Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Exposing the lies in Jorge's Flood "evidence".

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Exposing the lies in Jorge's Flood "evidence".

    Since has decided he won’t allow any scientific evidence in his YEC Flood evidence thread I’ll have to post the breakdown of his AIG source’s lies and misrepresentations here.

    I’ll start with this one on the “Top 6 List” from his AIG link. The AIG claim is

    Evidence 5: Rapid or no erosion between strata

    We find evidence of rapid erosion, or even of no erosion, between rock layers. Flat, knife-edge boundaries between rock layers indicate continuous deposition of one layer after another, with no time for erosion. For example, there is no evidence of any “missing” millions of years (of erosion) in the flat boundary between two well-known layers of Grand Canyon—the Coconino Sandstone and the Hermit Formation. Another impressive example of flat boundaries at Grand Canyon is the Redwall Limestone and the strata beneath it.
    This is a flat out lie. In the Grand canyon the strata of the Muav limestone (505 MYA) is overlaid by the Redwall limestone (340 MYA). Found carved into the Muav limestone are the cross sections of ancient river channels that were carved in the Muav limestone and filled in to form the Temple Butte formation. This process took millions of years for the river to carve the winding channels, be infilled, then be overlaid by the Redwall material. Here are photos showing how the infilled river channels are exposed.

    grand-canyon_nye-debate_2.jpg
    What’s going on here is that the Muav Limestone was deposited in relatively deep water along the coastline of what would become North America. Then over a hundred million years later, the region was uplifted. When rocks are lifted out of the water, they tend to erode rather than deposit; this erosion planed off the top of the Muav (and maybe removed other units as well). Then sinuous rivers cut into the flat top of the Muav, twisting and turning as they undulated toward the sea. We see the remnants of these rivers in the Temple Butte Formation, which is exposed in dramatic half-moon incisions into the Muav. These incisions occur in different orientations as you find them on opposite sides; you’re looking at the cross-section of a twisting fossil river changing its course, much as the Mississippi River does today
    Another infilled cross section further down the canyon

    Redwall,_Temple_Butte_and_Muav_formations_in_Grand_Canyon.jpg

    Another AIG lie exposed. Will comment or explain?

  • #2
    As a TE, I personally think the Hebrew word in the scriptures about flooding the "earth" or "אָ֫רֶץ" which is phonetically pronounced "eret" means earth or land. Its quite common for this word which is apparently a root word to be applied for these number of words common (1), countries (15), countries and their lands (1), country (44), countryside (1), distance* (3), dust (1), earth (655), earth the ground (1), earth's (1), floor (1), ground (119), land (1581), lands (57), lands have their land (2), open (1), other* (2), piece (1), plateau* (1), region (1), territories (1), wild (1), world (3). My source for these findings comes from the Strong's Concordance which I have a copy of (It's HUGE) and its been cross referenced online with Strong's Hebrew to make sure its up to date. To doubly check I've referenced the KJV and the NASB. FYI. It appears to be distinct that God promised a flood to destroy the "land or earth" however Noah, from the region of which Noah was familiar with. Now Noah would have LIKELY been from near the "cradle of civilization which is of course the middle east. Its not far from the records that a large flood occured in the last 10,000 years in the middle east but where and when we can't be sure, and I'm quite positive that this was the "earth" Noah knew. I highly doubt the flood was Global.
    A happy family is but an earlier heaven.
    George Bernard Shaw

    Comment


    • #3
      Are you saying that in your view, a global Flood would produce perfectly flat layer boundaries everywhere? Both views predict features like what you describe. The argument as I have heard it usually is that we don't see the same amount of disturbances that we observe on our present-day surface, including a lack of the boundaries being mixed up due to animal burrowing action, which seems to make sense. It isn't just about erosion, though I have seen many photos of wide areas without those features as well.

      Whether the argument is correct I don't know (we have some relatively flat surfaces today too), but it can't be dismissed as simply as you seem to be trying to do here; your argument looks like a false dichotomy. A global Flood would logically produce some small-scale erosion, as well as the kinds of catastrophic erosion seen in cases like straight-line erosion through mountain ridges, whereas under gradualist systems, the water should have wound around.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by logician bones View Post
        Are you saying that in your view, a global Flood would produce perfectly flat layer boundaries everywhere? Both views predict features like what you describe. The argument as I have heard it usually is that we don't see the same amount of disturbances that we observe on our present-day surface, including a lack of the boundaries being mixed up due to animal burrowing action, which seems to make sense. It isn't just about erosion, though I have seen many photos of wide areas without those features as well.

        Whether the argument is correct I don't know (we have some relatively flat surfaces today too), but it can't be dismissed as simply as you seem to be trying to do here; your argument looks like a false dichotomy. A global Flood would logically produce some small-scale erosion, as well as the kinds of catastrophic erosion seen in cases like straight-line erosion through mountain ridges, whereas under gradualist systems, the water should have wound around.
        Keep in mind not just what is expected to be seen, but what one would NOT expect to see. The YEC/AIG theory is that ALL these layers would laid down in a single massive flood. But what Beagle is bringing to light is that within these layers (not at the bottom, not at the top) are riverbeds that flowed and eroded ROCK, and that took on meanders (the river would around like most slow moving rivers do). Then later, it dried up and was filled in with other sediments. Then those apparently were worn down again forming a uniform flat surface which then had even more layers laid on top of it.

