Until that time...
And conversely if you are ever able to defend your reliance on radioactive dating knowing that it is based on the unproven doctrine of uniformitarianism and circular logic please present your evidence so that I too might become a “true believer”. ;)

Philemon9
May 1st 2009, 04:14 AM
Oh this is a great thread; I want to move to losthorizon's reality.

teddyv
May 1st 2009, 04:20 PM
Well Teddy – it’s easy to make wild claims but it is another matter to substantiate those claims. The Lurker does not like my quotes but his weak argument has not provided any evidence that they do not mean exactly what the authors intended them to mean. Maybe you can back up your claim so we can discuss. I think you are incorrect. I have provide quotes from Guy Berthault, William Stansfield, Edgar Heylmun, Larry Azar, J.E. O'Rourke, Steven W. Boyd, Isaac Asimov, Casare Emiliani, John Shaw, Moses and others. Please tell me which quotes are troubling you? Please be specific and we can go into greater detail.

The Canadian scientist, John Shaw found evidence for huge Ice Age floods that sharply raised global sea levels that easily “could have spawned myths of a swamped continent” . Cesare Emiliani (U of Miami) also found evidence of a similar catastrophic flood less than 12,000 years ago that was universal in scope (world-wide) that “rapidly raised sea levels, sparking myths of a great deluge.” Isaac Asimov reviewed the evidence of Shaw and Emiliani and concludes this universal event was – “a vast flood that beggars anything we can imagine.” Moses concurs - a universal flood destroyed all but those in the Ark less than 12,000 years ago. Please tell me what quotes and what evidence “severely hampers my credibility” or are you simply rambling because you have no adequate response to the evidence presented?


But I have never asked you to research anything on “my behalf” – I always do my own research. But you really have added little to the discussion by way of evidence to support your position – a position that you really have not fully defined in detail.


And conversely if you are ever able to defend your reliance on radioactive dating knowing that it is based on the unproven doctrine of uniformitarianism and circular logic please present your evidence so that I too might become a “true believer”. ;)
I was debating a response to this, but have thought the better of it. The last paragraph really says a lot, especially the "true believer" bit. I've heard that statement before in other contexts and there's no point even carrying on.

Itinerant Lurker
May 1st 2009, 07:37 PM
Ice core interpretations rely on what? It relies on the assumption of uniformitarianism and is subject to misidentifying the deposit left by large storms, etc that can (and does) easily skew the evidence studied.
‘Fundamentally, in counting any annual marker, we must ask whether it is absolutely unequivocal, or whether non-annual events could mimic or obscure a year. For the visible strata (and, we believe, for any other annual indicator at accumulation rates representative of central Greenland), it is almost certain that variability exists at the sub-seasonal or storm level, at the annual level and for various longer periodicities (2-year, sunspot, etc). We certainly must entertain the possibility of misidentifying the deposit of a large storm or a snow dune as an entire year or missing a weak indication of a summer and thus picking a 2-year interval as 1 year.’ ~ Alley and Koci (Annals of Glaciology)
Even if visually counting layers were the only way we calculated ages based on ice cores (it isn't) this still wouldn't really help you. If I grant that every single yearly layer was affected by major storms and/or sunspots so that every single one year interval was, in fact, a two year interval there's still just too many layers. In some cases we get ice cores hundreds of thousands of years thick and there's still ice below it. Slicing that in half still leaves up with simply too much time.

Visual counting of layers isn't the only method we depend on to calculate ice core ages. Dating ice cores isn't very precise, but it does reveal ages that shouldn't exist according to a young earth. In addition to this, they don't reveal any evidence of the catastrophic changes you're talking about within the time frame you require for a global flood. For instance, if there was a flood that actually covered the entire earth to above the tops of all the mountains it would have been big enough to actually pick up the polar ice caps and they pretty much would have floated off and/or melted. Nor would there be a way to regrow the ice in the quanities we see not only because it would take too long but also because the average temperature over the last few thousand years is simply too warm.

Just for kicks, I thought I'd point out that one method they use to date ice cores is oxygen isotope levels. Now, before you start off about uniformitarian assumptions again you might want to reflect on why that term sounds so familiar. Wasn't your evidence for a global flood based on Emiliani's research which used oxygen isotope levels? You didn't seem to have problems with his uniformitarian assumptions when they agreed with you then, why now?

And finally, if you really want to just lob quotes out there and pretend they are fully formed arguments what do we do with these?


"Combined with highly advanced measuring techniques (Fuhrer et al. 1993; Hammer et al. 1985; Röthlisberger et al. 2000) the resolution of the Greenland ice-core records can frequently be finer than a year, and potentially this degree of temporal resolution extends back to before 100 thousand years before present. The records are capable therefore of providing information on longterm (millennial, supra-millennial) and short-term (sub-millennial to annual or seasonal) cycles or trends in the Earth’s past environmental history, as well as on important singular events, such as major volcanic eruptions or particularly pronounced climatic shifts. Furthermore, the age and durations of past environmental events can be estimated by counting of the annual ice increments, by analysing selected constituents combined with visual core stratigraphy (Alley et al. 1993; Hammer et al. in press,1999?; Hammer et al. 1978; Meese et al. 1997). ... In many cases the potential resolution of the records is reduced by diffusional processes in firn and ice, which significantly limits the usefulness of the data. As a compensation, however, such influences can leave an imprint which is detectable in the data, for the effects of diffusion are constrained by ice surface temperature and snow/ice accumulation rate, so that these parameters can be modelled by the application of appropriate calibration techniques (Johnsen et al. 2000)."
http://www.gsf.fi/esf_holivar/johnsen.pdf

"There are a dozen or so important Greenland ice cores, but the latest and greatest are GRIP (Greenland Ice Project) and GISP2 (Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2), which were extracted at the Summit where the ice rarely melts. GRIP was dated by counting back annual layers from the surface to c. 14,500 BP (before the present, dated 1950) using electrical conductivity method (ECM, see below) and the rest of the ice core was dated on the basis of flow modeling and chemical techniques. GISP2 was dated by visually counting annual hoar frost layers back to c. 12,000 BP and from 12,000 to 110,000 BP by visually counting annual dust layers.

Back to 12,000 BP, this counting was validated by a very close agreement of three independent methods of counting the annual layers. From 12,000 BP back to 40,000 BP, the counting was validated by a very close agreement of two independent methods of counting the annual layers, and from 40,000 BP back to 110,000 BP by a close agreement of two independent methods. Also, despite the different methods used for dating GRIP and GISP2, there is "excellent agreement" between them (and with deep sea cores as well); so the cores corroborate each other."


The first way we know the top 12,000 layers are annual is because the snow that falls in the summer in Greenland is affected by the sun (which only shines in the summer) in such a way that its crystals become much more coarsegrained than winter snow.

Another way to distinguish the annual layers is to note the dust concentrations. In the late winter/early spring when the wind is stronger than usual, significantly more dust (insoluble matter of various kinds) is carried in the air—even from the Southern hemisphere and Asia—and is deposited in the layers of snow in Greenland.
The third way annual layers can be distinguished is via the electrical conductivity of the layers.16 In the spring and summer when the sun is shining, nitric acid is produced in the stratosphere and enters the snow, but this does not happen in the winter.17 The acid in the spring/summer layer enables an electrical current to easily flow through that layer, but the relative lack of acid in the winter layer allows much less electricity to flow through that layer. So, as two electrodes mechanically run down the ice core the readout (mm by mm) of the resultant flows of electricity shows the successive years as a series of peaks (summer) and valleys (winter).

It is to a large extent the correlation and corroborating testimony of these three main methods of counting the annual layers in the GISP2 core which guarantees the validity of the ice core dating.22 The three methods have excellent correlation with each other down to 2500 m, that is, back to c. 57,000 BP.23 In the upper 2300 m (down to c. 40,000 BP) the correspondence of the three methods has been called "remarkable."24

In the lower half of GISP2 (1,678 meters to the bottom) where the dust is more concentrated, Ram and Koenig could scatter the laser light directly off the ice without having to melt it—and could do this mechanically one mm at a time—and feed the data directly into a computer. The readout showed the seasonal variations as a series of peaks and valleys. In this way, they were able to date the ice down to 2,849 meters at around 127,600 BP.

At c. 2,464 meters down, their dating of the volcanic ash found there (57,300 ± 1700 BP) agrees very closely with the Z2 layer of volcanic ash found in Atlantic sea cores which is dated 57,500 ± 1300 BP. At 2,808 meters down, their dating was c. 115,000 BP which was in essential agreement with the independent gas-age dating of c. 111,000 BP for that level.15 Although the ice below 2,850 meters may be disturbed, Ram and Koenig continued measuring via LLS both with 1mm and some 0.5 mm steps; and, this yielded an estimated age for the ice at the silty ice boundary of "at least 250,000 BP."
http://www.asa3.org/aSA/PSCF/2003/PSCF12-03Seely.pdf


That pretty much covers the Greenland ice cores, but why stop there? What about Antarctic ice cores?


"A record of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations measured on the EPICA (European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica) Dome Concordia ice core extends the Vostok CO2 record back to 650,000 years before the present (yr B.P.)."
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/310/5752/1313.pdf

"The drilling has been very successful and has been followed by a wide community of ice and climate researchers. The 70 meters of ice drilled this season completes a long venture started in 1996. The core has already led to the release in the scientific journal ’Nature’ last June of a 740,000-year record of Antarctic climate. The new piece of core will extend the record to an age estimated to be more than 900.000 years old. This is the oldest ice that has been recovered from deep ice cores. The basal ice has ice crystals, some bigger than 40 centimetres and we have observed many inclusions of brown/reddish material mainly between the big ice crystals."
http://www.esf.org/activities/research-networking-programmes/life-earth-and-environmental-sciences-lesc/completed-esf-research-networking-programmes-in-life-earth-and-environmental-sciences/european-project-for-ice-coring-in-antarctica-epica-page-1/more-information.html


What reason can you provide for me to discount these quotes in favor of yours? It seems non-sensical that if all dating methods are based on erroneous assumptions they should consistently arrive at correlating results. What evidence are you bringing to the table to show that these assumptions are actually wrong? How do you explain these multiple correlations? If you throw out a quote again please explain why anyone should take your quote as more authoritative than any others.

losthorizon
May 2nd 2009, 02:13 AM
I was debating a response to this, but have thought the better of it. The last paragraph really says a lot, especially the "true believer" bit. I've heard that statement before in other contexts and there's no point even carrying on.
Sorry to hear you are withdrawing from the thread, Teddy. I was hoping you could explain your position a little better and also show me where my evidence is flawed in your mind. Regarding the “true believer” remark – it wasn’t meant to be condescension. I use the term like your reference to the colleague who believed in Sasquatch. Your friend was intelligent and was a competent scientist – he simply wanted to believe in Big Foot so much that to him this mythical beast became reality. This is what we see on this thread. We have posters who wish upon a lucky star that Darwinian science will become true. They believe in it so much that everything they see becomes “overwhelming evidence” but in reality the evidence they provide is mediocre at best. Darwinian evolution – like Sasquatch - remains elusive and unproven and in the case of Darwinism it is unprovable. Keep in touch. :)

Philemon9
May 2nd 2009, 02:50 AM
This is what we see on this thread. We have posters who wish upon a lucky star that Darwinian science will become true. They believe in it so much that everything they see becomes “overwhelming evidence” but in reality the evidence they provide is mediocre at best. Darwinian evolution – like Sasquatch - remains elusive and unproven and in the case of Darwinism it is unprovable. Keep in touch. :)

I'm pretty sure you have to tap your ruby slippers 3 times for this to come true.

losthorizon
May 2nd 2009, 03:07 AM
Visual counting of layers isn't the only method we depend on to calculate ice core ages. Dating ice cores isn't very precise, but it does reveal ages that shouldn't exist according to a young earth.


But you are simply erecting a straw man – no one is arguing for a “young earth”. The age of the earth has no bearing on the fact that rock-dating is based on circularity and assumptions. It is only assumed that uniformitarianism is correct but that doctrine remains unproven. The fact that a universal flood took place less than 12,000 years ago remains true according to the historical scientific evidence presented on this thread – evidence you have already agreed exists.


It seems non-sensical that if all dating methods are based on erroneous assumptions they should consistently arrive at correlating results.
Who said “all dating methods are based on erroneous assumptions”. I only said all dating methods rely heavily *on the assumption of uniformitarianism* and the doctrine of uniformitarianism remains *unproven*. Remember – assumptions are not proof. Once again – I must agree with the evolutionist, William Stansfield - "It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be…there is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological 'clock'." The truth may be that the "atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster" (eg, the world-wide Flood of Genesis). ;)
"The age of our globe is presently thought to be some 4.5 billion years, based on radio-decay rates of uranium and thorium. Such 'confirmation' may be shortlived, as nature is not to be discovered quite so easily. There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radio-decay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences. And this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic to a close may not be 65 million years ago, but rather, within the age and memory of man.” ~ Frederick Jueneman (Evolutionist )Some global disaster that brought the Mesozoic to a close may not be 65 million years ago, but rather, within the age and memory of man. :hmm:

losthorizon
May 2nd 2009, 03:17 AM
I'm pretty sure you have to tap your ruby slippers 3 times for this to come true.
Are you playing the part of the straw man in this production - you do an awful lot of talking without saying much? What was it Scarecrow needed from the wizard? :)
Scarecrow: I haven't got a brain... only straw.
Dorothy: How can you talk if you haven't got a brain?
Scarecrow: I don't know... But some people without brains do an awful lot of talking... don't they?
Dorothy: Yes, I guess you're right.

Itinerant Lurker
May 2nd 2009, 03:55 AM
But you are simply erecting a straw man – no one is arguing for a “young earth”. The age of the earth has no bearing on the fact that rock-dating is based on circularity and assumptions. It is only assumed that uniformitarianism is correct but that doctrine remains unproven. The fact that a universal flood took place less than 12,000 years ago remains true according to the historical scientific evidence presented on this thread – evidence you have already agreed exists.


Actually it has quite a bit of bearing on a global flood model. You haven't addressed the fact that scientists use oxygen isotope levels to date ice cores and, the same oxygen isotope levels that you used earlier to support a global flood. The problem for you is that these results show a continuous layering of ice that extends hundreds of thousands of years into the past. This simply shouldn't happen if there was a global flood, in fact the ice caps probably shouldn't even be there if there was a global flood as they would have been picked up by the rising waters and dropped off somewhere else. . .unless you're saying that they dropped back down in exactly the same places. Additionally, there's no way that they simply began after the flood and layered themselves up to their present levels in the last few thousand years because one, that's not enough time to do that, and two, the mean temperature of the earth hasn't been cold enough for them to form.

These results confirm Emiliani's findings that you consistently omit to mention: that the rise in sea levels recorded in his analysis of oxygen isotope levels trapped in shells in the Gulf of Mexico from around 12,000 years ago correspond with melting ice sheets and managed to bring global sea levels up to 40 meters below current levels. You have yet to explain how a flood that raised water 131 feet below today's sea levels managed to engulf the entire earth.




"The age of our globe is presently thought to be some 4.5 billion years, based on radio-decay rates of uranium and thorium. Such 'confirmation' may be shortlived, as nature is not to be discovered quite so easily. There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radio-decay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences. And this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic to a close may not be 65 million years ago, but rather, within the age and memory of man.” ~ Frederick Jueneman (Evolutionist )Some global disaster that brought the Mesozoic to a close may not be 65 million years ago, but rather, within the age and memory of man. :hmm:

Really? You're going to hang your hat on Jueneman? Do you have any idea who this guy is? Are you aware that this "analytical chemist" is a devote follower of Velikovsky? Now, don't get me wrong, Velikovsky's phantom time hypothesis is the most entertaining conspiracy theory of all time, but anyone who takes this guy seriously on anything is pretty much completely unreliable.

And no matter how many times you throw it out there, your Stansfield quote is still dated from 1977. . .that's the same year the original Star Wars came out. Is it possible more research has been done in the field since then?

losthorizon
May 2nd 2009, 01:10 PM
Actually it has quite a bit of bearing on a global flood model. You haven't addressed the fact that scientists use oxygen isotope levels to date ice cores and, the same oxygen isotope levels that you used earlier to support a global flood. The problem for you is that these results show a continuous layering of ice that extends hundreds of thousands of years into the past. This simply shouldn't happen if there was a global flood, in fact the ice caps probably shouldn't even be there if there was a global flood as they would have been picked up by the rising waters and dropped off somewhere else. . .unless you're saying that they dropped back down in exactly the same places. Additionally, there's no way that they simply began after the flood and layered themselves up to their present levels in the last few thousand years because one, that's not enough time to do that, and two, the mean temperature of the earth hasn't been cold enough for them to form.

These results confirm Emiliani's findings that you consistently omit to mention: that the rise in sea levels recorded in his analysis of oxygen isotope levels trapped in shells in the Gulf of Mexico from around 12,000 years ago correspond with melting ice sheets and managed to bring global sea levels up to 40 meters below current levels.

But your ‘logic’ is self-contradictory – you say the oxygen isotope levels do not support a global flood and then turn around and admit that Emiliani's analysis of the oxygen isotope levels trapped in shells in the Gulf of Mexico (12,000 years ago) support his claim of a global deluge. You fail to grasp what Emiliani's research discovered – a global flood of the catastrophic kind based in part on oxygen isotope levels. You continue to confuse yourself, Lurk. What's with that? ;)


You have yet to explain how a flood that raised water 131 feet below today's sea levels managed to engulf the entire earth.
But I have explained – if the oceans were less deep pre-Flood – if the land mass was smaller pre-Flood – if the mountains were less high pre-Flood - if the atomic clocks are reset during a global disaster on the magnitude of a flood that was capable of destroying all human life save those on the Ark, etc, etc.


Really? You're going to hang your hat on Jueneman? Do you have any idea who this guy is? Are you aware that this "analytical chemist" is a devote follower of Velikovsky? Now, don't get me wrong, Velikovsky's phantom time hypothesis is the most entertaining conspiracy theory of all time, but anyone who takes this guy seriously on anything is pretty much completely unreliable.
Again – you cannot refute so you simply throw out yet another argumentum ad hominem (argument against the man) just as you did when I presented Guy Berthault’s conclusion that the remains of hundreds of millions of fossilized creatures “were buried in vast quantities of sediment, which has since turned into rock, and that this kind of rock is only made by water, strongly indicates that the catastrophe was a cataclysmic flood, which covered the entire Earth." Is Jueneman a 'shoddy scientist'? I have presented information from Jueneman, Berthault, William Stansfield, Edgar Heylmun, Larry Azar, J.E. O'Rourke, Steven W. Boyd, Isaac Asimov, Casare Emiliani, John Shaw and others and you have not refuted any of their work – all you can do is imply they are all shoddy scientists. It’s kind of funny and sad at the same time. Is your worldview so fragile that you allow no dissent?


And no matter how many times you throw it out there, your Stansfield quote is still dated from 1977. . .that's the same year the original Star Wars came out. Is it possible more research has been done in the field since then?
It would not matter if he made the statement in 1927 – his words still hold true - the theoretical system behind radiometric dating is the same today as when he made the remarks. Nothing has changed “theoretically” in the past 30 years and the *dating game* is based on the placement of the *geological column* that is simply a mental abstraction found only in textbooks. The validity of the column is dependant on the validity of the doctrine of uniformitarianism which remains unproven and unprovable and these two unproven *assumptions* rest on the fallacious circularity that states the age of fossils is determined by the rocks they are embedded in and the age of the rocks is determined by the fossils they contain – circular reasoning at its best. You have never addressed these glaring inconsistencies based on assumptions. Why can’t you overcome this dilemma?
"Science has sometimes been said to be opposed to faith and inconsistent with it. But all science in fact rests on a basis of faith, for it assumes the permanence and uniformity of natural laws.” ~ Oliver Wendell Holmes

fishbowlsoul
May 3rd 2009, 03:44 AM
But I have explained – if the oceans were less deep pre-Flood – if the land mass was smaller pre-Flood – if the mountains were less high pre-Flood - if the atomic clocks are reset during a global disaster on the magnitude of a flood that was capable of destroying all human life save those on the Ark, etc, etc.


Quite a few "if" statements there losthorizon. To make your Global Flood hypothesis work, you need these "if" statements to be true. Do you have cites/evidence that the oceans were less deep, the land mass was smaller, etc.?

I understand you have a compulsion to quote mine from scientists whose whole work actually refutes your position so can you come up with something different this time. Thanks.

losthorizon
May 3rd 2009, 12:36 PM
Quite a few "if" statements there losthorizon. To make your Global Flood hypothesis work, you need these "if" statements to be true. Do you have cites/evidence that the oceans were less deep, the land mass was smaller, etc.?


Hey Fish – are you back in the dating game? Yes, that is a lot of ‘ifs’ isn’t it? But that’s the way the historical science of origins works – there were no scientists there to record land mass vs. ocean depths and what historical evidence we do have will be interpreted based on our presupposed philosophical point of view which assumes a lot of “ifs”. Now if I am a Darwinist I will presuppose great ages because theropods cannot conceivable morph into parrots in a few thousand years (in fact they wouldn't be able to evolve into birds in a gazillion years - right?). Now here’s the deal, Fish - you provide ‘proofs’ that the doctrine of uniformitarianism is ‘true’; you provide ‘proof’ that dinos evolved into birds by dumb luck; and you provide proof that goo slithered out of some primordial mud-puddle and became you and me and I will support my ‘ifs’. Remember, Lurker spend 12 pages trying to convince me that theropods evolved into birds and he couldn’t even provide proof that one theropod sprouted one feather.


I understand you have a compulsion to quote mine from scientists whose whole work actually refutes your position so can you come up with something different this time. Thanks.
But O’Rourke supports my position that “the rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks” (good old circularity) as does Larry Azar in Bioscience. And Stansfield agrees with my position that radioactive dating is unproven, based on *assumptions* and its reliability is questionable at best. And John Shaw, Cesare Emiliani and Isaac Asimov all agree with Moses (and my position) that there was a world-wide flood less than 12,000 years ago that “could have spawned myths of a swamped continent”; that “rapidly raised sea levels, sparking myths of a great deluge’; and was so vast that it “beggars anything we can imagine.” What part of their quotes refutes my position – exactly? Be specific so we can discuss or do you make that accusation out of frustration? Do you believe there was a world-wide flood recorded in the Bible less than 12,000 years ago? Do you agree with the scientists quoted above that there was a "universal" flood that happened less than 12,000 years ago? Thanks in advance for your forthcoming and specific answers and the many 'proofs' you will provide for our review. :)

Itinerant Lurker
May 3rd 2009, 08:28 PM
But your ‘logic’ is self-contradictory – you say the oxygen isotope levels do not support a global flood and then turn around and admit that Emiliani's analysis of the oxygen isotope levels trapped in shells in the Gulf of Mexico (12,000 years ago) support his claim of a global deluge. You fail to grasp what Emiliani's research discovered – a global flood of the catastrophic kind based in part on oxygen isotope levels. You continue to confuse yourself, Lurk. What's with that? ;)


When I refer to a "global flood" I'm referring to your view, which is that there was a global flood that actually covered the entire earth. This is distinct from the global flooding effect mentioned by Shaw and Emiliani which caused global sea levels to rise to 40 meters below current levels. I spelled it out a little clearer back in post #161 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=2061286&postcount=161),



Dating ice cores isn't very precise, but it does reveal ages that shouldn't exist according to a young earth. In addition to this, they don't reveal any evidence of the catastrophic changes you're talking about within the time frame you require for a global flood. For instance, if there was a flood that actually covered the entire earth to above the tops of all the mountains it would have been big enough to actually pick up the polar ice caps and they pretty much would have floated off and/or melted. Nor would there be a way to regrow the ice in the quanities we see not only because it would take too long but also because the average temperature over the last few thousand years is simply too warm.


And since you never really addressed it I didn't think that I needed to spell out the differences between what you're claiming and what the research you're using supports every single time. Apparently that was a bad assumption.



But I have explained – if the oceans were less deep pre-Flood – if the land mass was smaller pre-Flood – if the mountains were less high pre-Flood - if the atomic clocks are reset during a global disaster on the magnitude of a flood that was capable of destroying all human life save those on the Ark, etc, etc.
Yes, you've thrown out a lot of physically impossible scenarios that have then been completely blown away.



Again – you cannot refute so you simply throw out yet another argumentum ad hominem (argument against the man)
Cannot refute what? You posted a conclusion with no evidence, personally I think it's because you have no idea what evidence this guy was even using, just like I don't think you actually know who Velikovsky is and why anyone crazy enough to buy into his theories effectively sells their credibility down the river. Quotes are useless without evidence, try finding some FIRST! If you were arguing with a non-Christian using these kinds of arguments would be ridiculous and would make you and your religion look like it had no clue about even the most basic understanding of the physical world.



just as you did when I presented Guy Berthault’s conclusion that the remains of hundreds of millions of fossilized creatures “were buried in vast quantities of sediment, which has since turned into rock, and that this kind of rock is only made by water, strongly indicates that the catastrophe was a cataclysmic flood, which covered the entire Earth." Is Jueneman a 'shoddy scientist'?
Here's my post on why I think Berthault's "research" is unreliable from post #139 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=2056107&postcount=139),



Is virtually every other geologist in the world wrong because they disagree with yours? What part of Berhault's work do you find especially strong so as to ignore virtually all other geologists and hold up Berthault as alone authoritative?

I have numerous problems with Berhault's work, namley becuase he didn't really do any new experiments or present any data less than 15 years old. Addtionally, Berthault sets out to upend the principles of stratiography not by challenging modern understandings of the field but by attacking how these principles were originally described over three hundred years ago in Nicholas Steno's 1669 work, De Solido Intra Solidium Naturaliter Contento Dissertationis Prodromus.

Pretty much all of his research consists of studying how sediment can be laid down using flumes, basically artificial channels used to study how water transports and deposits sediment. He appears to have managed to figure out how to get sediment to layer up quickly and then jumped straight from there to claiming that because sediment can do this in a controlled little tank it can do it within a world wide catastrophic flood ignoring all the contradictory variables that would necessarily be introduced. He's literally making the leap from a few inches in a laboratory to a few miles in the real world. Berthault hasn't been able to get any of his YEC flood model geology papers published in anything but out of the way foreign journals and has largely been ignored by mainstream geology since the early 1990's. I would highly recommend not using him as a reference in a debate.


Feel free to point out where that ad hominum is any time.

losthorizon
May 4th 2009, 03:28 AM
When I refer to a "global flood" I'm referring to your view, which is that there was a global flood that actually covered the entire earth. This is distinct from the global flooding effect mentioned by Shaw and Emiliani which caused global sea levels to rise to 40 meters below current levels.


When I speak of a global flood less than 12,000 years ago I include the same adjectives as Emiliani, Shaw and Asimov (adjectives you dislike) – “swamped continents”, “rapidly raised sea levels, sparking myths of a great deluge” and a flood “so vast it beggars anything we can imagine.” You really need to move forward.


Cannot refute what?


You cannot refute the fact that there was a global flood so vast that it defies anything we can imagine; the fact that the doctrine of uniformitarianism is unproven and based on assumptions - assumptions are not proofs; and the fact that radiometric dating is only as reliable as the circular reasoning and the assumption of uniformitarianism that it is based upon. You have failed for the third time to address these inconsistencies with your weak position.


Here's my post on why I think Berthault's "research" is unreliable from post #139,
But your post 139 as it pertains to Berthault is simply prattle that disproves nothing. His research still stands without refutation –
“the remains of hundreds of millions of fossilized creatures were buried in vast quantities of sediment, which has since turned into rock, and that this kind of rock is only made by water, strongly indicates that the catastrophe was a cataclysmic flood, which covered the entire Earth." ~ Guy BerthaultYou do not like his conclusions because it disputes your dogma and you label any scientist who disagrees with you a shoddy researcher. Sad but true. Again I ask – is your worldview so fragile that it cannot tolerate dissent? Do you really know how science works? I think not.

Itinerant Lurker
May 4th 2009, 03:50 AM
When I speak of a global flood less than 12,000 years ago I include the same adjectives as Emiliani, Shaw and Asimov (adjectives you dislike) – “swamped continents”, “rapidly raised sea levels, sparking myths of a great deluge” and a flood “so vast it beggars anything we can imagine.” You really need to move forward.


You use their adjectives, not their data because that data has been shown time and time again to not support your claims. I've pointed this out so many times it's hard to keep track of, in this thread alone we've covered this same information in post #28 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=2041051&postcount=28), post #30 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=2041849&postcount=30), post #34 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=2043142&postcount=34), post #36 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=2043420&postcount=36), and many many times besides.



You cannot refute the fact that there was a global flood so vast that it defies anything we can imagine;
Why would I need to refute that? We're not talking about a really big flood, we disagree on a really big flood that actually covered the entire earth.



the fact that the doctrine of uniformitarianism is unproven and based on assumptions
True, there are assumptions made here. . .but we can test the validity of those assumptions by seeing how well the predictions a theory makes are supported by evidence. When these predictions are consistently met using a wide range of testing tools that rely on different mechanisms the dependability of those assumptions grows exponentially. This is very much the case with the view that the earth is billions of years old and that it's history is composed of long periods of gradual change punctuated by short periods of catastrophic changes. This is the modern understanding of earth's very long and complicated history, this is the understanding that is supported by evidence, this is the understanding that you haven't actually engaged.



