Talk:Flood Geology

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

List of criticisms

Despite suggesting that this is the place for criticisms of flood geology, I'm deleting the list that Cgday put in this article for the following reasons:

  1. Because it is a copy and paste from a discussion forum on another web-site. Conservapedia articles are supposed to be original content.
  2. Because a list of this format and length is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article.
  3. The list is introduced with the comment, "'This list is to establish that those criticisms have been raised, not to suggest they have any weight". If that is all, then mentioning the fact and putting a link in a footnote is sufficient.
  4. Also on that comment, and to use an analogy, an article on the moon landings that listed criticisms (that they were faked) simply on the grounds that they have been raised is ludicrous. Surely the criticisms should have some validity before being included/mentioned/etc.
  5. I doubt that a forum post would be considered an acceptable source even for linking to in a footnote.

Philip J. Rayment 06:36, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

just as a point of clarification - it's not copied from there but they did copy that from my original source. Never mind, I'll construct the list from scratch - Peer reviewed journals are fine as sources right? --Cgday 06:41, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
I shouldn't worry. If we start to put too much science in User:Conservative will lock the page and replace it with quotes. Nematocyte 06:59, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
That site was the only one that showed up on a Google search, although another search earlier in the day (probably with a slightly different search string) did show up another one that was very similar. But I'm not disputing you on that point.
Yes, peer-reviewed journals are okay as sources. But please keep in mind comments 2, 3, and 4 in my post above.
Also, please avoid arguments that rely on assuming uniformitarian geology to be true, as that is the logical fallacy of begging the question. A number of the arguments on that list did that.
Philip J. Rayment 07:28, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Dating

From the Article: "On this basis, archaeological dates which purport to show civilisations and artifacts being older than the Flood cannot be used to invalidate the date of the flood because they are based on the presumption that there was no Flood."