        This is NOT something one would expect to see in a single year long flood event. In fact, for it to be there, it basically shows us these layers were NOT layers associated with a global flood.

        And it is this kind of thing that undid the Early geologists attempts to locate evidence for the global flood, which they believed in. When they looked closely at the layers they though might superficially be associated with it, they kept finding evidence that showed the layer was formed by some long term process over lots and lots of time, not by some catastrophic sequence. Eventually this 'counter finding' became so common and so prevalent that the community as a whole began to reject the notion of catastrophism entirely - or almost entirely. Later findings (such as the massive flooding in the Scablands due to the breaking of a huge ice dam as the glaciers melted, and evidence for a long history of asteroid strikes) have pushed geology backed to a more balanced view that recognizes both long term, uniform processes and powerful large scale catestrophic processes.

        So that at the present time, we are pretty good at recognizing both. And again, when one looks at all the evidence and how it all fits together across the planet, there is no evidence for a single global flood that covered all the mountains.


        Jim
        My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

        If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

        This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

        Comment


        • #5
          I'm replying to this here because Jorge, being the cowardly ass he is, has banned me from his thread.

          Originally posted by logician bones View Post
          Beagle:

          "There are meandering rivers incised 1000’ deep into solid basalt, something impossible to create in a one-time one-year flood. There are also exhumed river channels that take millions of years to form."
          The Flood would do erode things faster; both are water erosion, but the Flood would have more water moving faster over a shorter period of time.
          It's impossible for rapidly moving water to carve a winding S shaped incised channel through solid rock. Water moving fast enough to cut rock would blast a straight channel like the Scablands. Again I'm referring to 1000 vertical feet carved into basalt which is solidified lava. The water couldn't slowly carve a channel through still soft lava because it would flash into steam.

          "There is no sign in the genetic record of any massive genetic bottleneck that must be present in all species if they descended from only a few individuals who survived on the Ark only 4500 years ago."

          Actually, for the ones that would leave clear traces of this, humans, that's exactly what we do have.
          100% bull. There is some evidence the human population bottlenecked down to maybe 10,000 individuals around 70K years ago. Besides that, nothing. There is zero evidence at all in any other species of a massive bottleneck only 4500 years ago.

          The others do not seem that specific; there isn't a clear difference between the male and female lines in the account. It's pairs, and groups of pairs in some cases. Finding evidence of a bottleneck in those cases would be much more difficult, but I still wouldn't rule it out.
          It's not difficult at all to find a genetic bottleneck. All you have to do is note an extreme lack of genetic diversity in a population. Geneticists have been studying animal populations for 60+ years and there is no such massive bottleneck anywhere.

          We also do have evidence of rapid speciation and other forms of "outvolution".
          Some speciation can occur rapidly doesn't mean it all did.

          "The geologic column can be dated by the radiometric decay of the materials"

          This is one of the main topics of any creationist organization with qualified scientists behind it like CMI, Beagle; this looks like ignorance of the arguments that have been used against this. (That said, maybe they're still wrong and you're right, and maybe you even have reasons why... but a little awareness that we are well aware of this common argument and have engaged with it would be nice...)
          I know all about the RATE group's remarkably stupid claims of accelerated nuclear decay, an event which if it had happened would have melted the planet into slag from the excess heat released. I also know that doesn't explain how the sediment got sorted with the oldest always on the bottom.

          Especially:

          1) We have radiometric results that show layers to be too young for the traditional old interpretation, especially radiocarbon found in layers thought to be far older than the maximum for that type, not fitting attempts to explain it away.
          More bull. YECs have taken instances of known contamination and claimed they show the whole planet is young. There is zero confirmed evidence of 14C being found in very old strata.

          2) Most of the ones that are interpreted as evidence for old ages are in volcanic layers, and heat is known to speed up radioactive decay. These are often found above sedimentary layers with fossils containing radiocarbon much younger than the volcanic layer above it. Radiocarbon also interestingly is found in the right amounts that when adjusted for the expected heat arrives at the biblical age.
          Still more bull. It's another favorite YEC lie to date young lava flow with xenoliths (old existing rock) in it to "prove" radiometric dates are all wrong.

          "strata with the oldest always being on the bottom."

          No, we have cases of the "older" being higher. Some are even in disagreeing volcanic type results.
          Only in the known cases of geologic overthrusts which geologist can discern quite easily.

          There's also disagreements between methods used on the same rock, and the above almost universal example of young radiocarbon vs. higher volcanic layers seeming older.
          The same bull. Please post a scientific paper, NOT a YEC source with evidence to back that up.

          "It is impossible for a flood to sort materials horizontally by their radiometric age."

          Universally, it is unlikely, but that's why the cases of exceptions we have (honestly, with radiocarbon it's the rule, in fact) are evidence against your interpretation. However, some sorting is very possible, especially that lower volcanic layers would trap heat longer and "age" the radiometric material more before it cools.
          You're just repeating the standard YEC PRATTs - points refuted a thousand times. These dumb claims are called PRATTs for a reason.

