Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Flood Geology

2012-02-15T00:37:01Z

AriannaK: /* Sedimentary rock */

'''Flood geology''' is the study of the Earth's geology from the point of view that the Earth's geology was radically redefined by a [[Great Flood|global flood]] in the relatively recent past, as recorded in [[Genesis]], as well as the scores of flood stories in other cultures throughout the world.<ref>http://www.icr.org/article/570/</ref>

== Genesis Flood account ==
Genesis provides the most detailed account of the global deluge, including specific dates, measurements, and even some key geological events during the flood. Consequently, flood geologists use it as a starting point for understanding the events of the deluge. Based on the Genesis account, flood geologists argue that the flood resulted from subterranean water erupting to the surface ("the springs of the great deep burst forth" <ref>Genesis 7:11, NIV</ref>), combined with 40 days and nights of rain. Although the rain stopped after 40 days, the flood waters continued to rise for 150 days, and lasted just over a year before Noah and the others on the boat were able to leave. During the flood, there was massive tectonic activity, including some land rising up and other land dropping, such that the waters ended up in newly-deepened oceans. All the animals and birds (except those on the ark), and large numbers of sea creatures perished, and many of them were buried so quickly that they became fossils, accounting for the vast majority of fossils existing today.

== Evidence ==
Flood geologists base their belief in a relatively recent global deluge on several strands of evidence. While none of these strands alone is sufficient to ''prove'' that a global flood occurred, flood geologists argue that a global deluge is the most reasonable and [[parsimonious]] explanation for the evidence.

=== Sedimentary rock ===
Sedimentary rocks are formed by sand and other sediments which settle out of suspension in water, minerals which dissolve in water (which sand cannot do)<ref>http://pearsonkt.com/summaryStreetOT/texts/Sci-National-Grade-4/iText/products/0-328-34278-5/unitc/ch11/331.html</ref> and the hard parts of small aquatic organisms such as [[plankton]], which accumulate on the bottom of a body of water and undergo [[lithification]]. Although only about 8% of the earth's rocks are sedimentary, 75%-80% of the Earth's land area is covered in sedimentary rock.[http://honolulu.hawaii.edu/distance/gg101/Programs/program21%20SedimentaryRocks/program21.html] Therefore, geologists point out, there is irrefutable evidence that at least 75% of the Earth's land was once covered in water.

=== Sufficient water ===
There is enough water on Earth today to cover the entire surface to a depth of 2.7 kilometres (1.7 miles), if the surface was levelled out.<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter12.pdf Noah’s Flood—what about all that water?], Chapter 4 of the ''Creation Answers Book'', Dr. Don Batten (Ed.)</ref> Continents emerge because the average ocean depth is 3.7 km.<ref>http://www.mos.org/oceans/planet/features.html</ref>. Flood geologists argue that geological activity during and after the flood lowered the ocean basins, causing water to flow from the continents into the basins, and leaving dry land.<ref>{{Bible ref|Psalms|104|6-9|version=NASB}} "You covered it with the deep as with a garment; The waters were standing above the mountains. At Your rebuke they fled, At the sound of Your thunder they hurried away. '''The mountains rose; the valleys sank down''' To the place which You established for them. You set a boundary that they may not pass over, So that they will not return to cover the earth."</ref>

=== Fossils ===
Fossilization requires rapid burial in a sedimentary solution, and subsequent rapid lithification of the solution. Slow burial does not result in fossilization, because the remains decay prior to being fossilized. Therefore, every fossil was buried in rapidly deposited sedimentary material which subsequently turned to stone.

=== Fossil fuels ===
Fossil fuel formation requires the burial of enormous amounts of organic matter under a sedimentary solution, and the application of heat and pressure. Slow burial processes do not produce fossil fuels, because the organic matter decays prior to conversion into a fossil fuel. Therefore, all fossil fuels on earth were quickly buried under sedimentary material which subsequently turned to stone;

Similar processes have been observed in [[Spirit Lake]] following the eruption of [[Mount St. Helens]] in 1980.

=== Rock strata ===
Most sedimentary rocks are layered, forming sharply defined lines at varying depths. Were these formed over long periods, erosion would have softened these lines. The sharpness of the lines implies rapid deposition and lithification.