But we know that there were civilisations before the flood? Just checking. Crackertalk 10:58, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Good point; I'll have to clarify that. (By the way, it is still a work in progress.) Philip J. Rayment 11:06, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Actually, archaeological dates that purport to show that any civilization spanned the year of the Great Flood ought not be used, because they presume that there was no Flood. Yes, at least one civilization existed before the Flood. But the Flood destroyed it. An artifact--called an out-of-place artifact--might persist from that antediluvian civilization. But it would not be part of any post-diluvian civilization.--TerryHTalk 15:36, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
Actually, when you think about who needs to provide the burden of proof on this matter those who believe that there was a flood need to provide the proof. Those who do not believe that there was a flood only has to be shown proof that there was a flood. To discredit evidence on the basis that there was a flood and therefore the evidence is not valid due to the impossibility of existence because of the flood leads to forming the research around the idea instead of forming the idea around the observations. This is contrary to impartial research.--TimS 15:47, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
You haven't explained why it is that the burden of proof is on supporters of the flood.
I wonder what "those who do not believe that there was a flood" would consider to be "proof". I suspect that they would not be convinced even if a lot of supportive evidence was offered.
Your comment about discrediting evidence on the basis that there was a flood misses TerryH's point. First, a date is not "evidence" itself (you don't dig up dates), it is a calculation based on evidence and assumptions. Second, TerryH was talking about such dates that are calculated presuming that there was no flood. To use dates based on the presumption that there was no flood to show that there was no flood is a circular argument, and it is quite proper to exclude them.
Philip J. Rayment 23:18, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
Philip the reason why the burden of proof falls on the shoulders of those who say there was a flood is because of a basic principle of scientific reasoning, that claiming that something happened requires evidence of the event passing while claiming that nothing had happened requires a lack of evidence that the event happened. So in other words without evidence that there was a world flood then those who said it did not happen are supported whereas with evidence of the world flood those who claim no flood occurred would be shown false.
I know I would be convince that there was a world flood if
1. The divergence in species (both human and animal) could have happened in that short of a time after the flood, assuming the 2 of every animal.
2. If the water chemistry supported a flood.
3. If the evidence of a superstructure (ark) were found.
4. If humanoid fossils could be proven to be younger than the flood.
5. If the glacier erosion of the great lakes was shown to be false.
6. If the diversification of plant life could be explained within the time frame after the flood.
7. If the earth's strata showed a single mineral deposit band consistent with a flood on all land masses today within the same geological time frame.
8. A model could be provided of how the flood occurred that would not have reasonably destroyed the Ark (falling stones and water pressure from the crack idea), Starved the animals (how did the animals live without several times their body weight in food), and explained where the water went in such a short time (if the land masses split and rose the strata would show it on surfaced landmasses as well as oceanic strata cores).--TimS 12:05, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Philip about the date thing, this is forming the research around the idea and not the idea around the research. Dates are arbitrary, that is true however time between events is not arbitrary, it can be used for scientific research. When TerryH said that we should not count the evidence that presumes that there was no flood it leads to a biased research. The evidence that is dated older than the flood should be counted and verified with the evidence supporting a flood. This is the only way to prevent unbiased research. Evidence is not biased, it is the person interpreting the evidence that is. To ignore evidence on the basis that it is in conflict with your idea is like a drug company saying that a product is safe even though it has killed 18 out of 100 clinical trial patients. For research to be trustworthy it must explore all practical and available routes within the scope of its study.--TimS 12:05, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
As far as the burden of proof is concerned, you may be right in your argument, but I'm not sure, because the alternative is not "nothing happened". In theory it may be, but in practice secular geology proposes that something happened. So we have two competing theories of something happening. From that point of view, why should the burden of proof be on one of those "somethings" and not the other?
As for you numbered points:
  1. Speciation has been observed happening within a few generations, so I would argue that points 1 and 6 have been shown to be possible.
  2. I don't understand this one.
  3. I hope they find it one day!
  4. See my comments below about dating.
  5. I believe that this does not need to be false; it could be consistent with flood geology.
  6. See No. 1.
  7. This is not what flood geology proposes, so is a straw-man. See also my comments below about dating.
  8. There might be a bit of a straw-man in this one, but the rest has been answered. See the book A Feasibility Study of Noah's Ark by John Woodmorappe.
Dates are a time between two events (being the event being dated and the present) adjusted to a common reference. So when we are talking about dates, it is really the time between events that we are discussing.
I agree that evidence is not biased but the interpreters of the evidence are. But dates are not evidence. They are a calculation done by a biased interpreter of the evidence. And his biases can affect that calculation. So we are not saying that evidence should be ignored; we are saying that dates that are calculated according to opposing biases should be ignored.
I agree that "for research to be trustworthy it must explore all practical and available routes within the scope of its study", which means that naturalistic science that excludes some ideas (such as flood geology) on the basis that it involves a supernatural being are not trustworthy.
Finally, thanks for the civil discussion; it makes a change from many that I've had.
Philip J. Rayment 22:12, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
As far as “nothing happened” I may have understated this. Since the variables that are being tested are based on the logic of what is changed from the current norm. In other woods since we have not see a global flood since the declaration of a flood, it is considered a one time event then the proof is to be based on the change. For example, the meteor impact idea that a meteor supposedly landed in what is now the Gulf of Mexico and caused 200 foot tidal waves that washed out the southern part of now the US. This idea had to provide the proof of a meteor and impact speeds and size for it to gain any ground in the scientific community. We know that meteors hit the planet several times each year, so that was not implausible, however for one of this size and did this much damage there needed to be proof, much like a world flood. We know that there are floods on the planet several times each year but a flood of this size and this damage would need to have evidence to convince the scientific community that it happened.--TimS 09:56, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
Just to point out a couple of things,
  1. While speciation had been observed happening within a few generations it has never been shown to happen so rapidly and to include such diversity. Consider this, if Noah had 10 types of grass on the ark to reach the rough 10,000 we have today there would have been at least 1.6 new species each year. Now keep in mind this is for grass only, an organism that can change rapidly due to selective breeding (When I mean rapidly I mean within 20 to 30 years) we would have to apply this to trees and other plants as well. Consider the number of species of plants we have in the world today (excluding the aquatic plants, however fresh water aquatic plants would have died) it is highly unlikely that 6K years would produce enough change without some unstable environment that would be rapidly mutating the plants to produce the 1M plus species of plants we see today. If this was the case, (free radicals, UV light and other mutagens) it would have affected humans as well.
  2. The water chemistry is based on the saturation of salts and minerals, with the addition of the water to the already existing ocean and in conjunction with the idea that the water was removed from land by placement within the oceans would mean that the salinity of the preexisting oceans would have been so high that only the most primitive forms of bacteria could have lived in it. On that same note fish would have had to adjust within a year to the decrease of salinity in order to survive, this is highly unlikely since anyone with experience in marine chemistry and marine biology knows that fish are highly sensitive to changes in alkalinity and salinity in their environments, enough that only a few increases in PPM is enough to kill them.
  3. I do as well
  4. I agree as well about dates but the time that had passed should not be ignored. To do so would discredit ideas that a based on timelines, like creationism.
  5. It is the speed at which the glaciers move. Not to mention the concept of an ice age occurring between the time of the flood and modern time. For an ice age to have occurred to create the glaciers large enough to form the great lakes it would have had to lower the global temperature significantly, enough that it would have been noticed by civilizations, even at the equator. As for the speed, the glacier formation and the advancing and retreating of the glacier to develop the lakes would have taken thousands of years to achieve. The only way for it to not have is if the earth went through a series of freeze thaws with high precipitation during the freezes to accumulate enough snow pack to form a glacier and that allows enough time for glacier movement then thaw the glacier away to do the cycle once more. This would have been detrimental to any and all wildlife in the area not to mention the extreme climate foliations that would have been felt globally.
  6. Mentioned above.
  7. Maybe this would be of interest with the strata argument. Why is most sediment on high ground? Most sediment is carried until the water slows down or stops. If the water stopped in the oceans, we should expect more sediment there. Baumgardner's own modeling shows that, during the Flood, currents would be faster over continents than over ocean basins [1] so sediments should, on the whole, be removed from continents and deposited in ocean basins. Yet sediments on the ocean basin average 0.6 km thick, while on continents (including continental shelves), they average 2.6 km thick. [2]
  8. I have read the book, it was interesting but there where a lot of holes in the idea. Mostly about waste management and animal handling for 15,754 animals. It did not however answer how the ark could have survived the turbulent nature of the flood with the upheaval of the earth’s crust to form new land masses as well as the energy released from the mantle in such a process.
I must comment about the supernatural. The search for the supernatural is considered scientific since it is falsifiable, we find evidence of the supernatural or not (why SETI is scientifically based) but to use the supernatural to explain an observation is not scientific due to the lack of falsifiablity of the research unless the supernatural entity has been shown to A. exist and B. contribute to the event.
I am glad you enjoy the discussion. I do believe that evidence tends to speak for itself as long as it is looked at objectively, which can be hard for some. I know that some feel that debating is negative, mostly due to insecurities of background knowledge of a topic (ToE for example), and try to prevent the opposing POV from presenting its evidence. I do hope to continue this discussion, for I am very interested in gleaning why a person believes as they do.--TimS 09:56, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
The way I see it is this:
  • Most people/scientists/geologists accepted the global flood until about 200 years ago.
  • Then James Hutton declared that geology should be based on processes that we see in the present. This simply wiped flood geology off the radar without disproving it. Surely by your logic, the onus on him was to demonstrate his non-flood geology. But he didn't.
  • So now secular geology tries to put the onus on flood geologists to convincingly demonstrate their case, despite the fact that secular geology never convincingly demonstrated its case in the first place.
Those are excellent points, I have to mention something though, about 200 years ago scientists were still using the bible as a frame of reference. This was due to the indoctrination of the educational system at the time. Many of the universities and schools where sciences were taught were run by the church. It took a considerable effort for scientists to break from the norm and apply their observations instead of relating them in accordance to scripture. “James Hutton, after considerable observation, proposed an idea that placed him into opposition with Abraham Werner. He opened up the concept of deep time for scientific purposes, in opposition to Catastrophism. Rather than accepting that the earth was no more than a few thousand years old, he maintained that the Earth must be much older. His main line of argument was that the tremendous displacements and changes he was seeing did not happen in a short period of time by means of catastrophe, but that processes still happening on the Earth in the present day had caused them. As these processes were very gradual, the Earth needed to be ancient, in order to allow time for the changes. Scientific inquiries provoked by his claims had pushed back the age of the earth into the millions of years” He did demonstrate non-flood geology. His understanding of rock formation and the time that had to pass in order to form the rock and strata was convincing enough that other geologists followed suit and began experimentation under the mindset that the earth had to be older since what was observed was in contradiction to what had been thought. The irony of all of this is that the only reason why Neptunisum had existed was through the formulation of data to support the idea and not the idea supporting the data. When you look at modern geology there are only a hand full of scientists that even consider the flood as valid, a huge turn from 200 years ago. Perhaps we should ask ourselves why the reversal if their logic, observation and experimentation is flawed?--TimS 17:20, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
Despite me questioning why the onus of proof is on Flood Geology, I claim that the evidence to support it is there. The problem is not a lack of evidence, but a worldview that refuses to see the evidence that way.
1. Grass likely survived off the ark on floating mats of vegetation, and there could have been a lot more than ten types surviving the flood. In addition, and even assuming only ten surviving the flood, those 1.6 species per year (actually about 2.2 per year, as the flood was about 4,500 years ago) do not need to happen sequentially. How do you know that there aren't two or three new species all around the world this year?
Additionally, you are putting speciation all down to mutations. It can and does happen through genetic bottlenecks and natural selection, a sorting out and elimination of genes in given population groups produces new species. Mutations are an additional method.
Yes this could be logarithmic and rapidly advance speciation, however consider what we know of mutation, if the environment was not ever changing then the mutations would be far fewer in fact natural selection would be reduced unless the environmental stresses were greater. Keep in mind though, that genetic bottlenecks and natural selection have a much slower rate of adding to speciation since they are reducing the species through environmental castration. This would greatly hinder the time needed to produce such a large verity of species of plant life. Now another matter is, how did we go from grass to a tree in such a short time, or even from an oak to a pine with the possibility that there were possible seeds on the ark? Another note would be based on the different species found in differencing climates around the world? How long would it take to diversify the little plant life on the ark and provide something like the Amazon rainforest within 4500 years with the understanding that the land masses had already divided and that certain plants can not survive such an infusion of water? (Cacti in the Mojave Desert). --TimS 17:20, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
"...if the environment was not ever changing..." I expect that's exactly what it would be doing following a global flood.
Wow this is getting long:). The environment changing, if it was changing so much that the mutations were causing the rapid diversification of animals and plants then the same should have happened to humans.--TimS 10:27, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
Not necessarily, for two reasons. One, humans may not have had as much genetic potential for diversity. Two, speciation works best in small populations under environmental pressure, which would be the case with animals and plants spreading out over a post-flood world. Humans, on the other hand, refused to spread out until God forced the issue at the tower of Babel. Philip J. Rayment 12:35, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
From grass to a tree? What? We are talking about diversification within a created kind, not evolution. You don't need to go from grass to trees, nor oaks to pines, as you would have had both to start with.
The post-flood ice age would have had lower sea levels, creating land bridges where there are none now. Floating mats of vegetation would be one way of keeping plants and seeds out of the water.
Philip J. Rayment 05:24, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
You need to go from grass to trees when tree seedlings would not be able to survive the conditions on the ark nor in the water for the length of time. Many common tree species seen today would have died out in the humidity conditions that would have existed on an ark and the water would have destroyed the seeds if they were on a mat of vegetation. This is important due to the verity of tree species found today that can not exist in water logged conditions. In regards to land bridges, there is no evidence of a land bridge to Australia. Not to mention that many animal species could not survive the land bridge between the Americas and Asia in their current forms, the reptiles for example could not survive the temperature to migrate.--TimS 10:27, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
I doubt that you can be sufficiently sure of the conditions to rule out seeds surviving, and you are still overlooking that the trees that are around today are (for the most part) not the ones that survived the flood, but more-specialised descendants of them. There might not have been a land bridge to Australia, but the water gap would have been much smaller. I don't know about the reptiles getting to the Americas via the Bering Strait area, but it's amazing what creatures can achieve at times. Philip J. Rayment 12:35, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
2. Flood geologists believe that the salt content prior to the flood was smaller than now, not larger. We don't know how much water was added to the oceans, but likely a lot of salt was added at the same time, and has been added since (salt entering the oceans exceeds the quantity leaving). Also, the ice age (see below) would have reduced the water content, concentrating the salt a bit in the remaining water.
Very good point, as the water escaped from the ground it would have a higher salt content due to the dissolved minerals. This still would change the salinity of the water and would have caused such a drastic change that is would have killed off the aquatic life. Unlike plants, animals reproduce much slower and in a year’s time the fish population would have been destroyed. Something to note however is that the salt content would remain the same, “A detailed analysis of sodium shows that 35.6 x 1010 kg/yr come into the ocean, and 38.1 x 1010 kg/yr are removed (Morton 1996). Within measurement error, the amount of sodium added matches the amount removed.”[3]--TimS 17:20, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
Yes, the salinity would change, but it is not as clear cut as that. How much would it change? I don't know that anyone's done the calculations on that yet. For one thing, nobody knows how salty it was before the flood. Your comment about the fish surviving presumes that they have the same sensitivity as fish today. See here regarding that. As for Morton's analysis, apart from the fact that it has been rebutted here, he is discussing something entirely different: how long it would take to reach today's level of saltiness without a flood. Philip J. Rayment 05:24, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
If the fish did not have the same or similar sensitivity as today that is quite the evolutionary advancement, lol. There are other factors as well such as pressure changes due to the upheaval that would have killed many of the deep species we find in the ocean today as well as the turbity issue in the water due to the massive land changes, most gill systems can not tolerate particle counts over 2 to 3 ppm over their normal environment. Not to mention the differences between fresh and salt and fresh water fish. Yes, Ichthyologists will admit there are several species of fish that can go between fresh and salt waters as long as the ppm change is slight and that the progression into the differing waters is done slowly. With the flood this would not have happened as slowly nor do all fish species have this ability.--TimS 10:27, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
No, not an evolutionary advancement at all. Rather, a backwards step, where the fish have lost the capability of surviving in a wider range of salinity. The vast majority of all fossils are marine, indicating that many of them did perish, likely due to the factors you mentioned. But enough survived. Philip J. Rayment 12:35, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
3. —
4. What time that has passed? Are you still talking about uniformitarian-based time calculations?
I am saying the time that had to pass in order to cause certain geographical features to evolve. For example, the Appalachian mountains vs. the Rocky Mountains. If these two mountain ranges had been formed at the same time, during the upheaval then why the erosion difference? This can be verified by the strata found in both mountain ranges. We could attest the erosion to be based on weather patterns but to do so would be inverse to what we observe, the Rockies would be far more eroded than the Appalachian due to the direction of the weather systems as well as the moisture patterns. So how are we to conclude the difference without using time calculations? (Just to point out that the vegetation and weather eroding would require hundreds of thousands of years to develop the Appalachians into what we see today.) Another point in regards to time would be found in caves. The fast-growing stalactites form via processes very different from calcium carbonate stalactites found in limestone caves. Limestone is not soluble in water. When carbon dioxide (from decaying plants in the soil above the cave) mixes with water, it forms a very weak carbonic acid. This turns the calcium carbonate into calcium bicarbonate, which dissolves. When drips are exposed to air in the cave, a little carbon dioxide escapes from them into the atmosphere, which reverses the process and precipitates a small amount of calcium carbonate. The upper average rate for limestone stalactite growth is ten centimeters per thousand years, with lower growth rates outside of tropical areas. Fast-growing stalactites, on the other hand, either grow from gypsum through an evaporative process, or they form from concrete or mortar. When water is added to concrete, one product is calcium hydroxide, which is about 100 times more soluble than calcite. The calcium hydroxide absorbs carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to reconstitute calcium carbonate.Cite error: Closing </ref> missing for <ref> tag Direct measurement via radiometric dating gives stalactite ages over 190,000 years (Ford and Hill 1999). Other deposits in caves have been dated to several million years old. For example, argon-argon dating of alunite (an aluminum sulfate mineral) gives an age of 11.3 million years for a cave near Carlsbad Caverns (Polyak et al. 1998).[4] Oxygen isotope measurements in stalactites give an indication of outside temperatures. They are consistent with the coming and going of ice ages back at least 160,000 years (Dorale et al. 1998; Wang et al. 2001; Zhang et al. 2004). [5]--TimS 17:20, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
Why the erosion difference between the Appalachian and Rocky Mountains? I would figure because they happened at different times during the flood and/or different conditions applicable to them. Part of your argument for the stalactites relies on dating methods that creationists have demonstrated to be unreliable and subject to assumptions that wouldn't apply with a Flood model. Interesting that you should use the Carlsbad caves as an example. A caver there said the following:
From 1924 to 1988, there was a visitor’s sign above the entrance to Carlsbad Caverns, that said Carlsbad was at least 260 million years old. In 1988 the sign was changed to read 7–10 million years old. Then, for a little while, the sign read that it was 2 million years old. Now the sign is gone.[1]
That's just one of example of dates being changed (not just refined). Philip J. Rayment 05:24, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
Yes, I loved the caver story but it still does not change the observed geology in the formation of stalactites, not to mention that most of the caves are run by independent owners that put what they will to attract tourists. You should see Seneca caverns or smoke hole caverns in the eastern US and you will see what I am talking about. The erosion difference between the mountain ranges shows a 200 million year time passing. For the erosion to happen in a shorter time the environment would have been unlivable by the animal and plant life there today, not to mention that the weather conditions that would have eroded the Appalachian Mountains would have been noticed by the civilizations that were on the Americas. The difference between the two mountain ranges in terms of erosion to their current states would have been by time or very severe isolated weather conditions.--TimS 10:27, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
The "observed geology"? Who observed these stalactites growing for 190,000 years? There are many other examples of artifacts being redated after being dated by supposedly reliable radiometric dating methods; the cave example is not unique. Besides, what motive would the cave owners have for changing it? You say that "for the erosion to happen in a shorter time the environment would have been unlivable by the animal and plant life there today". Yep; it would be unlivable during a global flood. That's why there was an ark. Not that there were any civilisations there during the flood to notice the extreme weather conditions. Philip J. Rayment 12:35, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
5. An ice age could occur in the several hundred years after the flood. Lower temperatures globally would not produce an ice age, because of the lower evaporation hence lower precipitation. Higher temperatures globally would not produce an ice age because the precipitation would be rain, not snow. However, lower land temperatures with still-warm oceans following the flood would produce an ice age. The flood is the best (only?) mechanism that could produce one. Despite it not being as drastic as you indicate, civilisation did notice; Job makes reference to the vast storehouses of ice in the north.
Adding heat to a system tends to make it hotter. The falling moisture would have been a hot rain, not snow. You must not forget that all the heat lost to evaporation returns when the water condenses again and that more latent heat is then released in the freezing. A proper ice age cannot fit into the 4500 year timescale. For a continent-scale glacier to form, advance enough to change the landscape, and retreat takes centuries or more, not a decade. Cores from ice sheets reveal annual layers that date back 160,000 years in places. Volcanic eruptions recorded in the top few thousand years match historic records. The top 4,000 or so layers have to be annual layers. It is unlikely that the other 156,000 layers were laid down in just a few years (Brinkman 1995).[6] The earth under the ice sheets is isostatically adjusted to the mass of ice. Even if 10,000 or more feet of ice were dropped on Greenland and Antarctica in only a few years about 4,000 years ago, it would take over 12,000 years to reach the observed (today) degree of adjustment. Scandinavia and Canada are still rebounding from the disappearance of glaciers covering them at the end of the last ice age (Strahler 1987, chap. 27). It would have taken thousands of additional years for the weight of the ice to push them down in the first place.[7] --TimS 17:20, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
Why would the precipitation be rain rather than snow? The heat is lost as it is lifted into the atmosphere. Ice core dating is not as certain as we are led to believe, and the layers may not always be annual. You make a number of assertions there which seem to be simply stating secular views, and such things (secular views) have turned out to be wrong before, because they are presuming a different scenario. Sorry my answers are not more specific here, but I've already shown that much of the secular argument presumes no Flood, and I've no reason to think the same doesn't apply here. If you want to read more of the creationist arguments on this, see here. Philip J. Rayment 05:24, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
The physics of heat loss and specific gravity of water explain why the water would return as rain instead of snow. Ice core dating is pretty sound, the determination of the age of layers is not done by the microcrystal structure but also the residue found in the layers. Each year the jet stream drops above the Sahara and causes great dust clouds to be lifted into the atmosphere, this has been observed by satellite as well in dust composition found around the Gulf of Mexico. This is an annual even caused by the tilt of the earth forcing a change in warm zones on the planet. The ice cores can be read due to similar events being deposited on to the ice in layers. The only way this would be misleading is if the earth had and extremely unstable wobble that could cause massive shifts in temperature to affect deposition of materials. If this were the case there would be greater issues that would have resulted and affected life on the planet due to unstable seasonal changes. I suggest looking into how ice core data is extrapililated. Its reliability is often better than radio dating.--TimS 10:27, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
"The physics of heat loss and specific gravity of water explain why the water would return as rain instead of snow". I was kinda hoping that you would explain, because Mr. physics doesn't seem to be too good at explaining it to me. :-) On ice-core dating, see here, if you haven't already. Saying that its better than radiometric dating doesn't fill me with confidence! Philip J. Rayment 12:35, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
6. —
7. Your argument assumes that the existing ocean basins were the ocean basins of the time. I don't know the detail of the Flood model on this point, but part of it is that "the mountains rose and the valleys sank" (Psalms, somewhere) as part of the flood. So the sediments were deposited in the low areas, which subsequently rose to make the continents, while the hight points without the sediments dropped to become the ocean basins. That may not be accurate, but it may be the explanation.
No, I was meaning the deposition of sediment while the water was retreating into the newly formed oceans. What we see in the sediment layers is contrary to what we should have seen according to the flood model.
I've seen little evidence that you understand what the flood model would predict, so I don't give that statement much weight. Philip J. Rayment 05:24, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
It would depend on which flood model you were referencing. I am using the hydroplate theory by Walt Brown. If you are using a different model please let me know. All of the science I have used has been based on Walt Brown's assumptions.--TimS 10:27, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
Does Walt Brown's theory include "a single mineral deposit band consistent with a flood on all land masses today within the same geological time frame"? I wouldn't think so. Regardless, I don't know of any creationary scientist, at least connected with the main creationist organisations, who accepts the Hydroplate theory, so no, I'm not talking about that one. Philip J. Rayment 12:35, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
8. I wasn't sure if the book talked much about the structural strength of the ark, but that or something like that has been studied by Korean naval architects.
It did talk a little about the architecture, but I am not an engineer so wrapping my head around that would have done no good lol. I just looked at the biology and the mechanics at which he proposed the handling of the wastes and food uptake. I did notice however that his understanding of the heat produced by that much biomass was a little understated. That boat would have been easily at 100+ degrees. At that temp and humidity I am sure there would have been bacteriological issues with infection, especially with the stall conditions and the primitive waste handling, no water sprayers.--TimS 17:20, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
Very few people I've discussed this with will say that the search for the supernatural is scientific. But one does not have to observe or test the supernatural to see the results of the actions of the supernatural, so there should be nothing unscientific about concluding that a supernatural being was responsible. But naturalistic science will not even consider that possibility, so it not being objective.
I do not understand how you could state this and keep a scientific frame of mind. I could shoot someone and make the claim that Satan forced me to do it. How can that be tested? Science is willing to modify its claims as long as there is evidence. The supernatural does not provide evidence and there for is not scientific. As such using the term that something supernatural caused something to happen without providing a mechanism as to how it happened or how the supernatural enmity could have affected the event without showing how, can not be tested by science therefore not considered scientific.--TimS 17:20, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
There are two ways to test the Satan claim. (1) See if it is consistent with what we know about Satan. (2) See if there are other possible explanations. The latter will not prove that Satan forced you, but failure to find any other explanation will leave that as the only option. And of course it will not "prove" that Satan did force you, but remember that science can't prove anything anyway, and it will make it the most likely explanation. The creation view does have evidence, including evidence that can only be explained by the supernatural. But perhaps there is an unscientific element to creation in that regard, but the same applies to evolution/naturalism; you can't test the concept of naturalism either. Philip J. Rayment 05:24, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
I must say I like the way your phrased the above, it was very thoughtful. Only issue is in reference to what we know about Satan. Outside of the bible there is no evidence of Satan. So if we were to live in a village in the Amazon and had never read nor hear of Satan would we come to the same conclusion? Chances are unlikely, however if the event was scientific then no mater the situation the conclusions would be similar if not the same through the reductionism effort applied to understand the event. That is one of the reasons why the supernatural is not a plausible explanation when it comes to scientific reasoning. What we know about the world around us in scientific terms comes from observation, what I observer here with the weather from the clouds would be the same that a person in the Amazon would see. Over time as the scientific method was applied we would come to the same conclusion, independent of our world views. This is not possible is the supernatural is assumed. It has been recorded in many cultures that those who took a logical view of the world around them had similar conclusions no matter their background. It would be just a matter of time and refining of the idea to come to the same conclusion. Evolution follows this same setup due to multiple cultures and background when using a logical observed mindset have come to similar conclusions. The premise of the supernatural is that the entity must be understood or part of the world view of the culture for it to apply to the event whereas the naturalist would only use what was observed, thus something independent of a worldview, to make conclusions.--TimS 10:27, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
I'd say that there is plenty of evidence for Satan: all the evil in the world. And if we lived in a village in the Amazon and had never read nor heard of Satan, why do you think that we would be doing science anyway? A lack of information in a specific group of people doesn't negate my argument. In any case, that was only one of two approaches. The other one is still applicable.
"the supernatural is not a plausible explanation when it comes to scientific reasoning". On the contrary, you can deduce a Creator from the available evidence, because things don't make themselves, so something outside of the natural (i.e. supernatural) must have made the natural.
"Over time as the scientific method was applied we would come to the same conclusion, independent of our world views. This is not possible is the supernatural is assumed.". Yet modern science arose because of a Christian worldview, so this statement is clearly incorrect (contrary to the evidence).
Evolution is not assumption-free. It assumes no god, for a start. It assumes no miracles, yet invokes processes that have never been observed. Or rather, processes opposite to those that have been observed.
Philip J. Rayment 12:35, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
Evidence does not really speak for itself. We understand (interpret) the evidence within our worldview or paradigm.
That is true, how else could we understand it? Human minds work off comparisons.--TimS 17:20, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
Philip J. Rayment 10:59, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