          "Fossils of sea creatures high above sea level due to the ocean waters having flooded over the continents"
          "We know by plate tectonic uplifting many areas that were once seabed and now at the tops of mountains."

          This is fair. Not sure why that is in AiG's list... I should review, but short on time... sigh... maybe I will later.
          OK, fair enough.

          It's hypothetically possible cases could happen in a global Flood that would not work as uplift. The problem I have there is that the current main leaning of AiG and CMI, and most others like ICR as far as I know, is that tectonic uplift did happen during the Flood, so both views are using the same explanation, ergo... at the very least it isn't simple evidence either way.

          This might be a holdover from the early days before the runaway subduction model became preferred, though. If this was from the canopy theory days, I would expect to see this in a list of evidence.

          Or maybe the examples have geologic evidence of deposition after uplift had already occurred. That might happen in some places. Unsure.
          More physically impossible hand waving.

          "Rapid burial of plants and animals"
          "AIG cites a few mass burial locations and ignore the other 99.9% of the fossil record that doesn’t show rapid mass burial."

          This one I should definitely review, but for now, there are cases of burial through multiple layers. This one, however, is better as evidence against the old-school strict "particle by particle everywhere" uniformitarianism, which is a layman distortion of the version that scientists actually hold (limited, occasional catastrophism). It's still useful to note since many people bought into that version. It was actually taught in schools for a while. Maybe still is in places?
          Please do review it. Use the primary scientific literature, not YEC garbage.

          Your reply implies this is about multi-layer mass burial sites, though, and those still work as strong evidence for these layers being from one event; pointing to other sites where it is inconclusive doesn't change this. You would need to deal with the cases that don't appear to fit.
          What cases don't fit? The cases of fossil bone beds are far outnumbered with the overall fossil record with no mass burials. You also have to explain how the Flood sorted similar sized and shaped animals by species. Why are there no trilobites found with modern clams?

          "Rapidly deposited sediment layers spread across vast areas"
          "There is no physical evidence sediment layers like the Coconino were deposited rapidly and lots of evidence it wasn’t."

          Could you get more specific here? I have followed some atheist sites that make some arguments to this end, that I have seen convincingly countered by creationists. Also, you don't seem to be engaging in this answer with the widespread part of this argument. Obviously I wouldn't expect you to accept the "rapid" part of any of these, but the continent-wide layers are indeed powerful evidence for a global or near-global event.
          Continent wide does not equal global. There were early seas that covered large parts of N. America, seas which laid down many of the Grand Staircase strata. This is well know to geology and isn't any sort of AHA! YEC gotcha.

          It looks like water sorting of particulate; this can be seen at a tall range of depths. Seeing these very different layers, with such consistently knife-edge boundaries, as happening over millions of years seems to imply a very bizarre view of geologic history completely inconsistent with how geology works today. In one age, ALL deposition was all one material? Can you see how that is difficult to accept?
          The YEC claim is that ALL the layers of the Grand Staircase, over 2 miles deep, were laid in the same flood year. THAT's what is impossible to accept.

          The Coconino sandstone is eolian - it was deposited by wind as sand dunes not water. There are very distinct patterns in the formation that only form from wind. There are also the fossilized footprints of dozens of different species from tiny spiders up to fairly large synapsids like dimetrodon. How did that happen half a mile underwater?

          "Sediment transported long distances"
          "There is no physical evidence sediment layers like the Coconino were transported long distances. The Coconino sandstone was eolian deposited at the edge of the North American inland sea"

          We do have cases of for example boulders clearly from the Rockies found far to the east, requiring intense catastrophism, and certainly well-explained by the global Flood.
          Did they have a sale on bull in your town today? We know that glaciers carried some boulders hundreds of miles. That has nothing to do with any catastrophic flood.

          "Rapid or no erosion between strata"
          "There are numerous examples in the Grand Canyon alone of strata with buried river channels eroded between the layers."

          See my reply in your topic; are you saying you think a global Flood would somehow have ALL flat layer boundaries?
          That was AIG's dumb claim. I merely disproved it.

          Why wouldn't the water create some channels?
          How would a flood carve an S shaped winding channel underwater?

          Surely we would expect that? But the argument as I have heard it from geologists is that we do not have enough (not even close) of the kind of surface erosion we see happening on today's surface, in many places. Again it seems to mean you must accept a wildly different kind of geologic physics in the past, and I'm not sure how you could explain that.
          I've seen more YEC bull today than any dozen stockyards combined. Do you have any cites from mainstream geology to back that up? We have some places with little erosion and some with a great deal. It's not a one size fits all.

          "Many strata laid down in rapid succession"
          "It is known that rock strata can be bent without breaking when subducted underground and subjected to very high heat and pressure."

          I have read of cases of geologists pointing out physical differences between cases thought to be heat/pressure bending of rock versus wet sediment that later fully solidifies. Also, would high heat and pressure both be found in all locations where the alleged wet layer bending is found? Based on what I have seen, that's very dubious at best.
          Subduction is a scientific fact. The heating and bending of rock deep underground is a scientific fact. There may very well be isolated cases of wet layer bending but that doesn't negate all the other data. You need ALL cases to be wet bending in your Flood scenario.