But your post 139 as it pertains to Berthault is simply prattle that disproves nothing. His research still stands without refutation –
You have no idea what Berthault's research actually is, all you have are quote mines. I addressed two key points on which I think Berthault fails; he addresses outdated definitions of stratigraphy and he uses insufficiently complex laboratory experiments to support his claims. Go actually read up on your sources actual research and get back to me about what specific part of my post was "prattle". While you're at it you could keep looking for that ad hominem you mentioned, I'm real anxious to see it.



and you label any scientist who disagrees with you a shoddy researcher.
I think you're getting mixed up. You consistently ask me this question, don't mistake your questions for my statements. Again, if you're going to quote me please do so accurately.

losthorizon
May 5th 2009, 02:09 AM
You use their adjectives, not their data because that data has been shown time and time again to not support your claims.


But my *claims* are simply their adjectives based on their data. Emiliani, Shaw and Asimov – all agree that less than 12,000 years ago there was a *universal flood* and this universal flood was such a catastrophic event that it can only be described as a flood that – “swamped continents” - “rapidly raised sea levels, sparking myths of a great deluge” - and a flood “so vast it beggars anything we can imagine.” I concur with *their description* of *their own data*. Where am I going wrong? In your small world is it not acceptable to use the adjectives of scientists in reference to their own work?

Moses records (straight from the mind of God) a cataclysmic universal flood that – “swamped continents” - “rapidly raised sea levels, sparking myths of a great deluge” and it was a flood “so vast it beggars anything we can imagine.” Tell me again where I am wrong. As a Christian am I not allowed to take Moses at his word? You appear to be a very rigid person – yes?
“There is no evidence based solely on solar observations that the Sun is 4.5 to 5 billion years old…I suspect that the Sun is 4.5 billion years old. However, given some new and unexpected results to the contrary, and some time for frantic recalculation and theoretical readjustment, I suspect that we could live with Bishop Ussher’s value for the age of the Earth and Sun [4004 B.C.]. I don’t think we have much in the way of observational evidence in astronomy to conflict with that.” ~ John Eddy (Solar Astronomer)
True, there are assumptions made here. . .but we can test the validity of those assumptions by seeing how well the predictions a theory makes are supported by evidence. Very good, Lurk – we are finally moving forward with your admission that the doctrine of uniformitarianism is based on assumptions and I would remind you that the “testing of the validity” of uniformitarianism is based on (1) the *assumption* the earth is billions of years old and (2) The circularity (circulus in probando) that states "The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks”. Again – you must realize that assumptions do not prove anything and circularity is fallacious reasoning at its best. If we remove your assumptions and if we remove your circularity your argument is left impotent. ‘There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological 'clock' - ’
The radioisotope methods, long touted as irrefutably dating the earth as countless millions of years old, have repeatedly failed to give reliable and meaningful absolute ages for Grand Canyon rocks. Irreconcilable disagreement within, and between, the methods is the norm, even at outcrop scale. In fact, when carefully examined, this radioisotopic evidence is consistent with the view that these rocks are young. ~ Andrew Snelling, Ph.D. Geology

"It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological 'clock'… Probably no more than one percent of geological history can be accurately read in rocks. ~ William Stansfield (Evolutionist, Cal Poly)

You have no idea what Berthault's research actually is, all you have are quote mines. I addressed two key points on which I think Berthault fails; he addresses outdated definitions of stratigraphy and he uses insufficiently complex laboratory experiments to support his claims. Go actually read up on your sources actual research and get back to me about what specific part of my post was "prattle".
Actually, I think it is you who has confused yourself with Berthault’s work. He is not a shoddy scientist as you suggest – he has confidence in his data and you have provided nothing to refute his interpretation except meaningless prattle and prattle disproves nothing.


While you're at it you could keep looking for that ad hominem you mentioned, I'm real anxious to see it.
You can start by going back and reviewing your post where you “attacked the man” in the person of Frederick Jueneman as you tried to discredit his work because he is a “devote follower of Velikovsky”. Regardless of any professional relationship with Velikovsky his work remains valid and unrefuted by you. You do understand what constitutes an ad hominem – right? You also attacked William Stansfield as a lowly "Creationist" until I pointed out your obvious gaffe. IMO those who must resort to these type of tactics reflect poorly on the scientific community. This is really not how we operate in real-world science but you already know that. ;)

Philemon9
May 5th 2009, 03:42 AM
Simply stunning. I honestly can't tell if you're serious.

losthorizon
May 5th 2009, 04:27 AM
Simply stunning. I honestly can't tell if you're serious.
Phile – I think your inquiry deserves an answer – do a little research on “D-APE” (Darwinian Aptitude Placement Evaluation). That is how serious we are. Sorry for the parenthesis.

Itinerant Lurker
May 5th 2009, 06:25 AM
But my *claims* are simply their adjectives based on their data. Emiliani, Shaw and Asimov – all agree that less than 12,000 years ago there was a *universal flood* and this universal flood was such a catastrophic event that it can only be described as a flood that – “swamped continents” - “rapidly raised sea levels, sparking myths of a great deluge” - and a flood “so vast it beggars anything we can imagine.” I concur with *their description* of *their own data*. Where am I going wrong? In your small world is it not acceptable to use the adjectives of scientists in reference to their own work?


In my "small" world it's dishonest to use a scientist's adjectives instead of their data to support a conclusion their research does not actually support. You consistently, and by "consistently" I mean every single time, fail to mention that Emiliani is talking about global sea levels rising to 40 meters below current levels, that even the greatest of Shaw's still very theoretical melt water dam floods would have raised sea levels by all of 23 centimeters, and that Asimov is just describing how these floods would appear at a local level.



“There is no evidence based solely on solar observations that the Sun is 4.5 to 5 billion years old…I suspect that the Sun is 4.5 billion years old. However, given some new and unexpected results to the contrary, and some time for frantic recalculation and theoretical readjustment, I suspect that we could live with Bishop Ussher’s value for the age of the Earth and Sun [4004 B.C.]. I don’t think we have much in the way of observational evidence in astronomy to conflict with that.” ~ John Eddy (Solar Astronomer)I already explained how Eddy is wrong back in the now closed "Dinosaur" thread, post #149 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=2011220&postcount=149).



The sun is powered by nuclear fusion which takes place at it's core, which looks something like this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/Sun_parts_big.jpg

This process produces photons which, in order to be seen as light, need to make their way out of the core of the sun to the surface before they can begin their 8 minute journey from the sun's surface to your eyes on earth.

"The core is the only location in the Sun that produces an appreciable amount of heat via fusion: the rest of the star is heated by energy that is transferred outward from the core. All of the energy produced by fusion in the core must travel through many successive layers to the solar photosphere before it escapes into space as sunlight or kinetic energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy) of particles."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#Core

However, these photons can't just travel in a straight line from the sun's core to it's surface because there's a lot of "stuff" in the way. Photons travel at around 300,000 kilometers a second but when they run into another charged particle they are absorbed and re-emitted in another direction. Because the sun is huge and it's core is really dense any given photon is going to be re-emitted in all directions many many many times before it finally makes a break for the surface. Think of it kind of like a giant pinball game where the table is tilted so that the ball has to roll UPHILL in order to escape.

http://sunearthday.nasa.gov/2007/images/tttart_007a.jpg

Estimates on the distance between charged particles in the sun vary from .01 cm in the core to about .3 cm at the surface so estimates on photon transit time vary widely however even the most gracious estimates top out at around 10,000 years which is too old for YEC.
http://sunearthday.nasa.gov/2007/loc...t_sunlight.php (http://sunearthday.nasa.gov/2007/locations/ttt_sunlight.php)

Now, to be sure, this argument shows that sunlight is too old for a YEC framework and doesn't directly speak to the age of the actual sun beyond the obvious implication that it's gotta be older than 10,000 years. To calculate the age of the sun involves using other techniques,

"The Sun's current main sequence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_sequence) age, determined using computer models (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_simulation)stellar evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_evolution) and nucleocosmochronology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleocosmochronology), is thought to be about 4.57 billion years."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#Life_cycle

and lines up nicely with radiometric dating of asteroids and comets thought to have been formed at roughly the same time.





Very good, Lurk – we are finally moving forward with your admission that the doctrine of uniformitarianism is based on assumptions
Not actually what I said, read it again.



and I would remind you that the “testing of the validity” of uniformitarianism is based on (1) the *assumption* the earth is billions of years old
Nope, wrong again.



and (2) The circularity (circulus in probando) that states "The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks”.
And wrong again. TeddyV explained this in painstakingly clear terms earlier.



Actually, I think it is you who has confused yourself with Berthault’s work. He is not a shoddy scientist as you suggest – he has confidence in his data and you have provided nothing to refute his interpretation except meaningless prattle and prattle disproves nothing.
What is Berthault's data? Why is it so strong?



You can start by going back and reviewing your post where you “attacked the man” in the person of Frederick Jueneman
What is Jueneman's data? Why is it so strong?

Resist!
May 5th 2009, 10:52 AM
I do value scientific research, really.
I am a little confused though, regarding the idea of a flood on a less than global scale.
Genesis 7:19 (in the translation that I am reading) reads:
"They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered."
I understand "the entire heavens" to mean worldwide.

then in verse 21:
"Every living thing that moved on the earth perished - birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind."
that seems to me, everything not on the ark died.
If not the flood, what extinguished life outside of the affected areas?

I apologize if this was covered already, please direct me to the post if I missed it.

Itinerant Lurker
May 5th 2009, 09:48 PM
I do value scientific research, really.
I am a little confused though, regarding the idea of a flood on a less than global scale.
Genesis 7:19 (in the translation that I am reading) reads:
"They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered."
I understand "the entire heavens" to mean worldwide.

then in verse 21:
"Every living thing that moved on the earth perished - birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind."
that seems to me, everything not on the ark died.
If not the flood, what extinguished life outside of the affected areas?

I apologize if this was covered already, please direct me to the post if I missed it.

I'm basically saying that this account was written from a local perspective an recounts a local flood. The problem with a global flood story is that a global flood would leave evidence that we would be able to observe, but what we do observe doesn't fit. Not only does a global flood that covered the tops of the mountains require supernatural intervention at every point from keeping the ark afloat, to keeping Noah from drowning in animal waste, to flooding the whole earth, it also requires supernatural intervention to then cover up any evidence of it every happening and replacing it which evidence of a very long history of glacial cycles stretching back millions of years.

Resist!
May 5th 2009, 10:32 PM
I'm basically saying that this account was written from a local perspective an recounts a local flood. The problem with a global flood story is that a global flood would leave evidence that we would be able to observe, but what we do observe doesn't fit. Not only does a global flood that covered the tops of the mountains require supernatural intervention at every point from keeping the ark afloat, to keeping Noah from drowning in animal waste, to flooding the whole earth, it also requires supernatural intervention to then cover up any evidence of it every happening and replacing it which evidence of a very long history of glacial cycles stretching back millions of years.


(please read this in the non-argumentative tone I am writing it, sometimes it comes across like I'm being a jerk, but I promise I'm not:D)

I see where you are coming from.

Is there a translation of the Bible that supports the idea of a local flood?
(I'm serious, I don't know.)
I believe that the Bible is the inspired, infallible Word of God, and from the translations I have read it seems like the Word indicates global catastrophe.

To me, the idea of an inaccurate account of an event in the Bible would make the entire Bible subject to suspicion.
I take God at His Word, He inspired man to write - and what is inspired by the Holy Spirit must be truth, for it is against the very nature of God to state falsehoods.
Man's inability to prove the works of The Lord doesn't really concern me too much, the ways of The Lord are above the understanding of mankind.

I would be interested to hear your takes on the miracles of Jesus if you have the time.

again, please don't read this as an attack or insult, I am here to discuss topics like these as your friend :hug:

losthorizon
May 6th 2009, 02:12 AM
In my "small" world it's dishonest to use a scientist's adjectives instead of their data to support a conclusion their research does not actually support.


But your thinking remains confused – the adjectives of these scientists descries exactly what their data reveals – there is no dishonesty. When Emiliani describes a flood that could have sparked myths of the great deluge it is not me putting words into his mouth – this is his own words and means exactly what he says it means - his data supports his conclusion of a “great deluge” world-wide in scope .


I already explained how Eddy is wrong back in the now closed "Dinosaur" thread.
No – the truth is you have never proven Eddy’s statement wrong because it is not wrong – there is no evidence based solely on solar observations that proves the Sun is 4.5 billion years old. That date is reached by assumptions based on circularity and assumptions based on circular reasoning prove nothing.


Not actually what I said, read it again.
Are you trying to say the doctrine of uniformitarianism is not based on assumptions? Be careful how you answer this question.


Nope, wrong again.
Are you saying the notion the earth is billions of years old is not based on assumptions? Please tell me more but keep in mind – “There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological 'clock'.” Why is this – because it “is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be.” (Stansfield)


And wrong again. TeddyV explained this in painstakingly clear terms earlier.
Of course you are mistaken but I will be happy to examine what Teddy presented if you want to point out where you think he explained away the circularity involved in rock-dating. To misunderstand this obvious circularity is to misunderstand much.
The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning if it insists on using only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales. ~ ~ J.E. O'Rourke

What is Berthault's data? Why is it so strong?
You will have to ask Berthault why he feels his data is strong enough to support his claims but he does. He appears to base his assumptions on the thickness of the laminae which can form under rapid water deposition (eg, a cataclysmic flood). I think the question that continues to beg is why is his data wrong if it is in fact wrong as you suggest? You have never refuted his assumptions with your own evidence. Give it a whirl.


What is Jueneman's data? Why is it so strong?
Ditto above. The onus is on you to explain why he is wrong if you feel he is wrong (and you do).

Btw – you pressed me to provide examples of your ad hominem fallacy and I provided a couple but you didn’t comment. Do you admit “attacking the man” or are you still confused as to what constitutes an ad hominem?


I'm basically saying that this account was written from a local perspective an recounts a local flood. The problem with a global flood story is that a global flood would leave evidence that we would be able to observe, but what we do observe doesn't fit.
Are you saying it is scientifically impossible for one to read the historical narrative of Genesis as literal? Is a world-wide flood impossible – scientifically (see Emiliani's "global flood")? Is it not possible for the sedimentary rock strata formed during the Flood by cataclysmic volcanic/tectonic activity (“the breaking up of the fountains of the deep”) to be what we see today? If not, why not? Remember we are just now finding evidence that large volumes of water deep inside the Earth could easily fill the earth's oceans 10 times over. Where did all that water come from and what was it’s original use by God - a global flood maybe? Do you think science understands "the breaking up of the fountains of the deep"?
"And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered." (Genesis 7:19-20)

Deep waters
New Scientist/30 August 1997

DEEP inside the Earth, the pressure is excruciating. Squeezed into strange shapes and forms, the rocks are so hot that they crawl like super-thick treacle. It is an inferno worthy of Dante, but it also contains something surprising. What's the last thing you would expect to find in this hellish environment? Water. Vast amounts of the stuff. In fact, more than 400 kilometres inside the Earth there may be enough water to replace the surface oceans more than ten times…
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/49/Loihi_3d.gif

Itinerant Lurker
May 6th 2009, 10:55 AM
But your thinking remains confused – the adjectives of these scientists descries exactly what their data reveals – there is no dishonesty. When Emiliani describes a flood that could have sparked myths of the great deluge it is not me putting words into his mouth – this is his own words and means exactly what he says it means - his data supports his conclusion of a “great deluge” world-wide in scope .


Emiliani's research supports a rise in sea level to 40 meters below current sea levels, the largest of Shaws theoretical melt water dam breaks would have raised global sea levels by all of 23 centimeters. Around and around you go again.



No – the truth is you have never proven Eddy’s statement wrong because it is not wrong – there is no evidence based solely on solar observations that proves the Sun is 4.5 billion years old. That date is reached by assumptions based on circularity and assumptions based on circular reasoning prove nothing.


Actually if you read it carefully I was showing how we can make purely solar observations and disprove an earth that is six thousand years old as Eddy implies in the second part of your quote. We can't go scoop up a piece of the sun to date it absolutely, but we have indirect methods of dating how old it is that I mentioned previously.



Are you trying to say the doctrine of uniformitarianism is not based on assumptions? Be careful how you answer this question.


Uniformitarianism makes assumptions, it also makes testable predictions based on those assumptions and so far those predictions have all been met. I think it would be more accurate to say that Uniformitarianism is based on observation and extrapolation.



Are you saying the notion the earth is billions of years old is not based on assumptions?


There are some assumptions, but again every observation we make indicates that they are very good assumptions. For instance, the fact that multiple methods of radiometric dating not only agree with each other but also agree with non-radioactive dating methods is an excessively strong indicator that decay rates have pretty much remained constant.



Please tell me more but keep in mind – “There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological 'clock'.” Why is this – because it “is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be.” (Stansfield)


Yay, another quote mine. What is Stansfield's evidence?




The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning if it insists on using only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales. ~ ~ J.E. O'Rourke

Nice quote mine. I'd be interested to know why you think O'Rourke is an authority on this issue. Here's another O'Rourke quote from the same article you are citing,


"The charge of circular reasoning in stratigraphy can be handled in several ways. it can be ignored, as not the proper concern of the public. It can be denied, by calling down the Law of Evolution. Fossil dates rocks, not vice-versa, and that's that. It can be admitted, as a common practice. The time scales of physics and astronomy are obtained by comparing one process with another. They can be compared with the geologic processes of sedimentation, organic evolution, and radioactivity. Or it can be avoided, by pragmatic reasoning.
The first step is to explain what is done in the field in simple terms that can be tested directly.



"The field man records his sense perceptions on isomorphic maps and sections, abstracts the more diagnostic rock features, and arranges them according to their vertical order. He compares this local sequence to the global column obtained from a great many man-years of work against his predecessors. As long as this cognitive process is acknowledged as the pragmatic basis of stratigraphy, both local and global sections can be treated as chronologies without reproach."


You will have to ask Berthault why he feels his data is strong enough to support his claims but he does.


So you have no idea what his evidence actually is??? Are you serious?



I think the question that continues to beg is why is his data wrong if it is in fact wrong as you suggest?


It's not my job to do your research for you (though I consistently find myself doing just that). At some point you're going to have to actually do it yourself. Throwing out a quote without even knowing what it's based on is the epitome of an empty argument from authority.



Ditto above. The onus is on you to explain why he is wrong if you feel he is wrong (and you do).


Once again, you have no idea what Jueneman's evidence actually is. I have to say, this is probably the most intellectually dishonest form of argument I've ever seen. All you're doing is scouring for a few sentences here or there that support's your conclusion without caring about things like evidence or reliability. It doesn't appear to matter that at least half of your sources actually contradict your claims, as long as you can harvest those few sentences.



Btw – you pressed me to provide examples of your ad hominem fallacy and I provided a couple but you didn’t comment. Do you admit “attacking the man” or are you still confused as to what constitutes an ad hominem?


Not to split hairs, but you originally claimed an ad hominem against Berthault, then pulled a bait and switch with Juenmen. I make no apologies on that count, Velikovsky was a quack and anyone who buys into his theories is completely out of touch with reality. That being said, my critique of Berthault revolved around his research methods, not his person.



Are you saying it is scientifically impossible for one to read the historical narrative of Genesis as literal?


Yes.



Is a world-wide flood impossible – scientifically (see Emiliani's "global flood")?


Yes (see Emiliani's actual research0



Is it not possible for the sedimentary rock strata formed during the Flood by cataclysmic volcanic/tectonic activity (“the breaking up of the fountains of the deep”) to be what we see today?


No.



If not, why not?


Because we do not see any evidence for cataclysmic plate activity on the scale necessary to produce this effect. Actually we see the opposite, I gave the example previously of the Hawaiin island chain that formed due to slow tectonic activity.



Remember we are just now finding evidence that large volumes of water deep inside the Earth could easily fill the earth's oceans 10 times over.
Where did all that water come from and what was it’s original use by God - a global flood maybe?


I doubt it. Your source tells you where that water comes from, it also tells you that it is composed of billions of tiny droplets not one large body of water. Rock is porous, and as rock on the sea floor is subducted the water droplets that have seeped into it are subducted as well and trapped beneath the surface.

losthorizon
May 7th 2009, 02:19 AM
Emiliani's research supports a rise in sea level to 40 meters below current sea levels, the largest of Shaws theoretical melt water dam breaks would have raised global sea levels by all of 23 centimeters. Around and around you go again.


But it has been proven that Mt. Everest was covered with water at some time in the distant past. It is certainly probable that the oceans were less deep and the mountains less tall pre-Flood. According to A.R. Wallace (Man’s Place in the Universe) if we were to level out the deep ocean canyons and flatten down the highest mountains, there would be enough water to cover the earth to a depth of a little less than 2 miles. Catastrophic formation of many geological formations (think catastrophic flood, volcanoes, etc) rather than your dogma of uniformitarianism appears to be the more acceptable paradigm. You appear to "willingly forget: that by the word of God the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water."
For this they willingly forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water..." (2 Peter 3:5–6).
http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/articles/am/v2/n2/ships.jpg

Look at resent studies regarding granite plutonism by J.D. Clemens. His research suggests a large number of geological formations were ‘catastrophic in their suddenness’. Some large crystals found in granitic rocks could have grown in a matter of hours or days (think Noah’s Flood ;)) instead of the millions of years suggested under the conventional uniformitarian model. His findings are consistent with the biblical record. Your worldview appears to be deteriorating quickly as science advances.
‘Experimentally measured rates indicate that a 5 mm crystal of plagioclase could have grown in as short a time as 1 hour, but probably no more than 25 years…In fact, just about everything that was taught as recently as ten years ago about granitic magmatism has been turned on its head.’ ~ J.D. Clemens

Granites and granitic magmas: strange phenomena and new perspectives on some old problems
J.D. Clemens

aSchool of Earth Sciences & Geography, CEESR, Kingston University, Penrhyn Rd, Kingston-upon-Thames, Surrey KT1 2EE, UK
Received 21 January 2004;
accepted 19 February 2004.
Available online 3 December 2008.

Granitic plutons generally afford pleasant, mostly unchallenging landscapes. However, on closer inspection of some of the outcrops, one may discover some strange, beautiful and baffling examples of patterns produced by geochemical and mineralogical self-organization. Fascinating as they are, these features probably reveal little about the origins of granitic magmas. It is the more usual features that one needs to study and understand, using geophysics, geochemistry, isotope petrology, textural analysis and various kinds of theoretical modelling. Many granites are products of high-temperature melting of continental crust and there is a relationship between upper granulite-facies metamorphism and the generation of granitic magmas. The heat needed for this process commonly comes from mafic magmas intruded into the deep crust and the melting reactions take place in the absence of free fluids. The relatively low viscosity and density of hydrous granitic magmas control the ascent and emplacement processes and the viscosity is not greatly changed during crystallization and cooling, at least for the first few tens of percent crystals. Modelling shows that granite diapirism is slow and inefficient and there is little evidence of it in the geological record. The granitic melt segregates into veins, shears and dykes, eventually forming larger feeder dykes that transport the magma rapidly upward to the emplacement sites. The potential speed of ascent and emplacement mean that even very large granitic plutons probably grow in thousands of years. Experimental data on crystallization rates suggest that many of the large crystals observed in granitic rocks could have grown in a matter of hours—certainly in no more than a few tens of years. Geological processes are commonly thought of as slow and continuous, but many are rapid and episodic. Granitic plutonism is of the latter kind.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B94SW-4V2NJ0J-3&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=965098284f5376a50c1ecd8a16130348
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/Torres1.jpg


Actually if you read it carefully I was showing how we can make purely solar observations and disprove an earth that is six thousand years old as Eddy implies in the second part of your quote. We can't go scoop up a piece of the sun to date it absolutely, but we have indirect methods of dating how old it is that I mentioned previously.
Sorry Lurk but you have proven nothing other than your reliance on more assumptions (uniformitarianism being one of them) based on stellar evolution models. The words of John Eddy (evolutionary astronomer) are still true - we might *assume* the Sun is 4-5B years old but when the rubber hits the road we don’t have much in the way of observational evidence in astronomy to reject Bishop Ussher’s value for the age of the Earth and Sun (4004 BC).
“There is no evidence based solely on solar observations that the Sun is 4.5 to 5 billion years old…I suspect that the Sun is 4.5 billion years old. However, given some new and unexpected results to the contrary, and some time for frantic recalculation and theoretical readjustment, I suspect that we could live with Bishop Ussher’s value for the age of the Earth and Sun [4004 B.C.]. I don’t think we have much in the way of observational evidence in astronomy to conflict with that.” ~ Dr. John Eddy


Uniformitarianism makes assumptions, it also makes testable predictions based on those assumptions and so far those predictions have all been met. I think it would be more accurate to say that Uniformitarianism is based on observation and extrapolation.
You are correct – the Doctrine of Uniformitarianism makes many assumptions and *prove* nothing. Your “observation and extrapolation” are simply more assumptions mixed with circularity. And around and around we go…


There are some assumptions, but again every observation we make indicates that they are very good assumptions.
Okaaay - whatever that means. There are many assumptions and even “good assumptions” do not constitute proofs of anything leaving you back at square one. As mentioned earlier if we remove your assumptions (both good and bad assumptions) and your circularity your position is left completely impotent. Sorry Lurk but you will have to do better if you are going to convince me to trust in your faith-based assuming.


Yay, another quote mine. What is Stansfield's evidence?Well again I will remind you – Standsfield is a mainline evolutionary scientist. He is not a “Creationist” as you mislabeled him before in your "attacking the man" error. Why exactly is he incorrect? What part of “it is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be” do you find incorrect? Why would he make such a remark? Remember he didn’t just say “it maybe could be” – no he specifically said the weakness of radioactive dating “is obvious”. How about that, is it not obvious to you?


Nice quote mine. I'd be interested to know why you think O'Rourke is an authority on this issue.
LOL – one doesn’t have to be any kind of 'authority' to realize the obvious circularity involved in rock-dating but O'Rourke is spot-on. I have been telling you this for 5 + pages. Listen one more time and tell me where you are missing this truth – “the rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks.” You cannot get any more circular than this – right?


Once again, you have no idea what Jueneman's evidence actually is. I have to say, this is probably the most intellectually dishonest form of argument I've ever seen.
I only present the conclusions of Berthault and Jueneman to illustrate they are first-class scientists who have reviewed the evidence and have gone where that evidence led them – it led them to conclusions that contradict your worldview. I am not saying their assumptions are correct or incorrect based on their evidences – their assumptions could very well be incorrect but probably are not. There is certainly nothing intellectually dishonest on my part with such a presentation but since you brought up the subject – it is you my friend who is intellectually dishonest. You are the dogmatic one here who unequivocally denounces the work of these scientists when it is you who have never examined their evidences. And it is you who *attacks the man* not me. And why do you attack - because a scientist dares to disagree with your Darwinian worldview. Very sad indeed.


Not to split hairs, but you originally claimed an ad hominem against Berthault, then pulled a bait and switch with Juenmen. I make no apologies on that count, Velikovsky was a quack and anyone who buys into his theories is completely out of touch with reality.
Then you do finally admit your reality - the reality that you have committed the ad hominem fallacy? Juenmen did not even mention Velikovsky and no one is guilty by association. Of course your character assassination of Velikovsky is completely out of line as he was not even mentioned in our discussion. How very sad that you come across as bitter and vindictive. It is not commendable and certainly reflects poorly on one who claims to be part of science education. I hope your classroom skills are more tempered.


That being said, my critique of Berthault revolved around his research methods, not his person.
Tell me more and be very specific as to why you insist this scientist must be wrong. Is he a shoddy scientist in your small world? :)

Itinerant Lurker
May 7th 2009, 04:32 AM
But it has been proven that Mt. Everest was covered with water at some time in the distant past.


No, the rock that Mt. Everest is now composed of was once part of an ocean floor, which is kind of a big difference. As the Indian plate slammed into the Eurasian plate at about the speed your fingernails grow the sea floor between them was uplifted into the Himalayan Mountains.

http://www.fas.org/irp/imint/docs/rst/Sect2/India.jpg



It is certainly probable that the oceans were less deep and the mountains less tall pre-Flood.


It's also possible that we are all actually living in the matrix. All things are possible, not everything is probable. That's why we like things like evidence, it tends to help us sort out the worthwhile from the superfluous. If you have any evidence of the kind of hyper-tectonic activity necessary for this to have happened no time is better than the present to unleash it upon the world.



Catastrophic formation of many geological formations (think catastrophic flood, volcanoes, etc) rather than your dogma of uniformitarianism appears to be the more acceptable paradigm.


Just like Berthault, you're arguing against an outdated view of uniformitarianism that doesn't actually exist anymore. Modern understandings of geology fully accept that some geological formations can occur rapidly. I've provided you with up to date definitions that spell this out numerous times.




http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/articles/am/v2/n2/ships.jpg


Notice that the ark is longer than even the Wyoming, a comparitively modern wooden ship that utilized iron straps, nails, and braces and still had to be pumped constantly just to stay afloat.