You seem to argue here that assuming part of your argument takes analysis outside the realm of science - at least that's what TerryH argues, when he says that "assuming there was no flood" makes it not good science. Conceding this point arguendo, I'd like to cross apply your reasoning, and broaden its scope: assuming part of an argument does invalidate the argument, I will phrase it. Applying this to creation science, which Philip concedes assumes a creator, it is clear that creation science is also bad science.-AmesGyo! 23:22, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

If that comment is a response to mine, I don't know what you are referring to, as I didn't mention anything about "the realm of science". Philip J. Rayment 23:27, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Realm of science, meaning, "good science."-AmesGyo! 23:27, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I didn't mention anything about "good science" either, so that answer was less than helpful. Philip J. Rayment 05:40, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
I think that he's referring to Occam's razor, and that invisible pink elephant that's hovering over your shoulder. Go on, prove it isn't there! :-) Wikinterpretertalk?
I can prove that there is no invisible pink elephant hovering over my shoulder in two ways; logical and according to the laws of physics.
Logical, because something cannot be both pink and invisible at the same time, so it is logically impossible for an invisible pink elephant to exist.
According to the laws of physics, and assuming that this invisible pink elephant differs from normal elephants only in that it is pink, invisible, and able to hover, because (a) I can't feel it, and (b) there is not enough space in this room I'm in for an elephant to fit.
As for any serious aspect to your comment is concerned, it hasn't enlightened me to what AmesG was getting at one bit.
Philip J. Rayment 11:07, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Sorry - it's a philosophical example used to demonstrate that it's fairly shaky on a logical ground to say that something happened and then use it to justify itself. For example, I think the issue here is that your explanation of how flood geology works requires one to assume the correctness of flood geology theory to work. -- Wikinterpretertalk?
I still don't see what that has to do with AmesG's comment (if you meant that). But as for your point itself, I totally agree that it is illogical to use an assumption to justify itself. That was my very point about dates that supposedly prove that the flood didn't happen. But despite your comment on what you "think" the issue is, you have not demonstrated that what you "think"—that flood geology requires the assumption of flood geology—is actually the case. Just saying that you "think" it is, is not a argument of any substance. Philip J. Rayment 11:23, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Subterranean Salt Deposits

There is a band of sea-deposited salt that underlies many sedimentary rocks stretching from West of Ireland into Russia. Would any 'flood-geologist' please explain this.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by LateralQuercus (talk)

I'm not a geologist but I know a bit about flood geology. But not knowing the deposits that you are referring to, this is not enough information on which to comment. Philip J. Rayment 23:23, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Why not?-AmesGyo! 23:23, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Probably because he doesn't want to comment on something about which he doesn't possess information? Can't blame him for it.--M 10:41, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
I would have to support Philip in this as well. Without the information, weblink would be nice, I would not want to make a guess either.--TimS 11:05, 18 April 2007 (EDT)


I apologise for my tardiness in replying and for not signing my first post.

Rocksalt or Halite occurs throughout the world, often in very thick layers and interspersed with sedimentary rocks, and even overlain with igneous rock from volcanic eruptions, I hope these links are of some help.

http://www.mindat.org/click.php?enc=aHR0cDovL3JydWZmLmdlby5hcml6b25hLmVkdS9kb2NsaWIvaG9tL2hhbGl0ZS5wZGY%3D

--http://www.mindat.org/min-1804.html

http://www.saltinstitute.org/images/map.pdf

--http://www.mii.org/Minerals/photosalt.html

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9038903/halite

--http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=halite&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=1et&start=10&sa=N

I hope these show up OK, I'm not very good at this yet. LateralQuercus 17:35, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

You Just Gotta Be Kidding Me

I have argued many times with fundamentalists about why flood geology is just ludacris and watched them slip out from my arguments, usually due to lack of understanding what I am saying, but I just recently had a revelation.

a couple of weeks ago, it hit me that I was arguing with people about rather or not scientific evidence supported a story about: a guy who built an ark bigger than any wooden boat built today (modern attempts were significantly smaller) out of gohper wood pretty much by himself, took this boat and went to the vast corners of the earth to collect species of animals such as the koala bear (ultimately taking many animals out of their required habitats) when the world didn't even know that Australia existed, was able to not only feed these animals, with such vastly different eating habits, during his hunt to collect them all, but for an entire year, that somehow animals that have lifespans of less than a year were able to survive, on top of the fact that none of them died from disease, etc., then released them, and carnivores somehow survived without eating, since eating any animal would mean that specie's extinction, and herbivores somehow survived, speaking as how a global flood would demolish all plant life, even though a bird got a fig leaf from a freaking mountain top, and then these animals returned to their remote locations while Noah's family ran to and from all these places committing rampant incest, since human culture was so spread out just shortly after this.

Now I kind of feel like i was arguing with 1st graders as to rather or not Santa Claus existed. If you believe this, you are probably beyond help and definitely beyond logic.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Muchodelcrazy (talk)

Oh dear. Here we have yet another person who is willing to criticise and idea that he clearly knows next to nothing about. Much of his description of the flood story is simply of his own invention or misunderstanding, and is therefore a straw-man argument. Why don't people try to actually find out about the ideas that they so readily criticise? Philip J. Rayment 23:33, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Lol. Just readin' the Bible, man. Would you mind clarifying then?

Maybe if Genesis wasn't so vague, and if it didn't seem like it was written by a 3rd grader, i'd just be able to see the "clear meaning."

Or maybe I have to go study for 4 or 5 years, learn Greek, locate ancient manuscripts, analyze them, etc., before God's divine word becomes anything more than nonsense to me. Some religion for all.Muchodelcrazy 18:59, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

You did NOT get that from "just readin' the Bible". It would be good for a start if you actually did read the Bible and see what it says, but to go beyond that to the scientific creation model, have a read of this. Philip J. Rayment 07:04, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Yeah. That's what the Bible said. Everything else I said is just what had to have happened for it to be true. We still have koala bears. They had to have been taken on the ark. And guess where they live exclusively?

It doesn't matter anyway. Jesus never came back, so this is all nonsense to talk about. Since a lot of you believe that the earth is 6000 years old, I don't count 1/3 of all existence as "soon" for his second coming, despite how many times the NT says it would be soon.Muchodelcrazy 19:34, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

"Everything else I said is just what had to have happened for it to be true". Which is an admission that I was right, that you did NOT get that from "just readin' the Bible". Furthermore, at least one thing you said was contrary to the biblical account, so you have not simply added to the account, but ignored (or rejected) some of what it said. By the way, koalas are not bears. Philip J. Rayment 22:48, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Wow. You did your research. Everybody knows they're marsupials (and most closely related to the wombat). You see, "koala bears" is what us non-believers call slang. Kind of how a gila monster is not a "monster" and a bat is not a bird (like in the Bible). See the problems taking everything's meaning word-for-word?

You got me genius. I'm a fraud, and God is real based on the grounds that a koala is not a bear. Still, how do "koalas" exist? And what did I falsify?