          Bottom line is, I can sit here all day and post examples of geologic formations that would be impossible to form in one-time flood events. So can rogue06 and oxmixmudd. Stick around and I'll repost some of the better ones like angular unconformities and exhumed river channels.
          Last edited by HMS_Beagle; 07-08-2016, 09:46 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by logician bones View Post
            Are you saying that in your view, a global Flood would produce perfectly flat layer boundaries everywhere?
            No - the argument is that a global flood would not produce in-filled river channels or angular unconformities.
            Both views predict features like what you describe. The argument as I have heard it usually is that we don't see the same amount of disturbances that we observe on our present-day surface, including a lack of the boundaries being mixed up due to animal burrowing action, which seems to make sense.
            That argument does make sense - but it's not true. We do see the disturbances observed on the current day surface. The in-filled river channels is one example; others include fossilized burrows, animal tracks, fossilized hardgrounds, fossilized nests and eggs, root casts and others.
            Whether the argument is correct I don't know (we have some relatively flat surfaces today too), but it can't be dismissed as simply as you seem to be trying to do here; your argument looks like a false dichotomy. A global Flood would logically produce some small-scale erosion, as well as the kinds of catastrophic erosion seen in cases like straight-line erosion through mountain ridges, whereas under gradualist systems, the water should have wound around.
            No matter how much you can stretch or distort what a global flood might produce, there are lots of things found in the rocks that a global flood would definitely not produce. As well as the above, there are desert deposits, salt pans, mud cracks, sub-aerial lava flows (i.e. not pillow-lava), scree, scoria, emplaced trees, coprolites and raindrop impact marks.
            Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

            MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
            MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

            seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

            Comment


            • #7
              Here we see examples of another geologic feature that would be impossible to form in a flood: exhumed river channels.

              An exhumed river channel occurs when a meandering river channel is filled up over time with silt, volcanic lahar, or lava. Over time the material hardens into sandstone or rock. After even more time the softer surrounding banks erode away leaving a 3-D cast of the river.

              Here's one example from Wiki

              Exhumedchannel.jpg
              An exhumed river channel is a ridge of sandstone that remains when the softer flood plain mudstone is eroded away. The process begins with the deposition of sand within a river channel (typically a meandering river) and mud on the adjacent floodplain. Eventually the channel is abandoned and over time becomes buried by flood deposits from other channels. Because the sand is porous (grain-to-grain contact leaves spaces between), groundwater flows more easily through the sand than through the mud of the floodplain deposits.

              Minerals (typically calcium carbonate) can cement the grains together converting the loose sand into sandstone. Meanwhile, pressure from overlying sediments compresses the floodplain mud converting it to mudstone. Millions of years later, erosion can remove the softer, less cemented mudstone and leave the more resistant sandstone as a linear ridge. Thus, the local landscape where these occur is an inverted topography: what was previously low is now high, and vice versa. Exhumed channels are important indicators for ancient stream flow direction.
              Here's another example. This formation is Stanislaus Table Mountain in Northern California. A little more than 20 MYA a volcano erupted and filled this large meandering river with lava. The lava eventually cooled and hardened. Then over the next 20 MY the surrounding soil was eroded away leaving a 600' high, 15 mile long "fossil" cast of a river!

              table.jpg

              Old hands at TWeb will remember these from previous 'FLOOD" threads before the Great Server Crash. It scared the pants off all the Creationists at that time, not a single one could dream up a Flood explanation.

              Comment


              • #8
                I was hoping logician bones would do more than just a drive through but alas. We already knew wouldn't come anywhere near addressing these problems with his YEC Flood hooey.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                  I was hoping logician bones would do more than just a drive through but alas.
                  Give him time - his posting pattern suggests mostly end-of-week activity.
                  Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                  MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                  MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                  seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Jorge the welsher View Post
                    Hmmm - really?

                    Maybe I was wrong ... let me go see for myself ('coz I sure ain't trusting Roy!!!) ...

                    So I go to the Answers in Genesis website. It was 8:08 AM on Wednesday, 13 July 2016.
                    I entered Evidence for worldwide Flood in their Search box and here's what popped up:

                    4,360 results found

                    https://answersingenesis.org/search/...e+of+the+Flood

                    Granted, some may be repeats. Also granted that the number seems to change over time (I don't know why). But the number that I stated is CONFIRMED and Roy is once again proven to be a pathetic slanderer / dishonesty personified.

                    Where the sun don't shine, Roy ... where the sun don't shine.

                    EDITED TO ADD:

                    I wasted a few more precious minutes of my time and tried variations of "Evidence for a worldwide Flood" (e.g., leaving out "worldwide", leaving out "evidence" ... etc.). Results numbers were different depending on the entry. Obvious question: what "Flood" do you thing AiG would be talking about? Go get a life, Roy !!!