His findings are consistent with the biblical record. Your worldview appears to be deteriorating quickly as science advances.


His findings are also apparently consistent with mainstream geology. Here's an actual explanation of uniformitarianism,


"In the last few decades, there has been much more appreciation of this variability of rate. We now explain the scablands of Washington by the sudden bursting of a huge glacial dam. It is now a common idea that a meteorite killed off the dinosaurs. We also appreciate that conditions were once different. For instance, the atmosphere of the early earth had no free oxygen.

So, modern geology is not just about slow, gradual processes. That said, it is clear that slow processes exist. For instance, the Santa Barbara basin is today acquiring sediment at one foot per century.

Physicists sometimes use the same word. When they use it, they mean that reality is lawful - that there is some set of laws which uniformly apply everywhere, and which have always applied.
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/c...n/uniform.html (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/uniform.html)

Feel free to point out where any of your evidence contradicts this any time.



Sorry Lurk but you have proven nothing other than your reliance on more assumptions (uniformitarianism being one of them) based on stellar evolution models.


Either you didn't read my explanation or you're having trouble understanding it, try reading it again here (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=2064266&postcount=176). What are these "assumptions" that I am making?



Well again I will remind you – Standsfield is a mainline evolutionary scientist. He is not a “Creationist” as you mislabeled him before in your "attacking the man" error. Why exactly is he incorrect?


He is incorrect because we've updated a lot of our dating techniques since Star Wars episode IV came out and today radiometric dating consistently yields correlating dates. I provided an explanation of this with accompanying examples back in post #144 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=2056327&postcount=144)



It's pretty much common knowledge that not only have we been constantly refining out dating techniques, but we've been able to compare those techniques to each other to recalibrate radioacitve decay dating. I've provided a graph several times now which documents several dating techniques plotted together and clearly shows a strong correlation. Additionally, we know we're getting better because while new techniques shift older dates they don't shift new ones.

"Older dates may change by a few million years up and down, but younger dates are stable. For example, it has been known since the 1960s that the famous Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary, the line marking the end of the dinosaurs, was 65 million years old. Repeated recalibrations and retests, using ever more sophisticated techniques and equipment, cannot shift that date. It is accurate to within a few thousand years. With modern, extremely precise, methods, error bars are often only 1% or so."
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html

Not only are radiometric dates consistent with other methods, they are consistent with each other.
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/c...ter_chain.html (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/crater_chain.html)
http://gondwanaresearch.com/radiomet.htm




Remember he didn’t just say “it maybe could be” – no he specifically said the weakness of radioactive dating “is obvious”. How about that, is it not obvious to you?


What is Stansfield's evidence?



LOL – one doesn’t have to be any kind of 'authority' to realize the obvious circularity involved in rock-dating but O'Rourke is spot-on. I have been telling you this for 5 + pages. Listen one more time and tell me where you are missing this truth – “the rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks.” You cannot get any more circular than this – right?


I'll repeat myself and repost some other things O'Rourke has to say IN THE SAME ARTICLE you're quoting from,

"The charge of circular reasoning in stratigraphy can be handled in several ways. it can be ignored, as not the proper concern of the public. It can be denied, by calling down the Law of Evolution. Fossil dates rocks, not vice-versa, and that's that. It can be admitted, as a common practice. The time scales of physics and astronomy are obtained by comparing one process with another. They can be compared with the geologic processes of sedimentation, organic evolution, and radioactivity. Or it can be avoided, by pragmatic reasoning.

"The first step is to explain what is done in the field in simple terms that can be tested directly.

"The field man records his sense perceptions on isomorphic maps and sections, abstracts the more diagnostic rock features, and arranges them according to their vertical order. He compares this local sequence to the global column obtained from a great many man-years of work against his predecessors. As long as this cognitive process is acknowledged as the pragmatic basis of stratigraphy, both local and global sections can be treated as chronologies without reproach."



I only present the conclusions of Berthault and Jueneman to illustrate they are first-class scientists who have reviewed the evidence and have gone where that evidence led them


How does empty conclusions illustrate this? How do you know they are "first-class scientists"? Is it because one hasn't been able to get any of this theories published in anything other than out of the way foriegn journals and the other is a devout follower of a known quack? How do you know they've reviewed the evidence if you don't even know what their evidence is?



I am not saying their assumptions are correct or incorrect based on their evidences


Ah, I see now, so they could just as well be wrong. Which means your evidence is not really evidence at all.



– their assumptions could very well be incorrect but probably are not.


How on earth could you know? You haven't done even a modicum of research into what evidence they are using or even what assumptions they are making. All you've done is quote mined a couple of conclusions.



Juenmen did not even mention Velikovsky and no one is guilty by association. Of course your character assassination of Velikovsky is completely out of line as he was not even mentioned in our discussion.


You know what else was not even mentioned in our discussion? What Juenmen's evidence was. Since apparently you can't find any, and since Juenmen has associated himself heavily with a known propagator of insane ideas with no evidence to support them, I'm going to take the leap and say that this conclusion of his is not supported at all. If you can find Juenmen's evidence let me know, I'd be happy to examine it for you, until then this is just an empty quote mine from a suspect authority.



Tell me more and be very specific as to why you insist this scientist must be wrong. Is he a shoddy scientist in your small world? :)

I spelled it out pretty clearly back in post #139 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=2056107&postcount=139), what part are you having trouble with?



I have numerous problems with Berhault's work, names becuase he didn't really do any new experiments or present any data less than 15 years old. Addtionally, Berthault sets out to upend the principles of stratiography not by challenging modern understandings of the field but by attacking how these principles were originally described over three hundred years ago in Nicholas Steno's 1669 work, De Solido Intra Solidium Naturaliter Contento Dissertationis Prodromus.

Pretty much all of his research consists of studying how sediment can be laid down using flumes, basically artificial channels used to study how water transports and deposits sediment. He appears to have managed to figure out how to get sediment to layer up quickly and then jumped straight from there to claiming that because sediment can do this in a controlled little tank it can do it within a world wide catastrophic flood ignoring all the contradictory variables that would necessarily be introduced. He's literally making the leap from a few inches in a laboratory to a few miles in the real world. Berthault hasn't been able to get any of his YEC flood model geology papers published in anything but out of the way foreign journals and has largely been ignored by mainstream geology since the early 1990's. I would highly recommend not using him as a reference in a debate.

losthorizon
May 8th 2009, 02:28 AM
No, the rock that Mt. Everest is now composed of was once part of an ocean floor, which is kind of a big difference. As the Indian plate slammed into the Eurasian plate at about the speed your fingernails grow the sea floor between them was uplifted into the Himalayan Mountains.


But your plate tectonics is based on *slow-and-gradual* uniformitarian assumptions mixed with questionable radiometric circularity. I think catastrophic plate tectonics based on *vertical tectonics* during the Flood is a better model – “This catastrophic plate tectonics model for earth's history is able to explain geologic data that slow-and-gradual plate tectonics over many millions of years cannot.” (Andrew Snelling).
The catastrophic plate tectonics model of Austin et al.12 begins with a pre-Flood supercontinent surrounded by cold ocean-floor rocks that were denser than the warm mantle rock beneath. To initiate motion in the model, some sudden trigger “cracks” the ocean floors adjacent to the supercontinental crustal block, so that zones of cold ocean-floor rock start penetrating vertically into the upper mantle along the edge of most of the supercontinent.

These vertical segments of ocean-floor rock correspond to the leading edges of oceanic plates. These vertical zones begin to sink in conveyor-belt fashion into the mantle, dragging the rest of the ocean floor with them. The sinking slabs of ocean plates produce stresses in the surrounding mantle rock, and these stresses, in turn, cause the rock to become more deformable and allow the slabs to sink faster. This process causes the stress levels to increase and the rock to become even weaker. These regions of rock weakness expand to encompass the entire mantle and result in a catastrophic runaway of the oceanic slabs to the bottom of the mantle in a matter of a few weeks. ~ Andrew A. Snelling

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/catastrophic-plate-tectonics


It's also possible that we are all actually living in the matrix. All things are possible, not everything is probable.
You mean like theropods evolving into birds – it is possible in Darwinian lore but the probability is zilch.


Just like Berthault, you're arguing against an outdated view of uniformitarianism that doesn't actually exist anymore.
I think ye do err – the scientific community’s commitment to the doctrine of uniformitarianism (assumptions and all) remains the dominant paradigm for the history of the earth but that faith-based worldview is quickly eroding as catastrophism becomes the more accepted (and more logical) view. Again we see science catching up with the Bible. Berthault’s conclusions based on his sedimentology experiments are in agreement with catastrophism.
"The very fact that [the remains of hundreds of millions of fossilized creatures] were buried in vast quantities of sediment, which has since turned into rock, and that this kind of rock is only made by water, strongly indicates that the catastrophe was a cataclysmic flood, which covered the entire Earth." ~ Guy Berthault

Notice that the ark is longer than even the Wyoming, a comparitively modern wooden ship that utilized iron straps, nails, and braces and still had to be pumped constantly just to stay afloat.
That’s interesting – you sound exactly like some atheists, agnostics and assorted other unbelievers I recently debated on another board and their argument was almost word-for-word your argument above. The question that begs my Darwinian friend – is the all-knowing God who created the universe ex nihilo not intelligent enough to instruct man (Noah) to build an ark that could do exactly what the biblical narrative said it did? How powerful is your God? Can you *prove* the ark described in Genesis was not scientifically capable of doing what God said it did? If you claim to be able to perform this feat then please present your evidence.
"And God said unto Noah… Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt though make in the ark, and thou shalt pitch it within and without with pitch. And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of… the length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits. A window shalt thou make in the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side therof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it." (Gen. 6:14-16)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/46/Nuremberg_chronicles_f_11r_1.png



His findings are also apparently consistent with mainstream geology.
But is “mainstream” Darwinian geology correct? I think it my not be what you naively think it is. Your “overwhelming” evidence appears to be nothing more than prattle and a figment of your imagination.


Either you didn't read my explanation or you're having trouble understanding it, try reading it again here. What are these "assumptions" that I am making?
You obviously have comprehension issues. What part of “uniformitarian assumptions” and “circularity” do you fail to recognize. I am patient and will be happy to explain whatever it is you can’t wrap your head around. Please remember once again – assumptions and circularity of the Darwinian type prove absolutely nothing.


He is incorrect because we've updated a lot of our dating techniques since Star Wars episode IV came out and today radiometric dating consistently yields correlating dates. I provided an explanation of this with accompanying examples back in post #144
But the theoretical foundation of radioactive dating (uniformitarian circularity) has not changed since King Kong met Fay Wray (1933). Stansfield’s thinking is as valid today as the day he made the statement –
“Several methods have been devised for estimating the age of the earth and its layers of rocks. These methods rely heavily on the assumption of uniformitarianism… Probably no more than one percent of geological history can be accurately read in rocks… It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological 'clock’.” ~ William Stansfield
You do acknowledge that Stansfield is not a “Creationist” right? You were quite confused on this issue a few posts back. Let me know if you are still confused.


Ah, I see now, so they could just as well be wrong. Which means your evidence is not really evidence at all.
It is not my evidence – it is evidence presented by reliable scientists based on their research. You obviously do not have a grasp on how science works. All scientists present evidence that can be wrong and evidence that can be correct – that is how discovery works. What is your affiliation with science? I only ask because you appear clueless at times and you attack any scientist who steps outside your small-world dogma.
"Hypotheses are single tentative guesses--good hunches--assumed for use in devising theory or planning experiment, intended to be given a direct experimental test when possible." (Eric M. Rogers, "Physics for the Inquiring Mind")

teddyv
May 8th 2009, 03:43 AM
I don't really want to but I have to dive in yet again. Sucker for punishment perhaps. I am just going to deal with a couple items in you last post.


But your plate tectonics is based on *slow-and-gradual* uniformitarian assumptions mixed with questionable radiometric circularity. I think catastrophic plate tectonics based on *vertical tectonics* during the Flood is a better model – “This catastrophic plate tectonics model for earth's history is able to explain geologic data that slow-and-gradual plate tectonics over many millions of years cannot.” (Andrew Snelling).

The catastrophic plate tectonics model of Austin et al.12 begins with a pre-Flood supercontinent surrounded by cold ocean-floor rocks that were denser than the warm mantle rock beneath. To initiate motion in the model, some sudden trigger “cracks” the ocean floors adjacent to the supercontinental crustal block, so that zones of cold ocean-floor rock start penetrating vertically into the upper mantle along the edge of most of the supercontinent.

These vertical segments of ocean-floor rock correspond to the leading edges of oceanic plates. These vertical zones begin to sink in conveyor-belt fashion into the mantle, dragging the rest of the ocean floor with them. The sinking slabs of ocean plates produce stresses in the surrounding mantle rock, and these stresses, in turn, cause the rock to become more deformable and allow the slabs to sink faster. This process causes the stress levels to increase and the rock to become even weaker. These regions of rock weakness expand to encompass the entire mantle and result in a catastrophic runaway of the oceanic slabs to the bottom of the mantle in a matter of a few weeks. ~ Andrew A. Snelling

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/catastrophic-plate-tectonics

LostHorizon, plate tectonics has actual, observable evidence. Also, seismic profiles have identified plunging oceanic plates under the North American plate. Remanent magnetic striping, best observed in the Atlantic basin, point to a slow, "uniformitarian" process. Plate tectonics is probably one if the most solid geological theories.



But is “mainstream” Darwinian geology correct? I think it my not be what you naively think it is. Your “overwhelming” evidence appears to be nothing more than prattle and a figment of your imagination.

What is Darwinian geology? I think that is a figment of your imagination.


You obviously have comprehension issues. What part of “uniformitarian assumptions” and “circularity” do you fail to recognize. I am patient and will be happy to explain whatever it is you can’t wrap your head around. Please remember once again – assumptions and circularity of the Darwinian type prove absolutely nothing.


But the theoretical foundation of radioactive dating (uniformitarian circularity) has not changed since King Kong met Fay Wray (1933). Stansfield’s thinking is as valid today as the day he made the statement –

“Several methods have been devised for estimating the age of the earth and its layers of rocks. These methods rely heavily on the assumption of uniformitarianism… Probably no more than one percent of geological history can be accurately read in rocks… It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological 'clock’.” ~ William Stansfield
You do acknowledge that Stansfield is not a “Creationist” right? You were quite confused on this issue a few posts back. Let me know if you are still confused.


It is not my evidence – it is evidence presented by reliable scientists based on their research. You obviously do not have a grasp on how science works. All scientists present evidence that can be wrong and evidence that can be correct – that is how discovery works. What is your affiliation with science? I only ask because you appear clueless at times and you attack any scientist who steps outside your small-world dogma.

"Hypotheses are single tentative guesses--good hunches--assumed for use in devising theory or planning experiment, intended to be given a direct experimental test when possible." (Eric M. Rogers, "Physics for the Inquiring Mind")

Saying the same thing over and over and over will not make your arguments any better.

Itinerant Lurker
May 8th 2009, 12:40 PM
But your plate tectonics is based on *slow-and-gradual* uniformitarian assumptions mixed with questionable radiometric circularity. I think catastrophic plate tectonics based on *vertical tectonics* during the Flood is a better model – “This catastrophic plate tectonics model for earth's history is able to explain geologic data that slow-and-gradual plate tectonics over many millions of years cannot.” (Andrew Snelling).
The catastrophic plate tectonics model of Austin et al.12 begins with a pre-Flood supercontinent surrounded by cold ocean-floor rocks that were denser than the warm mantle rock beneath. To initiate motion in the model, some sudden trigger “cracks” the ocean floors adjacent to the supercontinental crustal block, so that zones of cold ocean-floor rock start penetrating vertically into the upper mantle along the edge of most of the supercontinent.

These vertical segments of ocean-floor rock correspond to the leading edges of oceanic plates. These vertical zones begin to sink in conveyor-belt fashion into the mantle, dragging the rest of the ocean floor with them. The sinking slabs of ocean plates produce stresses in the surrounding mantle rock, and these stresses, in turn, cause the rock to become more deformable and allow the slabs to sink faster. This process causes the stress levels to increase and the rock to become even weaker. These regions of rock weakness expand to encompass the entire mantle and result in a catastrophic runaway of the oceanic slabs to the bottom of the mantle in a matter of a few weeks. ~ Andrew A. Snelling

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/catastrophic-plate-tectonics
Looks like Snelling is using Steve Austin's catastrophic tectonic model which is rife with problems. The first thing I notice is that this model is based on a huge amount of subduction triggered by a mysterious "cracking" of the ocean crust. Putting aside the mystery of the giant crack (sorry, couldn't resist) this completely contradicts your previous arguments for water trapped as water droplets in lower strata as having been part of the flood. If the flood was triggered by subduction then all that water started getting subducted as the flood waters rose. . .which presents more that a few logical quandries. Austin's model also calls for the entire ocean floor to be subducted in about 40 days, which, if we figure a 2,000 square mile ocean floor (which is a very conservative estimate) we get an physics-violating 3 feet per second. Austin's model additionally does absolutely nothing to address plate collisions such as the aforementioned collision between the Indian and Eurasian plates.

I'd like to know what evidence Austin's model does a better job of explaining. . .actually that's not altogether accurate, I already know what Austin's model tries to explain, I'm just interested in whether or not you actually know it. When you say that catastrophic plate tectonics "is a better model", what do you mean by that? What evidence does it do a better job of explaining?



I think ye do err – the scientific community’s commitment to the doctrine of uniformitarianism (assumptions and all) remains the dominant paradigm for the history of the earth but that faith-based worldview is quickly eroding as catastrophism becomes the more accepted (and more logical) view.
Sorry, I think you are misunderstanding me. You're arguing against an outdated concept, we still use the term "uniformitarianism" but it means something different today than it did a few hundred years ago.



Again we see science catching up with the Bible. Berthault’s conclusions based on his sedimentology experiments are in agreement with catastrophism.
What sedimentology experiments did Berthault do? How did they support a global flood?



That’s interesting – you sound exactly like some atheists, agnostics and assorted other unbelievers I recently debated on another board and their argument was almost word-for-word your argument above. The question that begs my Darwinian friend – is the all-knowing God who created the universe ex nihilo not intelligent enough to instruct man (Noah) to build an ark that could do exactly what the biblical narrative said it did? How powerful is your God? Can you *prove* the ark described in Genesis was not scientifically capable of doing what God said it did? If you claim to be able to perform this feat then please present your evidence.
It doesn't matter whom I sound like as long as the information is correct, in this case it is. And yes, I think God would know how to build a boat that wouldn't sink which is why I don't think this is literally talking about a global flood in which this boat would, in reality, have sunk.



You obviously have comprehension issues. What part of “uniformitarian assumptions” and “circularity” do you fail to recognize. I am patient and will be happy to explain whatever it is you can’t wrap your head around. Please remember once again – assumptions and circularity of the Darwinian type prove absolutely nothing.
That's swell of you, which specific assumptions am I making. This is the same question I asked previously, if you're going to constantly accuse me of making assumptions and "circularity" one would assume you'd be able to explain just what those assumptions are.



But the theoretical foundation of radioactive dating (uniformitarian circularity) has not changed since King Kong met Fay Wray (1933).
The theoretical foundation of the combustion engine has not really changed since 1509, do you think we've still managed to make improvements on it's design and efficiency?

"Radiometric dating has been carried out since 1905 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1905), and in the century since then the techniques have been greatly improved and expanded.[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating#cite_note-usgs-12) Dating can now be performed on samples as small as a billionth of a gram using a mass spectrometer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_spectrometer). The mass spectrometer was invented in the 1940s and began to be used in radiometric dating in the 1950s."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating



It is not my evidence – it is evidence presented by reliable scientists based on their research.
And that research would be. . .?



You obviously do not have a grasp on how science works. All scientists present evidence that can be wrong and evidence that can be correct – that is how discovery works.
The key part of that explanation that you consistently miss is "present evidence". If you don't present evidence how can anyone know whether that evidence is valid or invalid? All I'm asking is that you present evidence instead of conclusions, that's how science works - in order to support a theory a scientists needs to present all their evidence so that their results can be re-tested and their results repeated. So, what is Berthault's, Stansfields, and Juenmen's evidence?

losthorizon
May 9th 2009, 01:16 PM
I don't really want to but I have to dive in yet again. Sucker for punishment perhaps. I am just going to deal with a couple items in you last post.


Oh come on Teddy – admit it – all of us who post here are “suckers for punishment” is some way or another. Anyway – I am glad to see you posting on this subject again. I consider you to be a fair-minded and well-educated poster.


LostHorizon, plate tectonics has actual, observable evidence. Also, seismic profiles have identified plunging oceanic plates under the North American plate. Remanent magnetic striping, best observed in the Atlantic basin, point to a slow, "uniformitarian" process. Plate tectonics is probably one if the most solid geological theories.
Well Teddy – you are not presenting anything that I haven’t already stated. In my last post I freely admitted the ‘mainline’ scientific community is committed to the doctrine of uniformitarianism and as such it remains the dominant paradigm for earth’s history. Along with that admission I stated this truth - the uniformitarian assumptions and associated ‘data’ have not been substantiated – ie – these assumptions have not been proven. Under the constructs of uniformitarian dogma, any given “date” becomes dependant on a preceding list of assumptions and the end-data is no stronger than its weakest link – and there are many weak links. This reliance on speculation was the reason Stansfield made is famous quote and this is why “it is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be.”

On the other hand the catastrophic plate tectonics model suggests that during the Deluge plate movement was quick as in months - not over millions of years and residual catastrophism continued to the present.
CATASTROPHIC PLATE TECTONICS: A GLOBAL FLOOD MODEL OF EARTH HISTORY

ABSTRACT (excerpted)
In 1859 Antonio Snider proposed that rapid, horizontal divergence of crustal plates occurred during Noah's Flood. Modern plate tectonics theory is now conflated with assumptions of uniformity of rate and ideas of continental 'drift'. Catastrophic plate tectonics theories, such as Snider proposed more than a century ago, appear capable of explaining a wide variety of data - including Biblical and geologic data which the slow tectonics theories are incapable of explaining. We would like to propose a catastrophic plate tectonics theory as a framework for earth history...

The volcanism associated with rapid tectonics would have been of unprecedented magnitude and worldwide extent, but concentrated in particular zones and sites. At spreading centers magma would rise to fill in between plates separating at meters per second, producing a violent volcanic source tens of thousands of kilometers in length [7]. Based upon 2-dimensional experimental simulation [38, 81] and 3-dimensional numerical simulation, subduction-induced mantle flow would generate mantle plumes whose mushroom heads would rise to and erupt upon the earth's surface. These plumes would be expected to produce extensive flood basalts through fissure eruptions, such as perhaps the plateau basalts of South Africa, the Deccan Traps of India, the Siberian flood basalts [80], and the Karmutsen Basalt of Alaska/Canada [73]…

After the global effects of the Flood ended, the earth continued to experience several hundred years of residual catastrophism [7]. A cooling lithosphere is likely to have produced a pattern of decreasing incidence [68] and intensity of volcanism (such as appears to be evidenced in Cenozoic sialic volcanism in the Western United States [77]). The large changes in crustal thicknesses produced during the Flood left the earth in isostatic disequilibrium. lsostatic readjustments with their associated intense mountain uplift, earthquake, and volcanic activity would have occurred for hundreds of years after the global affects of the Flood ended (e.g. [83]). In fact, considering the current nature of the mantle, there has not been sufficient time since the end of the Flood for complete isostatic equilibrium to be attained. As a result, current geologic activity can be seen as continued isostatic readjustments to Flood events. Modern earthquake and volcanic activity is in some sense relict Flood dynamics….

http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_as_platetectonicsl/

What is Darwinian geology? I think that is a figment of your imagination.
No Teddy – no figment here. Darwinism is like the Borg of Star Trek fame – it acts as an “interconnected collective” that operates for one unified purpose – to sell Darwinian lore as science. It is for this purpose that we see under the umbrella of Darwinism the following: cosmic evolution, chemical evolution, stellar evolution, organic evolution - and yes even geological evolution. Darwin’s ToE would not have been possible without the vast time spans suggested by ‘Lyellian geology’.


Saying the same thing over and over and over will not make your arguments any better.
But some folks are slow to understand the facts involved in rock-dating and it must be reiterated a few times. If there is any part of my argument that you strongly disagree with I will be more than happy to go into more detail with you. What about you Teddy – do you think all living organisms on this planet – from birds to bananas – have a common ancestor? Is Darwin’s model the way God chose to create His crowning creation – man? :hmm:

losthorizon
May 9th 2009, 01:49 PM
When you say that catastrophic plate tectonics "is a better model", what do you mean by that?


What I mean by that is exactly what I stated – it is a better model. My understanding of the biblical historical narrative and my understanding of historical earth science best fits catastrophism. The history of the Bible tells that “all mankind” was destroyed by cataclysms save those on the Ark. Science today has many such theories - eg -meteorite-asteroid impacts on earth that triggered mass extinctions, etc – all of these are examples of catastrophism as contrasted with conventional “uniformitarianism”..
catastrophism - the doctrine that during earth's history all living things have been destroyed by cataclysms (e.g., floods or earthquakes) and replaced by an entirely different population. During these cataclysms many of the features of the earth's surface, such as mountains and valleys, were formed or changed.

Sorry, I think you are misunderstanding me. You're arguing against an outdated concept, we still use the term "uniformitarianism" but it means something different today than it did a few hundred years ago.
You remain confused. As a theory it means essentially the same thing today as it did in the nineteenth century. Uniformitarianism now just as it did then relies on assumptions and those assumptions can never be proven – thus uniformitarianism remains unproven and unprovable. It is for this very reason that Stansfield’s words are as true today as when he made them - “it is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be.” You continue to struggle with this fact but we can keep going over it until it sinks in.


It doesn't matter whom I sound like as long as the information is correct, in this case it is. And yes, I think God would know how to build a boat that wouldn't sink which is why I don't think this is literally talking about a global flood in which this boat would, in reality, have sunk.
Again – I find it rather ironic (and comical) that my argument against skeptics on an atheist board is the same argument made on a Christian board. Your skepticism is their skepticism – your words are their words. The fact remains - the Ark Noah was instructed to build did not sink per biblical narrative. What Bible version do you use that states the Ark sank? In your creation myth was Noah a “literal’ historical person? In your mythology did the small dingy God commanded Noah to build float or sink? In your mythology did all five goats and two lambs Noah had on this leaky rowboat survive your "little gully-washer"? The Huang He floods in China killed millions – was the biblical Deluge less destructive?
Central China floods of 1931 are a series of floods that occurred during the Nanjing decade in the Republic of China era. It is generally considered the deadliest natural disaster ever recorded, and almost certainly the deadliest of the 20th century. The human casualties are estimated as high as 3.7 million to 4 million. Wikipedia

Genesis 6:13-17
“And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth. Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch. And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits. A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it. And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and everything that is in the earth shall die.” (KJV)

That's swell of you, which specific assumptions am I making.
As stated previously – uniformitarian assumptions and the circularity of rock-dating (among others). Let me know if you need further clarification. ;)


The theoretical foundation of the combustion engine has not really changed since 1509, do you think we've still managed to make improvements on it's design and efficiency?
But the ‘theory’ of the combustion engine remains the same just as the theory behind the doctrine of uniformitarianism remains the same. And that theory is based on assumptions and assumptions are not proof of anything. ? The Origin of Species was published in 1859 and it has been tweaked and "improved" over the years but its basic assumptions and speculations remain the same – the same is true with uniformitarianism. Why is this so difficult for you to wrap your head around?

losthorizon
May 9th 2009, 02:57 PM
Protocol question for Lurker as we are approach “that day”: is it your turn or my turn to make the 192nd post? Or shall we bestow this great honor on our good friend Teddy?

Itinerant Lurker
May 9th 2009, 08:17 PM
What I mean by that is exactly what I stated – it is a better model.


Because. . .? What specific evidence does it do better job of explaining? This shouldn't be too hard to find, in fact it's probably in the article you linked to.



Science today has many such theories - eg -meteorite-asteroid impacts on earth that triggered mass extinctions, etc – all of these are examples of catastrophism as contrasted with conventional “uniformitarianism”..
No, those are all examples of events incorporated into the modern understanding of uniformitarianism. Catastrophic events are very much a part of the conventional understanding of the earth's history, as are gradual processes. You are arguing against the views of long dead scientists instead of the living ones.



It is for this very reason that Stansfield’s words are as true today as when he made them - “it is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be.” You continue to struggle with this fact but we can keep going over it until it sinks in.
So the authority of Stansfield's 1977 quote is based on a broad misrepresentation of uniformitarianism and vague, undefined "assumptions" instead of on any actual evidence? Is this what you're saying?



Again – I find it rather ironic (and comical) that my argument against skeptics on an atheist board is the same argument made on a Christian board. Your skepticism is their skepticism – your words are their words.
That's because it's a well known historical fact that the Wyoming, one of the largest wooden ships ever built, used technologies not available to Noah and was smaller that the ark. It's also a well known historical fact that it was barely sea worthy. It wouldn't matter if a Bhuddist, Hindu, Atheist, or Muslim stated this historical fact it would still be true.