I'm going to make a prophesy that you will avoid, or work around, my question in your next response. Muchodelcrazy 15:59, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

Oh dear. You make a prediction on whether I will answer your question, yet you honed in on a passing remark of mine and almost totally ignored the substantive points.
What did you get wrong? For one, you said that "a guy who built an ark ..., took this boat and went to the vast corners of the earth to collect species of animals such as the koala bear". Show me where in the Bible it either says that or how that is a necessary consequence of the account.
I'm not sure which part you think I'll avoid or work around, but in case it's your question about how koalas exist, they exist by eating, just like any other creature. Or was perhaps your question meant to be something other than what you actually asked?
Philip J. Rayment 23:10, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
I think that his very valid point is why are there Koala bears in Australia, but not in Asia, or Africa, or anywhere else? Come to that, why are there marsupials in Australia but not Africa or India, if everything came from the ark? The Biblical account of the flood is a very nice tale from the Bronze Age, but that's it. Saying that it's the literal truth is highly dubious. Every culture has a flood myth, because floods are terribly destructive things. Saying that many flood myths = one universal flood is shaky reasoning at best. Dating the flood to the third millennium BC is also shaky, given the amount of evidence to the contrary. Rapid plate tectonics? Blaming the reversals of the Earth's magnetic field on the flood? This is scientifically stretching the facts until they fit an argument. Gave me a good giggle, though so thanks! Darkmind1970 09:05, 11 January 2008 (EST)
If evolution is true, why are there platypuses (or platypi if you prefer) only in Australia? It's not as though they evolved there, as a fossil platypus tooth has been found in South America. Whether you are a creationist or an evolutionist, you can't claim to have solved every last problem.
Yes, every culture has a flood account, but they agree on so many points (despite disagreeing on quite a few also) that to argue they they are not all of the same event is stretching credulity. The developer of the world's leading 3D computer model of plate tectonics believes that it happened rapidly during Noah's flood. Magnetic reversals have been shown in some cases to have occurred in weeks—as predicted by a creationist on the basis of Flood Geology. Sorry, the science (as opposed to the opinion of scientists) is not as opposed to Flood Geology as you might like to think.
Philip J. Rayment 04:54, 12 January 2008 (EST)
Congratulations - you have just made my point for me. Marsupials used to be more widespread, but they were out-evolved by mammals. South America used to be linked to Australia, but plate tectonics moved the two apart. The marsupials in South America were out-evolved by mammals. Australia had disconnected and moved away by then. Which took millions of years. Oh and please cite this so-called leader of 3d plate tectonics modelling, because I have never heard of her/him/it. I live in the UK, and Flood Geology is not cited as a serious scientific study. Apologies for being caustic.
Darkmind1970 19:27, 13 January 2008 (EST)
If you recognise you are being caustic and apologise for it, why do it in the first place?
The "so-called" expert—your contempt despite your ignorance is glaring—is Dr. John Baumgardner.
Of course Flood Geology is not cited as a serious scientific study—it's censored out of the mainstream journals because it implies that the Bible is correct, which means that people are answerable to their Creator, and they don't want that.
If you knew much about Flood Geology, you would know of Baumgardner. That you doesn't means that you don't really know much about the idea that you are so willing to dismiss and disparage. How about investing a bit of effort into learning about it if you are going to continue to publicly reject it? Will you do that?
Philip J. Rayment 19:48, 13 January 2008 (EST)
I wrote my reply at about midnight, UK time, when I was tired and bad-tempered, two things that I only diagnosed as I was finishing my post. My apology was a bit tardy. Thank you for your link to Baumgardner. I read his theory, which intrigued me - but for the wrong reasons.
Three major problems with his theory are apparent. First things first - the amount of heat that would have been released from such rapid subduction would have basically boiled the oceans of the world. Secondly - citing mantle tectonics on Venus and comparing it to Earth is like comparing apples and oranges. The Earth has very active plate tectonics, with subduction being helped - or perhaps lubricated would be a better word - by water. Venus has no water and no plate tectonics, something which leads to heat building up in the mantle that can only be released by catastrophic mantle upwellings that seem to resurface the face of the planet periodically. Thirdly, and most fatally for Baumgardner, there's the little issue of the seamounts and islands that form volcanic island chains like Hawaii. Rapid subduction should have led to huge gaps in the chain. The problem is that there aren't any. You can trace the chain from Hawaii to Midway. I think that it goes northwards along the Emperor Seamount chain from there. I'm sorry, but I do not find Baumgardner at all plausible. Thank you for the link though. Darkmind1970 09:06, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Baumgardner himself admits that not all the problems with his model have been solved. But the same is true of evolutionary/uniformitarian/materialistic/naturalistic scenarios. They have unsolved problems also. The point is that we have a respected scientist who has a model of tectonic plate movement that works best (albeit not without problems) as a rapid process (i.e. within the year of the flood). So your comment that prompted this line of discussion ("Rapid plate tectonics? Blaming the reversals of the Earth's magnetic field on the flood? This is scientifically stretching the facts until they fit an argument. ") was nothing more than your bigotry showing. Neither side has all the answers, but that doesn't mean that creationists are abusing science. They simply have a different theory about what happened, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, and it doesn't deserve derision. Philip J. Rayment 09:23, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Yes, but no-one else has supported his work, and Baumgardner's theory suffers from the problems that I outlined above - and I'm just an amateur geologist. For his theory to be right, everything that we know about sciences like geology, vulcanology, plate tectonics, hydrogeology, palaeontology and so on, have to be massively wrong. Now, science isn't perfect and it does admit its mistakes - but Baumgardners theory is massively at variance with mainstream thought. For his theory to be right, there must be some links, some proof, to connect it with the mainstream, as that's the way that evidence works. But there aren't, as far as I can see. The point I mentioned about the sea mounts and island chains is a killer for his theory - it just cannot explain it. For that amount of subduction to have taken place, then the amount of vulcanism must have also increased, as the old sea floor melts in the mantle, but it hasn't. Come to that, the sea floor must all be the same age - but it's not. I'm sorry that you see my disbelief as derision, but I just don't think that this works as a concept. Plus I must stop writing comments when I'm tired and cranky. Darkmind1970 11:55, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Baumgardner's work is supported by some other scientists.
Your second sentence is derisory nonsense.
Yes, Baumgardner's work is at variance with mainstream though. So what? Are you saying that only the majority can be correct?
You are judging his model according to how well it fits with your idea—and that is not a valid argument. That's what your argument about the age of the sea floor is.
Philip J. Rayment 17:55, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Ok. Please name and cite these scientists that support Baumgardner's work, because so far, after some digging around, I myself cannot find any. It could be that I'm looking in the wrong places.
As for my second sentence, which you seem to find so offensive, I stand by it. Rapid subduction does go against a large number of sciences. We are talking about continents splitting apart in a very short amount of time - I think that you mentioned a year in one of your posts above. Italic textA year.Italic text That is a very small amount of time given the fact that at the moment I think that fingernails grow faster than some some continents are moving. As for vulcanology - which I note that you have not adressed in your post above - I will state this again: BaumGardner's theory does NOT explain the existence of the Pacific hotspot and the chain of evidence in the form of islands, atolls and seamounts that it has left. These could only have formed over millions of years - not a year. It's just not possible. Before you ask about how I know this, my speciality as an amateur geologist is vulcanology (partly because my wife was brought up near Mount Hood in Oregon) which fascinates me. Palaeontology - flood geology essentially demands that all that we know about palaeolithic and neolithic culture is flat-out wrong. All of this comes under geology.
I am not saying that only the mainstream can be correct. I am saying that logic dictates that if something is correct then the evidence to prove that it is correct correlates with other evidence. The mainstream does not connect with flood geology. There is no other evidence, anywhere, that links with it to provide a coherent whole. The dating process for gauging the ages of deposits, fossils and rocks has stood the test of time. It works. Flood geology does not provide links to the mainstream, it stands totally outside it and also does not provide any evidence. It therefore does not fit in.
I fail to see your last point. The age of the sea bed varies from place to place. We know its age based on the amount of sedimentation and the existence of the magnetic stipes that show magnetic field reversals. The closer you get to the mid-Atlantic ridge, the younger the rocks. The further away the older. That is not my idea - that is the evidence. Darkmind1970 19:05, 15 January 2008 (EST)
How much effort should I spend explaining an idea to you that you criticise before understanding it? Shouldn't you have the responsibility of finding out about the idea first? Nevertheless, I'll try to briefly answer your points, but after that you really should spend some time and effort yourself acquainting yourself with the view you so readily criticise—from the people who believe it, not their opponents, by the way. An excellent resource is here.
The scientists (yes, scientists) who support Baumgardner are other young-Earth creation scientists.
The problem with your second sentence was the comprehensiveness of it: "everything ... have (sic) to be massively wrong". This is you speaking from your ignorance. Flood geology accepts much of what geology, vulcanology, plate tectonics, hydrogeology, and palaeontology has taught us. Sure, it doesn't accept everything that experts in those fields believe, but it accepts a fair bit. In fact, some (if not all) of those fields were started by creationists!
"That is a very small amount of time given the fact that at the moment I think that fingernails grow faster than some some continents are moving": But what does present rates have to do with it? See, this is one of the differences. Hutton introduced the principle that the Earth has been shaped by processes we see happening today ("uniformitarianism"). In doing so, he declared the previous view, catastrophism, to be wrong. This was an axiom, not a deduction from the evidence. Since then, geologists have been forced to return somewhat to catastrophism. Most haven't returned to the point of accepting a world-wide flood, but the point is that what you believe about much of geology depends on your starting position, such as uniformitarianism or catastrophism. Uniformitarianism would say that you use present-day movements to explain the positions of continents. Flood geology (a form of catastrophism) would say that you don't use present-day movements to explain them. But both positions are starting premises, or assumptions, not facts. You are arguing that Flood Geology, based on a presumption of catastrophism, is wrong because it doesn't fit with your presumption of uniformitarianism. That's not to say that either view is equally valid. Certainly one can test both views to see which is more consistent with the evidence, but that's what needs to be done: comparing the views to the evidence, not to a particular starting presumption.
No, I didn't directly address the vulcanology point, but then you haven't actually explained how it doesn't fit, simply declaring it to be so. As for the timescale, more on that below.
"I am saying that logic dictates that if something is correct then the evidence to prove that it is correct correlates with other evidence. The mainstream does not connect with flood geology.": So what are you comparing it to? evidence, or mainstream views? The point is that you seem to be saying that mainstream views are the same thing as the evidence. That's a non-sequitur. Sure, compare his views to the evidence, but not to whether it fits with mainstream views.
"There is no other evidence, anywhere, that links with it to provide a coherent whole.": Incorrect. What you mean is that there is no other evidence that you know of, but as you have already shown that you don't have much of a clue about the creation model, that's not saying much.
"The dating process for gauging the ages of deposits, fossils and rocks has stood the test of time. It works.": No it hadn't and no it doesn't. The radiodating methods are based on unprovable assumptions, cannot be calibrated against artifacts of known age (for the most part) and have often been shown to be incorrect and/or inconsistent.
As far as the age of the seabed is concerned, you are again judging Flood geology by how well it fits with uniformitarianism. The amount of sediment is quite consistent with a short time frame if you accept a global flood. Such a flood would obviously deposit large amounts of sediment in a short time. I'd agree that the rocks closer to the mid-Atlantic ridge are younger than those further away, but the question is how much younger. I'd say months younger, not hundreds of thousands of years. You haven't offered any evidence of your claim. That is, you mentioned magnetic stripes showing reversals, but didn't explain how this shows the ages you claim. Were you aware (I'm sure that you are not) that a creationary scientist made a prediction on the basis of the creation model (yes, the creationary model has predictive value) that we would find fossil evidence of magnetic reversals with a timescale in the order of days or weeks? And did you know that non-creationary geologists subsequently found fossil evidence of magnetic reversals with a timescale of weeks?
Okay, that wasn't so brief, but how about you spend some effort studying the creation model before attempting to refute it any further? Good idea?
Philip J. Rayment 20:02, 15 January 2008 (EST)

I'm not sure what to say about this, although I do know what it's like to start typing what you think is a short answer and then it turns out to be a long one! I have looked again at a few creationist websites, like Answers In Genesis, in an effort to understand such thinking. I do not think that it's possible for us to come to an understanding on this, as I find these sites to be... well, unscientific. I know, I know, you find their answers compelling. I do not.

Radiometic dating. I have never seen any doubts about this. The few problems that I have seen have been in the order of a few years here and there. But as this is seen as a reliable form of dating by the vast majority of authorities, such as the Benfield Hazard Research Centre (which I have regular access to), please tell me why it is seen as being suspect by creationists.