                    Another big porkie by . As rogue06 has already pointed out, entering evidence for worldwide flood only returns 573 hits.

                    evidence for worldwide Flood

                    Just for grins I did a search for evidence Ham lies It returned 1,190 hits!

                    evidence Ham lies

                    There you have it folks! Using Jorge the welsher's own method I have provided conclusive evidence Ken Ham is a liar.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                      Another big porkie by . As rogue06 has already pointed out, entering evidence for worldwide flood only returns 573 hits.

                      evidence for worldwide Flood

                      Just for grins I did a search for evidence Ham lies It returned 1,190 hits!

                      evidence Ham lies

                      There you have it folks! Using Jorge the welsher's own method I have provided conclusive evidence Ken Ham is a liar.
                      I confirmed that 'worldwide' dropped it to 572, removing the word 'evidence' but leaving in worldwide takes it up to 872.
                      My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                      If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                      This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Jorge the welsher View Post
                        That's right, O-Mudd, continue demonstrating to the world the galactic extent of your dishonest tactics and moral decadence. In this case I am referring to the morally-corrupt tactic -- worthy of the Clintons -- of putting the spotlight on someone and/or something else so as to conceal or distract from your own crimes.

                        You're the one who totally screwed up and are now bellowing at the top of your lungs to create a distraction.

                        Or did you think that I would forget? Quote - "There is no scientific evidence of a worldwide Flood." - unquote. THAT was the point that you are frantically seeking to disassociate from, not whether the over 4,000 results on a single website are found by wording the search one way or another.
                        You didn't post any scientific evidence You C&Ped a search list from AIG and you even balled that up. I have a new thread where you can defend some of AIG's lies and misrepresentations but you're still way too big of a coward to even try.

                        Jorge "Clucky" Fernandez, YEC's biggest coward bar none.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          ox:

                          Keep in mind not just what is expected to be seen, but what one would NOT expect to see.
                          Right -- and that's what I'm saying about the issue that he was responding to; the huge flat areas without the type of surface erosion we see today are not simply a matter of what you expect to see, but a feature that should not be there under the millions-of-years scenario, as far as we know. Yet it is. If in fact it SHOULD be there, it needs to be rationally explained.

                          And that just begins the list of features that certainly seem to falsify the old-earth view.

                          The features he's talking about, by contrast, would be expected under both views, so are not going to settle anything.


                          within these layers (not at the bottom, not at the top) are riverbeds that flowed and eroded ROCK
                          ox, if these are indeed Flood deposition layers, they were not solidified into rock yet at the time...

                          I'd also be very careful in assuming the physics of the Flood would be so timid that it couldn't cut through rock too. Especially where sediment-bearing water is involved versus just water. As I understand it, the view does include a lot of cutting into the original surface which would include rock. But you seem to be talking about a Flood deposition layer.

                          and that took on meanders (the river would around like most slow moving rivers do)
                          Thing is, rivers do that because that's the physics of water, and in the Flood we wouldn't only see the most powerful straight-line currents like Beagle seems to be imagining. There's evidence of widescale sheet erosion fitting the Flood, during the early recession stages, then straightline channels cutting through mountain ridges (whereas under Beagle's view the water should have meandered around those), and in the later stages of course the water would become less intense and we would see meandering channels then. Depending on the situation we could also see that at various stages before this, too -- and should in some places (just posting a photo of one doesn't prove it's in a place where we wouldn't, for example).

                          I've seen countless articles on CMI for example, in fact, talking about these meandering channels. Beagle doesn't seem to be showing any awareness of this -- creation geologists are well aware of these features, and expect to see them.


                          And it is this kind of thing that undid the Early geologists attempts to locate evidence for the global flood, which they believed in. When they looked closely at the layers they though might superficially be associated with it, they kept finding evidence that showed the layer was formed by some long term process over lots and lots of time, not by some catastrophic sequence. Eventually this 'counter finding' became so common and so prevalent that the community as a whole began to reject the notion of catastrophism entirely - or almost entirely. Later findings (such as the massive flooding in the Scablands due to the breaking of a huge ice dam as the glaciers melted, and evidence for a long history of asteroid strikes) have pushed geology backed to a more balanced view that recognizes both long term, uniform processes and powerful large scale catestrophic processes.
                          Agreed -- but the problem is that in light of modern findings, it now looks like the early assumptions of impossibility were not just wrong, but wildly wrong, and the correct view now appears to be of one global catastrophe, as well as a series of smaller scale, mostly related catastrophes in the aftermath (like the one thought to have carved the Grand Canyon, and including one ice age as a side effect), until things gradually settled out. There are features globally that fit this perfectly, and no known features that contradict it, despite the assurances of those like Beagle who say otherwise.






                          Beagle:

                          Understood about the reply to my other post in Jorge's topic. I'd kind of rather keep the scientific discussion to one place anyways, so works for me.


                          It's impossible for rapidly moving water to carve a winding S shaped incised channel through solid rock. Water moving fast enough to cut rock would blast a straight channel like the Scablands. Again I'm referring to 1000 vertical feet carved into basalt which is solidified lava. The water couldn't slowly carve a channel through still soft lava because it would flash into steam.
                          The Scablands basalt actually shows features consistent with formation during the Flood, Beagle... and your final comment in this quote looks way off -- do you seriously think one basalt field will have the power to flash ALL the water to steam and resist its erosive power while still mostly molten? From what I've seen that isn't how lava-water interaction works. The initial contact does of course flash the first water into steam, but it also instantly solidifies the surface, and kinetic force of the water that instantly replaces it will push that aside, and the process repeats. When that much water "wants" to go somewhere, the lava there is pushed aside, and unless it really was totally hardened for a while previously as you start out saying, it would indeed carve out channels that big and easily more.