"Because of the extreme length of the Wyoming and its wood construction, it tended to flex in heavy seas, which would cause the long planks to twist and buckle, thereby allowing sea water to intrude into the hold (see Hogging and sagging (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hogging_and_sagging)). The Wyoming had to use pumps to keep its hold relatively free of water. In March 1924, it foundered in heavy seas and sank with the loss of all hands."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_(ship) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_%28ship%29)

So. . .you can keep on keepin on with the whole guilt by association bit, but I'm not seeing how it helps your argument out in anything but the most superficial of ways.



The fact remains - the Ark Noah was instructed to build did not sink per biblical narrative. What Bible version do you use that states the Ark sank? In your creation myth was Noah a “literal’ historical person? In your mythology did the small dingy God commanded Noah to build float or sink?
I never said the ark sank, I said a boat built to the specifications found in Genesis would not survive a global flood, nor could it have contained all the living things necessary to sustain life after the flood, nor could Noah have cared for all those organisms and kept his ark afloat with the manpower available. All this simply reinforces my view that this account is about a very large local flood that appeared to cover everything instead of an actual global flood that covered every mountain on earth.



As stated previously – uniformitarian assumptions and the circularity of rock-dating (among others). Let me know if you need further clarification. ;)
I didn't use rock dating to prove the sun is older than 6,000 years. I used physics. Please re-read my post on the subject and let me know what specific assumptions I'm making that you disagree with. Is it that the sun's energy is produced by nuclear fusion in it's core? Is it about the speed of photons? The density of the core? Particle re-emission?

If you really want to discuss assumptions in radiometric dating jump over to the Carbon Dating thread, I threw out a pretty basic explanation there which you're more than welcome to comment on. I simply ask that you start mentioning the actual specific assumptions you have a problem with.



But the ‘theory’ of the combustion engine remains the same just as the theory behind the doctrine of uniformitarianism remains the same.
We're talking about radiometric dating, not uniformitarianism. The basic principles behind both the internal combustion engine and radiometric dating haven't really changed since their inception. However, we are constantly refining and improving both these techniques in order to make create a more efficient engine on the one hand or a more accurate and precise dating method on the other. The introduction of the mass spectrometer is a good example of how we've updated dating techniques since they were first discovered.

Let me know how the research is going on Juenmen's, Stansfield's, and Berthault's evidence.

losthorizon
May 10th 2009, 02:09 AM
What specific evidence does it do better job of explaining?


I have already answered - it appears to do a better job explaining the catastrophism we see in the biblical historical narrative and nature. What part of the theory do you particularly dislike? When you use the word “Creationist” as you flippantly did with Stansfield do you use the word with a pejorative connotation? If a scientist is also a Creationists does that automatically make the scientist a shoddy researcher? Would you say you have a distinct bias against “creation scientists”? If yes – why do you harbor this prejudice? You never acknowledged my correction to your misapplication of the word “Creationist” to Stansfield – he is a mainline evolutionist. I want to make sure we are on the same page.


No, those are all examples of events incorporated into the modern understanding of uniformitarianism.
Are you saying Lyellian uniformitarianism – which allowed Darwin the long periods of time needed for rocks to transform into humans by blind luck is no longer part of modern science (trick question)? I think Teddy agreed with me that uuniformitarianism remains basic to modern geology. Does your science teach that rates of processes have remained uniform through time?


So the authority of Stansfield's 1977 quote is based on a broad misrepresentation of uniformitarianism and vague, undefined "assumptions" instead of on any actual evidence?
Let me re-state what was stated earlier lest your confusion continues. Stansfield is a first-class evolutionist who correctly identified the serious problems with radiometric dating; His remarks were never based on “misrepresentation of uniformitarianism” and some “vague, undefined assumptions”. Stansfield correctly identified rock-dating as being only as accurate as the theoretical constructs on which it was founded and it was founded on the assumption of uniformitarianism (unproven) and the circularity of “the rocks date the fossil and the fossils date the rocks” (O’Rourke). What is it you cannot understand here? What part of “there is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological 'clock'” do you fail to understand? If you disagree with his conclusion then simply present evidence to support an opposing view. I have asked you to do this but you appear to be unable to support your position. I would like to see how your assumptions and circularity ‘prove’ your position.
"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. ~ Richard Lewontin (Professor of Zoology and Biology, Harvard University – 1997)Why do you think some scientists accept scientific claims that are against common sense in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs? Why would mainline evolutionary scientists hold to the non-scientific notion that materialism is *absolute*. Why would scientists who teach in public universities not allow “a Divine Foot in the door”? What’s up with this kind of bias?


That's because it's a well known historical fact that the Wyoming, one of the largest wooden ships ever built, used technologies not available to Noah and was smaller that the ark. It's also a well known historical fact that it was barely sea worthy. It wouldn't matter if a Bhuddist, Hindu, Atheist, or Muslim stated this historical fact it would still be true.
But God did not instruct Noah to construct the Wyoming did He? The Hebrew historical narrative is clear God instructed and Moses constructed an ark that did exactly what the narrative states – it safely transported its cargo through the Deluge with flying colors. My God is all-knowing and is quite capable of instructing man to build a sea-worthy boat.


So. . .you can keep on keepin on with the whole guilt by association bit, but I'm not seeing how it helps your argument out in anything but the most superficial of ways.
There is no accusation of any kind of guilt by association – I simply pointed out the irony that your skepticism is like the skepticism of the unbelievers I recently encountered. It’s a strange world sometimes.


I never said the ark sank, I said a boat built to the specifications found in Genesis would not survive a global flood…
You're assuming once again - where is your 'proof' the ark was not sea-worthy - you never provide proof of anything. The truth remains - the ark did survive the Deluge just as God said it would according to my version of the Book – God does not lie to us – His word remains true regardless of what the skeptics think. You never did reveal which Bible version you get you misinformation from…


I didn't use rock dating to prove the sun is older than 6,000 years.
The truth is my friend you “proved” nothing – we don’t even know from historical data, theory, or observation exactly how the sun heats itself let alone how old it might be. You naively say you have proven when you have not and you boast about overwhelming evidence when all you ever present is mediocre prattle and time-worn assumptions. John Eddy is not a light-weight in the world of astrogeophysics and his words are still true today. Is he also a shoddy scienctist like all the others presented on this thread? ;)
“There is no evidence based solely on solar observations that the Sun is 4.5 to 5 billion years old…I suspect that the Sun is 4.5 billion years old. However, given some new and unexpected results to the contrary, and some time for frantic recalculation and theoretical readjustment, I suspect that we could live with Bishop Ussher’s value for the age of the Earth and Sun [4004 B.C.]. I don’t think we have much in the way of observational evidence in astronomy to conflict with that.” ~ Dr. John Eddy, an evolutionary astronomer

Please re-read my post on the subject and let me know what specific assumptions I'm making that you disagree with. Is it that the sun's energy is produced by nuclear fusion in it's core? Is it about the speed of photons? The density of the core? Particle re-emission?
LOL – I would doubt seriously that you have the expertise to present a valid defense of any of the above unless you learn through osmosis – remember Googling does not a scientist make.



We're talking about radiometric dating, not uniformitarianism.


You still don’t get it do you? Radiometric dating *assumes* uniformitarianism and that doctrine remains unproven and unprovable. Do you want to go over it one more time?

Philemon9
May 10th 2009, 06:07 AM
haha I can't help but be reminded of one of my favorite family guy scenes as I read this thread:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJJA1vvMc4I

I'm not sure if this is a violation by posting a youtube link, but I thought I'd try to lighten the mood :D

Itinerant Lurker
May 10th 2009, 11:17 AM
I have already answered - it appears to do a better job explaining the catastrophism we see in the biblical historical narrative and nature. What part of the theory do you particularly dislike?


So. . .you can't point to anything specifically that catastrophic plate tectonics does a better job of explaining than conventional plate tectonics? I'm not asking how it supports your view of scripture, I'm asking you to support the claim that catastrophic plate tectonics does a better job explaining observational evidence. Seriously, its right in the article you linked to (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/catastrophic-plate-tectonics), didn't you read it?



Let me re-state what was stated earlier lest your confusion continues. Stansfield is a first-class evolutionist who correctly identified the serious problems with radiometric dating;
Two questions:
1) What are the specific problems Stansfield identifies
2) Why are Stansfields conclusions more authoritative than more up do date quotes from the majority of scientists who accept the reliability of radiometric dating.



What is it you cannot understand here? What part of “there is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological 'clock'” do you fail to understand? If you disagree with his conclusion then simply present evidence to support an opposing view.
I already posted a basic overview of radiometric dating in the carbon dating thread (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=167097).



Carbon dating is a form of radiometric dating which measures ages based on the amount of radioactive decay that has taken place. To understand any of these dating methods you need to understand some of the basic properties of matter. All matter is composed of atoms, which are in turn composed of a nucleus made of positively charged particles (protons) and particles with a neutral charge (neutrons) orbited by a cloud of electrons. Here's an example:

http://www.maths.tcd.ie/%7Edonie/images/helium-animation.gif

The number of protons determines what element it is. In our example above there are two protons and two neutrons, so we can flip over to our periodic table (http://www.touchspin.com/chem/SWFs/pt2k61012.swf) and look for an element with an atomic number of 2 (atomic number = number of protons) and in doing so we can see that this is a helium atom.

Each element can have a given number of isotopes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope), these are atoms that have the same number of protons but a different number of neutrons. As an example, here's an isotope of helium.

http://www.green-planet-solar-energy.com/images/helium-atom-3.gif

Notice that while the number of neutrons has changed this is still a helium atom because it still has two protons. This will become important later.

Atoms that are radioactive are unstable, so they throw off particles until they reach a more stable state. As the nucleus loses neutrons the atom can become a different isotope, as it loses protons the atom actually becomes a different element. We call this loss of particles "radioactive decay", the original element is called the "parent", while the new more stable form is called the "daughter".

I really can't stress enough that this is a very simplistic explanation of a very complicated process. If you want to get into exactly how or precisely why atoms and their particles behave this way you start getting into strong and weak nuclear forces and everybody starts to get headaches. That being said, the average decay rate is governed by those forces and, as such, is known. There's no mechanism we know of that can actually alter these decay rates significantly. . .unless you drop a particularly unstable isotope into the center of, say, a very large star and strip off all it's electrons. However, the decay rate for every isotope of every atom is unique, which means that if all of this were based on assumptions we wouldn't expect different radiometric dating methods to reach the same results, which they consistently do.


Please point out the assumptions Stansfield is talking about. I can't present evidence if you can't even present an argument.



But God did not instruct Noah to construct the Wyoming did He? The Hebrew historical narrative is clear God instructed and Moses constructed an ark that did exactly what the narrative states – it safely transported its cargo through the Deluge with flying colors. My God is all-knowing and is quite capable of instructing man to build a sea-worthy boat.
It's possible God simply sustained the ark supernaturally, but that's the only way that boat would have survived a global flood. Go back and look at your own argument's model, in Austin's catastrophic plate model what's the surface of the water going to be like? How could a boat with no iron or pumps that was bigger than the Wyoming stay afloat in such conditions? How would it have avoided the problem of hogging and sagging in rough seas if the Wyoming, a smaller boat built with better technology and design, could not?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7a/ShipSaggingHogging.png/300px-ShipSaggingHogging.png



There is no accusation of any kind of guilt by association – I simply pointed out the irony that your skepticism is like the skepticism of the unbelievers I recently encountered. It’s a strange world sometimes.
I'm not seeing how it's that strange. People from all walks of life would also tell you that the atomic number of Helium is two, it doesn't mean they share a metaphysical outlook on the universe.



The truth is my friend you “proved” nothing – we don’t even know from historical data, theory, or observation exactly how the sun heats itself let alone how old it might be.
So, in your view, we can't know that the sun is powered by nuclear fusion because no one has ever seen it? What, exactly, do you think it is powered by then? Not even the YEC sites you typically quote go this far, I'm interested to know why you do.



John Eddy is not a light-weight in the world of astrogeophysics and his words are still true today. Is he also a shoddy scienctist like all the others presented on this thread? ;)
“There is no evidence based solely on solar observations that the Sun is 4.5 to 5 billion years old…I suspect that the Sun is 4.5 billion years old. However, given some new and unexpected results to the contrary, and some time for frantic recalculation and theoretical readjustment, I suspect that we could live with Bishop Ussher’s value for the age of the Earth and Sun [4004 B.C.]. I don’t think we have much in the way of observational evidence in astronomy to conflict with that.” ~ Dr. John Eddy, an evolutionary astronomerJohn Eddy was simply wrong. Your quote is from an abstract he published in 1979 in which he argued that the sun was shrinking. He never published the actual paper because of another paper published the following year that showed his conclusion to be wrong. If Eddy's conclusion above is so strong why couldn't he ever get (or even try to get) his actual paper published?



LOL – I would doubt seriously that you have the expertise to present a valid defense of any of the above unless you learn through osmosis – remember Googling does not a scientist make.
Try me.



You still don’t get it do you? Radiometric dating *assumes* uniformitarianism and that doctrine remains unproven and unprovable. Do you want to go over it one more time?Which specific assumptions does radiometric dating make which you think are invalid? Why, if these assumptions are invalid, would multiple different radiometric dating techniques yield consistent results? Why, in these assumptions are invalid, would radiometric dating results be in line with other dating techniques that do not rely on radioactive decay?

losthorizon
May 10th 2009, 11:36 PM
So. . .you can't point to anything specifically that catastrophic plate tectonics does a better job of explaining than conventional plate tectonics?


I am not here to defend catastrophic plate tectonics. It was presented as a point of interest and as an alternative viewpoint of conventional wisdom. It is certainly not without problems – eg – viable mechanism(s), etc but it does appear to do a better job explaining the catastrophism we see in the biblical historical narrative. As I have mentioned before science does not yet understand the mechanism God used for breaking up “the fountains of the deep” as the earth was inundated with water. When this mechanism is discovered it may answer the question about the validity of catastrophic plate tectonics in a more positive light. The fact remains - the Flood recorded in Genesis is a reality regardless of the validity of conventional plate tectonics or catastrophic plate tectonics – therefore which ever theory one chooses to accept it is a moot point regarding the thread topic. Both theories are based on assumptions related to unrepeatable historical events and both are not without problems.


Two questions:
1) What are the specific problems Stansfield identifiesI have answered already – the “specific problem” is the multiple assumptions required.


2) Why are Stansfields conclusions more authoritative than more up do date quotes from the majority of scientists who accept the reliability of radiometric dating.
I don’t think I ever stated his conclusions are more authoritative – I did say, however his statement is as valid today as the day he made it - there is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological clock because of the assumptions that are required. I would ask you to present evidence that the majority of scientists fail to realize the problems associated with radioactive dating. I think you are making an incorrect assumption.


I already posted a basic overview of radiometric dating in the carbon dating thread. Please point out the assumptions Stansfield is talking about. I can't present evidence if you can't even present an argument.
Your 'overview' fails to address the problems associated with rock-dating and I have repeatedly pointed out those problems - radioactive dating assumes much (among other things):

(1) the radioactive element decays at a constant rate
(2) the rock crystal being analyzed is not contaminated by infusion of excess end product
(3) the rock crystal contained no end product when it was formed
(4) leaching of the parent element out of the rock sample did not occur.

Recent studies of Mt. St. Helens rock known to have come from the 1980 eruption yielded erroneous dates in the millions of years. Similar studies at the Grand Canyon found volcanic rocks dated at the top of the canyon older than those found in the bottom. ~ Doug Sharp

It's possible God simply sustained the ark supernaturally, but that's the only way that boat would have survived a global flood. Go back and look at your own argument's model, in Austin's catastrophic plate model what's the surface of the water going to be like? How could a boat with not iron or pumps that was bigger than the Wyoming stay afloat in such conditions?
There can be no doubt the Deluge had supernatural elements involved but one can certainly argue that the Eternal was capable of instructing Noah on ship-building techniques that enabled the Ark to complete its mission without sinking and that is exactly what the historical narrative states. I think the Ark was sea-worthy per God’s instructions. Do you not think God who created the universe was capable of accomplishing this task? Do you believe by faith that God was capable of creating the universe?


I'm not seeing how it's that strange. People from all walks of life would also tell you that the atomic number of Helium is two, it doesn't mean they share a metaphysical outlook on the universe.
But the periodiс table is not historic biblical narrative. Noah’s Ark is historical narrative and as such is historical fact. I find it “ironic” that your skeptical argument against Noah’s Ark is almost identical to that presented by atheists. Most Christians accept some version of the Flood story as biblical fact and most atheists remain skeptical. In your version of the flood did Noah build an ark and did the ark stay afloat as it rises above the flood water? How much water did your version take on?


So, in your view, we can't know that the sun is powered by nuclear fusion because no one has ever seen it? What, exactly, do you think it is powered by then? Not even the YEC sites you typically quote go this far, I'm interested to know why you do.
But I did not say the sun is not powered when hydrogen is burned into helium, did I? I simply stated this truth - we don’t know from historical data, theory, or observation exactly how the sun heats itself. We now know the sun has cyclic activity and there are many unanswered questions related to stellar nucleosynthesis and I am sure even you do not know all the answers. If you do naively claim to know all the answers please let me know and we can test your knowledge.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/Nucleosynthesis_in_a_star.gif


John Eddy was simply wrong. Your quote is from an abstract he published in 1979 in which he argued that the sun was shrinking. He never published the actual paper because of another paper published the following year that showed his conclusion to be wrong. If Eddy's conclusion above is so strong why couldn't he ever get (or even try to get) his actual paper published?
Again you speak without knowing what you speak about. You have simply Googled the quote and found some Darwinian apologist who has given you some bum advice. Eddy is a well-respected astrogeophysicist and the quote was made in 1978 and was not in the 1979 abstract about sun shrinkage. Furthermore, what he stated is correct and if you understood what is being stated you would realize your error but it appears to have gone over your head. Let me play his quote once again and I suggest you read closely what he says – pay special attention to the phrase – “No Evidence Based Solely On Solar Observations”. Let me know if the light comes on.

“There is no evidence based solely on solar observations that the Sun is 4.5 to 5 billion years old…I suspect that the Sun is 4.5 billion years old. However, given some new and unexpected results to the contrary, and some time for frantic recalculation and theoretical readjustment, I suspect that we could live with Bishop Ussher’s value for the age of the Earth and Sun [4004 B.C.]. I don’t think we have much in the way of observational evidence in astronomy to conflict with that.” ~ Dr. John Eddy (astrophysicist)

Try me.
I will once your osmosis merges with your Googling.


Which specific assumptions does radiometric dating make which you think are invalid?
Ditto above:
(1) the radioactive element decays at a constant rate
(2) the rock crystal being analyzed is not contaminated by infusion of excess end product
(3) the rock crystal contained no end product when it was formed
(4) leaching of the parent element out of the rock sample did not occur.

Itinerant Lurker
May 11th 2009, 02:30 AM
I am not here to defend catastrophic plate tectonics. It was presented as a point of interest and as an alternative viewpoint of conventional wisdom.


Aw come on man, every time I think you're finally going to pick a lane you throw that turn signal on and start talking about "points of interest". It's not an alternative if you can't defend it, nor should you bring it up as a point of interest if you don't actually understand it.



It is certainly not without problems – eg – viable mechanism(s), etc but it does appear to do a better job explaining the catastrophism we see in the biblical historical narrative. As I have mentioned before science does not yet understand the mechanism God used for breaking up “the fountains of the deep” as the earth was inundated with water. When this mechanism is discovered it may answer the question about the validity of catastrophic plate tectonics in a more positive light.
Translation = catastrophic plate tectonics doesn't actually do a better job of explaining observable evidence.



The fact remains - the Flood recorded in Genesis is a reality regardless of the validity of conventional plate tectonics or catastrophic plate tectonics – therefore which ever theory one chooses to accept it is a moot point regarding the thread topic.
Hahahahah, what??? So no matter what the evidence your view is right? Why even bother talking about evidence then since it obviously is superfluous?



I have answered already – the “specific problem” is the multiple assumptions required.
Which ones, specifically, does Stansfield mention?



I don’t think I ever stated his conclusions are more authoritative – I did say, however his statement is as valid today as the day he made it - there is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological clock because of the assumptions that are required.
So. . .his conclusions aren't any more authoritative than the majority of scientists who claim that use radiometric dating as a reliable tool. . .but he's still right while everyone else is wrong? How are you reaching these conclusions? If he's not any more authoritative then why do you think he's right?



I would ask you to present evidence that the majority of scientists fail to realize the problems associated with radioactive dating. I think you are making an incorrect assumption.
Scientists do recognize potential problems with dating methods, but they also recognize that we have effective methods to detect and counter these problems.

"Modern geologists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology) and geophysicists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geophysicists) consider the age of the Earth to be around 4.54 billion years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_E17_s) (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth#cite_note-USGS1997-0)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth#cite_note-1) This age has been determined by radiometric age dating (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating) of meteorite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteorite) material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_moon) samples (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_rock)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

"The ages of Earth and Moon rocks and of meteorites are measured by the decay of long-lived radioactive isotopes of elements that occur naturally in rocks and minerals and that decay with half lives of 700 million to more than 100 billion years to stable isotopes of other elements. These dating techniques, which are firmly grounded in physics and are known collectively as radiometric dating, are used to measure the last time that the rock being dated was either melted or disturbed sufficiently to rehomogenize its radioactive elements."
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html

"Scientists have settled on the age of the earth of about 4.6 billion years as a result of research started almost 50 years ago. This conclusion was based upon carefully designed and conducted experiments that compared the ratios in rock samples of parent elements to daughter elements ( some of which would have been from radioactive decay of the parent, some of which may have been present in the sample at the time of formation). Since radioactive decay is known to occur at a constant rate, the age of a rock can be determined from the ratio of the parent element to the daughter element. The concerns about these dating methods were exactly the same that creationists continue to raise - presence of the daughter element at the time the rock was formed and possible loss / gain of either the parent or daughter element at some point in the history of the rock. For this reason, the tests were designed to account for those possibilities."
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/AgeEarth.html (http://www.gate.net/%7Erwms/AgeEarth.html)



Your 'overview' fails to address the problems associated with rock-dating and I have repeatedly pointed out those problems - radioactive dating assumes much (among other things):
(1) the radioactive element decays at a constant rate
(2) the rock crystal being analyzed is not contaminated by infusion of excess end product
(3) the rock crystal contained no end product when it was formed
(4) leaching of the parent element out of the rock sample did not occur.



Yay! Actual, specific criticisms! At last! Now here's how you're wrong.

1) Decay rates have never been observed to change as drastically as demanded by a YEC view. If they had changed by some mysterious unknown mechanism we wouldn't expect that change to affect every isotope of every element, therefore different radiometric dating techniques should yield different results. In actuality exactly the opposite is true, radiometric dating techniques that use different isotopes with different decay rates consistently arrive at the same results.

2 & 3)

"Initial daughter element can often be accounted for by either measuring the amount of an isotope of the daughter element (the ratio of isotopes are almost always constant). Another possibility is (as in the case of the potassium - argon - K-Ar method) that because the daughter element is gaseous, it would escape from the rock when the rock was molten. Once the rock cooled, the gaseous daughter would be trapped in the rocks crystal structure and could no longer escape. By experimentation, scientists have determined which rocks are suitable for various dating techniques. For K-Ar, for example, igneous rocks are good candidates for testing because they formed directly from molten magma and have a simple history. Metamorphic rocks do not work well because heating events in their history have allowed the escape of Argon (daughter element) and thus will indicate an age too young for the sample. Sedimentary rocks do not work because they are made up of a mixture of deposits of many other types of rocks, each of which would point to a different age. At any rate, scientists have devoted a great deal of effort to determining exactly which dating methods are appropriate for which types of rocks."
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/AgeEarth.html (http://www.gate.net/%7Erwms/AgeEarth.html)

Additionally, if samples were all contaminated they would not give consistent results. Since different dating methods from all over the globe tested at different labs every year give off consistently correlating results it defies logic to claim they are all contaiminated.
http://gondwanaresearch.com/radiomet.htm
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/crater_chain.html

4)

"The other problem to avoid when dating rocks is the possibility that changes to the rock have caused loss or gain of either the parent or daughter element - this would lead to a false date (too old if parent element were lost, too young if daughter element were lost). I know of two methods that have been designed that can account for this possibility - isochron dating and the uranium-thorium-lead discordia / concordia method (actually three independent age calculations for one sample). Both of these methods have internal checks for the possible loss / gain of elements to the rock."
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/AgeEarth.html (http://www.gate.net/%7Erwms/AgeEarth.html)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html#isowrong



Recent studies of Mt. St. Helens rock known to have come from the 1980 eruption yielded erroneous dates in the millions of years. Similar studies at the Grand Canyon found volcanic rocks dated at the top of the canyon older than those found in the bottom. ~ Doug SharpAre you under the impression something has changed since the last time I showed that these creationist scientists intentionally used inappropriate dating techniques ?



I think the Ark was sea-worthy per God’s instructions.
So, you really think that the ark described in Genesis could hold up in a global flood environment? Do you have any evidence for this or is it just a gut feeling?



Do you not think God who created the universe was capable of accomplishing this task?
Already answered, read my last post again a little more carefully.



Do you believe by faith that God was capable of creating the universe?
Seriously?



But the periodiс table is not historic biblical narrative. Noah’s Ark is historical narrative and as such is historical fact.
So, again, evidence has nothing at all to do with the validity of a global flood hypothesis in your view. . .which begs the question as to why you're bothering with evidence in the first place.



In your version of the flood did Noah build an ark and did the ark stay afloat as it rises above the flood water?
Already answered, read back over my last post.



But I did not say the sun is not powered when hydrogen is burned into helium, did I? I simply stated this truth - we don’t know from historical data, theory, or observation exactly how the sun heats itself. We now know the sun has cyclic activity and there are many unanswered questions related to stellar nucleosynthesis and I am sure even you do not know all the answers. If you do naively claim to know all the answers please let me know and we can test your knowledge.
The sun is either powered by nuclear fusion or it isn't. Experimental observation supports nuclear fusion, I'm unaware of anything that contradicts this.
http://www.scienceonline.org/cgi/content/summary/295/5561/1850



Eddy is a well-respected astrogeophysicist and the quote was made in 1978 and was not in the 1979 abstract about sun shrinkage.
Egad you're right, Eddy's aforementioned statement was from a symposium and was recorded in Geotimes, Vol. 23, September 1978, p. 18. Honestly though, you'll have to cut me a little slack if I get your references mixed up since you don't actually cite where they come from. Either way, Eddy was still unable to get his theories published on this issue and he was still wrong.



Furthermore, what he stated is correct and if you understood what is being stated you would realize your error but it appears to have gone over your head. Let me play his quote once again and I suggest you read closely what he says – pay special attention to the phrase – “No Evidence Based Solely On Solar Observations”. Let me know if the light comes on.
“There is no evidence based solely on solar observations that the Sun is 4.5 to 5 billion years old…I suspect that the Sun is 4.5 billion years old. However, given some new and unexpected results to the contrary, and some time for frantic recalculation and theoretical readjustment, I suspect that we could live with Bishop Ussher’s value for the age of the Earth and Sun [4004 B.C.]. I don’t think we have much in the way of observational evidence in astronomy to conflict with that.” ~ Dr. John Eddy (astrophysicist)I don't think you have a good handle on what an argument from authority is and why it fails when not accompanied by evidence. If I can use evidence to show Eddy is wrong why should I suddenly take your word for it that he is right? Using Bishop Ussher's value for the age of the earth is ridiculous on a number of counts. Here's a fun breakdown of the history of earth that follows such a framework:



(1) 4000 B.C. Creation Week: (laws of science suspended)

Day 1 - Space, light & dark, earth materials.
Day 2 - Waters above and waters below.
Day 3 - Earth's crust and plants.
Day 4 - Sun, moon, and stars in place.
Day 5 - Atmosphere + animals of the waters.
Day 6 - Land animals + Adam & Eve.
Day 7 - Day of rest.

1,500 years. Pre-Flood "Geology." Laws of science invalid.

(2) Adam and Eve, talking snakes, etc.
(3) World's waters are in great Venus-like atmosphere or in ground
water. No rain, no ocean basins.
(4) Radiometric dating invalid; speed of light changed.
(5) Humans, dinosaurs, mammals, the "works," all live together in
peace. Both lions and Tyranosaurus Rex are vegetarians in Eden before
the "fall."
(6) Human life spans up to 900 years.
(7) Battle of Satan and angels produces craters on moon. Flood Year: Flood "Geology" - ONE (?) year of normal (?) "science"

Rain - 40 days
(8) Big animals run to mountain tops. Not a single dumb human caught
in all the early flood sediments. All dinosaurs washed off only in
middle flood-time.
(9) Coral reefs (Guadalupe Mountains of Texas) grow to thicknesses of
half a mile during single year.
(10) Vast coal beds accumulate one on top of another, each as original
swamp deposits on order of 100 feet thick, all in one year.
(11) Mile-thick salt formations in Utah form by evaporation (!) of
seawater during (!) the flood.