Vulcanology. Apologies for not explaining this further, as this is a passion of mine. The chain of seamounts that stretch backwards from Hawaii are significant because of the length of time that it takes to build a sea volcano. If you look at Hawaii itself and its size then you begin to see the size of the problem. Hawaii - as measured from the sea floor to the tip of its volcanic peaks, is the highest mountain on earth. It's bigger than Everest (or, if there are any K2 fans lurking here, K2). The problem with undersea volcanoes is that they take time to build - magma that erupts underwater tends to form what is called pillow lava. It oozes out, it flows downhill and it builds up, layer on layer. The Hawaiian hotspot tends to be, well, highly runny, so it builds shield volcanoes - as they resemble old-fashioned shields laid flat on the ground. The Hawaiian hotspot is currently driving not just the current ongoing eruption on Kiluaea, but is also building the next island in the chain, whose name escapes me for the moment. It hasn't reached the surface of the sea yet, but it's there and will poke its snout about the surface of the sea in a few hundred years. Now if you look at a map of the Hawaiian Islands, then you'll see that they tend to diminish in size as you go look at them from southeast to north west. This is because as each island moves away from the hotspot, driven by plate tectonics, then two things start to impact it. It can no longer be added to with fresh lava, so it starts to erode. And it starts to sink slightly, as the sheer pressure of rock drags it down. The older the island, the more eroded and the more low-lying it is, until in the end you have atolls, like Midway, where the coral starts to grow on the lip of the submerged rim of the old, long-dead volcano. Beyond that you have seamounts, great volcanic fingers of rock, the remnants of volcanoes in the chain that have long since vanished under the waves. Everyone of these volcanoes, active, dormant and long-extinct, takes time to build. Kilauea has been erupting since 1983, and it's still going. My point here is that rapid subduction fails to explain these seamounts and fails to explain Hawaii. If the flood took a year, or months, then this would simply not have been enough time to build these volcanoes. The ocean floor would have been moving too fast over the seamount to form more than lava domes or very small hills - not a chain of mountains that, if you drained the water in the Pacific away, would be the highest in the world. And let's not forget that these volcanoes start to form at the bottom of the ocean, under a vast amount of pressure - they cannot grow quickly.

Oh and by the way, why do you dismiss all mainstream evidence?

I think this was supposed to be a shortish response - obviously not! Darkmind1970 19:52, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Why (in what way) do you find the articles on creationist web-sites to be unscientific? Admittedly many of the articles are written as layman articles, not scientific papers, but apart from that...?
If you've never seen doubts about radiometric dating, it makes me wonder just how much you have looked at creationist web-sites. There's plenty there. YECs of course have a problem with it because it contradicts the biblical account, but they have also produced a fair bit of argument and evidence to show that it has problems. Most scientists only see radiometric dating as reliable when it gives them dates that they concur with. Have a look at the history of dating Mungo Man for an example where there were not happy with the dates. (What that article doesn't highlight is that one team went back and redated the fossil because they didn't agree with the date that the other team got.) There's also this comment from an archaeologist (quoted from here):
If a C14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely ‘out of date’, we just drop it.
Okay, I understand your vulcanology argument much better now, but it seems to rely very much on the rates that things have been observed happening. Specifically, you have eruptions occurring every x years (or decades) adding y amount of material. Couldn't you imagine a scenario where the eruptions were much larger and more frequent building the islands in a shorter time? And it doesn't all have to be in the year of the flood. As you say, it is still going on, so we have 4,500 years to work with, not just one year. I don't know enough about it to give more of an answer to that, but I've seen many other examples of processes that supposedly took a long amount of time being shown to not need that time. Sedimentary layers were supposed to form at the rate of one a year, and in places there are hundreds of thousands of such layers, meaning that they must have taken hundreds of thousands of years to form. Yet the explosion of Mt. St. Helens saw hundreds of layers deposited in one day, blowing that theory out of the water.
I don't reject all mainstream evidence. Creationists simply have a different explanation for the evidence than evolutionists have. It's all the same evidence.
Philip J. Rayment 21:09, 18 January 2008 (EST)
I'm afraid that vulcanology doesn't work that way. The problem we're dealing with here is one that it is very hard for people to grasp - the sheer scale of geological time. Humans, by the scale of our paltry lifetimes, tend to think that 10 years or 50 years or 100 years are quite long periods of time. Volcanoes - and the world that powers them - tend to think in terms of thousands of years. There is no potential scenario that I can think of that can take into account the seamount-island chain in terms of YEC thinking. The powerhouse for a volcano is its magma chamber. The bigger it is, the larger the eruption, or at least the larger the potential eruption. To erupt the amount of material that makes up the Pacific seamount-atoll-island chain is vast. That either requires a vast magma chamber - bigger than anything that has ever been discovered so far, or a long-period series of eruptions. Let's look at the large magma chamber option. The problem here is that once a magma chamber empties due to a huge eruption, it then leaves a hole, into which the surrounding rock collapses, forming a void, or to give it it's right name, a caldera. The largest of these have been named supervolcanoes, and there are three of these in the US - Yellowstone, Long Valley and Valdez.
But the Pacific hotspot has left a series of islands, not caldera, so this points to a more gradual series of building events, not a catastrophic series of limited eruptions. The creation of an island like Hawaii - the ones that preceded it - is not easy. Underwater volcanoes exist under conditions of extreme pressure. Don't forget that Hawaii is bigger than Everest. That's a huge amount of material, and requires thousands of years of eruptions - and that's just at the end of the current chain. There are hundreds of other volcanic edifices in Hawaii's wake, making the path of the hotspot. For each one to reach the surface requires again a huge amount of material. And even then, reaching the surface is just the start of the battle to build an island. When a vent approaches the surface of the sea then it can start oparting under conditions of low water pressure - and thus blowing material to the surface. Magma tends to fragment at this point as it cools, forming ashes or scoiria - small fragments. Unfortunately this stuff can be washed away by the sea very easily - look up what happened to the early versions of the isle of Surtsey off Iceland, or a seamount that broached the surface off the coast of Sicily in 1831, and which was promptly claimed by the UK, France, Italy, and Spain, before it was eroded back under the sea in 1832 when the eruption stopped. You need lots of liquid lava to cement everything in place, and again this takes time. Hawaii has made it, obviously. Again, this took time.
As for your comment about sedimentary layers, I'm afraid that claiming that the 1980 Mount St Helens eruption blows the length of time out of the water is a bit premature. Every eruption of a volcano results in the venting of ash - which is finely pulverised magma. Every eruption is from magma that tends to be slightly different from the last. We can tell this by the chemical composition of the ash. Examining the layers around Mount St Helens show lots and lots of layers - but all are from the same magma source, created at the same time, and with the same chemical signature. Worse still, these layers tend to be from events like pyroclastic flows, which are very common to volcanoes. Pompeii and Herculaneum were hit by these things, with the latter also being hit by lahars, or hot mud flows. Again, these can occur again and again in one eruption event.
By the way I have a question - why is it that the northern and southern hemispheres are scarred by valleys that were scarred by glaciers and not water?
Another short post! You're right, these things can just suck you in. Darkmind1970 18:31, 21 January 2008 (EST)
I don't know much about vulcanology, so can't respond too specifically, but just looking at your argument, much of it amounts to "it would take an awful lot of material, and that would take a lot of time". You back up your "awful lot of material" claim fairly well, and I accept that, but the "lot of time" argument is then simply tacked on at the end as self-evident. And you start off by presuming your point of view, that there is such a thing as vast amounts of geological time.
Flood geology has the oceans deepening near the end of the Flood. Perhaps the Hawaiian volcanoes started erupting before the ocean was as deep as now and therefore under less pressure? You say that you can't imagine a scenario, but perhaps that's because you can't look at it from a young-Earth perspective, being largely ignorant of that.
I've heard similar post-hoc explanations of the Mt. St. Helens layers before, but the point is that prior to Mt. St. Helens, mainstream geologists didn't recognise that such multiple layers can form quickly, and this evidence was a surprise to them. And the point of that is that I've often (this was but one example) seen evidence of things that supposedly take a long time can occur over a much shorter time.
Why is it that there are valleys that were scarred by glaciers and not water? Because there was lots of ice! Your point?
Philip J. Rayment 03:04, 22 January 2008 (EST)
My apologies, I must stop tacking thoughts onto the end of long posts without explaining them. My point was, how does flood geology explain the highly distinctive U-shaped valleys that are present in the northern and southern hemispheres, which are the clear result of long-term glaciation? When a valley full of water freezes, it doesn't really scar the sides that much. When a valley is filled with a glacier that's something very different - and the results, in terms of the shape of the valley afterwards, are also very different. How does flood geology address the existence of glaciers?
I still don't understand why there is this reluctance to accept the principle of vast amounts of time when it comes to erosion and other issues. I have looked into the creationist arguments against radiometric dating, and I find them deeply problematic. Gentry's arguments have been refuted by Wakefield. There is also a YEC argument about what is called the 'helium problem'. These too have been refuted (B.C Shizgal & G.C. Arkos, 1996). Can I also add that radiometric dating has evolved steadily over the years, becoming far more refined and accurate as time goes by.
Your comment on the depths of the ocean increasing at the end of the flood really confused me. How is that possible? Ocean depths tend to increase the further away you get from mid-ocean ridges, as gravity drags things down as a result of pressure - which is the result of time again!. As for the seafloor magnetic stripes, yes some of these are quite short, but others are very wide. The Earth's magnetic field is hard to understand.
I think that we are going to have to agree to disagree, because to me YEC geology makes no sense when I look at the evidence that I have seen. I stand by the mainstream view. Sorry. Darkmind1970 19:17, 23 January 2008 (EST)
Flood geology explains the glacial valleys as being the result of glaciers! The difference, to a fair extent, would be simply the timescale. As I indicated above, many people have been led to believe that certain things require vast amounts of time, but in many cases, it has been shown that the required time is much less. Glacier movement rates are high enough to account for the lower ends of glaciers being at the upper ends within the last few thousand years, I believe. Furthermore, creationists say that only the biblical flood account can adequately explain the (one) ice age. Lower temperatures world-wide would not produce the ice sheets of the ice age, as there would be reduced evaporation and thus reduced precipitation. Higher temperatures world-wide would increase evaporation and precipitation, but it would be too warm for the ice sheets to develop. However, a cool Earth with warm oceans following the flood would have high evaporation and therefore precipitation, but ice sheets would form on the cooler land masses.
You say that gravity drags things down as a result of pressure, and that this takes time, but of course it depends both on time and the rate of drag. In many such cases creationists will agree with non-creationists (or the other way around) on what happened, but not on how fast it happened.
I suggest that YEC geology makes no sense to you because you simply have very little idea of it. If you are interested in learning more, I suggest that you read some of the geology papers published in the Journal of Creation. You could also check out this. But of course you would need to read more than just a paper or two to get a good understanding.
Philip J. Rayment 22:01, 23 January 2008 (EST)
No, I do have a very clear idea of what YEC geology is like, because I have actually done some research on it. Thanks for your comments, which have helped me to take a good hard look at it, and pointed me to some interesting aspects of it that I hadn't seen before. It still makes no logical sense in terms of science. I apologise for these comments, but this is what I feel about this.
Everything that I have read, seen and understood so far leads me to believe that flood geology seems to be deeply flawed and based upon one main premise - YEC geology believes in an early creation and the flood. And that's it.
But every other piece of evidence that contradicts this worldview, this conception, is immediately dismissed by YEC believers. Geology points to a world that is billions of years older? No, there has to be a mistake with radiometric dating. Plate tectonics points to billions of years of continental drift? No, it can all be explained with rapid subduction, with anomalies like the Pacific Hotspot, the fact that such rapid subduction would have - by Baumgardners own admission - have boiled the oceans being explained away at some future time.
Erosion? The Flood. Sedimentation? The flood. The discovery of fossils? Animals that didn't make it onto the ark.
It's like... YEC people start off with a fixed idea and then they either ignore those facts that contradict their own ideas, or they try to bend those facts to fit their own world view. That's not science. It's manipulating reality to fit their own view. I stand by the mainstream not out of rigidity, not out of fixation, but because it fits the facts. Like I said, let's agree to disagree. Darkmind1970 18:54, 24 January 2008 (EST)
You clearly didn't have good idea of YEC views to start with, and although it's just as clear that you have expanded your knowledge of that considerably, I find it too hard to believe that in this short time you've really got a good understanding of it.
I don't know what you mean by "every other" piece of evidence contradicting this worldview (other than what, specifically?), but there are many bits of evidence that are more consistent with the creationary worldview than the evolutionary worldview, and your simplistic and dismissive attitude does you no credit. For example, creationists do not just dismiss radiometric dating by "there has to be a mistake"; they actually do scientific research to test their ideas, and produce much evidence in support of their claims.
Creationists willingly acknowledge that their views are based on the Bible, but also point out that atheists base their views on their belief in no god, and that is their starting assumption. So if creation is not science for that reason, then neither is evolution.
Philip J. Rayment 01:06, 25 January 2008 (EST)
The age of the Erath has been very well documented. According to the United States Geological Survey: "Ancient rocks exceeding 3.5 billion years in age are found on all of Earth's continents. The oldest rocks on Earth found so far are the Acasta Gneisses in northwestern Canada near Great Slave Lake (4.03 Ga) and the Isua Supracrustal rocks in West Greenland (3.7 to 3.8 Ga), but well-studied rocks nearly as old are also found in the Minnesota River Valley and northern Michigan (3.5-3.7 billion years), in Swaziland (3.4-3.5 billion years), and in Western Australia (3.4-3.6 billion years)." Different studies have yielded consistent dates. But I have not seen any scientific evidence from any creationist source that addresses these dates. Instead they state that the Earth's age is measured in thousands of years, not in billions of years. As I said above, the most notable argument criticising radiometric data was used by Gentry - whose criticisms were addressed by Wakefield. And you seem to make a key logical fallacy. Creation contradicts science. Evolution fits in with science. Equating one with the other doesn't work. My mother for example believes in God, but also believes in evolution - and she studied biology in Nottingham University.
You mention that observed geological processes might differ from past ones. Again, that doesn't fit in with what we know. How does flood geology fit with the effects of glaciation? How can the glaciers of the last ice age form under the flood geology model? We're talking about sheets of ice that were kilometers thick, creeping down over the hemispheres. These scarred the landscapes - hell, Scandinavia is still rebounding upwards thousands of years after the last ice age, because the ice sheet pressed down on the area for so long. Scotland's Highlands are barren because of the amount of soil that was stripped off them and taken south.
How does flood geology address the iridium found at the K-T Boundary? Or the mass extinction of the ammonites? Or the dates we get from analysing - by multiple independent sources - the different rock layers? Come to that, how does flood geology explain the fact that if rapid subduction did take place, this would also mean that there would be a corresponding massive uptick in earthquakes and volcanic activity? Mount Ararat is a volcano by the way. If the Ark landed there it would have contained a lot of dead people and animals quite rapidly. Darkmind1970 08:49, 29 January 2008 (EST)
There is a logical circularity, and hidden assumptions, in using the earth to date the earth. But you omit them. Radiometric dating depends on assuming that decay rates have always been constant. But plainly that is false.--Aschlafly 09:03, 29 January 2008 (EST)
The argument from radiometric dates is flawed for another reason. It assumes that the methodology of radiometric dating is sound. And it is anything but sound. It assumes that the earth is already old, and is therefore circular in its reasoning. It also assumes that the starting composition of rocks is establishable, and that has already been falsified.
Austin and colleagues, in 1996, submitted samples of dacite from the Mount St. Helens lava dome to Geochron Laboratories, Inc. for dating. Now bear in mind that Mount St. Helens had erupted a scant ten years earlier. Geochron gave back five different dates for those rocks--dates that varied above and beyond the rated tolerances for those dates--dates that varied from half a million years to two million eight hundred thousand years.
If a hospital laboratory had made a mistake like that, it would be shut down for its pains. As it is, Geochron later abandoned the potassium-argon dating method that had produced the wildly preposterous dates.
Dr. Austin published his findings in the Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal. But more than that, he and about a dozen of his colleagues formed Project RATE--for Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth. Those men have developed findings that ought to shock everyone who reads them--findings that destroy all of the uniformitarian assumptions about how old we think rocks are.
And--funny that someone here should cite the US Geological Survey. By their own admission, the "youngest" rock ever dates had an apparent age of 700,000 years. They couldn't reliably date the eruption of Mount Vesuvius and the destruction of Pompeii did we not have the diary of Pliny the Younger to work with.--TerryHTalk 09:27, 29 January 2008 (EST)
Circular reasoning, like that used on the radiometric dating, does fool a lot of people. I honestly think some have trouble seeing the defect in circular reasoning. Of course, others see the flaw but persist anyway, knowing that others will be fooled by it.--Aschlafly 10:03, 29 January 2008 (EST)
For more on radiometric dating, see that article. Changed rates of decay are only one of the problems.
There's been plenty of examples produced to show that radiometric dating is inconsistent or plain wrong. So even if you show that it often is consistent, the fact that it's often not consistent shows that it is not reliable.
"But I have not seen any scientific evidence from any creationist source that addresses these dates. Instead they state that the Earth's age is measured in thousands of years, not in billions of years.": I'm not sure off the top of my head if creationists have addressed the particular dates you quote, but they have done more than "state" the age of the Earth; they have addressed the issue of dating generally.
"And you seem to make a key logical fallacy.": Where?
"Creation contradicts science. Evolution fits in with science.": Because you say so? Bals assertion does not make it so, and clearly creationists disagree with those assertions.
"Equating one with the other doesn't work. My mother for example believes in God, but also believes in evolution - and she studied biology in Nottingham University.": How much did she study the Bible? Evolution does not fit with the Bible. You can invent any "god" you want, but evolution does not fit with the God of the Bible. For example, the Bible says that God created everything in six days: That is simply contrary to evolution. Both cannot be true.
"You mention that observed geological processes might differ from past ones. Again, that doesn't fit in with what we know.": Er, yes it does. There are no observed geological processes producing sedimentary or lava fields hundreds and thousands of square kilometres in extent.
"How can the glaciers of the last ice age form under the flood geology model?": I've already answered that earlier in this page.
Philip J. Rayment 21:57, 29 January 2008 (EST)