                          This becomes more difficult the larger the lava field, obviously, but we're also talking about an enormous amount of water here.

                          There is some evidence the human population bottlenecked down to maybe 10,000 individuals around 70K years ago.
                          Keep in mind this date is part of your view, not ours. I was referring to the Y-chromosome and mitochondrial evidence that matches the Flood scenario. This is evidence of not just any bottleneck, but a bottleneck matching exactly the biblical account of three sons from one man, each with one wife who could come from multiple people groups.

                          It's not difficult at all to find a genetic bottleneck. All you have to do is note an extreme lack of genetic diversity in a population. Geneticists have been studying animal populations for 60+ years and there is no such massive bottleneck anywhere.
                          This is assuming that the animals God selected to go on the Ark were heavily "outvolved" branches without the fuller genetic potential, but I would think he probably chose the ones that are more like wolves than a chihuahua for example; retaining most of the original variety in the initial created kind pairs. While I don't accept invoking miraculous interference in the pattern without extreme caution, this is one case where the biblical account clearly describes it, so the evidence needs to be tested in that light, not just on the assumption that those surviving a bottleneck would be a random sampling (so more likely to lack genetic diversity).

                          This also goes to the question of how much diversity can arise later and we have seen popular arguments on that fail in light of newer research that proved that it does happen very rapidly. I've even seen some accusing YECs of believing in "hyper-evolution" because of these findings!

                          accelerated nuclear decay, an event which if it had happened would have melted the planet into slag from the excess heat released
                          Yeah, I've heard that argument (not just from OEs, but anti-RS YEs), but it seems... highly exaggerated at best... One issue is that if an area of molten material can, simply by being molten, cause the rest of the planet to melt (through extra heat given off by the radioactivity in it), that should accelerate all other radioactivity and repeat the process until it's all gone, no matter where it started, and we shouldn't have any left -- yet we DO have areas that are molten even today underground, and lava flows on the surface sometimes, and we still have radioactive material. Another is that heat rises, and we're talking about this happening closer to the atmospheric surface than most molten areas today, so you'd think this would be less likely to melt the whole planet than normal.

                          The real issue with heat is the vast exposed areas of magma that the RS model predicts at the splitting of the continents and where the old oceanic crust is torn off. But then, we do see that most of the mass extinction happened to seafloor creatures, so this isn't necessarily a problem. Noah's Ark would be far inland most likely, so would have escaped most of the effects of this heat. Many sea creatures could also survive over the continents. Current deep-sea creatures are harder to explain, but may be branchkinds descended from previously more adaptable kinds. (Some of them also live at high-heat deep sea vents, of course.)

                          This flashing to steam would also explain the "fountains of the deep" statement -- "the deep" is a common biblical reference to oceans. This would lead to global rainfall just as described.

                          YECs have taken instances of known contamination
                          (This is in response to the radiocarbon evidence.) This is the usual answer, but the tests actually show the opposite. Samples were kept clean and put in machines tested with no sample, and this has consistently been found globally. Creation scientists acknowledge that old-earthers believe that this evidence is explained somehow by contamination (they have no choice!), but this should be easy to test, right? All old-earthers have to do is follow the correct procedures to prevent contamination*, etc. and see if they get the same results.

                          *This is assuming the contamination doesn't happen in situ. But tests have been done (so it's claimed, anyways) that show that this isn't the case.

                          This isn't the only evidence either -- we also have helium that hasn't yet escaped from crystals due to uranium radioactivity in very low layers, for example. The evidence seems to show that in fact the radiocarbon isn't a result of contamination but both of these examples of radioactivity are due to the YE scenario actually being the case. Given that the counterevidence of longer uniformitarian radiometric dates also fits the Flood (accelerated decay), radiometric evidence as a whole no longer works as an argument against it.


                          There is zero confirmed evidence of 14C being found in very old strata.
                          Yes there is -- it has been found in dinosaur fossils claimed to be the oft-cited 65 million years old, but it cannot last anywhere near that long.


                          It's another favorite YEC lie to date young lava flow with xenoliths (old existing rock) in it to "prove" radiometric dates are all wrong.
                          Not sure why you're bringing that up -- but this is in reference to using radiometric 'dating' methods on lava that was observed (so we know it is young), and yet gives 'dates' very old. The xenoliths argument is a common one used to try to wiggle out of this, and it seems to me that it could be possible in some cases. The scientists, however, claim that they take measures to ensure the samples used avoid xenoliths. I think it's hard to prove that no old rock was involved at any stage in the lava's history, in either view, but this does at least show that radiometric dating of when rocks actually formed would then be unreliable. (If you can have xenoliths anywhere that leave no discernable evidence at all, then that could have happened in all flows that were not observed too, so we would still have to throw those dates out, whether YE or OE is true.)