Flood - about 250 days.
(12) Most of the world's sedimentary rocks dumped on continents to
average thickness of one mile, almost entirely during the flood year.
(13) Most continental drift occurs. Flood waters drain into the newly
formed ocean basins. Atlantic opens at average rate of 1/2 mile per
hour.
(14) Most deep sea sediments (average about 1,500 feet thick) collect
on the newly opened ocean floors.
(15) Hawaiian volcano built 30,000 feet high on new sea floor. (Cools
enough for birds and plants from Ark to colonize soon after end of
flood year.

Final Retreat - ? 100 days ?
(16)Volcano of Mount Ararat built 7,000 feet high underwater and cools
in time for grounding of the Ark.
(17) Successive Yellowstone ash beds bury 10 to 27 forests one on top
of another, all grown during single year.
(18) Grand Canyon cut by receding flood waters. Flood sediments
de-water and harden in one year to rock strong enough to stand as
steep, mile-high cliffs.

Post-Flood Geology - 4,500 years of normal (?) science to
Present
(19)From Ark, Noah (?) directs streams of distinctive animal and plant
communities to migrate to Africa, Australia, South America, etc.
(Ferry service ?) (Some creationists use post-flood continental
drift at rates up to one mile per hour !)
(20)Sun stands still for Israelite battle. Earth stops rotating and
then starts again due to near-miss by Venus out of its orbit ?
(Velikovsky)
(21)Only one ice age as post-flood atmosphere cools.
Geologists' abundant evidence of many great ice advances
separated by sub-tropical vegetation and development of thick soil zones
between some advances are wrong.
(22)Late-flood granite masses, formed at 1,000 degrees (F.), cool to
present low temperatures at rates in violation of all laws of thermal
physics. Fit to radiometric dates is mere coincidence.
(23)Extreme rates of continental drift typical of flood (1/2 mile per
hour) suddenly slow to present-day laser-measured rates of inches per
year. Accord of present rates with radiometric dates is mere chance.
(24)Coral reefs (Bikini, Eniwetok) grow 1/2 to 1 mile thick in first
1,000 years (rate of one foot per month) then slow to present measured
rates of inches per century.
http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/wise.htm (http://www.csun.edu/%7Evcgeo005/wise.htm)


Notice some problems?

losthorizon
May 11th 2009, 04:39 AM
Aw come on man, every time I think you're finally going to pick a lane you throw that turn signal on and start talking about "points of interest". It's not an alternative if you can't defend it, nor should you bring it up as a point of interest if you don't actually understand it.


But it is a point of interest, it is an alternative, I do understand it and it stands or falls on its own merit.


So no matter what the evidence your view is right?What evidence are you referring to? You have presented none.


Which ones, specifically, does Stansfield mention?
I have already answered - since he refers to the theoretical concept as a whole the answer would obviously be all of the assumptions. Can you defend the reliability of radioactive dating in the real world? You haven’t provided much more than your typical mediocrity. What do you say my friend – can you produce?


So. . .his conclusions aren't any more authoritative than the majority of scientists who claim that use radiometric dating as a reliable tool. . .but he's still right while everyone else is wrong? How are you reaching these conclusions? If he's not any more authoritative then why do you think he's right?It is not a matter of authority – it is a matter of reality. He is an evolutionist who faces reality – the reality that radiometric dating is not the reliable dating technique that overzealous folks portray it to be. This is not a hard concept – turn on the light.


Scientists do recognize potential problems with dating methods, but they also recognize that we have effective methods to detect and counter these problems.Of course scientists recognize the inherent problems with rock-dating – this is a given. And again you present more assumptions and more assumptions simply prove you have no ‘proofs’. Your quotes are more circularity – “modern geologists and geophysicists consider the age of the Earth to be around 4.54 billion years because modern geologists and geophysicists say the age of the Earth is around 4.54 billion years (circularity at its best). Is this really the best you have to offer? Present some real meat – not silly fluff.


Yay! Actual, specific criticisms! At last! Now here's how you're wrong.
I have posted these same problems at least 3 times on this thread – where have you been? And I am not wrong at all – you remain very confused. Your 1, 2, 3 & 4 do not address the many assumptions that have never been proven becuase they are unprovable.


1) Decay rates have never been observed to change as drastically as demanded by a YEC view.
LOL – what exactly is the “YEC view”? Please be exact – you appear to be blowing smoke here. Then you do agree that decay rates can and do change but radiometric dating assume radioactive element decays at a constant rate. Check off #1.


2 & 3)

"Initial daughter element can often be accounted for by either measuring the amount of an isotope of the daughter elementAnd what do you do when daughter elements cannot be accounted for? Radiometric dating assumes leaching of the parent element out of the rock sample did not occur. Check off #2 and #3.


4)

"The other problem to avoid when dating rocks is the possibility that changes to the rock have caused loss or gain of either the parent or daughter element - this would lead to a false date
But that problem cannot be avoided and radiometric dating *assumes* the leaching of the parent element out of the rock sample did not occur. Check off #4.

Four strikes – you’re way out. So we see rock-dating relies on assumptions - assumptions that cannot be proven. Thus Stansfield is correct – "It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be… There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological 'clock'…” To this conclusion Andrew Snelling agrees…
The radioisotope methods, long touted as irrefutably dating the earth as countless millions of years old, have repeatedly failed to give reliable and meaningful absolute ages for Grand Canyon rocks. Irreconcilable disagreement within, and between, the methods is the norm, even at outcrop scale. In fact, when carefully examined, this radioisotopic evidence is consistent with the view that these rocks are young. ~ Andrew Snelling, Ph.D. GeologyBtw - do you still erroneously believe Stansfield is a Creationist (3rd request)? You have never clarified your confusion on his Creationist status. And your answer is...


So, you really think that the ark described in Genesis could hold up in a global flood environment? Do you have any evidence for this or is it just a gut feeling?
Unlike your gut feeling that the Ark probably sank – I would enter as exhibit #1 the God-breathed historical narrative recorded in Genesis that clearly states the Ark withstood the global flood and delivered her cargo safely. Do you believe the Bible is God’s word? Do you believe the Bible is a valid historical record (3rd request)? Please provide a brief overview of your flood myth if you believe there was a real "Noah's Flood". You didn’t answer my prior question – is the God who created the universe capable of instructing a man to build an ark capable of doing what is recorded in the historical narrative? And you answer is…


So, again, evidence has nothing at all to do with the validity of a global flood hypothesis in your viewBut I have presented both historical evidence from the Book and historical scientific evidence from scientists of a global flood – both described as taking place less that 12,000 years ago. What parts are you not comprehending – I can go slower just for you if this is needed.


The sun is either powered by nuclear fusion or it isn't. Experimental observation supports nuclear fusion, I'm unaware of anything that contradicts this.
Read my last post – I said the sun is powered when "hydrogen is burned into helium" – do you know what that process is called? Think H-bomb? You didn’t answer my question – do you know all there is to know about stellar nucleosynthesis from your googling?


Egad you're right, Eddy's aforementioned statement was from a symposium and was recorded in Geotimes, Vol. 23, September 1978, p. 18.
Yes – your original source over on your atheist-leaning website made you look silly once again. You really need to start doing your own research – your googling is weak. It also appears the light never came on – too bad because I gave you a big, big hint. Eddy’s statement remains correct today regardless of your continued confusion – “I suspect that the Sun is 4.5 billion years old. However, given some new and unexpected results to the contrary, and some time for frantic recalculation and theoretical readjustment, I suspect that we could live with Bishop Ussher’s value for the age of the Earth and Sun [4004 B.C.]. I don’t think we have much in the way of observational evidence in astronomy to conflict with that.”



Notice some problems?

With your posts - actually – yes I do notice many problems. Your prattle continues unabated and you offer the same argument as I encounter with non-believing skeptics and atheists who wish to discredit God's word. Since your posts are never original I suspect you copied and pasted your "evidence" to disprove God's word from the same atheist website that made you look silly with the your Eddy error - the same one who gave you the misinformation that Stansfield was a Creationist. You need to find new friends - those atheist-guys will disapoint you every time. ;)

Itinerant Lurker
May 11th 2009, 04:13 PM
But it is a point of interest, it is an alternative, I do understand it and it stands or falls on its own merit.


Then it falls. In order to present a reasonable alternative to conventional plate tectonics your model would need to do a better job at explaining the observational evidence. So far you haven't provided any evidence that catastrophic plate tectonics does a better job of explaining. I can't discuss evidence that's never been given, when you asked I provided a few examples of evidence that conventional plate tectonics explains such as the Hawaiin island chain in post #108 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=2051920&postcount=108) of this thread.



I have already answered - since he refers to the theoretical concept as a whole the answer would obviously be all of the assumptions.
The problem with this is that since your Stansfield quote is so dated (1977) it's very possible that many, if not all, of the specific problems he was referring to have been resolved. It's also possible that the problems he was referring to weren't actually problems at all, even at the time. Since neither of us apparently knows what, specifically, he was talking about over thirty years ago when he made this statement I don't see how you can use this as anything but an argument from authority. And since you've already stated that he is not any more authoritative than anyone else I don't see how this is much of anything at all.



Of course scientists recognize the inherent problems with rock-dating – this is a given. And again you present more assumptions and more assumptions simply prove you have no ‘proofs’. Your quotes are more circularity – “modern geologists and geophysicists consider the age of the Earth to be around 4.54 billion years because modern geologists and geophysicists say the age of the Earth is around 4.54 billion years (circularity at its best). Is this really the best you have to offer? Present some real meat – not silly fluff.
I think you forgot what question you were asking. I was responding to your query about whether or not most scientists in these fields recognized potential problems with the reliability of radiometric dating.



LOL – what exactly is the “YEC view”? Please be exact – you appear to be blowing smoke here. Then you do agree that decay rates can and do change but radiometric dating assume radioactive element decays at a constant rate. Check off #1.
That the earth is thousands instead of billions of years old is a very general description. I'll concede that some isotopes can have varying decay rates. However, none of those isotopes with observed decay rates are the ones used in dating methods and none of these rate changes has exceeded a 1% change. Needless to say, not only do the wrong isotopes vary but they don't vary anywhere near enough for your argument. Consequently, radioactive decay does release heat proportional to the rate of decay and the amount of radioactive material. . .what do you think would happen to the earth if billions of years of observed radioactive decay was compressed down into a few thousand years? Once again, you've managed to microwave the planet.



And what do you do when daughter elements cannot be accounted for? Radiometric dating assumes leaching of the parent element out of the rock sample did not occur. Check off #2 and #3.
You missed this very important part of that explanation:

". . .because the daughter element is gaseous, it would escape from the rock when the rock was molten. Once the rock cooled, the gaseous daughter would be trapped in the rocks crystal structure and could no longer escape. By experimentation, scientists have determined which rocks are suitable for various dating techniques."
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/AgeEarth.html (http://www.gate.net/%7Erwms/AgeEarth.html)



But that problem cannot be avoided and radiometric dating *assumes* the leaching of the parent element out of the rock sample did not occur. Check off #4.
Covered above, this is why we've developed dating methods that can "check" this potential problem.



The radioisotope methods, long touted as irrefutably dating the earth as countless millions of years old, have repeatedly failed to give reliable and meaningful absolute ages for Grand Canyon rocks. Irreconcilable disagreement within, and between, the methods is the norm, even at outcrop scale. In fact, when carefully examined, this radioisotopic evidence is consistent with the view that these rocks are young. ~ Andrew Snelling, Ph.D. GeologyNothing has changed since the last time on this quote either. Snelling is still wrong, using inappropriate dating techniques on rocks they weren't meant to be used on is still not an argument.



Unlike your gut feeling that the Ark probably sank – I would enter as exhibit #1 the God-breathed historical narrative recorded in Genesis that clearly states the Ark withstood the global flood and delivered her cargo safely.
How would this help you in a discussion with a non-believer? Do you acknowledge the problems with this account that cannot be reconciled with the evidence we have today?



Do you believe the Bible is God’s word?
Nope, you ratted me out with your piercing questions. Oh, if only you hadn't kept asking the same question over and over again maybe I could have kept up my finely crafted facade!



Do you believe the Bible is a valid historical record (3rd request)?
Go find your previous requests, there's an exceptionally good chance they are accompanied with my answer.



Please provide a brief overview of your flood myth if you believe there was a real "Noah's Flood".
Already done.



You didn’t answer my prior question – is the God who created the universe capable of instructing a man to build an ark capable of doing what is recorded in the historical narrative? And you answer is…
Yes, God is capable of anything. I've answered this over and over and over again for you. What are you trying to gain by repeating it?



But I have presented both historical evidence from the Book and historical scientific evidence from scientists of a global flood – both described as taking place less that 12,000 years ago. What parts are you not comprehending – I can go slower just for you if this is needed.
What evidence supports a flood that covered the entire earth? That's the part I'm having trouble with. The evidence you presented actually supports my view more than yours; that the flood account records a very large local flood possibly brought on by the melting of ice sheets from the last ice age.



Read my last post – I said the sun is powered when "hydrogen is burned into helium" – do you know what that process is called? Think H-bomb? You didn’t answer my question – do you know all there is to know about stellar nucleosynthesis from your googling?
So. . .now you're saying that the sun is powered by nuclear fusion at it's core? Your posts are really confusing on this point. They come across as non-committal to the point of absurdity. Please clarify just what you are saying. And no, I certainly don't know all there is to know about much of anything and don't mean to imply that I do.



Eddy’s statement remains correct today regardless of your continued confusion – “I suspect that the Sun is 4.5 billion years old. However, given some new and unexpected results to the contrary, and some time for frantic recalculation and theoretical readjustment, I suspect that we could live with Bishop Ussher’s value for the age of the Earth and Sun [4004 B.C.]. I don’t think we have much in the way of observational evidence in astronomy to conflict with that.”
If Eddy is right then how do photons make it from the sun's core to our eyeballs in less than 10,000 years without defying the laws of physics?



With your posts - actually – yes I do notice many problems. Your prattle continues unabated and you offer the same argument as I encounter with non-believing skeptics and atheists who wish to discredit God's word. Since your posts are never original I suspect you copied and pasted your "evidence" to disprove God's word from the same atheist website that made you look silly with the your Eddy error - the same one who gave you the misinformation that Stansfield was a Creationist. You need to find new friends - those atheist-guys will disapoint you every time. ;)There's an easy way to tell if someone has copy and pasted something, drop the sentence you suspect into google, put quotations marks around it, and search for it. I source pretty much everything with direct links so it's pretty easy to tell where I get my material.

As an aside, I try to edit out the parts of your posts that are personal/superfluous and I find myself deleting more and more. Please take it down a knotch or two, I do hate having threads closed.

Athanasius
May 11th 2009, 10:12 PM
Thread won't be closed, seems you two are enjoying yourselves:rolleyes: And hey! Past 192 posts :P If there is an issue though let me know...

Itinerant Lurker
May 12th 2009, 12:01 AM
Yay



..........................

losthorizon
May 12th 2009, 02:47 AM
The problem with this is that since your Stansfield quote is so dated (1977) it's very possible that many, if not all, of the specific problems he was referring to have been resolved.


Again – you completely misunderstand the theory behind radioactive dating – listen closely – it is based on assumptions and those assumptions have never changed (thus Stansfield’s remarks remain true today). The assumptions of radiometric dating are based on the philosophical propositions of uniformitarianism and those philosophical propositions cannot be tested or falsified by science. Anything that cannot be tested or falsified by science is not science. Therefore, uniformitarianism is philosophy (metaphysics) not science. What do you think Oliver Wendell Holmes meant in his words below? Think, think, think...you are almost there...
"Science has sometimes been said to be opposed to faith and inconsistent with it. But all science in fact rests on a basis of faith, for it assumes the permanence and uniformity of natural laws.” ~ Oliver Wendell HolmesRadiometric dating is only as good as the philosophy it is founded on. If the philosophical propositions are correct then rock-dating can be fairly accurate. If the philosophical propositions are incorrect then radioactive dating is not the dating method some scientists think it is. Can you prove uniformitarianism is correct? Rhetorical question – of course you cannot. In the meantime I will go with the good professors thinking – “there is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological 'clock’.”
"The age of our globe is presently thought to be some 4.5 billion years, based on radio-decay rates of uranium and thorium. Such 'confirmation' may be shortlived, as nature is not to be discovered quite so easily. There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radio-decay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences. And this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic to a close may not be 65 million years ago, but rather, within the age and memory of man.” ~ Frederick B. Jueneman

Consequently, radioactive decay does release heat proportional to the rate of decay and the amount of radioactive material. . .what do you think would happen to the earth if billions of years of observed radioactive decay was compressed down into a few thousand years? Once again, you've managed to microwave the planet.
Whoa - this is probably the most ridiculous claim made thus far. Can you possibly back this one up with any kind of science/logic or is it a joke?


Nothing has changed since the last time on this quote either. Snelling is still wrong, using inappropriate dating techniques on rocks they weren't meant to be used on is still not an argument.
His words are not nullified by your silly diktat my friend. His quote is correct. Present your evidence that he is wrong. If you can (third request).


How would this help you in a discussion with a non-believer? Do you acknowledge the problems with this account that cannot be reconciled with the evidence we have today?
Historical evidence (Holy Writ) is prima facie evidence under Anglo-American law and no I do not acknowledge any problem. There is no conflict between the historical biblical narrative and science. I again refer you to the words of one of America’s most respectded jurists - "Science has sometimes been said to be opposed to faith and inconsistent with it. But all science in fact rests on a basis of faith, for it assumes the permanence and uniformity of natural laws.” ~ Oliver Wendell Holmes


Nope, you ratted me out with your piercing questions. Oh, if only you hadn't kept asking the same question over and over again maybe I could have kept up my finely crafted facade!
I will understand your odd statement above to be your admission that you do not believe the Bible is God’s word. If that is a misunderstanding it will be your place to correct the record. Again – your argument to discredit the word of God is almost word for word the argument used by the skeptics to discredit His word. :hmm:


What evidence supports a flood that covered the entire earth? That's the part I'm having trouble with. The evidence you presented actually supports my view more than yours; that the flood account records a very large local flood possibly brought on by the melting of ice sheets from the last ice age.
You must be running out of steam and questions – you are now repeating yourself over and over. The question has been answered – I have submitted the biblical record which clearly records a universal flood less than 12,000 years ago and I have presented scientific evendene that supports a universal flood less than 12,000 years ago. Moses said the flood covered all land “under all the heavens” and Emiliani said this about the flood he found evidence for – “there is no question that there was a flood and there is also no question that it was a universal flood.” (Cesare Emiliani from - Noah, the Flood, the Facts). I am not sure what part of “universal” you fail to understand but we can go into more detail if needed.
A measure of the waters is now made by comparison with the only available standard for such waters—the mountains. They are said to have been “covered.” Not merely a few but “all the high mountains under all the heavens.” One of these expressions alone would almost necessitate the impression that the author intends to convey the idea of the absolute universality of the Flood, e.g., “all the high mountains.” Yet since “all” is known to be used in a relative sense, the writer removes all possible ambiguity by adding the phrase “under all the heavens.” A double “all” (kol) cannot allow for so relative a sense. It almost constitutes a Hebrew superlative. So we believe that the text disposes of the question of the universality of the Flood. ~ H.C. Leupold


So. . .now you're saying that the sun is powered by nuclear fusion at it's core? Your posts are really confusing on this point. They come across as non-committal to the point of absurdity. Please clarify just what you are saying. And no, I certainly don't know all there is to know about much of anything and don't mean to imply that I do.
I have said this all along - I cannot be any clearer. I said we assume and I have no reason to doubt that the Sun (a yellow dwarf) is powered by the end result of hydrogen burning into helium (proton-proton chain) – ie - 4 hydrogen nuclei (protons) into a single helium nucleus (2 protons + 2 neutrons) – aka, stellar nucleosynthesis, aka, nuclear reaction.

http://www.windows.ucar.edu/physical_science/physics/atom_particle/proton_proton_chain.gif


If Eddy is right then how do photons make it from the sun's core to our eyeballs in less than 10,000 years without defying the laws of physics?
Of coursed Eddy is correct but you may be confusing yourself again with you photon-eyeball argument. I seem to remember that once photons are emitted by the sun it only takes about 7 or 8 minutes for them to reach our eyeballs. Maybe you can explain your fuzzy math.


As an aside, I try to edit out the parts of your posts that are personal/superfluous and I find myself deleting more and more. Please take it down a knotch or two...
My apologies in advance for any and all personal/superfluous posts – but please provide an example so I can know what you are talking about.


I do hate having threads closed
I think our good friend Xel'Naga has given his blessing to continue although after 200 posts I think this thread has pretty well run its course. But it's been a fun ride. I am still in the doghouse because my wife thinks I spend too much time posting when I can be taking out the trash and other fun things. ;)

Itinerant Lurker
May 12th 2009, 04:03 AM
Again – you completely misunderstand the theory behind radioactive dating – listen closely – it is based on assumptions and those assumptions have never changed (thus Stansfield’s remarks remain true today).


Yeah not really. Radiometric dating is based on observations about how long it takes particles to tunnel out of the nucleus of an unstable atom. It's reliability is built upon the calculations of decay rates that are supported by extended observations of those rates and the laws of physics which prevent those rates from really changing in addition to the alignment of multiple dating methods using different isotopes all of which have different decay rates yet still produce correlating results. I already dealt with the problems you had with radiometric dating, did you have any more besides some odd argument about general philosophies?




"Science has sometimes been said to be opposed to faith and inconsistent with it. But all science in fact rests on a basis of faith, for it assumes the permanence and uniformity of natural laws.” ~ Oliver Wendell Holmes

Yeah. . .that's not actually a Holmes quote. . .I think you're actually quoting Tryon Edwards though it's difficult to say as this is a particularly rare quote. What's your source?




"The age of our globe is presently thought to be some 4.5 billion years, based on radio-decay rates of uranium and thorium. Such 'confirmation' may be shortlived, as nature is not to be discovered quite so easily. There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radio-decay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences. And this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic to a close may not be 65 million years ago, but rather, within the age and memory of man.” ~ Frederick B. Jueneman

Have you figured out what Jueneman bases this conclusion on yet or am I just supposed to take the word of a chemist who is an ardent supporter of Velikovsky's word for it?



Whoa - this is probably the most ridiculous claim made thus far. Can you possibly back this one up with any kind of science/logic or is it a joke?


Which part is ridiculous? That radioactive decay produces heat? Nuclear power planets depend on the heat produced by radioactive decay to produce electricity and contain very complex cooling systems to keep this heat under control.



His words are not nullified by your silly diktat my friend. His quote is correct. Present your evidence that he is wrong. If you can (third request).


Already done, I'll sift back through our posts to get a link for you.



Historical evidence (Holy Writ) is prima facie evidence under Anglo-American law and no I do not acknowledge any problem.


You should point that out next time you use your interpretation to support your interpretation with a non-believer. Let me know how that works out.



There is no conflict between the historical biblical narrative and science. I again refer you to the words of one of America’s most respectded jurists - "Science has sometimes been said to be opposed to faith and inconsistent with it. But all science in fact rests on a basis of faith, for it assumes the permanence and uniformity of natural laws.” ~ Oliver Wendell Holmes


There is nothing but conflict between your view and science. . .including the author of your quote which I'm still thinking is wrong. I could be wrong, but just to be safe where did this quote come from?



I will understand your odd statement above to be your admission that you do not believe the Bible is God’s word. If that is a misunderstanding it will be your place to correct the record. Again – your argument to discredit the word of God is almost word for word the argument used by the skeptics to discredit His word. :hmm:


Nope, you got me fair and square. It's a perfectly acceptable argument to continually ask ridiculous questions that have already been answered over and over just to cast doubts. Obviously since I disagree with your view I automatically disagree with God. Thanks for clearing that up.



You must be running out of steam and questions – you are now repeating yourself over and over. The question has been answered – I have submitted the biblical record which clearly records a universal flood less than 12,000 years ago and I have presented scientific evendene that supports a universal flood less than 12,000 years ago. Moses said the flood covered all land “under all the heavens” and Emiliani said this about the flood he found evidence for – “there is no question that there was a flood and there is also no question that it was a universal flood.” (Cesare Emiliani from - Noah, the Flood, the Facts). I am not sure what part of “universal” you fail to understand but we can go into more detail if needed.


Wow that's great! Now tell me just how far Emiliani's research shows that global sea levels rose. Then explain why it's allright to rely on oxygen-isotope levels to gauge this but not the age of ice cores. I'll be looking forward to your reply.




Of coursed Eddy is correct but you may be confusing yourself again with you photon-eyeball argument. I seem to remember that once photons are emitted by the sun it only takes about 7 or 8 minutes for them to reach our eyeballs. Maybe you can explain your fuzzy math.


Sigh. That's not actually correct, photons take about 8 minutes to reach us from the SURFACE of the sun but, according to the processes you ascribed to above, those photons originate in the sun's CORE. The problem is that it takes a really long time for those photons to make their way from the core to the surface because of the sun's density. This was all addressed in detail back in post #149 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=2011220&postcount=149) which I have continually linked to.




The sun is powered by nuclear fusion which takes place at it's core, which looks something like this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/Sun_parts_big.jpg

This process produces photons which, in order to be seen as light, need to make their way out of the core of the sun to the surface before they can begin their 8 minute journey from the sun's surface to your eyes on earth.

"The core is the only location in the Sun that produces an appreciable amount of heat via fusion: the rest of the star is heated by energy that is transferred outward from the core. All of the energy produced by fusion in the core must travel through many successive layers to the solar photosphere before it escapes into space as sunlight or kinetic energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy) of particles."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#Core

However, these photons can't just travel in a straight line from the sun's core to it's surface because there's a lot of "stuff" in the way. Photons travel at around 300,000 kilometers a second but when they run into another charged particle they are absorbed and re-emitted in another direction. Because the sun is huge and it's core is really dense any given photon is going to be re-emitted in all directions many many many times before it finally makes a break for the surface. Think of it kind of like a giant pinball game where the table is tilted so that the ball has to roll UPHILL in order to escape.

http://sunearthday.nasa.gov/2007/images/tttart_007a.jpg

Estimates on the distance between charged particles in the sun vary from .01 cm in the core to about .3 cm at the surface so estimates on photon transit time vary widely however even the most gracious estimates top out at around 10,000 years which is too old for YEC.
http://sunearthday.nasa.gov/2007/loc...t_sunlight.php (http://sunearthday.nasa.gov/2007/locations/ttt_sunlight.php)

losthorizon
May 13th 2009, 03:28 AM
Yeah not really. Radiometric dating is based on observations about how long it takes particles to tunnel out of the nucleus of an unstable atom


It is obvious you do not understand the theory behind radioactive dating or the necessary assumptions for uniformitarian geology. I see no point in teaching you the fine points - if you do not get it by now you will never understand it - or more accurately – you will never accept the facts involved. No mater which way you choose to spin your prattle the truth remains the truth - "there is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological clock."


Have you figured out what Jueneman bases this conclusion on yet
Answered already – like all scientists his conclusions are based on his research. What part of his conclusion is incorrect and have you ever found the evidence to refute his conclusion (fourth request)? What scientific principle would keep the atomic clocks from being reset during the Flood as the fountains of the deep were broken up? You have yet to address this question.


Which part is ridiculous?
In a nutshell that post of yours was just plain silly. Your fuzzy science is not real-world science. Try again.


Already done, I'll sift back through our posts to get a link for you.
Nope – it was never refuted *scientifically* by you. Maybe you should look for your evidence in your closet – it's possible you left it in the same place you left your still missing in action evidence that dinos sprouted feathers and magically flew into history as birds (Darwinian lore at its best). In the meantime I will not hold my breath.


You should point that out next time you use your interpretation to support your interpretation with a non-believer. Let me know how that works out.
I have used that biblical interpretation many times with unbelievers and some are no longer unbelievers. Do you find it necessary to compromise God’s truth to please atheists? Does Dawkins intimidate you? What would be the difference between your TE worldview and the worldview of Dawkins in relationship to goo-to-you evolution? Could I make a distinction between his religious view (atheism) and your TE view? What does Will Provine mean when referring to TEs - "One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism"?
As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism. ~ Will Provine, Cornell University

“If I were God I wouldn’t do it by evolution! I would do it directly [Genesis style]. By invoking the idea of evolution by natural selection as God’s way of doing it, you are in effect invoking the one way which makes it look as though God isn’t there. So if God chose that way of doing it, then he deliberately chose a way which totally covered his tracks.” ~ Richard DawkinsWhat about it, Lurk did God deliberately chose a way which totally covered His tracks? I think Dawkins has a valid point and I have never seen a TE address this problem. Will you be the first to enlighten us? What think ye?


There is nothing but conflict between your view and science
No conflict at all if we remove all unproven assumptions and Darwinian mythology? Does Darwinian evolution “rest on a basis of faith”? Is Darwinism a religion?
Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion — a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint — and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it — the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. Michael Ruse, How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post May 13, 2000

Nope, you got me fair and square.
Thanks for confirming what was implied in my question. I always like to know where and why Christians feel compelled to compromise the biblical narrative to fit the leading worldview of an opposing religion.