PJR - you state "...the Bible says that God created everything in six days: That is simply contrary to evolution. Both cannot be true." Indeed so - both cannot be true. But attempting to fit the evidence to the theory that the Earth was created in six days is clearly an exercise in circular reasoning - 'The Earth took six days to form (or 6000 years), therefore we must develop theories to explain that theory'.

Look at the two arguments. One approach attempts to explain how everything came about, fitting the theories to a specific (and minority) interpretation of a particular book. The other approach continuously re-evaluates its estimates over hundreds of years, and new evidence changes the results. There was no book that said that the Earth was created 6 billion years ago. Were scientists to tell us tomorrow that the Earth is in fact ten billion years old, or two billion years old, no-one would be be much surprised. Yet no matter what evidence is presented to holders of the Creationist viewpoint, the age of the Earth remains the same.

Doesn't that strike you as odd? Doesn't that strike you as the ultimate example of circular reasoning?. Reasonableperson 23:12, 29 January 2008 (EST)

That is not circular reasoning. Circular reasoning would go like this:
  1. The Bible says that the world is 6,000 years old.
  2. The evidence (e.g. rock layers) is explained on that basis.
  3. The explanation is offered as proof that the Bible is correct.
Just the first two points by themselves (i.e. your 'The Earth took six days to form (or 6000 years), therefore we must develop theories to explain that theory') is not circular reasoning, and there's nothing wrong with the first two points. It's only when you go to the third point that you have a circle, and that's where the argument becomes invalid.
But creationists don't do that. They do argue that the evidence fits better with a 6,000-year model, but they don't offer the explanation as proof of the presumption.
Evolutionists, on the other hand, do use this circular reasoning:
  1. The biblical history is wrong, so there was no global flood, for example.
  2. Dating methods are developed on this basis (e.g. assuming no global flood).
  3. The dates derived by this method are used as proof that there was no global flood (e.g. civilisations are older than the supposed date of the Flood).
"One approach attempts to explain how everything came about, fitting the theories to a specific (and minority) interpretation of a particular book.": This is (a) misleading, and (b) misrepresenting what creationists claim. It's misleading because the "interpretation" is (i) the way it's been understood by almost every reader until prior to about 200 years ago (and many readers within the last 200 years), and (ii) the way that the experts in Hebrew and the Old Testament say that it was meant to be understood. It's misrepresenting what creationists claim because they claim it to be not just "a particular book", but the infallible revelation of the omniscient God. So what is wrong with trying to see how the evidence fits with what is (supposed to be) accurate history? Answer: There's nothing wrong with that. The only valid question is whether or not it is accurate history, but you're not (directly) questioning that. Rather, you're trying to avoid that question by questioning the veracity of the source.
"The other approach continuously re-evaluates its estimates over hundreds of years, and new evidence changes the results.": Which might tend to suggest that they really can't be certain they've yet got it right, which means that they can't be certain that the biblical account is wrong.
"Were scientists to tell us tomorrow that the Earth is in fact ten billion years old, or two billion years old, no-one would be be much surprised.": Er, I think a lot of people would be surprised, actually.
"There was no book that said that the Earth was created 6 billion years ago.": Being pedantic, and ignoring that the age is actually believed to be 4.5 billion years, lots of books do say that. But your point is that the age is not an underlying presumption. True, but instead there is the underlying presumption that the cause was naturalistic, rather than it being created. That makes the secular view no better than the biblical view.
"Yet no matter what evidence is presented to holders of the Creationist viewpoint, the age of the Earth remains the same.": You say that as though there is something wrong with that. But if they are correct, there is nothing wrong with that! So your argument is circular, because it presumes what you are trying to prove: that the Bible and therefore the creationists are wrong.
"... no matter what evidence is presented ...": The problem is not the evidence, but the explanation of the evidence. A rock is evidence. The isotope ratios are evidence. A date is not evidence, but part of the explanation of the evidence.
"Doesn't that strike you as odd? Doesn't that strike you as the ultimate example of circular reasoning?": No, because you have not demonstrated a circle.
Philip J. Rayment 01:23, 30 January 2008 (EST)

Philip I believe your example is a bit misleading. For example

Evolutionists, on the other hand, do use this circular reasoning:
  1. The biblical history is wrong, so there was no global flood, for example.
  2. Dating methods are developed on this basis (e.g. assuming no global flood).
  3. The dates derived by this method are used as proof that there was no global flood (e.g. civilizations are older than the supposed date of the Flood).

Your first line about the bible, how would a scientist in feudal china (who had not heard of Christianity) make a conclusion that the history of the bible is wrong? This is the difference, to use the scientific method correctly you must eliminate as much of a world view as possible so that predispositions you would assume due to your world view would not have as much of an impact on your studies. That is one reason why it was not until 200 years or so that things began to change in the scientific community, because scientists at that time were using the world view offered to them through their religious upbringing. This of course causes issues when you are collaborating with scientists with different world views hence the reason why science is based on the burden of proof not the lack of. This is where your analogy is misleading, you started by saying that the bible said (the hypothesis) then performed the experiment (Except you commented "on that basis", assuming an insertion of your personal world view) then made your conclusion to support your hypothesis. The scientist does not make the hypothesis of the biblical history is wrong, their hypothesis is based on observation first (I see that the strata here that is 150 feet deep is the same over there at 150 feet deep) then they experiment (I dig somewhere else at 150 feet deep) then they draw their conclusions. Just to explain the differences if they are not so clear, the scientist assumes nothing at first, just observes, then hypothesis, then experiments, then concludes. Your analogy is based on the assumption that the scientist has a predisposition to disprove the bible, which is far from the truth since the scientific method ignores religion. Ignoring religion is not the same as disproving it. The primary difference is that where the bible literalist will try to equate their observations to the bible the scientist trys to equate their hypothesis to their observations. As such the scientist’s observations can not be circular since they begin with nothing but their worldview (which by use of the scientific method is limited) whereas the observations of the bible literalist can be circular since with their base of equating their observations with the bible, they always interpret the data with a biblical view. As such they tend to be circular. For a logical example try this,

  1. Who created the universe?

Bible literalist: God, because the bible says god created it. Scientist: We do not know who created it but evidence supports the conjecture of how it developed. Do you see the logic? The literalist, because of the biblical preconceived notion can only apply circular reasoning whereas the scientist can not since they have no preconceived notion. All they can offer is what conjectures they have based on observations.