                          About scientific papers, have you tried to find them yourself? CMI articles are usually referenced, and many of those go to OE-sourced papers. I've tracked down a few of these "show me the papers!" arguments before -- it takes time, but so far the ones I've looked up don't bear out the OE claims as far as I can tell (admittedly there's always the angle that I'm not an expert... but those who are are saying that these claims don't work, so on that point we're left at a draw -- we need physical evidence that cannot work with one view versus the other to decide).


                          I notice you say that the point about the "sorting" of apparent radiometric ages argument due to lower layers having heat be trapped later has been answered before, but you didn't say what the answer is. I understand it's tedious to "deal with noobs", but could you try to dig up what that was if you have time? I would like to judge it for myself. :)


                          I see you're asking a lot of questions as you read through my reply that I answered later in that (like why trilobites aren't found with inland creatures -- as expected!), so for now as I'm much shorter on time this week than I expected (and people probably don't want the replies to get too long) I'll hope the later answers helped. Ask if not, though.



                          The YEC claim is that ALL the layers of the Grand Staircase, over 2 miles deep, were laid in the same flood year. THAT's what is impossible to accept.
                          For you, maybe, but geologists are accepting it. We need to see sound proof why they should not.


                          The Coconino sandstone is eolian - it was deposited by wind as sand dunes not water. There are very distinct patterns in the formation that only form from wind.
                          Such as? Actually the features such as the angle of the dunes are not consistent with desert dunes, but with underwater dunes. (Although there is at least one feature that can be explained in both views; the "frosting" and pitting of the grains. This was held up for years as supposed proof that it could only form from wind, and may be what you're referring to, but newer research showed that they can form in the flood scenario too, especially during cementation.)

                          There are also the fossilized footprints of dozens of different species from tiny spiders up to fairly large synapsids like dimetrodon. How did that happen half a mile underwater?
                          Well, since the features show it did happen underwater, you need to explain that in your view as much as in mine. It would make sense if this was in the Flood and they were trying to get back to the surface to prevent themselves from drowning (most of the tracks are uphill) -- and of course eventually failed.

                          As for the exact depth, there is indeed evidence based on the correlation of height of underwater dunes with depth that it would have been deep underwater, but unsure if it was a half-mile specifically offhand. And not sure if that was meant as referring to the same parts that had the tracks. The footprint study seems to suggest that most of the tracks are on the lower side, so perhaps it was shallower earlier and the large dunes requiring that depth were higher up after the animals had already drowned. Either way, this doesn't work as an anti-Flood argument since the tracks are there and the dunes are now known to be underwater.



                          We know that glaciers carried some boulders hundreds of miles.
                          Right, but you said that we don't have evidence of long-distance transportation. That case of boulders transported from the Rockies far to the east is a case of that. And they show the kind of rounding that rock transported by water has.



                          re you saying you think a global Flood would somehow have ALL flat layer boundaries?
                          That was AIG's dumb claim. I merely disproved it.
                          So you ARE saying that. Beagle, no. AiG is NOT arguing that the Flood would produce all flat layers. They're saying there's far more of it than there should be under your view.




                          Roy:

                          a global flood would not produce in-filled river channels or angular unconformities.
                          Of course it would, Roy -- the question is if there are any specific cases of these that are actually impossible (shown by features not possible in a Flood scenario, not just claimed to be impossible). How can you say these would not happen at all? How would a global Flood happen and somehow NOT show these erosion features? Do you think it would be a totally gentle flood? Even local floods aren't that.

                          That argument does make sense - but it's not true. We do see the disturbances observed on the current day surface. The in-filled river channels is one example; others include fossilized burrows, animal tracks, fossilized hardgrounds, fossilized nests and eggs, root casts and others. [...] desert deposits, salt pans, mud cracks, sub-aerial lava flows (i.e. not pillow-lava), scree, scoria, emplaced trees, coprolites and raindrop impact marks. .
                          First, none of this changes that we have wide areas where the needed surface erosion features aren't found, which appears to falsify OE. But to the details:

                          -In-filled channels -- See above; obviously this should be expected!

                          -Burrows -- like I said before, this is the sort of argument that is probably the strongest against the Flood, but simply saying burrows were fossilized isn't enough because we do expect that. But if we were to find one burrow fossilized below others (directly below, or definitely in layers that had to be laid down atop the lower layer -- as in, not just assumed to be above but in far distant locations), and if the burrows somehow were proven to be unable to be made during the Flood (keep in mind we would expect some of that; animals wouldn't all die instantly, and the RS explanation especially would have two major flood stages, at least, with time in between for some of the initial survivors to try to resettle), then we could get somewhere.

                          -Tracks are again obviously expected.

                          -Not sure offhand what you mean by "hardgrounds". Could you clarify for the noob? :P

                          -Eggs, nests, etc. go in the same category as burrows.

                          -Roots -- This is similar too, but also the Mt. St. Helens evidence needs to come in here. We find many trees uprooted but buried upright as we saw there, some crossing multiple layers incidentally (so at least those layers were laid down catastrophically), and if there are complete roots buried elsewhere (offhand I don't recall), they could have been buried in situ if low enough, and it's also possible for roots to come up with trees and be moved elsewhere before being buried, depending on how the removal happens (and water could turn soil to mud possibly allowing roots to come up with the tree).