=== Pure sedimentary layers ===
If sedimentary layers were laid down over millenia, they would have experienced mixing. However, many rock strata are pure -- for example, the [[St. Peter Sandstone]], covering 500,000 sq miles of the United States, is 99.94% pure silica. While uniformitarian scientists state that it was deposited by the shore of a sea, they cannot explain how it remained so pure if it was laid out over a long period of time. However, the sorting processes of [[liquefaction]], consistent with a global flood, can make such an explanation.

=== Submarine canyons ===
Canyons can be found under the sea at the end of many major world rivers, including the Congo, Amazon, Ganges, and Hudson. They extend for thousands of miles underwater, thousands of feet under the sea; they are as deep as the Grand Canyon in places, and although not well understood by the mainstream scientific community, they are generally understood to have developed when sea-levels were significantly lower than today. Flood geologists argue that as the continents divided and the flood subsided, these major rivers drained the new continents, and the water flowed into the new low-lying areas, which would fill to become seas, leaving the sediments to dry out of their [[liquefaction|liquefied]] state.

=== Land canyons ===
As explanation for great land canyons such as the [[Grand Canyon]], flood geologists point to canyon formation events such as the catastrophic hot mud slides observed during the eruption of Mt. St. Helens. One particular hot mud slide at Mt. St. Helens carved a canyon 140 ft. deep and 17 miles long in a single day. Only a thin creek remains at the bottom of the canyon today, which would likely be interpreted as having carved the canyon "over millions of years," if it were not known first-hand that the canyon was carved in a single day.

=== Ancient accounts of a navigable Atlantic ===
Plato's ''Timaeus'' states:
: "In those days the Atlantic was navigable; and there was an island situated in front of the straits which are by you called the Pillars of Heracles [Straight of Gibraltar] ... and was the way to other islands, and from these you might pass to the whole of the opposite continent which surrounded the true ocean; for this sea which is within the Straits of Heracles is only a harbour, having a narrow entrance, but that other is a real sea, and the surrounding land may be most truly called a boundless continent."<ref>http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/timaeus.html</ref>

=== Plate tectonics ===

A clear problem with a global flood is that of repopulation: after the flood, very few non-marine species would survive. In particular, most of those observed today could not possibly have survived - this includes all insects, the vast majority of birds (Some species of albatross may have survived), the vast majority of mammals, and possibly freshwater fish depending on the salinity of the floodwaters.

Flood geology models include a means for these species to survive, most typically via artificial assistance - an Ark, as described in [[Genesis]].

An often-proposed explanation is that of continental drift - that the continents may once have been united in a single supercontinent, which broke into fragments and drifted into the formations seen today during the time between the start of repopulation and today. Continental drift in principle is nearly universally accepted by all geologists, with flood geology differing only in time: While conventional geology estimates the breakup of the supercontinent to have occurred over approximately sixty million years, flood geologists mostly claim that the process occurred during the flood year, whilst a few claim that it occurred at the time of [[Peleg]].

Flood geologists propose several models which would explain how continental drift could proceed at the rapid pace required to allow the rearrangement of continents during or shortly after the flood, then slow to the currently observed rate. One of the best known of these is the runaway subduction model of Dr. [[John Baumgardner]].<ref>http://www.globalflood.org/platetec/about.html</ref>

=== Total destruction ===

Flood geologists argue that the scale of destruction of the Flood, especially if rapid plate tectonics was involved, would mean almost certain total destruction of the pre-Flood world, including any evidence of civilisations predating the Flood, along with the destruction of the [[Garden of Eden]].
After the Flood, and particularly after the [[Tower of Babel]], new civilisations developed, that either survive to this day or that we find archaeological evidence of today.