Wow that's great! Now tell me just how far Emiliani's research shows that global sea levels rose.
Glad you concur. Emiliani's research shows exactly what he said he found – a universal flood (worldwide) less than 12,000 years ago. The point that the sea level decreased post-Flood remains a moot point – the biblical narrative records a massive flood that did its damage and then the water receded – eg – the sea level rose and the sea level receded - that's how a flood works. This is not a difficult concept unless one chooses to miss the obvious. Do you not get it? ;)


Sigh. That's not actually correct, photons take about 8 minutes to reach us from the SURFACE of the sun but, according to the processes you ascribed to above, those photons originate in the sun's CORE.
What I stated was *actually* correct – protons from the sun to our eyes on earth in about 8 minutes. The truth remains true - stellar theory (just like radiometric dating) is based on *unproven assumptions*. Do you claim to be able to prove your notion of 10,000 years?

Btw – you do understand what I meant by “hydrogen burning” – right? You appeared a bit confused. And you never answered my question – you are no longer confusing Stansfield with Creationists– right? :)

teddyv
May 13th 2009, 03:06 PM
I don't like to answer for others, but it has to be said fo a few points:


It is obvious you do not understand the theory behind radioactive dating or the necessary assumptions for uniformitarian geology. I see no point in teaching you the fine points - if you do not get it by now you will never understand it - or more accurately – you will never accept the facts involved. No mater which way you choose to spin your prattle the truth remains the truth - "there is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological clock."

It is obvious either you don't either. You appear to be arguing in a purely rhetorical fashion and constantly putting the onus on others who don't have the responsibility to educate you. Put out the evidence or shut up.


Answered already – like all scientists his conclusions are based on his research. What part of his conclusion is incorrect and have you ever found the evidence to refute his conclusion (fourth request)? What scientific principle would keep the atomic clocks from being reset during the Flood as the fountains of the deep were broken up? You have yet to address this question.

Again, non-answer noted. It is apparent you don't even know what his research is and are hoping not to get called on it. You are responsible for the evidence that the Flood could reset radioactive decay (if that's what you think).


Glad you concur. Emiliani's research shows exactly what he said he found – a universal flood (worldwide) less than 12,000 years ago. The point that the sea level decreased post-Flood remains a moot point – the biblical narrative records a massive flood that did its damage and then the water receded – eg – the sea level rose and the sea level receded - that's how a flood works. This is not a difficult concept unless one chooses to miss the obvious. Do you not get it? ;)

I can't believe you are still going on about this. IL's point on Emiliani's research is that at the maximum flood stage, sea levels were below current levels. And the flood does not completely cover every piece of land on the earth. You'll probably start going on about rewriting Plate Tectonic theory now :rolleyes:.


Btw – you do understand what I meant by “hydrogen burning” – right? You appeared a bit confused. And you never answered my question – you are no longer confusing Stansfield with Creationists– right? :)
I've been following this thread the whole way through and now I don't what you are talking about here. You play very coy and vague. If you have evidence that contradicts the mainstream, put it out there.

Athanasius
May 13th 2009, 03:10 PM
Yay

..........................

Well, unless it hits 1000 posts (is it a worse punishment than Hell?) or you start name calling, I figure it can die a natural death, no need to feel forced to post?

Itinerant Lurker
May 13th 2009, 08:14 PM
It is obvious you do not understand the theory behind radioactive dating or the necessary assumptions for uniformitarian geology. I see no point in teaching you the fine points - if you do not get it by now you will never understand it - or more accurately – you will never accept the facts involved. No mater which way you choose to spin your prattle the truth remains the truth - "there is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological clock."


Oh I'll readily admit I don't understand everything associated with radioactive dating, but I think I have a fairly good handle on the general idea. Like I said before, I'm more than happy to discuss specifics instead of constantly having to go back to broad applications of outdated philosophies and theories of long dead scientists.

I am interested in what you use to decide which scientist's claims are "truth". It's obviously not the soundness of their research, since you don't actually present any, and it can't be that their theories hold up to criticism, because none of them have.



Answered already – like all scientists his conclusions are based on his research. What part of his conclusion is incorrect and have you ever found the evidence to refute his conclusion (fourth request)?


Juenmen is your source, it is your responsibility to provide evidence to support his conclusion. You claim that his conclusions are based on his research, what research did he do?



What scientific principle would keep the atomic clocks from being reset during the Flood as the fountains of the deep were broken up? You have yet to address this question.


Yet to address. . .? How on earth would a global flood reset decay ratios and/or rates?



In a nutshell that post of yours was just plain silly. Your fuzzy science is not real-world science. Try again.


So. . .radioactive decay doesn't produce heat?



Nope – it was never refuted *scientifically* by you.


Ahh there we go, now I remember - it was back in the now closed "Bible Contradicts Science" thread, post #137 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=2020241&postcount=137)



The article you cited, "Radioisotope dating of rocks in the Grand Canyon" (http://www.icr.org/articles/view/42/275/), pretty much reaches a conclusion we already know: metamorphic rocks are problematic to date which is why we try not to date them but prefer to use dates from over & underlying layers in order to establish a general time line. The article says as much in the first few paragraphs:

Metamorphic rocks are not always easy to date using radio-isotopes.

Which makes one wonder why, then, did they decide to test metamorphic rocks instead of sedimentary or igneous rocks for which most of these testing methods are designed? It's not as though there aren't any other rock layers available for testing. Let's take Potassium-Argon dating which they tout later as resulting in inconsistent dates:

The model K-Ar ages for each of the samples ranged from 405.1±10 Ma to 2574.2±73 Ma. Furthermore, the seven samples from the small amphibolite unit near Clear Creek, which should all be the same age because they belong to the same metamorphosed basalt lava flow, yielded K-Ar model ages ranging from 1060.4±28 Ma to 2574.2±73 Ma. This includes two samples only 0.84 meters apart that yielded K-Ar model ages of 1205.3±31 and 2574.2±73 Ma.

Why are they using K-Ar dating on metamorphic rock when K-Ar dating is intended for use on igneous rock?

"The technique works well for almost any igneous or volcanic rock, provided that the rock gives no evidence of having gone through a heating-recrystallization process after its initial formation."
http://id-archserve.ucsb.edu/anth3/c...on_Dating.html (http://id-archserve.ucsb.edu/anth3/courseware/Chronology/09_Potassium_Argon_Dating.html)

Finally, the article notes that the age of the rock they are testing was determined from samples taken from the layers above and below the layer they decided to take their samples from (the Brahma Schist). And this makes sense because we already know that, being metamorphic rock, the Brahma schist is difficult to date.

If anything this looks like a case of YEC's looking for the layer MOST likely to give off inaccurate dates due to it's composition and nature to test instead of using dating methods as they're supposed to be used. If you use a test incorrectly you shouldn't be surprised at a weird result.


If that didn't jog your memory here's a synopsis: that's me not only finding the source of your quote but also finding your sources research and showing how his conclusion is faulty based on evidence.



I have used that biblical interpretation many times with unbelievers and some are no longer unbelievers.


On this issue? You've actually fallen back on the "the bible is historical narrative reliable under Anglo-American law" as evidence of the bible in this context? Really? My skepticism is expanding faster than the universe as I type.



Do you find it necessary to compromise God’s truth to please atheists?


Yes, that is obviously the source of my beliefs: an isatiable desire to please.



Does Dawkins intimidate you?


Not only that, he threatened to take my lunch money.



What would be the difference between your TE worldview and the worldview of Dawkins


Obviously there is none, things like the reality of God, the nature of morality, salvation. . .those are obviously non-important points of contention.



What about it, Lurk did God deliberately chose a way which totally covered His tracks?


Actually, in all seriousness, that's exactly why I find myself supporting an old earth view that incorporates biological evolution, because I don't think God covered his tracks.



Thanks for confirming what was implied in my question. I always like to know where and why Christians feel compelled to compromise the biblical narrative to fit the leading worldview of an opposing religion.


No problem, I'm always happy to oblige when someone offers to expose their own underappreciation of sarcasm.



Glad you concur. Emiliani's research shows exactly what he said he found – a universal flood (worldwide) less than 12,000 years ago. The point that the sea level decreased post-Flood remains a moot point – the biblical narrative records a massive flood that did its damage and then the water receded – eg – the sea level rose and the sea level receded - that's how a flood works. This is not a difficult concept unless one chooses to miss the obvious. Do you not get it? ;)


Sweet, so Emiliani's research shows that a global flood 12,000 years ago raised sea levels to cover the entire earth? This is what you're claiming right? Because if Emiliani's research actually showed something like, oh I don't know, a flood that raised sea levels to below today's sea level. . .well that would just be embarrasing.



What I stated was *actually* correct – protons from the sun to our eyes on earth in about 8 minutes. The truth remains true - stellar theory (just like radiometric dating) is based on *unproven assumptions*. Do you claim to be able to prove your notion of 10,000 years?


Your problem isn't how long it takes photons to travel from the sun's surface to earth, it's how long it takes photons to travel from the sun's core to it's surface. I've laid out why physics demands at least 10,000 years for this to happen, do you have a different explanation?



Btw – you do understand what I meant by “hydrogen burning” – right? You appeared a bit confused.

Do you understand what you meant by "hydrogen burning"? I'm not seeing how you are even close to making any sense here.

losthorizon
May 14th 2009, 02:42 AM
I don't like to answer for others, but it has to be said fo a few points…

Put out the evidence or shut up.


LOL - well for one who doesn’t like to answer for others you do answer for others and unless I missed your board credential you really do not have the authority to tell me to “shut up”...do you? Your tone is surprising Teddy and if you have followed this thread as you claim you would have noticed that I have “put out the evidence” on more than one occasion when and where the evidence is warranted. If you have a specific question and you will *allow* me to not shut up I will be happy to respond. ;)


You appear to be arguing in a purely rhetorical fashion…Yes…and why is that a problem – rhetoric, grammar and dialectic (logic) constitute the fine art of discourse do they not? Are you saying you do not employ rhetoric Teddy?


Again, non-answer noted. It is apparent you don't even know what his research is and are hoping not to get called on it. You are responsible for the evidence that the Flood could reset radioactive decay (if that's what you think).
It is not a non-answer at all - as I have stated earlier I am not an apologist for Jueneman – his research stands or falls on its own merit and I am familiar with his work. I presented his conclusion as a point of interest and to demonstrate an alternative view from mainline science. His hypothesis on the “resetting” of the atomic clock has nothing to do with the Flood. His assumptions have to do with neutrinos released during the catastrophic explosion of a supernova with the result it COULD have reset the radiometric clocks. I find it an interesting concept. Neutrinos are created as a result of certain types of radioactive decay as you well know.

If you disagree with his conclusions and care to take him to task then fire away and let’s see what you come up with. Are you an expert in neutrino/antineutrino research? If you do not like his conclusion then the onus IS on you to support why you disagree. As a scientist he has the right to present his hypothesis - isn’t that what science is all? Or are you like our friend Lurk who regards any scientist outside of “mainline” to be a shoddy scientist? I find that *fringe scientists* on discussion boards are the most dogmatic of all. They make wild claims about “overwhelming evidence” but when the rubber hits the road and they are asked to present their ‘evidence’ it turns out to be nothing more than trivial prattle. What do you think? Did Galileo buck mainline science and prevail?


I can't believe you are still going on about this. IL's point on Emiliani's research is that at the maximum flood stage, sea levels were below current levels. And the flood does not completely cover every piece of land on the earth.
But I have never presented Emiliani's research in any other way than by using his own adjectives. You are simply erecting a straw man my friend. The truth remains – Emiliani found evidence for a worldwide flood less than 12,000 years ago. This is all I have ever stated about his work. You wouldn’t try to put words in my mouth would you? Go back and review my posts and show me where I ever presented his work in any way that was not his own words.


I've been following this thread the whole way through and now I don't what you are talking about here. You play very coy and vague. If you have evidence that contradicts the mainstream, put it out there.
I am taking about *hydrogen burning* (proton-proton chain) as it relates to star evolution - especially to our star (the Sun) . There is nothing vague or coy involved so I am really not sure what you are talking about. Hydrogen burning is mainline science all the way and represents good science.
The proton-proton chain reaction is one of several fusion reactions by which stars convert hydrogen to helium, the primary alternative being the CNO cycle. The proton-proton chain dominates in stars the size of the Sun or smaller…WikipediaAlso my question to Lurker about confusing Stansfield with Creationists is not "vague or coy" and if you had been watching the thread as you claim you would understand. Lurker will not clarify if he still remains confused. I suspect he no longer is confused but you can never know.

teddyv
May 14th 2009, 04:54 AM
LOL - well for one who doesn’t like to answer for others you do answer for others and unless I missed your board credential you really do not have the authority to tell me to “shut up”...do you? Your tone is surprising Teddy and if you have followed this thread as you claim you would have noticed that I have “put out the evidence” on more than one occasion when and where the evidence is warranted. If you have a specific question and you will *allow* me to not shut up I will be happy to respond. ;)

Yes…and why is that a problem – rhetoric, grammar and dialectic (logic) constitute the fine art of discourse do they not? Are you saying you do not employ rhetoric Teddy?


It is not a non-answer at all - as I have stated earlier I am not an apologist for Jueneman – his research stands or falls on its own merit and I am familiar with his work. I presented his conclusion as a point of interest and to demonstrate an alternative view from mainline science. His hypothesis on the “resetting” of the atomic clock has nothing to do with the Flood. His assumptions have to do with neutrinos released during the catastrophic explosion of a supernova with the result it COULD have reset the radiometric clocks. I find it an interesting concept. Neutrinos are created as a result of certain types of radioactive decay as you well know.

If you disagree with his conclusions and care to take him to task then fire away and let’s see what you come up with. Are you an expert in neutrino/antineutrino research? If you do not like his conclusion then the onus IS on you to support why you disagree. As a scientist he has the right to present his hypothesis - isn’t that what science is all? Or are you like our friend Lurk who regards any scientist outside of “mainline” to be a shoddy scientist? I find that *fringe scientists* on discussion boards are the most dogmatic of all. They make wild claims about “overwhelming evidence” but when the rubber hits the road and they are asked to present their ‘evidence’ it turns out to be nothing more than trivial prattle. What do you think? Did Galileo buck mainline science and prevail?


But I have never presented Emiliani's research in any other way than by using his own adjectives. You are simply erecting a straw man my friend. The truth remains – Emiliani found evidence for a worldwide flood less than 12,000 years ago. This is all I have ever stated about his work. You wouldn’t try to put words in my mouth would you? Go back and review my posts and show me where I ever presented his work in any way that was not his own words.


I am taking about *hydrogen burning* (proton-proton chain) as it relates to star evolution - especially to our star (the Sun) . There is nothing vague or coy involved so I am really not sure what you are talking about. Hydrogen burning is mainline science all the way and represents good science.

The proton-proton chain reaction is one of several fusion reactions by which stars convert hydrogen to helium, the primary alternative being the CNO cycle. The proton-proton chain dominates in stars the size of the Sun or smaller…Wikipedia

Yes, I was a little annoyed, but I'm feeling much better now. My apologies.

Again, you are making claims that go against the bulk of mainstream geological evidence. I am under no burden. I would like to see you lay out, using your various sources a coherent testable hypothesis on the Flood. If you are just going to throw out quotes and see what sticks then I am officially done here.

Also my question to Lurker about confusing Stansfield with Creationists is not "vague or coy" and if you had been watching the thread as you claim you would understand. Lurker will not clarify if he still remains confused. I suspect he no longer is confused but you can never know.
My comment was only referring to the H-H burning line, not the latter. Forgot to delete that bit.

St-Vox
May 14th 2009, 05:53 PM
I see a lot of discussions related to the feasability of the story of Noah's ark ( how the animals were collected, how the ark was built, etc). My questionis a little different...

Why was the flood needed? Why did God not just use his power to rid the Earth of sinners without resorting to a flood- this would have saved plants and millions of animals (as well as being alot easier for Noah and his family!).

Secondly- Humans were already seen as sinners in the eyes of God ever since the fall. Why not just wipe out all humans (noah included) and start over? By starting over, original sin would be wiped out and humans would no longer suffer as a result.
Hope everyone is having a good day! Hope my questions make sense.

Do not feel offended by my remark, But I do not think your question makes sense. Who are we to question why God does anything, really!:B Some ppl He saves, and some ppl, He does not, Esau He hated, Jacob He loved.
Since the bible as a whole is a spiritual book, we have to look for spiritual meaning within it and see the gospel messages
Now, according to my own mind, God made us and wanted to see it through to the end. It is just a recorded history God does not wish for any to perish, and is reminding us to behave unless we want the same kind of justice. Just as He tested Adam and Eve in the Garden, again, a testing with a forewarning of consequences. Only this time we have a visual of a consequence of our actions, which Adam and Eve did not have.:idea:

losthorizon
May 15th 2009, 03:46 AM
Yes, I was a little annoyed, but I'm feeling much better now.


Glad to see you back to your old-self Teddy - we all get a little cranky sometimes. :)


Again, you are making claims that go against the bulk of mainstream geological evidence.
I simply have pointed out the many assumptions required to support mainstream geology as it relates to historical science. These assumptions are many and they remain unproven. Even you understand this point – yes?


I am under no burden. I would like to see you lay out, using your various sources a coherent testable hypothesis on the Flood. If you are just going to throw out quotes and see what sticks then I am officially done here.
We are both under no burden my friend. There are a number of Flood theories based on science floating around but they also rely on unproven (and unprovable) assumptions. I feel no compulsion to defend them - they stand or fall on their own merit. I am content to believe by faith the historical Flood narrative as recorded by Moses as being historical fact. There was a *universal flood* less than 12,000 years ago. Of course, God does not require blind faith (IMO). I think there is amble evidence found in earth science to support a *universal flood* less than 12,000 years ago. If you disagree with the biblical historical record or the historical scientific record I will be more than happy to discuss further.
“… the oxygen isotope ratios of the foraminifera shells show a marked temporary decrease in the salinity of the waters of the Gulf of Mexico. It clearly shows that there was a major period of flooding from 12,000 to 10,000 years ago... There was no question that there was a flood and there is no question that it was a universal flood." ~ Cesare Emiliani, U of Miami (oceanographer)

______________

"Fields of low hills that cover parts of inland Canada and the northern United States may seem quite distant from the watery world of Atlantis. Yet a Canadian geologist proposes these hills formed from huge Ice Age floods that sharply raised global sea levels and could have spawned myths of a swamped continent.

There's nothing in recorded history that matches the size of these floods," says John Shaw of Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario… In some ways, Shaw's hypothesis echoes ideas raised 14 years ago by a group of oceanographers who studied the ancient remains of one-celled animals buried under sediment on the floor of the Gulf of Mexico. The ratios of oxygen isotopes in these organisms suggested that sometime around 11,500 years ago, a large amount of freshwater entered the gulf, says Cesare Emiliani of the University of Miami in Coral Gables. On the basis of the isotope studies, Emiliani and his colleagues theorized that a sudden influx of meltwater from the ice sheet could have rapidly raised sea levels, sparking myths of a great deluge…" COPYRIGHT 1989 Science Service, Inc.

Philemon9
May 15th 2009, 05:23 AM
I think there is amble evidence found in earth science to support a *universal flood* less than 12,000 years ago. If you disagree with the biblical historical record or the historical scientific record I will be more than happy to discuss further.

Why doesn't the scientific world agree again? With the evidence being so unmistakably, overwhelmingly, in favor of a universal flood as you say (because who are we kidding, it would have to be...I mean a UNIVERSAL flood, you just don't miss these things). Why doesn't the scientific world agree? Why aren't any theories being published using this universally accepted evidence? Please link me to all of the peer reviewed, scientifically accepted theories for this flood because I want to learn more.

losthorizon
May 16th 2009, 01:15 AM
Why doesn't the scientific world agree again?


Hey Phile – are you back again? Why don’t you define your term “scientific world” so we can stay on the same page? I know of many scientists (both living and dead) who believe in the Flood as presented by Moses. Isaac Newton was part of the “scientific world” and he believed in the Flood and as a Creationist he also believed “the sun, planets, and comets” could only proceed from the Being who governs all things – the Lord God…
This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being....This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord
God "pantokrator," or Universal Ruler... ~ Isaac Newton

With the evidence being so unmistakably, overwhelmingly, in favor of a universal flood as you say (because who are we kidding, it would have to be...I mean a UNIVERSAL flood, you just don't miss these things). Why doesn't the scientific world agree?
I have never seen any scientist in the ‘scientific world’ dispute Casare Emiliani’s evidence where he concluded there was a *universal flood* less than 12,000 years ago. You appear to be confused on this matter. Isaac Asimov was a scientist and an atheist and he reviewed the work of Emiliani and Shaw and concluded their work revealed a flood of such cataclysmic force that it could have “given rise to tales of drowned continents and universal flood”. Moses records a cataclysmic water event that destroyed all mankind save those on the Ark – less than 12,000 years ago. I am here to help you – where do you remain confused? The French scientist, Guy Berthault came out with interesting data a few years ago – data that “strongly indicates…a cataclysmic flood, which covered the entire Earth.
"The very fact that [the remains of hundreds of millions of fossilized creatures] were buried in vast quantities of sediment, which has since turned into rock, and that this kind of rock is only made by water, strongly indicates that the catastrophe was a cataclysmic flood, which covered the entire Earth." ~ Guy Berthault

Philemon9
May 16th 2009, 04:06 AM
Hey Phile – are you back again? Why don’t you define your term “scientific world” so we can stay on the same page? I know of many scientists (both living and dead) who believe in the Flood as presented by Moses. Isaac Newton was part of the “scientific world” and he believed in the Flood and as a Creationist he also believed “the sun, planets, and comets” could only proceed from the Being who governs all things – the Lord God…
This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being....This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord
God "pantokrator," or Universal Ruler... ~ Isaac NewtonI have never seen any scientist in the ‘scientific world’ dispute Casare Emiliani’s evidence where he concluded there was a *universal flood* less than 12,000 years ago. You appear to be confused on this matter. Isaac Asimov was a scientist and an atheist and he reviewed the work of Emiliani and Shaw and concluded their work revealed a flood of such cataclysmic force that it could have “given rise to tales of drowned continents and universal flood”. Moses records a cataclysmic water event that destroyed all mankind save those on the Ark – less than 12,000 years ago. I am here to help you – where do you remain confused? The French scientist, Guy Berthault came out with interesting data a few years ago – data that “strongly indicates…a cataclysmic flood, which covered the entire Earth.
"The very fact that [the remains of hundreds of millions of fossilized creatures] were buried in vast quantities of sediment, which has since turned into rock, and that this kind of rock is only made by water, strongly indicates that the catastrophe was a cataclysmic flood, which covered the entire Earth." ~ Guy Berthault

Great! Thanks losthorizon - now just link me to those scientific journals and/or peer reviewed articles if you don't mind.

Itinerant Lurker
May 16th 2009, 11:29 AM
I have never seen any scientist in the ‘scientific world’ dispute Casare Emiliani’s evidence where he concluded there was a *universal flood* less than 12,000 years ago. You appear to be confused on this matter.


How high did Emiliani's research show that flood raised global sea levels? It's weird that you completely ignored this question yet again.



Isaac Asimov was a scientist and an atheist and he reviewed the work of Emiliani and Shaw and concluded their work revealed a flood of such cataclysmic force that it could have “given rise to tales of drowned continents and universal flood”.


And Shaw also said that even an influx of 80,000 cubic kilometers from the largest of these possible ice dams would have raised global sea levels by how much?



The French scientist, Guy Berthault came out with interesting data a few years ago – data that “strongly indicates…a cataclysmic flood, which covered the entire Earth.
"The very fact that [the remains of hundreds of millions of fossilized creatures] were buried in vast quantities of sediment, which has since turned into rock, and that this kind of rock is only made by water, strongly indicates that the catastrophe was a cataclysmic flood, which covered the entire Earth." ~ Guy Berthault

Berthault is wrong, I've already shown the problems with his "research" numerous times in this thread. He has not been able to get his flood research published in any credible journals, he argues against centuries old outdated concepts of stratigraphy, and uses pitifully non-applicable laboratory experiments to try to explain the geological column forming during the flood.

losthorizon
May 16th 2009, 12:32 PM
Great! Thanks losthorizon


Your welcome Phile - the researchers I have presented are listed in this thread.

losthorizon
May 16th 2009, 12:41 PM
How high did Emiliani's research show that flood raised global sea levels? It's weird that you completely ignored this question yet again.

And Shaw also said that even an influx of 80,000 cubic kilometers from the largest of these possible ice dams would have raised global sea levels by how much?


But you are relying on the uniformitarian assumption of a constant sea-water depth/land-mass configuration pre-flood/post-flood. The biblical view is one of *catastrophism* and catastrophism suggests a Pangean-type distribution of earth's landmass pre-flood with much shallower pre-flood oceans. This view also suggests that during this catastrophic flood as the *fountains of the deep* were broken up a vast amount of geological work (deeper oceans/higher mountains) was completed in only a few months time. If this is correct then your point remains what it is – a moot point.
catastrophism (kətăs'trəfĭzəm) , in geology, the doctrine that at intervals in the earth's history all living things have been destroyed by cataclysms (e.g., floods or earthquakes) and replaced by an entirely different population. During these cataclysms the features of the earth's surface, such as mountains and valleys, were changed or formed.And we are still left with two facts that you have never overcome – (1) the historical record of a universal flood less than 12,000 years ago as presented by Moses and (2) a universal flood less than 12,000 years ago evidenced by the historical scientific record as presented by Emiliani, Shaw, Berthaul, etc. You need to move forward.


Berthault is wrong, I've already shown the problems with his "research" numerous times in this thread. He has not been able to get his flood research published in any credible journals, he argues against centuries old outdated concepts of stratigraphy, and uses pitifully non-applicable laboratory experiments to try to explain the geological column forming during the flood.
You *believe* Guy Berthault is incorrect but you have never presented evidence to prove his hypothesis is in fact incorrect. You do realize how science works – right? Present your evidence that he uses “outdated concepts of stratigraphy”. Is he a shoddy scientist like all the others who disagree with your position? Remember your assumptions are not proof of anything. Step up to the plate and present scientific evidence to disprove his evidence that “strongly indicates that…a cataclysmic flood…covered the entire Earth.” :)

Philemon9
May 16th 2009, 04:01 PM
Your welcome Phile - the researchers I have presented are listed in this thread.

Oh come now. This thread is filled with quite a few quotes that may or may not be in context but I'm still looking for some good hard research articles, books, peer reviewed studies, etc that show evidence collaborated by many (geologists) hopefully.

Itinerant Lurker
May 16th 2009, 05:04 PM
But you are relying on the uniformitarian assumption of a constant sea-water depth/land-mass configuration pre-flood/post-flood.


No, I'm asking a question about your sources. YOU presented Emiliani and Shaw as your sources, YOU claimed their research supported a global flood that covered the entire earth. So, how about it? According to Emiliani's research, how high did global sea levels rise in relation to today's sea levels? According to Shaw's research, how much would the largest of his theories meltwater dams (80,000 cubic kilometers) have raised global sea levels?

These should not be difficult questions if you are familiar with their research.



The biblical view is one of *catastrophism* and catastrophism suggests a Pangean-type distribution of earth's landmass pre-flood with much shallower pre-flood oceans. This view also suggests that during this catastrophic flood as the *fountains of the deep* were broken up a vast amount of geological work (deeper oceans/higher mountains) was completed in only a few months time. If this is correct then your point remains what it is – a moot point.


That's a pretty ginormous "if" since you have not been able to provide any evidence that's been able to withstand criticism. The last time you tried to support your catastrophic plate tectonics you ended up trying to back out of it saying that you didn't necesarrily believe any of it but had just brought it up as a "point of interest".



And we are still left with two facts that you have never overcome – (1) the historical record of a universal flood less than 12,000 years ago as presented by Moses and (2) a universal flood less than 12,000 years ago evidenced by the historical scientific record as presented by Emiliani, Shaw, Berthaul, etc. You need to move forward.


You could substantiate this claim by answering a few simple questions:

1. How high does Emiliani's research show global sea levels rising to?
2. How high does Shaw's research show global sea levels would rise due to the breaking of a large meltwater dam (80,000 cubic kilometers)?
3. What does Berthault base his conclusions on?



You *believe* Guy Berthault is incorrect but you have never presented evidence to prove his hypothesis is in fact incorrect. You do realize how science works – right? Present your evidence that he uses “outdated concepts of stratigraphy”. Is he a shoddy scientist like all the others who disagree with your position? Remember your assumptions are not proof of anything. Step up to the plate and present scientific evidence to disprove his evidence that “strongly indicates that…a cataclysmic flood…covered the entire Earth.” :)

Already done, you can re-read my previous post on the problems I have with Berthault's work back in post #139 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=2056107&postcount=139) of this thread.



Is virtually every other geologist in the world wrong because they disagree with yours? What part of Berhault's work do you find especially strong so as to ignore virtually all other geologists and hold up Berthault as alone authoritative?