                          -Just calling something a desert deposit isn't evidence; that looks like circular reasoning because we would expect OEs to assume they'll see deserts in the layers. We would see those as laid down by water.

                          -Large salt deposition is expected as well.

                          -Could you be more specific about the mud cracks argument?

                          -Under the runaway subduction model, we would expect some of the lava flows to have been aerial, but I've seen cases of them being originally assumed to be aerial but later features are found more consistent with underwater formation, as mentioned earlier.

                          -Again, could you be more specific? We have many places where under the OE view we would expect much more scree than is there. In so many places you see these vertical erosion cliffs with the characteristic slanted areas of scree at the bottom, a major sign of the Flood. At observed rates of erosion those should not just be slants entirely, or even flattened on land, but allegedly the continents themselves are eroding fast enough compared to replacement that they should all be underwater.

                          -Scoria is a type of rock, not an argument -- again, please be more specific.

                          -Same as with burrows. Note that feces decay much faster than bones, so these being preserved at all shows at least a small scale of catastrophism.

                          -Again, obviously we would expect raindrops in the described scenario!




                          Beagle:

                          Your "exhumed river channel" image is cited as part of the Green River formation, which is often brought up by creationists for a number of reasons that show it was laid down rapidly and eroded heavily during recession. So, we would expect to see that here! This is in fact one of the areas that shows the lack of surface erosion in the layers that is so problematic for your view, inconsistent with the erosion on the surface like that of the image you showed. It also has unusually well-preserved fossils, again showing rapid deposition.

                          Not sure what your argument is with the lava river. We expect to see volcanic features; you quoted me mentioning that. And of course lava would follow channels that are there, and later erosion around it would expose the lava (whether during Flood recession or post-Flood). You say creationists in the past have had trouble explaining this... maybe it was worded differently to them, though. Could you clarify?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by logician bones View Post

                            Originally posted by Beagle
                            accelerated nuclear decay, an event which if it had happened would have melted the planet into slag from the excess heat released
                            Yeah, I've heard that argument (not just from OEs, but anti-RS YEs), but it seems... highly exaggerated at best...
                            If you've actually read the RATE report, you will see this admission from the RATE group itself. They calculated the heat released from their "accelerated nuclear decay" scenario and concluded that the earth would have melted. They could provide no scientific explanation for why the earth didn't melt. The decided that this points to "new science" which has not yet been discovered, or to miracles.

                            Originally posted by log bones
                            Originally posted by Beagle
                            YECs have taken instances of known contamination
                            (This is in response to the radiocarbon evidence.) This is the usual answer, but the tests actually show the opposite.
                            False.
                            Samples were kept clean and put in machines tested with no sample,
                            Irrelevant. A "no sample" test (which is actually a test with an empty sample holder) will significantly UNDERestimate the true background.
                            and this has consistently been found globally.
                            Really? EVidence, please?
                            Creation scientists acknowledge that old-earthers believe that this evidence is explained somehow by contamination (they have no choice!),
                            No, the evidence actually points to contamination. The scatter in dates/radiocarbon content is consistent with contamination, but not with an actual finite age.
                            Originally posted by log bones
                            but this should be easy to test, right? All old-earthers have to do is follow the correct procedures to prevent contamination*, etc. and see if they get the same results.
                            It is IMPOSSIBLE to prevent contamination. The best we can do is to frequently characterize the contamination and try to do everything as consistently as possible, in an at
                            Tempt to keep the contamination constant.
                            Originally posted by log bones
                            *This is assuming the contamination doesn't happen in situ. But tests have been done (so it's claimed, anyways) that show that this isn't the case.
                            Sometimes in situ contamination is a significant factor, sometimes not. For old samples, it can be a huge factor.
                            Originally posted by log bones
                            Originally posted by Beagle
                            There is zero confirmed evidence of 14C being found in very old strata.
                            Yes there is -- it has been found in dinosaur fossils claimed to be the oft-cited 65 million years old, but it cannot last anywhere near that long.
                            Not quite accurate. It has been found in measurements of dinosaur bones. Accurate radiocarbon dating of bone is tricky and expensive; bone easily absorbs contamination in situ. If the YECs who submitted the samples tried to do it "on the cheap", they likely got inaccurate results.
                            "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
                              If you've actually read the RATE report, you will see this admission from the RATE group itself. They calculated the heat released from their "accelerated nuclear decay" scenario and concluded that the earth would have melted. They could provide no scientific explanation for why the earth didn't melt. The decided that this points to "new science" which has not yet been discovered, or to miracles.
                              Well, Humphreys came up with a hypothesis that he admitted didn't work.

                              They also acknowledged the issue of 40K decaying in the animal's bodies on the ark but didn't quantify it. They concluded that maybe there was no 40K in living organisms until after the fludde.

                              Of course the "future work" has not been attempted.

                              I don't know if you've seen Heat and radiation destroy claims of accelerated nuclear decay.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                              48 responses
                              135 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Sparko
                              by Sparko
                               
                              Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                              16 responses
                              74 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                              6 responses
                              46 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Working...
                              X