  1. How did man come to be?

Bible literalist: God created man in his image as stated in the bible. Scientist: We conjecture that man evolved through a series of steps to its current form by slight mutation as observed in other life forms as well as supported in the fossil record. Notice how the bible literalist would provide a definitive answer whereas the scientist would not, a conjecture is not an absolute. This again is a prime example as to why the scientist (who uses the scientific method) can not employ circular reasoning since they start with nothing in terms of worldview (as limited by the scientific method) and the bible literalist must equate all observations to the bible.--Able806 16:10, 30 January 2008 (EST)

Your point of what a scientist in feudal China would conclude would have some validity if there actually were scientists in feudal China who came to the conclusion that the world was millions of years old. But there weren't, so the example proves nothing.
Much of the rest of your argument presumes that evolutionary scientists are as objective as possible and don't let their ideas intrude into their science, whilst creationary scientists are not so rigorous. But this is merely painting a rosy picture of evolutionary scientists that doesn't match reality.
In reality, evolutionary scientists are every bit as influenced by their worldview as creationary scientists. Evolutionary scientists work on the principle that matter is all there is (i.e materialism). This is not an observation, but an assumption. Take for example this quote from Richard Lewontin:
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 an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
Also, when talking about "the burden of proof", keep in mind that we are not talking about empirical science so much as history. We're not talking about laboratory experiments to see if we can tranform a reptile into a bird, but about whether this event actually happened millions of years ago. Even if we found that we could transform a reptile into a bird, it does not logically follow that it necessarily happened millions of years ago. That is a fact (or fallacy) of history, not empirical science.
And the views of people such as Gould and Michael Ruse are that evolution was the result of rejecting the biblical account. It wasn't a dispassionate look at the evidence, but was based on a worldview that was hostile to God. Yes, the scientific method ignores religion, but the scientists practicing it very often don't.
As I tried to explain, using an argument based on an assumption to claim that the assumption is thereby proved is a circular argument. Simply making an argument within the framework of a particular worldview is not a circular argument. Again, your "who created the universe" argument is a conclusion based on the Bible (or not), but is not a "circular argument"—there is no circle!
Your "how did man come to be" example is also fallacious. First, since when is it wrong to be certain of one's conclusions? You seem pretty certain that what you are saying is correct, yet criticise "Bible literalists" (an incorrect term anyway) for being sure of their views! Secondly, almost every scientist will insist that the evolutionary story is definitely correct. They will be prepared to accept that some of the details could be changed, but not the basic premise. (Creationists will also accept that some of the details could be changed.)
So in summary, your idealistic word picture of unbiased objective evolutionary scientists vs. biased, unobjective creationists is nothing but a fantasy.
Philip J. Rayment 01:25, 31 January 2008 (EST)

Philip, my example about feudal Chinese scientists is about world view not if the world was millions or billions of years old. I was showing how the relationship of scientific research is not limited by personal world view. Let’s change my analogy a bit, to show how a preconceived notion can cause a huge difference in conclusions. A geologist walks through the desert and happens upon several pillars with large stones sitting on them tens of feet in the air. Wondering how these stones happen to come to rest upon the pillars the geologist measures the pillars, the base of the stones, looks at how the stones rest upon the pillars and checks the composition of the stones and compares them to the pillars. His research allows him to conjecture that the stones upon the pillars were of the same composition of the pillars and that the stones were actually formed due to the high wind in the desert eroding the pillars and that the stones were not placed upon the pillars at all. Now let us see how this scenario changes when the worldview is changed. A Native American comes across the same formation and wonders about how the stone came to rest upon the pillars. He looks at the pillars and stones and measures them. With the understanding of the Great Spirit he concludes that nothing could have placed the stones upon the pillars so they must have been formed by the Great Spirit upon the pillars. See the difference? Which one is testable?
As for my painting a rosy picture here is the difference, scientists in general are under much scrutiny for their work and conclusions. To report false information has drastic affects in the scientific community (such as losing positions, funding is cut from projects and a host of other issues that result from the scientist’s work being false). Evolutionary scientists, geologists, biologists, chemists and the like all fall under this. The exception would be the theologians since their work does not provide a medium to which it can be measured. In the case of creationary scientists it is their worldview that defines them “creationary” is not just a term to describe the science that they are studying it is what they are trying to equate their discoveries with.
As for materialism, I would agree that evolutionary scientists and primordial chemists work on the principle that matter is all there is. If they did not then their research would be convoluted with unlimited possibilities preventing them from pinpointing anything. Take for example the differences between astronomy and astrology. Astronomy is based on a materialist view of the universe where astrology is based on a spiritual view, which is considered a science? But that is not what this argument is about; it is about the worldview of a creation scientist vs. the worldview of non-creation scientist.
The fact is there are a few scientists that do mix their worldview with their work, which happens to cause the scientific community to correct the work by rebuttal and refuting it. The creation scientist on the other hand fully allow their world view to influence their work, for example the world can not be billions of years old because the bible says so therefore all work that shows otherwise is suspect. The problem with this is that the matter of empirical data. To support much of what is claimed by creation scientists would mean that several basic principles of physics have changed over time, the issue is that these principles are not something that can be tested since most claims are based on one time events and current measurements of these factors show no conclusive change.
Your comment about burden of proof, whereas you are correct about talking about history and not empirical science conjectures can be made and supported by evidence to increase the probability of something occurring. For example a forensic scientist is not at the crime when it is committed but through the collection of data and evidence the scientist can offer a conjecture to limit the doubt of how something occurred. Evolutionary biology and paleontology are much like forensic science where it is based on reductionism, reducing the observations to such fine detail that conjectures can be formed. They would not be considered pure sciences (as in chemistry, physics but not biology) for all they can offer are conjectures with reasonable proof. So I do not disagree with you that they study history and therefore are not empirical sciences but I disagree with your assumption of lack of accuracy and precession.
I am glad you admit that the scientific method ignores religion, and I will agree that not all scientists do not (Dawkins for example) however that is why in actual research publications you do not find unsubstantiated claims about the scientist’s worldviews, to do so would be publication suicide.
I do find it interesting how you mention the views of Gould and Ruse, we saw this year the view of Watson and I must say it really had no affect on my understanding of DNA. This is the misconception, scientists’ personal views are one thing but the scientific community views are another. As for a hostile worldview to God, that is a matter of interpretation. For the most part Gould and Ruse could careless about God. You could consider this hostile but most would consider it apathetic.
The circular argument examples I listed above follow the logic of a circular argument. Let us evaluate

For some proposition p,
p implies q
suppose p
therefore, q.

For example, here is an attempt to prove the earth is not billions of years old,

Suppose the bible is true
The bible says the world is not millions of years old
Therefore the world is not millions of years old.

My example, Who created the universe?

Suppose the bible is true
The bible says that god created the universe
Therefore god created the universe.

My other example: How did man come to be?

Suppose the bible is true
The bible says that god created man
Therefore god created man.

Starting to see a pattern? The only difference is that the hypothesis and conclusions of creation scientists are based on 'p implies q which is the base for circular reasoning. Scientists do not have this base, they have nothing to equate 'p implies q therefore effectively preventing circular reasoning when the scientific method is used.
As for the issue of certainty, scientists can not say they are 100% certain of anything, to do so would imply they know every little detail of the study and therefore have evaluated all possibilities. This is impossibility since our techniques and technologies are always evolving to allow for finer degrees of understanding. For me to state that we are 100% certain of anything would be a lie. Yes, we have a very high degree of certainty that the basic premise of evolution is true; however we can never be 100% certain. My criticism of bible literalists (Darwinist is an incorrect term as well) is that be rejecting any evidence contrary to their belief they are by default implying that their view is 100% certain, that my friend is the difference. "So in summary, your idealistic word picture of unbiased objective evolutionary scientists vs. biased, unobjective creationists is nothing but a fantasy." I am sorry but the logic and evidence says it is more truth than fantasy (athough there are exceptions).--Able806 12:44, 31 January 2008 (EST)

"my example about feudal Chinese scientists is about world view not if the world was millions or billions of years old. I was showing how the relationship of scientific research is not limited by personal world view": I understand that, but what if Chinese scientists, not explicitly rejecting the biblical view (because, as you say, they didn't have the Bible) also came up with the idea that the world was only thousands of years old? My point is that the reason that European scientists came up with millions of years was because they rejected the biblical history. Chinese scientists, not rejecting biblical history, would not (in my opinion) come up with millions of years.
"Let’s change my analogy a bit, [big snip] Which one is testable? ": Neither. Both are supposed to have happened in the unobserved past. Some details are testable, but this applies to both. The geologist can test rates of erosion to see if his story is consistent with that, but by the same token the Indian can test his idea that "nothing could have placed the stones upon the pillars" to see if he can, like a good scientist, disprove that statement.
"...scientists in general are under much scrutiny for their work and conclusions. To report false information has drastic affects...": In theory, and in practice up to a point. But read this. Your picture was rosier than reality.
"...theologians['] ... work does not provide a medium to which it can be measured": Huh? The Bible is the standard that their work is measured by, so you are wrong.
"...the case of creationary scientists it is their worldview that defines them ...": Just as evolutionists are defined by "naturalism". So what's the difference?
"I would agree that evolutionary scientists and primordial chemists work on the principle that matter is all there is.": Then you agree that they are rejecting possible explanations a priori, and therefore give up any claim to have considered all possibilities.
"If they did not then their research would be convoluted with unlimited possibilities preventing them from pinpointing anything.": Not true. Accepting that there are more possibilities than just the material doesn't mean that anything is possible. That's a non-sequitur.
"Astronomy is based on a materialist view of the universe where astrology is based on a spiritual view, which is considered a science?": Archaeology rejects the view that matter can explain all it's findings and is prepared to invoke the idea of an intelligent creator (for stone tools, etc.). Yet it is still considered a science. The difference is not material vs. spiritual, but evidence vs. no evidence.
"The fact is there are a few scientists that do mix their worldview with their work...": No, they all do, to some extent. Part of a scientist's worldview is that he can trust his senses to make observations. All scientists "mix" this part of their worldview with their work, else they would not be scientists. Most also mix in their worldview that matter is all that they have to consider.
"... which happens to cause the scientific community to correct the work by rebuttal and refuting it.": Unless they agree with it.
"The problem with this is that the matter of empirical data.": That is a problem for both sides when discussing history, which is what microbes-to-man evolution is.
"To support much of what is claimed by creation scientists would mean that several basic principles of physics have changed over time...": Oh? The only proposals I can recall that basic principles of physics have changed have been by evolutionary scientists in talking about the first few moments after the Big Bang.
"...I disagree with your assumption of lack of accuracy and precession.": As we are talking about accuracy, should I point out that the other word is "precision"? :-) Seriously, I can't remember talking about accuracy and precision, and a search of this page doesn't show those words being used except by you.
"...in actual research publications you do not find unsubstantiated claims about the scientist’s worldviews...": Perhaps not, but just because they don't put their worldviews in as part of their argument doesn't mean that it doesn't underpin their thinking and arguments.
"...scientists’ personal views are one thing but the scientific community views are another...": That doesn't really make sense. If we are talking about the "scientific community's" views, then we are talking about the views of the majority of the individual scientists. Sure some views will differ from the majority, but others will be the "community's" views.
"For the most part Gould and Ruse could careless about God.": True, but that is irrelevant to their views about what part religion had to play in the views of others such as Darwin.
Your circular argument description is wrong. The logic you describe is valid logic, not circular reasoning. Here are two example of a logically-valid argument (from here):
1) All whales have backbones;
2) Moby Dick is a whale;
∴ Moby Dick has a backbone
1) All dogs are reptiles;
2) All reptiles have scales;
∴ All dogs have scales.
The second one has a false premise, and a false conclusion, but it is still a valid argument. Your examples are all of valid arguments, but for which you question the premise.
A circular argument, by contrast, is of the form "P is true because Q is true, and Q is true because P is true."[2]. To provide an example:
Creation is not science, therefore creationists are not true scientists, therefore no true scientist supports creation, therefore creation is not science. See how the conclusion was the starting premise? This is a circular argument, because the conclusion assumes itself as the premise.
But your examples are not following this form.
"My criticism of bible literalists ... is that be rejecting any evidence contrary to their belief ...": This is a straw-man argument. Creationists have different explanations for the evidence; they don't reject the evidence.
"[by] rejecting any evidence contrary to their belief they are by default implying that their view is 100% certain": Apart from the straw-man I've just mentioned, this is false. Rejecting an explanation does not mean that they are 100% certain that they are correct, and in any case the same argument can be used of evolutionists: By rejecting the creationary explanation "they are by default implying that their view is 100% certain"
"...that my friend is the difference...": But there is no difference!
Philip J. Rayment 09:16, 6 February 2008 (EST)
I finally succumbed to one of the bugs that has been going around my wife's school a week ago, so I have been unable to respond to this until now. Apologies. I would like to suggest that schools install sheepdips by the main entrance to make the little buggers more hygenic.
Anyway - TerryH, your comments made me groan a great deal. The supposed problems with the age of the old lava dome at Mt St Helens is a very old chestnut that was exploded years ago. Let's start off with basic vulcanology - it is a massive mistake to think that dating a volcanic eruption depends on analysing the lava, as there are some problems with that. For one thing - what on earth makes you think that the lava that is erupting is formed then and there? Mt St Helens is erupting right now, it has been for the past 4 years. So far all its doing is pushing up lava that is identical to the lava of the 1980-1986 eruption. It's basically clearing its throat, before fresher lava comes up (sorry for the metaphor, but it works). That lava was not formed in 1980. It's been down there for a while. That's the way that it works - magma collects in the main magma chamber as it seeps up from far below. Mt St Helens is a part of the Cascades subduction zone - the magma there is the light, relatively frothy rock that was scraped off the ocean crust as it descended below the North American Plate a very long time ago - as much as 500,000 to 1 million years ago. It rose into the magma chamber, pooled there, and was finally erupted. Saying that lava seems to be old for an eruption that happened 20 years ago is merely pointing out the way that vulcanology works - you're actually underlining the fact that this is an old world and that volcanic eruptions are, chemically speaking, not instant events! So thanks, TerryH, you just proved my point!
As for the so-called problems with the K-AR method, there aren't any. Asking anyone to use the K-AR method to get the age of the 1980-86 eruption is like using Big Ben to measure how tall an ant is. The half-life of potassium-40 is rather long - 1,250 million years. Plus a few thousand years are not enough time for 40Ar to accumulate in a sample at high enough concentrations to be detected and assessed. As a result, the K-Ar method cannot be used to date samples that are much younger than 6,000 years old.
As I said, this old chestnut has long been exploded. Darkmind1970 18:10, 6 February 2008 (EST)
Now let me get this straight: you're only now saying that the lava that appears at an eruption should still contain a great deal of daughter nuclide? That doesn't make a bit of sense to me. I think you're misrepresenting the science here, and I demand that you produce a citation that the rest of us can check out for a comment that I consider outrageous.--TerryHTalk 19:01, 6 February 2008 (EST)
One of the main problems with Darkmind1970's post is that he's essentially explaining why radiometric dates can be wrong (because the rock material is older than when it was laid down), which is really a tacit admission, that you can't rely on radiometric dates, just as the creationists have been claiming for years! A second problem is that he essentially claims that you need to know how old an object is before you can use a dating method to see how old it is! Kinda defeats the purpose, I would think! Third, he fails to adequately explain why K-Ar dating cannot be used on young objects. If a few thousand years is insufficient to accumulate enough argon to detect, how come they detected it and were therefore able to supply a date? Surely his logic means that anything younger than 6,000 years would give an age of zero? But it didn't! His argument is self-defeating. If you date a sample at 2,800,000 years (which TerryH quoted above), according to Darkmind1970, it could be (a) 2,800,000 years old (i.e. the method works when used correctly), or (b) younger than 6,000 years (i.e. the method didn't work because it wasn't used correctly). So how do you decide which it is? If he is correct, then such dating methods cannot be used to demonstrate that items are more than 6,000 years old! Philip J. Rayment 21:33, 6 February 2008 (EST)
Actually I'm saying nothing of the kind. What I am saying is that K-AR dating of relatively recent events will give you somewhat fuzzy data because it's hard to be date something that's a few tens of years old when the half-life of potassium-40 is 1,250 million years. There are other forms of radiometric dating that will give better result, by using elements that have a far shorter half-life. Using K-AR dating on relatively recent material is like using a 12-inch ruler to measure the length of a bacterium.
TerryH - please read up on some basic vulcanology, as what I said was not outrageous. I may not have phrased it very well, as I was exhausted when I wrote it, but it's still true. You want a citation - here's one. http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/mt_st_helens_dacite_kh.htm

