686
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 79:
Line 79: + + + − + − + − + − + − + − + − + − + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→Dating
:::::::::* 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.
:::::::::* 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.
:::::::::* 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?--[[User:Tims|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.
:::::::::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.
:::::::::# 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?<br/>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.
:::::::::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?<br/>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.
:::::::::# 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.
:::::::::# —
::::::::::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). --[[User:Tims|TimS]] 17:20, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::# What time that has passed? Are you still talking about uniformitarian-based time calculations?
:::::::::# 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.
:::::::::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.
:::::::::# —
:::::::::# 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.
::::::::::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.”<ref>http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199606/0051.html</ref>--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 17:20, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::# 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.
:::::::::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.<ref>Dorale, J. A. Dorale, R. L. Edwards, E. Ito and Luis A. González, 1998. Climate and vegetation history of the mid-continent from 75 to 25 ka: A speleothem record from Crevice Cave, Missouri, USA. Science 282: 1871-1874. <?ref> The time for stalactite growth also has to allow for time for the cave to dissolve in the first place, which is a very slow process, sometimes on the order of tens of millions of years. Then the geological conditions have to change so that the cave is no longer under water. Only then can stalactite growth begin.<ref>Ford, Derek C. and Carol A. Hill, 1999. Dating of speleothems in Kartchner Caverns, Arizona. Journal of Cave and Karst Studies 61(2): 84-88. http://www.caves.org/pub/journal/PDF/V61/v61n2-Ford.pdf </ref> 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).<ref>Polyak, V. J., W. C. McIntosh, N. Güven and P. Provencio, 1998. Age and origin of Carlsbad Cavern and related caves from 40Ar/39Ar of alunite. Science 279: 1919-1922. See also Sasowsky, I. D., 1998. Determining the age of what is not there. Science 279: 1874. </ref> 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). <ref>Wang, Y. J. et al., 2001. A high-resolution absolute-dated Late Pleistocene monsoon record from Hulu Cave, China. Science 294: 2345-2348. Zhang, M., D. Yuan, Y Lin, H. Cheng, J. Qin and H Zhang, 2004. The record of paleoclimatic change from stalagmites and the determination of termination II in the south of Guizhou Province, China. Science in China Ser. D 47(1): 1-12. http://www.karst.edu.cn/publication/Zhang%20Ml200401.pdf </ref>--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 17:20, 20 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).<ref> Lindsay, Don, 1997. Astronomical cycles. http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/astro_cycles.html </ref> 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.<ref> Shackleton, Nicholas J., 2000. The 100,000-year ice-age cycle identified and found to lag temperature, carbon dioxide, and orbital eccentricity. Science 289: 1897-1902.</ref> --[[User:Tims|TimS]] 17:20, 20 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.
:::::::::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.--[[User:Tims|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.
::::::::: 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.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 17:20, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::: Evidence does not really speak for itself. We understand (interpret) the evidence within our worldview or paradigm.
::::::::: 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.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 17:20, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:59, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:59, 19 April 2007 (EDT)