I have numerous problems with Berhault's work, names becuase he didn't really do any new experiments or present any data less than 15 years old. Addtionally, Berthault sets out to upend the principles of stratiography not by challenging modern understandings of the field but by attacking how these principles were originally described over three hundred years ago in Nicholas Steno's 1669 work, De Solido Intra Solidium Naturaliter Contento Dissertationis Prodromus.

Pretty much all of his research consists of studying how sediment can be laid down using flumes, basically artificial channels used to study how water transports and deposits sediment. He appears to have managed to figure out how to get sediment to layer up quickly and then jumped straight from there to claiming that because sediment can do this in a controlled little tank it can do it within a world wide catastrophic flood ignoring all the contradictory variables that would necessarily be introduced. He's literally making the leap from a few inches in a laboratory to a few miles in the real world. Berthault hasn't been able to get any of his YEC flood model geology papers published in anything but out of the way foreign journals and has largely been ignored by mainstream geology since the early 1990's. I would highly recommend not using him as a reference in a debate.

losthorizon
May 16th 2009, 05:40 PM
YOU presented Emiliani and Shaw as your sources, YOU claimed their research supported a global flood that covered the entire earth.


In reality what I have always presented were these facts: (1) Emiliani and Berthault made the claim their research supports a “worldwide flood” (their words) - THEY make their own claims. (2) I have no reason to doubt their claims and they are in sync with the revealed word of God – a global flood less than 12,000 years ago. (3) Beyond these facts I have made no other claims. If you disagree with Emiliani, Shaw or Berthault then the onus is on you to provide evidence as to why they are in error. As a reminder - your uniformitarian assumptions do not constitute proof of anything other than a proof that you lack real evidence to dispute their findings.


That's a pretty ginormous "if" since you have not been able to provide any evidence that's been able to withstand criticism.
I have presented my evidence from the historical record (Holy Writ) and historical science (Emiliani, Shaw, Berthault, Asimov, ect). All of the above withstand your criticism and as of this post you have not presented anything other than your usual presumptive prattle to disprove anything.


The last time you tried to support your catastrophic plate tectonics you ended up trying to back out of it saying that you didn't necesarrily believe any of it but had just brought it up as a "point of interest".
But you misrepresent my words – I have did not "back out" of anything. I did say that catastrophic plate tectonics was presented as a point of interest and as an alternative to conventional wisdom. I did not however say I did not believe it – it does show promise. I did say that as a matter of science is was not without problems – the mechanism being its weakest point. Are you clear that Stansfield is not a Creationist? Let me know so I can stop asking. Thanks.

Itinerant Lurker
May 16th 2009, 05:51 PM
In reality what I have always presented were these facts: (1) Emiliani and Berthault made the claim their research supports a “worldwide flood” (their words) - THEY make their own claims. (2) I have no reason to doubt their claims and they are in sync with the revealed word of God – a global flood less than 12,000 years ago. (3) Beyond these facts I have made no other claims.


So you don't really know what Shaw's research shows or what Emiliani's research really concludes, or what Berthault's conclusions are based on at all do you? You seriously never bothered to check them out, all you did was find a sentence here or a statement there and that was enough.



If you disagree with Emiliani,
Do you disagree with Emiliani's research on how high melting glaciers raised sea levels? Do you even know what his research shows for how high global sea level was raised?



Shaw
Do you disagree with Shaw's research on how high the largest of his meltwater dams (80,000 cubic kilometers) would raise global sea levels? Do you even know what his research shows for how high global sea levels would have been raised?



or Berthault
Already done, you can reference my previous post.



I had an idea about testing how you decide which scientists to quote. Reading this quote, would you say it's author is a reliable source?

"Dr. Kaiser also cites a rash of new "authoritative texts" that antiscience education board members can use in their arguments for bringing supernatural explanations into secular classrooms. Among these books is Thousands, Not Billions: Challenging an Icon of Evolution, Questioning the Age of the Earth by Donald DeYoung. According to his biography, DeYoung holds a Ph.D. in physics from Iowa State University and a Master of Divinity from Grace Seminary. DeYoung believes that all stars were instantly created on the fourth day of creation, that they are all the same age and that there was no embryonic stage of star formation from nebulae. DeYoung has used the prestige of his Ph.D. from a highly respected secular university to publish his books and thereby spread his antiscientific philosophy well beyond his classroom. How does a person whose basic philosophy is so anti-science obtain a Ph.D. in any branch of science from a secular university? I have asked for accountability from the granting institutions regarding this problem in the Skeptical Inquirer."

losthorizon
May 16th 2009, 06:19 PM
So you don't really know what Shaw's research shows or what Emiliani's research really concludes, or what Berthault's conclusions are based on at all do you?


Of course I do and their research results stand or fall on their own merit. What part of their research you reject? Have you reviewed their work? Point out any specific data you have found that disproves their work. Was Emiliani's data in error? Did he find evidence for a *universal flood* as he claims? Does the the fact there was a *universal flood* less than 12,000 years ago bother you? Does it run counter to your worldview?


Do you disagree with Emiliani's research on how high melting glaciers raised sea levels? Do you even know what his research shows for how high global sea level was raised?
His post-flood data is a moot point when viewed through catastrophism, which suggests a different landmass pre-flood than post-flood and shallower pre-flood oceans. If that view is correct (and you have yet to disprove it) then your point remains what it is – a moot point. Post-flood sea-levels could be equal to or less than pre-flood levels after the waters of the flood receded and after a vast amount of geological rearranging that was completed in only a few months time.

Philemon9
May 16th 2009, 06:35 PM
Hey losthorizon - still waiting on:


Oh come now. This thread is filled with quite a few quotes that may or may not be in context but I'm still looking for some good hard research articles, books, peer reviewed studies, etc that show evidence collaborated by many (geologists) hopefully.

Please provide at your earliest convenience. The truth should be in abundant supply :D

Itinerant Lurker
May 16th 2009, 07:58 PM
Of course I do and their research results stand or fall on their own merit. What part of their research you reject? Have you reviewed their work? Point out any specific data you have found that disproves their work. Was Emiliani's data in error? Did he find evidence for a *universal flood* as he claims? Does the the fact there was a *universal flood* less than 12,000 years ago bother you? Does it run counter to your worldview?


None of this answers my question, what was the maximum sea level rise Emiliani found? This should be very easy to find if you actually are familiar with his research.



His post-flood data is a moot point when viewed through catastrophism, which suggests a different landmass pre-flood than post-flood and shallower pre-flood oceans.
How on earth are going to use Emiliani's research on rising sea levels as evidence of a flood that covered the entire earth but then suddenly shift those sea levels to "post-flood" when someone asks for a specific measurement? If Emiliani's research supports you then his maximum recorded level of sea level rise should support a flood that could cover the entire earth. So I ask again, how high does Emiliani's research show that sea levels rose?



If that view is correct (and you have yet to disprove it) then your point remains what it is – a moot point. Post-flood sea-levels could be equal to or less than pre-flood levels after the waters of the flood receded and after a vast amount of geological rearranging that was completed in only a few months time.Actually no, if there was a massive amount of "geological rearranging" as you say then Emiliani's work would be completely irrelevant. He is basing the dating of his work on sediment analysis using what you call "uniformitarian assumptions" isn't he? (please provide evidence if you disagree) If so then he is not taking into account that the North American continent shot away from the African continent at one mile an hour which would absolutely destroy any kind of stratigraphy in the Gulf of Mexico.

Additionally, you have provided precisely zero evidence to support such catastrophic tectonic activity. Linking to an article and that is summarily destroyed on review is not evidence.


Do you have any comment on the quote from my last post? What would your opinions be about the reliability of its author?

Itinerant Lurker
May 16th 2009, 11:55 PM
Are you clear that Stansfield is not a Creationist? Let me know so I can stop asking. Thanks.

I checked back over my posts to find what you are talking about here and you're right, the way that post went did make it look like I was calling Stansfield a creationist when, in fact, he is not.

But speaking of Stansfield, I was wondering if you could do me a favor and explain just what you think he does for your argument that radiometric dating is unreliable. I realize you may have done this before, but it's been a while and I would really appreciate it as it would help me clear up some questions I have about how you choose your sources.

losthorizon
May 16th 2009, 11:57 PM
If Emiliani's research supports you then his maximum recorded level of sea level rise should support a flood that could cover the entire earth. So I ask again, how high does Emiliani's research show that sea levels rose?


As I have mentioned about 20 posts back the maximum sea level rise per Emiliani's data is a moot point. I have *never* disputed the statistic you provided. You are simply arguing against yourself here my friend and it is rather comical because you appear to be losing. As I have told you repeatedly - I presented the research of Emiliani and Shaw only to support my position that historical science records a universal flood event that took place less than 12,000 years ago on this planet. This is not a hard concept – right? Let me replay my words for you one more time – maybe it will finally sink in:
I have submitted as evidence the biblical record which clearly records a *universal flood* on this planet less than 12,000 years ago and I have also presented scientific evidence that supports a *universal flood* less than 12,000 years ago on this planet per Emiliani and Shaw. Moses said the flood covered all the land “under all the heavens.” Cesare Emiliani said he found evidence for a “universal flood" less than 12,000 years ago – “there is no question that there was a flood and there is also no question that it was a universal flood.” (Cesare Emiliani - Noah, the Flood, the Facts). I have presented evidence from NEW SCIENTIST (Deep Waters) that “vast amounts” of water exist today more than 400 kilometres inside this planet - enough water to replace the surface oceans more than ten times over. I have presented scientific evidence from seismologists at Washington University (St Louis) based on 3-D models that suggest there is enough water in an underground reservoir deep inside this planet that equals the volume of the Arctic Ocean.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/Oceans.png
Now my two questions to you one more time – each question only requires a ‘yes or no’ answer. Please answer ‘yes or no’ to the following questions and we can put this baby to bed. (1) Does the historical record (the Bible) record a flood that covered all land “under all the heavens” 12,000 years ago? (2) Was Emiliani correct when he stated his research based on the historical scientific record found evidence for a “universal flood” less than 12,000 years ago? If you answer these two questions in the affirmative as they should be answered then we will be on the same page and we can stop beating this dead horse. :)

Itinerant Lurker
May 17th 2009, 12:16 AM
As I have mentioned about 20 posts back the maximum sea level rise per Emiliani's data is a moot point.


How is it a moot point that your own source disagrees with you? How is it a moot point that your own sources contradict your claim that the flood they are talking about covered the entire earth? Why can't you bring yourself to type those words: "40 meters below today's sea level"?

Sorry, your own source destroys your argument. Emiliani found evidence that melting ice sheets caused earth's sea levels to rise to 40 meters BELOW current sea levels. Unless you can explain how a flood that's 130+ feet below today's oceans covered the entire earth you just debunked yourself.




I have presented evidence from NEW SCIENTIST (Deep Waters) that “vast amounts” of water exist today more than 400 kilometres inside this planet - enough water to replace the surface oceans more than ten times over. I have presented scientific evidence from seismologists at Washington University (St Louis) based on 3-D models that suggest there is enough water in an underground reservoir deep inside this planet that equals the volume of the Arctic Ocean.



No. . .you provided evidence that microscopic water DROPLETS amount to a lot of water underground. Once again, your own source cites subduction as the mechanism at play here. Not only have you not been able to explain how all this water could be subducted so quickly, but this completely contradicts your next argument about runaway subduction as a source of the flood. If rock was subducting faster the water trapped in the lower strata would have been taken AWAY from the flood waters as the flood was supposedly rising.


Now my two questions to you one more time – each question only requires a ‘yes or no’ answer. Please answer ‘yes or no’ to the following questions and we can put this baby to bed. (1) Does the historical record (the Bible) record a flood that covered all land “under all the heavens” 12,000 years ago? (2) Was Emiliani correct when he stated his research based on the historical scientific record found evidence for a “universal flood” less than 12,000 years ago? If you answer these two questions in the affirmative as they should be answered then we will be on the same page and we can stop beating this dead horse. :)

Both these questions have been answered for you over and over and over again. I think the biblical account is talking about a local event that appeared to cover the entire earth, yes, evidence suggests that there were local floods and a comparatively mundane rise in sea levels 14-10,000 years ago due to melting ice sheets.

losthorizon
May 17th 2009, 02:35 AM
How is it a moot point that your own source disagrees with you?


But my source does not disagree at all – he in fact agrees with my point. My point being there was a universal flood less than 12,000 years ago. Did Emiliani's data lead him to say there was obviously a universal flood less than 12,000 years ago? Let me help you because you continue to wrestle with yourself. The answer is yes - Emiliani's data lead him to say there was obviously a *universal flood* less than 12,000 years ago. If you have evidence his data does not show a universal flood then present that evidence.

Itinerant Lurker
May 17th 2009, 03:47 AM
But my source does not disagree at all – he in fact agrees with my point. My point being there was a universal flood less than 12,000 years ago. Did Emiliani's data lead him to say there was obviously a universal flood less than 12,000 years ago? Let me help you because you continue to wrestle with yourself. The answer is yes - Emiliani's data lead him to say there was obviously a *universal flood* less than 12,000 years ago. If you have evidence his data does not show a universal flood then present that evidence.

Emiliani's research shows that a global flooding event caused by melting ice sheets raised sea levels to 40 meters below current sea levels. That's a local flood, not a flood that covered the entire earth. In fact you have zero evidence at all that a flood of any kind within the last 14,000 years raised sea levels beyond today's levels do you? That doesn't support a literal flood account, that support's a local flood. Thanks for making my point.

Itinerant Lurker
May 17th 2009, 04:24 AM
“Several methods have been devised for estimating the age of the earth and its layers of rocks. These methods rely heavily on the assumption of uniformitarianism… Probably no more than one percent of geological history can be accurately read in rocks… It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological 'clock’.” ~ William Stansfield

Good news, I tracked down your source here. . .that is, the actual 1977 book by Stasfield you're quoting from. Strangely enough it seems your quote missed some kind of important sentences. Things you left out are colored in red.

"It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological 'clock’. The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and evolutionists, but their overall interpretation supports the concept of a long history of geological evolution."

Hmmmmmmm. . .is Stansfield still speaking "the truth" in this quote or is he now wrong?


Some other things from the same text quoted above that were mysteriously left out:

"There are now approximately 600 active volcanoes and about 10,000 dormant ones. Six hundred volcanoes comparable to Paricutin could account for the present oceans in approximately 0.5 billion years. Since volcanic activity presumably was much greater during early earth history than at present, creationists argue that the age of the oceans would appear to be considerably less than 0.5 billion years. By this methodology, creationists stand guilty of the "crime" they ascribe to evolutionists, namely uniformitarianism."

Oh snap, that doesn't sound good. Stansfield then notes several methods by which Creationists try to date the earth as young before making this statement,

"All the above methods for dating the age of the earth, its various strata, and its fossils are questionable, because the rates are likely to have fluctuated widely over earth history. A method that appears to have much greater reliability for determining absolute ages of rocks is that of radiometric dating."

But even more problematic for you is what Stansfield says now. Here are some enlightening excerpts from his article titled Creationism, Catastrophism, and Velikovsky which appeared in the Febuary 2008 edition of the Skeptical Enquirer.

"Great floods are part of mythology in many cultures. However, geologists find no evidence for a worldwide flood in the geological record for at least the last ten thousand years."

". . .there are many questions about the details of evolution that have not been resolved, but that does not mean that the basic premises of evolution theory are on shaky ground or groundless altogether."

"Are Velikovsky's views any "nuttier" than the flood geology of hydraulic engineer Henry Morris, who interpreted the fossil succession in the strata of the Grand Canyon as due to differential settling out from a worldwide flood within historical times?"

"Although these kinds of interpretations have been thoroughly refuted in the scientific literature, the staff members of ICR continue to repeat their versions of Earth and biological history to anyone who will listen. It seems that if a lie is told often enough, a sizable segment of the general public will be gullible enough to believe it. Fundamental creationists count on this and the fervor of true believers in the inerrant Biblical record to make the facts of nature conform to their view. Velikovsky played the same game, continuing to present the same data and interpretations even after they had been thoroughly refuted by empirical scientific evidence or arguments based on well-established astronomical, geological, or biological principles."

"In the same manner, [ICR resident faculty members] Gish and Morris discover in Genesis that the Earth is merely thousands of years old with a six-day period of creation; they then practice ventriloquism with the data of geology and biology."


Sorry, I'm just not seeing how this guy is supposed to help your case.

Philemon9
May 17th 2009, 12:59 PM
Obviously it's difficult to make a case for a young earth or a "covers all the earth" global flood, but intentional dishonesty through omission should not be a method.

losthorizon
May 17th 2009, 01:16 PM
Emiliani's research shows that a global flooding event caused by melting ice sheets raised sea levels to 40 meters below current sea levels. That's a local flood…


But your statement is self-contradictory – in one sentence you admit the reality that Emiliani's research shows a *global flood* and then in the very next sentence you deny this reality by making the silly claim it was only a “local flood” - it can't be both. It was not a local flood you are very confused and it appears your logic is headed south quickly. You are digging a deep hole my friend and you need to stop digging immediately - you are killing your already impotent argument. Just admit the truth and we will be on the same page – Emiliani found evidence for a *universal flood* less than 12,000 years ago. Sea-level measurements remain a moot point – a flood would raise sea-levels as it did its damage and then the sea-levels would recede – this is exactly how floods work. It is really not a hard concept.
The First Rule of Holes…If You Are in One, Stop Digging.

“… the oxygen isotope ratios of the foraminifera shells show a marked temporary decrease in the salinity of the waters of the Gulf of Mexico. It clearly shows that there was a major period of flooding from 12,000 to 10,000 years ago... There was no question that there was a flood and there is no question that it was a universal flood." ~ Cesare Emiliani

Cesare Emiliani of the University of Miami in Coral Gables. On the basis of the isotope studies, Emiliani and his colleagues theorized that a sudden influx of meltwater from the ice sheet could have rapidly raised sea levels, sparking myths of a great deluge. ~ Hills point to catastrophic ice age floods, Science Service, Inc.

Good news, I tracked down your source here. . .that is, the actual 1977 book by Stasfield you're quoting from. Strangely enough it seems your quote missed some kind of important sentences. Things you left out are colored in red.

"It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological 'clock’. The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and evolutionists, but their overall interpretation supports the concept of a long history of geological evolution."

Hmmmmmmm. . .is Stansfield still speaking "the truth" in this quote or is he now wrong?
LOL – I find nothing in his statement above that disagrees with what I have stated all along and yes I think his words are still accurate from the point of view of a dedicated evolutionjist. Remember, it was you who thought he was a Creationist and it was me who had to correct your silly error. You do realize you made a silly error - right? His words are exactly how I used his quote from the get-go – “There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological 'clock’. You are the one who disagreed with his statement above – you are the one who repeatedly stated he was wrong. Are you now saying you have recanted and are finally coming around to my point of view? Do you now see that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that you naively claimed them to be? Do you now understand the uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating that remain disturbing to geologists and evolutionists to this very day? ;)

Stansfield (remember he is an evolutionist) also made this very interesting statement that you brushed off as an untruth – “Probably no more than one percent of geological history can be accurately read in rocks. Furthermore, no single location contains the complete geological record.” For the record – have you now come over to my point of view - is this statement made by the professor correct? Compared to 100% is 1% a very small percentage? Thanks in advance for proving my points made from my original Stansfield quotes. You have been of great help.


But even more problematic for you is what Stansfield says now. Here are some enlightening excerpts from his article titled Creationism, Catastrophism, and Velikovsky which appeared in the Febuary 2008 edition of the Skeptical Enquirer.
I haven’t read the article so I can’t comment on it but I would ask this one question related to your quote mining above – these quotes are supposed to be problematic for me how - exactly? I find nothing problematic at all. Maybe you can expound a bit more.

losthorizon
May 17th 2009, 01:29 PM
Obviously it's difficult to make a case for a young earth or a "covers all the earth" global flood, but intentional dishonesty through omission should not be a method.
I would ask that you prove "intentional dishonesty" on my part becuase there is none. But then you do not even know what is being discussed after 200 + posts and you remain what you have always been - inconsequential to this discussion. :)

Itinerant Lurker
May 17th 2009, 04:34 PM
But your statement is self-contradictory – in one sentence you admit the reality that Emiliani's research shows a *global flood* and then in the very next sentence you deny this reality by making the silly claim it was only a “local flood” - it can't be both.


What I mean is that a rise in sea levels on the order of 10-20 meters (which, consequently, is the part of Emiliani's research you keep omitting) would indeed have a global effect, but that effect would be numerous local floods not one giant flood that covered the entire earth.



Sea-level measurements remain a moot point – a flood would raise sea-levels as it did its damage and then the sea-levels would recede – this is exactly how floods work. It is really not a hard concept.


Right, this is how a flood works - sea levels rise and then recede. The problem is that your source shows that sea levels did not rise beyond 40 meters below current sea levels. Any way you slice it, that's not a moot point - that's evidence that destroys your model.



LOL – I find nothing in his statement above that disagrees with what I have stated all along and yes I think his words are still accurate from the point of view of a dedicated evolutionjist.


So he is accurate when he says:

"The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and evolutionists, but their overall interpretation supports the concept of a long history of geological evolution."

Is this your claim? Because that kind of annihilates any attempt to use Stansfield's claims to undermine the reliability of radiometric dating.



Remember, it was you who thought he was a Creationist and it was me who had to correct your silly error. You do realize you made a silly error - right?


Actually no, at worst I can be accused of sloppily wording a post that you then erroneously interpreted. If you had been paying more attention you would have noticed this statement of mine way back in post #148 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=2057636&postcount=148)



True, Stansfield isn't a creationist but he's still wrong.




His words are exactly how I used his quote from the get-go – “There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological 'clock’. You are the one who disagreed with his statement above – you are the one who repeatedly stated he was wrong. Are you now saying you have recanted and are finally coming around to my point of view?


No, I repeatedly asked that you explain Stansfield's position including what specific problems he saw with radiometric dating. You were unable to do this because you didn't actually know, you just copy and pasted this quote from somewhere and had no idea what Stansfield had based this on. I'm going to be charitable and assume that you also were unaware that the VERY NEXT SENTENCE that you omitted from this quote completely destroys your point. Now that I went and did your research for you and can see this quote in it's full context it's obvious that, while at the time Stansfield was unaware of some advances of dating methods even at the time and was, of course, unable to be aware of the advances of dating methods in the 30+ years since he wrote this book, his conclusion is that even though there are potential problems with radiometric dating it is still reliable and still vastly superior to any kind of dating methods employed by creationists. On those two points I cautiously agree.

Philemon9
May 18th 2009, 12:04 AM
I would ask that you prove "intentional dishonesty" on my part becuase there is none. But then you do not even know what is being discussed after 200 + posts and you remain what you have always been - inconsequential to this discussion. :)

You are in a state of perpetual denial. From what your sources say to what arguments you use. And then to suggest IL's arguments are crumbling through a feeble "I know you are but what am I" type argument. It's quite sad to the observer of the progression of this thread.

Intentionally omitting sections of quotes in order to fit your argument, even though the quoted individual wasn't making the same argument, is intentional, intellectual dishonesty.

losthorizon
May 18th 2009, 01:37 AM
What I mean is that a rise in sea levels on the order of 10-20 meters (which, consequently, is the part of Emiliani's research you keep omitting) would indeed have a global effect, but that effect would be numerous local floods not one giant flood that covered the entire earth.


Well Lurker – you do realize your statement remains self-contradictory and it does weaken an already anemic position but I think we may be getting somewhere after all this time. As I have repeatedly stated – I have never disputed Emiliani's research data so there is really nothing I am omitting as you suggest and that data remains a moot point as it relates to his conclusion – he found evidence of a universal flood less than 12,000 years ago - you cannot refute his words as your self-contradictory statement proves . After reviewing the research of Emiliani and Shaw, Isaac Asimov concluded this flood: (1) was universal in magnitude. (2) It was a flood that “beggars the imagination”. (3) It was a flood of such cataclysmic force that it could have spawned myths of a Great Deluge found in over 80 cultures. (4) It could have been responsible for the myth of “swamped continents”. Can we agree on these 4 points listed?


So he is accurate when he says:

"The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and evolutionists, but their overall interpretation supports the concept of a long history of geological evolution."

Absolutely -he is right on the money and the addendum to his quote is what I have been saying all along and not only does it not “annihilate” anything I have stated it is in step with what I have been posting. If we look at Stansfield’s words in their entirety he is stating these 7 facts –

1. Radiometric techniques are not the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be.
2. There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological clock.
3. Radioactive dating methods rely heavily on the assumption of uniformitarianism.
4. No more than one percent of geological history can be accurately read in rocks
5. No single location on this planet contains the complete geological record.
6. Uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and evolutionists.
7. Interpretation of radiometric data supports the concept of a long history of geological evolution.Are you still with me? There is not one of the seven facts listed above that I disagree with or that I have ever disagreed with on this thread. The begging question is this – which of the seven facts listed above do you NOT agree with. You appear to remain somewhat confused when it comes to Stansfield’s words. And again I want to thank you for proving my points made from my original Stansfield quotes. If you can agree with his 7 points above we will be on the same page – hop on board.


Actually no, at worst I can be accused of sloppily wording post that you then erroneously interpreted. If you had been paying more attention you would have noticed this statement of mine way back in post #148
I acknowledged you statement at the time but you would never admit you slipped-up when you accused the evolutionist of being a creationist. I simply wanted to make sure your confusion didn’t continue. Anywho partner – glad you appear to have sorted out your confusion. :)


No, I repeatedly asked that you explain Stansfield's position including what specific problems he saw with radiometric dating. You were unable to do this because you didn't actually know, you just copy and pasted this quote from somewhere and had no idea what Stansfield had based this on.
Wrong my friend – go back and review my posts – I repeatedly point out exactly why Stansfield understands there are specific problems with radiometric methods. Go back up and look at point #3 and you will have your answer – “Radioactive dating methods rely heavily on the assumption of uniformitarianism.” The doctrine of uniformitarianism is based on unproven and unprovable assumptions. As I have pointed out all along IF those assumptions are correct then isotopic dating can be considered reasonably accurate but that's a big IF.


I'm going to be charitable and assume that you also were unaware that the VERY NEXT SENTENCE that you omitted from this quote completely destroys your point.
As stated above – the quote originally presented is not changed by the addition you found and I have seen it before when I have reviewed his book. There is nothing in what you present that changes his conclusion that radiometric dating can be inherently unreliable because of the assumptions it must rely on. You somehow have it in you mind that you have damaged my point but you have simply made my point. Thanks.


…Stansfield was unaware of some advances of dating methods even at the time and was, of course, unable to be aware of the advances of dating methods in the 30+ years since he wrote this book, his conclusion is that even though there are potential problems with radiometric dating it is still reliable and still vastly superior to any kind of dating methods employed by creationists. On those two points I cautiously agree.
A couple of points related to you statement. First, you speak as though Stansfield is no longer with us but he is. I don’t think he has ever recanted his statement that there is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological clock. And why would he not change his view – because the underlying theory behind isotopic dating has never changed - Radioactive dating methods rely heavily on the assumption of uniformitarianism. Has the light come on yet? ;)
"It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological 'clock'." ~ William Stansfield

losthorizon
May 18th 2009, 01:48 AM
And then to suggest IL's arguments are crumbling through a feeble "I know you are but what am I" type argument.


You are close but not quite correct – Lurker’s argument is "crumbling and feeble" because he makes self-contradictory statements that reveal an underlying confusion about the reliablity of isotopic dating. He fails to take into consideration that uniformitarianism is based on assumptions and he just cannot bring himself to admit that Emiliani's research data proves there was a *universal flood* less than 12,000 years ago. But everyone has a different learning curve. He will catch up at some point (I think). Thanks for the observation – you are very 'astute'. ;)

Philemon9
May 18th 2009, 04:57 AM
(3) It was a flood of such cataclysmic force that it could have spawned myths of a Great Deluge found in over 80 cultures. (4) It could have been responsible for the myth of “swamped continents”.


Do you realize you're making IL's argument?

Do you also admit that your research shows rather than a "global flood that covered all the earth" it was a series of *universally* local floods that did not cover the earth, but if you lived on the coast it would only seem that way?

DurbanDude
May 18th 2009, 06:26 PM
Just a general comment about radiometric dating:

The laboratory measurements of the rate of decay are underestimated because of 3 main reasons:

1) The effect of electron capture appears to be underestimated. In a laboratory it seems that beta particles are lost, when in reality these particles would be causing an accelerating effect on the decay rate of the original element. This principle applies to nearly all types of radiometric dating that relate to the older estimated ages of rocks. This problem would occur if the measuring sample is too small for the escaping beta particles to remain within the rock.

2) Pressure accelerates decay, this is not taken into account with laboratory measurements of rates of decay.

3) Increases to the Electromagnetic field causes decay to accelerate, this is not taken into account with laboratory measurements of rates of decay.

I refuse to trust any form of radiometric dating until someone with enough knowledge can show me how the rates of decay are measured.