Darkmind1970 08:44, 7 February 2008 (EST)

"Actually I'm saying nothing of the kind.": Despite your protestation, you've done nothing to show how anything I've said is wrong.
"Using K-AR dating on relatively recent material is like using a 12-inch ruler to measure the length of a bacterium.": I understand that, but I don't think you do. If you do use a 12-inch ruler to measure the length of a bacterium, what measurement will you get? Answer: you'd get somewhere between 0" and 0.1" (assuming the ruler was marked in tenths of an inch). For measuring a bacterium, that would be nowhere near precise enough. Correct so far? But the measurement, although nowhere near precise enough, would be essentially correct, i.e. a bacterium is between 0" and 0.1" long. Am I still correct so far? To put it another way, if you do use a 12-inch ruler, you are not going read from the ruler that the bacterium is three inches long, are you? But that is the analogous situation with the dating we are talking about. We've measured the bacterium as being three inches long! Creationists say "that shows that the ruler is not reliable". You say, "the ruler should not be used to measure bacteria". Now perhaps the ruler should not be used to measure bacteria, but that hardly explains the discrepancy whereby the ruler showed the bacterium to be three inches long. Despite the inapplicability of using the ruler, it still shows that the ruler does not provide accurate (correct) measurements.
Philip J. Rayment 20:54, 7 February 2008 (EST)

Neither you (Darkmind1970) nor Dr. Henke understand the issue. And Dr. Henke's excuses are the lamest I have ever seen. "The mass spec was dirty." That's practically an admission that Geochron's quality control stinks! No wonder they don't do K-Ar dating anymore--maybe they did lose accreditation, as any hospital laboratory would have lost its accreditation had they made a comparable error.

Dr. Henke makes several other logical errors that are more debilitating:

In contrast to Austin et al.'s juvenile attacks on K-Ar dating, geochronologists confirm the reality of radiometric dates by using multiple methods...and/or comparing their results with fossil, paleomagnetic or astronomical data.

First of all, if several clocks just happen to agree on a value, that doesn't make the value correct; it could simply mean that the clocksetters colluded on the same erroneous consensus or that they all consulted the same erroneous clock. And in fact, multiple methods have proved less than consistent. See Snelling, Andrew, "Radioisotope Dating of Grand Canyon Rocks: Another Devastating Failure for Long-Age Geology," Institute for Creation Research, Impact Article 376. That last article is part of a body of research designed to investigate the basis for old "apparent ages"--and the inconsistency of radiocarbon and radiomineral dates obtained from specimens collected at the same site.

Can you name any radiomineral dating method that would be at all suitable for showing that any given mineral is young? What is the youngest rock that anyone has ever dated? I'll answer that question for you: that "youngest rock" has an apparent age of 700,000 years. You couldn't even reliably date the eruption of Mount Vesuvius did you not have Pliny the Younger's diary of the destruction and evacuation of Pompeii.--TerryHTalk 09:23, 7 February 2008 (EST)

Actually we can very easily date the eruption of AD79 without Pliny. We've got all the evidence from Pompeii and Herculaneum. Which can be very precisely dated by the coins, pottery, etc. Context. And please keep it civil. You may not agree with what I have to say, but shouting about citations and not knowing what I'm talking about is hardly reasoned discourse. Look at Henke's other arguments if you find his talk of a dirty mass spec laughable. It doesn't change the fact that dating lava is interesting because it contains old and new elements. Darkmind1970 11:50, 7 February 2008 (EST)
And where are the coins, pots, and so on that can tell us that any rock is seven hundred thousand to two million to four point three billion years old? And your premises about the dating of old lava are irrelevant, because GeoChron never said a peep about that until Austin published his rather embarrassing findings--embarrassing, that is, for them.--TerryHTalk 13:14, 7 February 2008 (EST)

Three questions:

  1. in regard to sedimentary rock: the Genesis account suggests that the Earth was flooded for about a year. The section "Pure Sedimentary Layers" of this article suggests that the St. Peter Sandstone, found across the US, was laid down during this flood. It is unlikely that, when the flood waters receded, a layer of rock several meters thick was left behind that had not been there before; is it proposed that 75-80% of the Earth's surface was simultaneously covered in meters of silt, which rapidly became rock? Bearing in mind that the Pyramids, as well as many other ancient structures, used sedimentary rocks in their construction, the lithification would have had to have been extraordinarily fast.
  2. In regard to the suggested dating of 2350 BC: I understand that the Flood Geology model rejects the use of radiometric dating. I will not argue this, as I do not feel qualified to discuss the technology. I do wonder, however: what is the Creationist view on dendrochronology, the study of tree rings? Bristlecone pine trees in the US have been shown to have started growing in 2800 BC, and older trees found in the same region date back to 6500 BC. Oak trees in Germany have been dated back even farther. It would seem certain that no tree could survive being under kilometers of water for a full year, yet these trees evidently survived.
  3. The New World and the Far East: There were native people in the New World after the flood. Did they survive the flood? Were they travellers from the Middle East, as the Mormons claim? Conversely, civilization in China is certainly old, and while precise dates may be debated, predates the postulated timing of the Flood. Chinese history does not describe a catastrophic flood that wiped out the nation's population, and does not describe its repopulation afterward.

Please understand that I am not trying to tear down Flood Geology; rather, I feel that everyone is entitled to their own views on the history of our planet. Like any theory, Flood Geology must adapt to fix flaws in its postulates; if these questions can be answered, it would improve the theory and make it more robust. --TommyAtkins 10:05, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

Actually there is a flood story in China remarkably similar to the Genesis account. The view on tree ring dating is that it should be used carefully. In good years, more than one ring can form, and also some of the pre-flood dates are actually obtained by methods other than a sample from the living tree itself. Not sure about your rock question. AddisonDM 10:36, 1 June 2009 (EDT)
  • If the Chinese flood story to which you refer is the one found in the Hihking, mentioned on Great Flood, the problem is that the only references to this supposed "Chinese classic" are from sites discussing the Flood; a Google search for 'hihking china -hiking' (because there are many pages about hiking in China) has only 131 results, while a search for "I Ching" or "The Art of War" returns millions of hits. More notably, other Chinese sources, such as the Classic of History or the Records of the Grand Historian--which covers the period around and immediately after the suggested date for the flood--make no mention of such an event. While it is in no way an unbiased source, TalkOrigins claims that the Hihking cannot be traced back any further than the 1930's, while other Chinese tales of floods bear little similarity to the Genesis account.
  • Tree ring dating should certainly be used carefully, just like any other method of dating. No-one claims that they can pin a certain event to 2478 BC based on tree ring dating, just as it is impossible to claim to know the exact second that, say, the Titanic struck the iceberg. It is possible, however, to gain a fairly accurate picture. Although extra or missing rings would introduce some error to any measurement, it must be unlikely that the error should be so great that a population of trees dated back to 8000 BC, or even to 4500 BC, as in the case of the Bristlecone pine, is actually more recent than 2300 BC. Also, it appears that this method is only reinforced by other methods, such as radiometric dating; it does not depend upon them to be useful. If a living tree has, say, 4500 rings, and the oldest 500 match up with rings on another, nearby, dead tree that goes back 4000 rings further, it can be assumed that trees in that region have been growing uninterrupted for 8000 rings. Since double or missing rings are caused by climatic variation, which can be verified through any number of other methods, it should not be the case that these scientists have made an error of 50% or more despite all efforts to avoid it
  • On the matter of dendrochronology and other methods being used in circular logic: this source, as well as others online, show that carbon dating and other methods are calibrated off of tree-ring records, and that the trees' ages are not based off of other methods. The fact that carbon-dated results match with tree-ring dating is not a fundamental pillar of dendrochronology, only an additional support.
--TommyAtkins 12:14, 1 June 2009 (EDT)
It looks like you actually know alot about this. The Chinese flood story was discovered in the 1930s but there's no reason to beleive it was completely made up. It may have been embellished, but China, just like virtually every ancient culture, has a tradition of a catastropic flood. To say that sites discussing the flood discuss the flood story does not prove anything. Also, study of ancient Chinese writing from the Shang dynasty's oracle bones shows similarity between Chinese writing and the Genesis account. See http://creation.com/chinese-characters-and-genesis. (I can quote CMI if you can quote talk.origins.
I did not say that tree ring dating or radiometric dating are circular logic. No tree has ever been dated much past the estimated Flood year using core samples from the living tree alone. See http://creation.com/living-tree-8000-years-older-than-christ. AddisonDM 23:29, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

Solution vs Suspension

OK, a small experiment. Put a handful of sand into a jar of water and give it a shake. Does the sand dissolve? No, of course not. Sand isn't soluble in water. It can be SUSPENDED in water, but not dissolved. --AriannaK 18:47, 14 February 2012 (EST)

James Wilson, please stop reverting my edits. We both know that sand doesn't dissolve in water, so why do you keep putting this back in the article? --AriannaK 18:59, 14 February 2012 (EST)
Please provide a cite from a reliable source.--James Wilson 19:01, 14 February 2012 (EST)
Sure. While I'm finding one you can give me a cite to say that sand does dissolve in water. --AriannaK 19:03, 14 February 2012 (EST)
Here you go: [3] Sand does not dissolve in water. --AriannaK 19:05, 14 February 2012 (EST)
Fair enough. Insert it in the article if you will. Our homeschool readers will surely be able to appreciate it.--James Wilson 19:25, 14 February 2012 (EST)

Cite error: <ref> tags exist, but no <references/> tag was found
Personal tools