2
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 160:
Line 160: + + Line 179:
Line 181: + + Line 262:
Line 266: + +
Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth/Archive 2 (view source)
Revision as of 05:42, May 2, 2012
, 05:42, May 2, 2012no edit summary
: None of the freshwater lakes are older than 10,000 years, and you cite nothing to the contrary. Carbon dating, for example, repeatedly confirms that even the oldest freshwater sources are young.
: None of the freshwater lakes are older than 10,000 years, and you cite nothing to the contrary. Carbon dating, for example, repeatedly confirms that even the oldest freshwater sources are young.
::What about Lake Suigetsu [http://www.suigetsu.org/ Lake Suigetsu]? It is used to help calibrate the radiocarbon method back to ~50,000 years (Hughen et al., 2004, Science). There are others, but as you reason, one counterexample should be enough to dismiss this claim. Speaking as a geologist who studies lake sediments and other terrestrial climate records, your very approach is misleading. How would the absence of old (10 kyr+) lakes be a counterexample to an old Earth? Lakes are typically short-lived geological phenomena because they depend on a particular water balance for a region. The water balance is dependent on climate, which (not surprisingly) changes on centennial to millennial time scales. Pluvial lakes of the Mojave Desert, for example, dried out at the end of the last Ice Age (i.e. these freshwater lakes were present for thousands of years prior to 11,500 years BP, or the beginning of the Holocene). In contrast, other regions became wetter at the end of the last Ice Age and so many new lakes formed as a result. '''Climate controls the formation of lakes''' and climate has changed substantially over the past 21,000 years. The Great Salt Lake is only salty now because the formerly present '''freshwater''' lake began to shrink. Speaking of which, there are two more counterexamples to your claim. --[[User:RainyD|RainyD]] 01:42, 2 May 2012 (EDT)
: I've answered your question, now how about answering mine below, repeated here for your convenience: do you agree that arguing against your view of creationism is no basis for defending the [[Old Earth]] theory? {{unsigned|Aschlafly}}
: I've answered your question, now how about answering mine below, repeated here for your convenience: do you agree that arguing against your view of creationism is no basis for defending the [[Old Earth]] theory? {{unsigned|Aschlafly}}
: What is implausible is that sheets of ice from the north would carve the Great Lakes in their unique shape, plus the Mississippi bluffs that sometimes face north-to-south, plus other unexpected formations. Has a computer simulation ever duplicated this result? I've never found a paper about such a simulation in my search for one. Have you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:29, 1 June 2010 (EDT)
: What is implausible is that sheets of ice from the north would carve the Great Lakes in their unique shape, plus the Mississippi bluffs that sometimes face north-to-south, plus other unexpected formations. Has a computer simulation ever duplicated this result? I've never found a paper about such a simulation in my search for one. Have you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:29, 1 June 2010 (EDT)
::Who says the basins of the Great Lakes were carved by glacial ice sheets? The unique shape of the Great Lakes watershed is related to the intracratonic basin on which they lie. --[[User:RainyD|RainyD]] 01:42, 2 May 2012 (EDT)
::I'm not aware of any computer simulation of the formation of the Great Lakes and the Mississippi which encompasses the whole of North America and is granular enough to show features like the bluffs you spoke of - neither for the last [[Ice Age]] nor for the [[Great Flood]].
::I'm not aware of any computer simulation of the formation of the Great Lakes and the Mississippi which encompasses the whole of North America and is granular enough to show features like the bluffs you spoke of - neither for the last [[Ice Age]] nor for the [[Great Flood]].
*The massive Great Lakes are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago
*The massive Great Lakes are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago
This whole discussion is irrelevant because volume gain/loss in lakes is a function of climate-driven water balance, which fluctuates on centennial to millennial time scales. These trends cannot be extrapolated into history unless they are normalized to fluctuations in precipitation and other water sources (such as glacial meltwater). --[[User:RainyD|RainyD]] 01:42, 2 May 2012 (EDT)
Here, the straw-man are the ''millions of years'': no geologist is claiming that the Great Lakes are that old. What do you expect the pupil to answer to this? Should he chose to ignore the explanation and go on to the next point in the list? After a couple of easily refuted points, his public will get weary and start to think that there isn't a good counterexample against an Old Age of the Earth.
Here, the straw-man are the ''millions of years'': no geologist is claiming that the Great Lakes are that old. What do you expect the pupil to answer to this? Should he chose to ignore the explanation and go on to the next point in the list? After a couple of easily refuted points, his public will get weary and start to think that there isn't a good counterexample against an Old Age of the Earth.