If rocks previously thought to be millions of years old are actually only a few thousand years old, we would re-think the whole geological column, this is where I believe scientists have gone wrong. They are sticking to their old age theories when they should be re-thinking their decay rate measurements.

Itinerant Lurker
May 18th 2009, 07:52 PM
Well Lurker – you do realize your statement remains self-contradictory and it does weaken an already anemic position but I think we may be getting somewhere after all this time. As I have repeatedly stated – I have never disputed Emiliani's research data so there is really nothing I am omitting as you suggest and that data remains a moot point as it relates to his conclusion – he found evidence of a universal flood less than 12,000 years ago - you cannot refute his words as your self-contradictory statement proves . After reviewing the research of Emiliani and Shaw, Isaac Asimov concluded this flood: (1) was universal in magnitude. (2) It was a flood that “beggars the imagination”. (3) It was a flood of such cataclysmic force that it could have spawned myths of a Great Deluge found in over 80 cultures. (4) It could have been responsible for the myth of “swamped continents”. Can we agree on these 4 points listed?


losthorizon, we've done this before. Every time I point out that your sources don't actually agree with your conclusion you start trying to find a non-essential point of agreement. The answer is the same as the last time, yes I don't find any errors in Emiliani's work and his conclusion is correct. What you need to start addressing is the full breadth of work on this issue, beginning with the full scope of Emiliani's work. Let's look at what Emiliani actually finds on this issue first, then we'll look at the full scope of Emiliani's work (which is HUGE), then we'll talk a little bit about consistency and the concept of quote mining, including why it's not a valid form of argument and is inherently dishonest.

You are citing Emiliani's work in the Gulf of Mexico where he measured oxygen isotope levels in a certain kind of shell fish brought up from sediment cores. Emiliani concludes from his analysis that this area experienced an extreme influx of freshwater from the Mississippi river strong enough to produce a global rise in sea levels 12,000-10,000 years ago. So far all this supports is a rise in sea levels at the end of the last ice age as large ice sheets began to melt. Unless we can find evidence for just how high those sea levels rose there is absolutely no way to determine whether this was a flood that supports your view of covering all the mountains or if this was a flooding event that supports my view of a small rise in sea level that produced numerous local floods in coastal areas. You did not cite anything but a single, unrefrenced, quote from Emiliani and could not produce any research to substantiate either this claim or my numerous questions for more detail so I did your research for you and actually found Emiliani's conclusions about how far sea levels rose during this interglacial period.

"At that point, another major meltdown ocurred, and a great flood took place down the Mississippi Valley. . .The sea level rose rapidly from -60 m to -40 m." (Planet Earth, p. 543)

In point of fact, numerous sources from around the world confirm that what Emiliani measured in the Gulf of Mexico was part of a larger trend in sea level rise triggered by the melting ice sheets at the end of the last ice age. Notice however, that none of these findings support a flood that covered the entire earth. Instead what we see in the data is a slow and gradual rise up to present sea levels. We do not see evidence that sea levels 12,000 - 10,000 years ago surpassed this level, hence when you claim that you veer quite suddenly away from the evidence and into what I can only describe as denial mode.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png

Next let's look at the breadth of Emiliani's work. He wrote quite extensively, so I'll just focus on epic subject-spanning book "Planet Earth".
Emiliani is famous for not only discovering this one rise in sea levels due to melting glacial ice but also for re-evaluating earth's history as a long series of glacial and interglacial periods stretching back millions of years. Included in his book is a very lengthy explanation of radiometric dating including statements such as,

"The application of radiometric dating methods to a variety of materials (meteorites and lunar rocks, terrestrial rocks of all ages, and recent carbonates and deep sea muds) has made it possible to construct a rather accurate geological time scale." (Planet Earth, p. 63)

This quote in particular is of interest for two reasons; first it highlights the fact that Emiliani regards radiometric dating as reliable and even a brief overview of this book in particular reveals a deep understanding of the precess' involved. Second, take another look at the bolded print and think about how Emiliani dated the samples you are using to support a "global flood" 12,000 years ago. How do you think he came up with that date?

It comes accross to me as though you are cherry picking evidence - you think Emiliani is reliable on data that supports a global flood. . .but only some of the evidence, you think Emiliani is reliable on a rise in sea levels. . .but not when he talks about radiometric dating. . .unless he used radiometric dating to date his findings on a rise in sea levels. . .then, apparently it's allright. Can you see how this kind of argumentation would appear dishonest? I can understand rushing to post a quote without doing the appropriate research beforehand, I can't understand continuing to ignore such research when it has been constantly provided to you.



You appear to remain somewhat confused when it comes to Stansfield’s words. And again I want to thank you for proving my points made from my original Stansfield quotes. If you can agree with his 7 points above we will be on the same page – hop on board.


Let's take some time and look at your use of Stansfield while simultaneously examining the inherent weakness of arguments from authority. You used Stansfield's quote as a "stand alone" statement of fact without knowing what he based his conclusion on and, in my opinion, without bothering to check on the original context. In doing so the strength of your entire argument rested on Stansfield's authority, on his ability to "speak truth" as you called it. Your use of this quote presents two problems:

1. You don't understand what he's saying. I don't think this is from any inability on your part however, I think it's because whatever website you got your quote from didn't provide any context. Otherwise you would have seen that while Stansfield does talk about problems with radiometric dating, he still sees it as a reliable tool. Which brings us to problem number two.

2. Using Stansfield as an authority begs the question of why he's only authoritative when he agrees with you. Stansfield clearly states that radiometric dating reliably demonstrates a long history of evolution on earth, and in other publications has ridiculed creationist arguments of a young earth and a global flood. Why isn't he authoritative then?

You could solve both these problems if you had or knew what Stansfield's evidence was instead of relying on his authority. By arguing authority you commit to that authority whereas if you argue evidence you commit yourself only to what the evidence shows.

Finally, all of this does nothing to further my original problem with your quote in that Stansfield is still wrong about how well radiometric dating works. Part of his error appears to be that he wasn't aware of some advances in dating techniques at the time (1977) and part is due to the advances made in radiometric dating techniques over the last thirty years.

Losthorizon, I'm more than happy to keep this going but you need to know that quotes are not arguments. If you're going to throw out a quote you need to be able to support the conclusion contained therein with evidence. Otherwise you will find yourself in the position you currently occupy; having committed to the authority of the authors of your quotes you cannot seem to explain why that authority should be restricted to conclusions that agree with your own.

Itinerant Lurker
May 18th 2009, 08:05 PM
Just a general comment about radiometric dating:

The laboratory measurements of the rate of decay are underestimated because of 3 main reasons:

1) The effect of electron capture appears to be underestimated. In a laboratory it seems that beta particles are lost, when in reality these particles would be causing an accelerating effect on the decay rate of the original element. This principle applies to nearly all types of radiometric dating that relate to the older estimated ages of rocks. This problem would occur if the measuring sample is too small for the escaping beta particles to remain within the rock.

2) Pressure accelerates decay, this is not taken into account with laboratory measurements of rates of decay.

3) Increases to the Electromagnetic field causes decay to accelerate, this is not taken into account with laboratory measurements of rates of decay.

I refuse to trust any form of radiometric dating until someone with enough knowledge can show me how the rates of decay are measured.

If rocks previously thought to be millions of years old are actually only a few thousand years old, we would re-think the whole geological column, this is where I believe scientists have gone wrong. They are sticking to their old age theories when they should be re-thinking their decay rate measurements.

Radioactive dating relies on decay rates determined by nuclear forces which are strong enough to resist any kind of significant impact from energies generated on the surface of our planet. For instance, just how much pressure do you think you would need to apply before you started changing decay rates? How great of a change in earth's electromagnetic field is required before decay rates begin to accelerate? I highly doubt your answers will help your position.

Finally, if our process is flawed why do radioactive dates line up with other dating methods? Why do radiocarbon dates for organic debris contained in the Lake Suigetsu varves correspond with counting varve layers? Why does this chronology also line up with dendrochronologies? The correlation of multiple dating methods is the nail in the coffin of "radiometric dating doesn't work" arguments.

http://www.geo.arizona.edu/palynology/geos462/c14FairbQSR05.gif

losthorizon
May 19th 2009, 02:05 AM
losthorizon, we've done this before. Every time I point out that your sources don't actually agree with your conclusion you start trying to find a non-essential point of agreement.


Yes Lurker we have and if you would/could only bring yourself to answer my questions we can move on. I will be more than happy to address your questions but let’s answer questions in the order received. I left you some points with accompanying questions that you have not addressed so let me repost them again for your convenience and maybe you can give it your best before we proceed to your questions.

Emiliani describe a universal flood that took place less than 12,000 years ago. Is this correct did he find evidence to support his claim? After reviewing the research of Emiliani and Shaw, Isaac Asimov concluded the following:
1. The flood was universal in scope and magnitude.
2. It was a flood that “beggars the imagination”.
3. It was a flood of such cataclysmic force that it could have spawned myths of a Great Deluge (a myth found in over 80 cultures throughout the world).
4. This flood was so immense in scope that it easily could have been responsible for the myth of “swamped continents”.
This was a flood event on a scale never seen before or since - does the evidence support these four conclusions made by Emiliani, Shaw and Asimov? If you disagree with any of of the conclusions please explain why.

William Stansfield made these 7 points regarding isotopic dating that are still true today. Please remember, Stansfield is an evolutionist not a creationist as you once thought. Please advise if you agree or disagree with each point and if you disagree with any point, please explain why you disagree.
1. Radiometric techniques are not the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be.
2. There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological clock.
3. Radioactive dating methods rely heavily on the assumption of uniformitarianism.
4. No more than one percent of geological history can be accurately read in rocks
5. No single location on this planet contains the complete geological record.
6. Uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and evolutionists.
7. Interpretation of radiometric data supports the concept of a long history of geological evolution.Do you agree that radioactive dating relies heavily on the assumption of uniformitarianism? Do you know what the doctrine of uniformitarianism states? Is isotopic dating still heavily dependant on the assumption of uniformitarianism today just as it was in 1977, 1925, 1917 and 1905? Is it highly probable that radioactive dating will be heavily dependant on the assumptions of uniformitarianism in 2020 and beyond? In the real world of science do *assumptions* constitute *proof* of anything? If the doctrine of uniformitarianism is incorrect would that mean that radioactive dating is based on error?
Uniformitarianism- the fundamental principle or doctrine that geologic processes and natural laws now operating to modify the Earth's crust have acted in the same regular manner and with essentially the same intensity throughout geologic time, and that past geologic events can be explained by phenomena and forces observable today; the classical concept that 'the present is the key to the past'." ~ Glossary of Geology, American Geological Institute, 1980

DurbanDude
May 19th 2009, 07:16 AM
For instance, just how much pressure do you think you would need to apply before you started changing decay rates? How great of a change in earth's electromagnetic field is required before decay rates begin to accelerate?

Exactly! How much pressure is required? How much of a change in the earth's electromagnetic field is required?

http://www.cambodianonline.net/earthsun02010.htm a Cambodian webpage concerning global warming describes solar storms in easy to understand terminology, that is why I chose this page in my Google search:



Solar storms emit electromagnetic pulses and bursts of radiation that race outward from the sun at the speed of light. During the solar maximum the magnetic field of the sun does a complete reversal of polarity and the north and south magnetic poles shift places. Charged particle clouds with powerful electromagnetic fields are ejected at high speeds from solar flares and coronal mass ejection's. These moving electromagnetic plasma clouds distort the sun's magnetic field as they travel outward, then slam against the earth's magnetic field bending and reshaping it.
Perhaps more magnetically disturbing than the solar eruptions, are the coronal holes that develop on the surface of the sun during these periods of solar unrest. Coronal holes emit high speed solar winds that send charged particles slamming against the earth's magnetosphere at terrific speeds.
Disturbances of a magnetic field generates an electric current within a nearby conductor. This is called electromagnetic induction. Faraday's Law Of Induction (http://www.wrightworld.net/articles.htm#Faraday's Law Of Induction) The moving earth, an iron core water covered planet, is an ideal conductor. The distortions and disturbances to the magnetic field of the earth caused by solar storm activity, generates electricity within the Earth by simple electromagnetic induction.


I can't answer your questions to an exact degree, but simple solar storms have a significante effect on the electric flow on the crust of this earth. And significant electric flow accelerates rock decay. Simple as that.

The same applies to pressure, significant pressure does affect rock decay, and most rocks in which fossils are found undergo significant pressures during the rock formation.

If you can't answer these questions to exact measurements, yet admit that decay rates can be affected by these two factors, then your trust in the currently measured decay rates is on faith and not on fact. However I believe it is the underestimation of electron capture in the decaying element that is the main reason for rock dates being over-estimated.



Finally, if our process is flawed why do radioactive dates line up with other dating methods? Why do radiocarbon dates for organic debris contained in the Lake Suigetsu varves correspond with counting varve layers? Why does this chronology also line up with dendrochronologies? The correlation of multiple dating methods is the nail in the coffin of "radiometric dating doesn't work" arguments

What multiple dating methods? They use radiometric dating methods to substantiate eachother for all the older dates.

As for dating the more recent periods, (your example above) the methods of dating are not conclusive. For example carbon dating has more flaws and assumptions than most other forms of dating. I believe they are only slightly out until about 3000 year ago, and then veer off rapidly from dates that can be archaelogically confirmed from previous astronomical observations that can tie in to a perfect date of an astronomically recorded event. If you need exact examples of this, I will have to give you references tonight when I get home.

As for tree rings and ice cores, these too can be mis-read, but they still seem to indicate events in the less than 10 000 year range, which agree to relatively recent world events. I feel tree rings often overestimate the age of the trees by just a few thousand years. This is insignificant in the large scale of billions of years of life forms that scientists often claim.

It is a known fact that certain tree rings can show a double growth ring in certain years. Under ideal climactic conditions, similar to the Holocene Climate Optimum, trees could show a bi-annual tree ring growth very similar to modern annual tree rings. Because of misunderstandings of climate back then, scientists can then over-estimate the life of trees. As I said already, this over-estimation is insignificant in the large scale, tree rings only indicating rcent dates, and are not used at all to verify the more ancient dates of millions and billions of years.

And you failed to discuss the fact that the way I see it, electron capture is the main reason dates are over-estimated, beta particles failing to cause sufficient electron capture in the laboratory, but causing an escalating decay rate in the real world. This is because elements are bombarded by beta particles in all directions in the natural world until the beta particles are captured, yet beta particles are emitted in the laboratory without all being captured. There is therefore a reduced exponential effect in the laboratory measurements of the decay rate of rocks. I have got no references for this, because this is my own question regarding decay rates, and no-one has yet answered me on this.

Itinerant Lurker
May 19th 2009, 12:51 PM
I can't answer your questions to an exact degree, but simple solar storms have a significante effect on the electric flow on the crust of this earth. And significant electric flow accelerates rock decay. Simple as that.


Really? Simple as that? Just how strong of an "electric flow" do you think it would take to affect the nuclear forces holding an atom together?

I think you're referencing experiments that used electric fields to alter internal conversion decay, but I don't see how even the very insignificant changes observed affect radioactive dating techniques at all.



The same applies to pressure, significant pressure does affect rock decay, and most rocks in which fossils are found undergo significant pressures during the rock formation.


The only example of this that I am aware of involves an artificial isotope called berylium-7 which only has a half life of 54 days. You can alter the decay rate of be-7 by 0.6% when you apply 270 kbars of pressure. To find that kind of pressure on earth you would need to travel 750 kilometers straight down, which is far below where any rocks (with the possible exception of diamonds) are formed.



If you can't answer these questions to exact measurements, yet admit that decay rates can be affected by these two factors, then your trust in the currently measured decay rates is on faith and not on fact. However I believe it is the underestimation of electron capture in the decaying element that is the main reason for rock dates being over-estimated.
Done.



What multiple dating methods? They use radiometric dating methods to substantiate eachother for all the older dates.
That doesn't even kind of make sense. I gave you a great example with Lake Suigetsu, but even if we just look at radiometric dating we can see that using multiple methods gives us correlating results. Every isotope has a different decay rate, so there's no reason for this to happen if decay rates are not constant.



As for dating the more recent periods, (your example above) the methods of dating are not conclusive. For example carbon dating has more flaws and assumptions than most other forms of dating. I believe they are only slightly out until about 3000 year ago, and then veer off rapidly from dates that can be archaelogically confirmed from previous astronomical observations that can tie in to a perfect date of an astronomically recorded event. If you need exact examples of this, I will have to give you references tonight when I get home.
Allright. . .in the meantime do you have any comment on the graph previously provided to you which shows no veering off at 3000 years?

http://www.geo.arizona.edu/palynology/geos462/c14FairbQSR05.gif



As for tree rings and ice cores, these too can be mis-read, but they still seem to indicate events in the less than 10 000 year range, which agree to relatively recent world events. I feel tree rings often overestimate the age of the trees by just a few thousand years. This is insignificant in the large scale of billions of years of life forms that scientists often claim.
Well, tree ring chronologies correlate to radiocarbon dating as is clearly seen above. There's no reason for them to do that if they are unreliable. Additionally, while it is possible for false rings to occur dendrochronologists can identify them and minimize the risk of this by selecting species of trees that rarely, if ever, give off false rings.



And you failed to discuss the fact that the way I see it, electron capture is the main reason dates are over-estimated, beta particles failing to cause sufficient electron capture in the laboratory, but causing an escalating decay rate in the real world. This is because elements are bombarded by beta particles in all directions in the natural world until the beta particles are captured, yet beta particles are emitted in the laboratory without all being captured. There is therefore a reduced exponential effect in the laboratory measurements of the decay rate of rocks. I have got no references for this, because this is my own question regarding decay rates, and no-one has yet answered me on this.I'm not exactly sure you've got a handle on what electron capture is, I've already dealt with it above with berylium-7. The only other two observed instances of decay rate change due to chemically induced electron capture got alterations in decay rates of 0.08% and 0.005% and have, to my knowledge, never been repeated with those kinds of results. . .which doesn't exactly bode well for the idea that this could actually effect the decay rates of dating methods in any real way.

So far we have zero evidence that any of the isotopes used in current dating techniques can have their decay rates altered by any plausible means.

losthorizon
May 19th 2009, 11:01 PM
So far we have zero evidence that any of the isotopes used in current dating techniques can have their decay rates altered by any plausible means.

Really? Simple as that? I would suggest you research the “unexpected variations in the decay rates of silicon-32 and radium-226” as they relate to the Earth’s orbit of the Sun and the concept of “neutrino flux”. Your oversimplification of the reliability/stability of radioactive decay is not as predictable as you might think my friend. For anyone interested in reviewing the inherent problems with radioactive dating you might want to look at this video...
In this clip you will see Edward Boudreau, a physical inorganic chemist (University of New Orleans).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ICcfbqUFZo

Itinerant Lurker
May 19th 2009, 11:29 PM
Yes Lurker we have and if you would/could only bring yourself to answer my questions we can move on. I will be more than happy to address your questions but let’s answer questions in the order received. I left you some points with accompanying questions that you have not addressed so let me repost them again for your convenience and maybe you can give it your best before we proceed to your questions.
All of these points were covered in my last post, but I'm more than happy to repeat myself.



Emiliani describe a universal flood that took place less than 12,000 years ago. Is this correct did he find evidence to support his claim? After reviewing the research of Emiliani and Shaw, Isaac Asimov concluded the following:

1.The flood was universal in scope and magnitude.
Yes, this flooding event caused by melting ice sheets had a global impact on sea levels world wide raising them from 60 meters below current sea level to 40 meters below current sea level.



2.It was a flood that “beggars the imagination”.
Yes, Emiliani's research indicates that glacial and interglacial cycles are growing in intensity so that the last ice age and corresponding melting period experienced greater flooding events than previous ice ages throughout earth's very long history.



3.It was a flood of such cataclysmic force that it could have spawned myths of a Great Deluge (a myth found in over 80 cultures throughout the world).
It is very possible that flooding caused by melting ice sheets at the end of the last ice age is the origin of many flood stories. As sea levels rose coastal areas would experience numerous local floods. I dispute the number of cultures in which we find flood myths, but we can talk about that later.



4.This flood was so immense in scope that it easily could have been responsible for the myth of “swamped continents”.
This is pretty much the same point as #3 and gets the same answer.



This was a flood event on a scale never seen before or since - does the evidence support these four conclusions made by Emiliani, Shaw and Asimov? If you disagree with any of of the conclusions please explain why.
What you fail to address time and time again is not that there is evidence for a gradual rise in sea level since the last ice age as glaciers retreated northward, that is not in dispute, but is, instead, the scale of this sea level rise. You contend that it covered the entire earth, I agree with Emiliani and Shaw that it did not. Can you please address how this supports a flood that covered the entire earth vs. a rise in sea level that didn't even bring ocean levels up to todays levels?



William Stansfield made these 7 points regarding isotopic dating that are still true today. Please remember, Stansfield is an evolutionist not a creationist as you once thought. Please advise if you agree or disagree with each point and if you disagree with any point, please explain why you disagree.

1.Radiometric techniques are not the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be.
This claim is relative to what “claims” Stansfield is referring to. If by this he means that radiometric dating methods have a margin of error then I agree, but I also know that this margin of error is known and is typically noted with testing results. It's obvious that Stansfield himself regards radiometric dating as reliable so it seems as though what he's saying is basically that these methods aren't perfect and I would agree with that.



2.There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological clock.
This I disagree with but would predicate my disagreement on what he means by “absolutely”. Once again this is kind of subjective, on the one hand he very well could be meaning that there are known margins of error involved in the dating process which I would have no problem with. Again, since later in this same book he notes the general reliability of radiometric dating I'm inclined to believe this is what he was shooting for.



3.Radioactive dating methods rely heavily on the assumption of uniformitarianism.
True, but then we have some excellent reasons to assume that our assumptions are good ones based on observation. Stansfield acknowledges this rather blatantly when he makes the statement that radiometric dating is still reliable which, again, you failed to note in your original use of this quote. Are you starting to see how this omission kind of changes your argument?



4.No more than one percent of geological history can be accurately read in rocks
Nice omission. You're missing something in this quote, Stansfield says that “Probably no more than one percent of geological history can be read in rocks.” I'd say this was probably more or less true when Stansfield first wrote this book back in 1977 but is no longer the case with the advances made in dating techniques since Star Wars episode IV came out.



5.No single location on this planet contains the complete geological record.
Again, I'm not sure if his error here is due to the fact that this quote is over thirty years old or to Stansfield being unaware of geological findings at the time. We have places around the world with a near continuous record of the geological column, but due to the various forces at work on our planet such as erosion and plate tectonics there's just no reason for us to expect that there would be a 100% complete record of the planet lying around anywhere.

Furthermore, Stansfield notes that we can piece together the geological record from different locations using sections of overlap. Curiously you failed to note this in your quote since it, once again, comes in the very next sentence.

“Gaps in the record can sometimes be pieced together using information from other localities that share strata.”



6.Uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and evolutionists.
That would kind of depend on what you mean by “disturbing”, Stansfield obviously implies that these are issues geologists are aware of and careful to take into account. Here's the full sentence you're referring to.

“The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and evolutionists, but their overall interpretation supports the concept of a long history of geological evolution.”



7.Interpretation of radiometric data supports the concept of a long history of geological evolution.
Yes, which blows away any use of Stansfield to support the unreliability of radiometric dating.

Itinerant Lurker
May 20th 2009, 12:17 AM
I would suggest you research the “unexpected variations in the decay rates of silicon-32 and radium-226” as they relate to the Earth’s orbit of the Sun and the concept of “neutrino flux”. Your oversimplification of the reliability/stability of radioactive decay is not as predictable as you might think my friend.


We've been over this before. The internal contradictions you display about the level of evidence needed to substantiate a claim are truly staggering. You are taking a single instance of observed rate change that has not been, to my knowledge, corroborated or repeated as solid evidence?

"Peter Cooper of the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, Ill., recently did just that. He obtained and analyzed data from the Cassini mission to Saturn. Deep-space probes usually generate power from the heat emitted by a chunk of radioactive material—plutonium-238 for the Cassini spacecraft. Cassini journeyed as close to the sun as Venus and then far back to Saturn, spanning a much wider range of distances from the sun than Earth does during its yearly orbit. If the sun had an effect on plutonium decay, the fluctuations would have been much more substantial than those seen in Earth-bound experiments. As a result, Cooper reasoned, Cassini should have measured substantial changes in its generator’s output. It didn’t. (His paper is posted online at arxiv.org/abs/0809.4248.)

"Meanwhile, Eric Norman of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California reanalyzed data from experiments on radioactive americium, barium, silver, titanium and tin, and found no seasonal variations, he says."
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/38341/title/Half-life_(more_or_less) (http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/38341/title/Half-life_%28more_or_less%29)

As I stated the last time, this is an interesting find but it in no way indicates a problem with radiometric dating as the findings are unconfirmed and, as far as I know, neither of these isotopes is used in standard dating techniques.

"But Fischbach, Jenkins and their colleagues have a lot of convincing to do, says Hamish Robertson of the University of Washington in Seattle. “There’s no physical basis for the decay rates to vary with anything, let alone with the Earth-sun distance,” he says."
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/38341/title/Half-life_(more_or_less) (http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/38341/title/Half-life_%28more_or_less%29)



For anyone interested in reviewing the inherent problems with radioactive dating you might want to look at this video...
In this clip you will see Edward Boudreau, a physical inorganic chemist (University of New Orleans).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ICcfbqUFZo

I'm going to play this movie the next time I need to put my kids to sleep. Sorry, the soul-crushing monotone voice obliterated my ability to continue watching an obviously completely outdated prop. film.

losthorizon
May 20th 2009, 02:51 AM
As I stated the last time, this is an interesting find but it in no way indicates a problem with radiometric dating as the findings are unconfirmed and, as far as I know, neither of these isotopes is used in standard dating techniques.


I think it does present a serious problem for your position if decades of established science represents *flawed science*. Fischbach and Jenkins have not been proven wrong. Do you have evidence proving their research is incorrect? Of course you don't. Do you think they are Creationists like you thought Stansfield was a Creationist? Do you think all scientists who disagree with the dogma of your worldview are Creationists? Is it impossible for decay constant to not really be a constant? Also you have never answered my question – if the assumptions of uniformitarianism are flawed doesn’t that render radioactive dating flawed? Fischbach and Jenkins are proving yet another major crack in the doctrine of uniformitarianism. Think about it. :hmm:
“To summarize, what we are showing is that the decay constant is not really a constant.” ~ Ephraim Fischbach

It is well-known that a radioactive substance follows a fixed exponential decay, no matter what you do to it. The fact has been set in stone since 1930 when the “father” of nuclear physics Ernest Rutherford, together with James Chadwick and Charles Ellis, concluded in their definitive Radiations from Radioactive Substances that “the rate of transformation…is a constant under all conditions.”

But this is no longer the view of a pair of physicists in the US. Ephraim Fischbach and Jere Jenkins of Purdue University in Indiana are claiming that, far from being fixed, certain decay “constants” are influenced by the Sun. It is a claim that is drawing mixed reactions from others in the physics community, not least because it implies that decades of established science is flawed. ~ physicsworld.com

Sorry, the soul-crushing monotone voice obliterated my ability to continue watching an obviously completely outdated prop. film.
Edward Boudreau is a physical inorganic chemist – what part of his presentation did you not agree with? Is he a shoddy scientist like all the others you disagree with? You really do not know how science works do you?

Itinerant Lurker
May 20th 2009, 03:27 AM
I think it does present a serious problem for your position if decades of established science represents *flawed science*. Fischbach and Jenkins have not been proven wrong. Do you have evidence proving their research is incorrect? Of course you don't.


Their finds are tentative at best, this is one measurement. In order to substantiate their finds these observations need to be repeated to see if we get the same kinds of results. To my knowledge this has not yet been done and this remains a very tentative hypothesis held by a few researchers. It certainly opens some interesting questions, but there's nothing solid here to draw conclusions on, at least not yet. Additionally, initial rechecking of historical records indicate that there is no widespread change in decay rate associated with earth's proximity to the sun as I pointed out in my last post. This seems to indicate something else is affecting their measurements.



Edward Boudreau is a physical inorganic chemist – what part of his presentation did you not agree with? Is he a shoddy scientist like all the others you disagree with? You really do not know how science works do you?If I'm breaking some commandment of science that requires me to sit through excruciatingly boring youtube clips that are obviously out of date then so be it. I got about two minutes in before the boredom induced spasms of my joints mercifully managed to stop the video, so I'm not in any position to go into any specifics. If you haven't picked up on my subtle hints yet I really don't like you tube clips presented as evidence and rarely, if ever, spend time actually watching them. For me they're right up there with using colored text like it's going out of style and those posters who can't seem to understand what a space bar is for. If, however, you'd like to present some of their arguments in a post I'd be more than happy to take a look. In the meantime. . .



I will be more than happy to address your questions but let’s answer questions in the order received.

Philemon9
May 20th 2009, 03:35 AM
You really do not know how science works do you?

Do you honestly believe what you're typing or is it just trolling at this point?

Athanasius
May 20th 2009, 07:58 PM
So call me unpopular but I think this thread has run its course. If anyone disagrees, get in touch with me.