== Dating ==

Flood geologists date the flood to around 2350 B.C., based on [[biblical chronology]].
They argue that archaeological dates which purport to show civilisations and artifacts being older than the Flood (see Criticisms) are incorrect because they are based on the presumption that none of these methods would be altered by the effects of a global flood in such a way as to render conclusions drawn from them invalid.<ref>One example is Carbon Dating which is calibrated according to known background levels of C14 in the atmosphere, but this calibration does not account for likely altered levels due to extensive volcanism during the Flood. See [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5026/ Carbon dating into the future] (Creation Ministries International).</ref> [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologetists]] state that the biblical flood would have occurred before the Egyptian pyramids were built and that the commonly cited Egyptian chronology is errant and built upon poor foundations. <ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2503</ref> Also, Christian apologists argue that ancient Sumerian history supports the flood account given in the Bible. <ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a009.html</ref> In addition, ancient Sumerian literature speaks of a world wide flood. <ref>http://home.comcast.net/~chris.s/sumer-faq.html#A1.6</ref>

[[Creationism|Creationist]] scientists also state that the chronology used to dispute a worldwide flood based on tree rings is invalid.<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=381</ref> <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/tree_ring.asp</ref><ref>http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/answers/c14_treerings.php</ref><ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/21066.htm</ref><ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/26/26_1a.html</ref><ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/abstracts/sum29_4.html</ref>

==Creationist Scientists Defense of Flood Geology ==
Creationist scientists assert that there are multiple lines of evidence from the field of geology showing that flood geology is correct. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geology.asp</ref><ref>http://www.creationism.org/topbar/geology.htm</ref><ref>http://www.grisda.org/georpts/gr11.htm</ref><ref>http://www.nwcreation.net/geologylinks.html</ref><ref>http://globalflood.org/</ref> Creationist scientists also state that there was enough water to cause a worldwide flood and various other objections to a worldwide flood are invalid. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/flood12.asp</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/flood.asp</ref>

== Common Criticisms ==

Critics claim that there is not enough water on the Earth to actually cause a worldwide flood, or ever has been; in addition, many archaeological records (notably tree-ring records and the records of various early civilizations, including Egypt and Sumeria) stretch through the period of time most often given as that of the Great Flood, without any actual reference to such an event.<ref>For a summary of other criticisms, see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html</ref>

== History ==

Until the rise of uniformitarian [[geology]] in the early 19th century, most geologists accepted the Noahic deluge as part of geology. But [[James Hutton]] proposed in 1795 that geology ought to be based on the processes that we see happening now, thereby automatically ruling the Flood out of consideration. During the 19th century a number of "[[scriptural geologist]]s" held out against the rising acceptance of Hutton's principles, but they fought a losing battle and interest in flood geology virtually died out by the end of the 19th century.

However, in the second half of the 20th century, interest was revived amongst people keen to show that the biblical account was correct, and a small but growing number of geologists are now studying this field again, although the vast majority of geologists still reject the idea of a global flood on Earth. At the same time, there has been a recent resurgence of [[catastrophism]] in geological interpretation. <ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=print&ID=84</ref><ref>http://www.grisda.org/georpts/gr11.htm</ref>

Interest in Flood Geology was stimulated by the 1961 publication of ''[[The Genesis Flood]]'', by [[Henry Morris]] and [[John Whitcomb]]. Dr. Henry Morris had a number of arguments for geology supporting a worldwide flood. <ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=54</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=print&ID=84</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/article/842/</ref>
{{Creation vs. evolution}}
== External Links ==
*[http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=54 Geology and the Flood] by [[Henry Morris]], Ph.D.
*[http://www.creationism.org/symposium/symp3no2.htm Stratigraphic Evidence of the Flood] by Stuart E. Nevins.
* [http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/flood_models.asp Flood models: the need for an integrated approach] by A.C. McIntosh, T. Edmondson & S. Taylor.
*[http://www.nwcreation.net/geologylinks.html#anchorgeologycreationist Global Flood Geology from Creation Science Perspectives]
*[http://www.biblicalgeology.net/content/view/46 Biblical Geology: Properly Understanding the Rocks]

==References==

<references/>

[[Category: Young Earth Creationism]]
[[Category: Geology]]

Talk:Flood Geology

2012-02-15T00:05:49Z

AriannaK: /* Solution vs Suspension */

== 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:
# Because it is a copy and paste from a discussion forum on [http://uselessjunk.net/viewtopic.php?p=2459938&sid=3fc7ec562d310602fdb812187fb662ab another web-site]. Conservapedia articles are supposed to be original content.
# Because a list of this format and length is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article.
# 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.
# 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.
# I doubt that a forum post would be considered an acceptable source even for linking to in a footnote.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|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? --[[User:Cgday|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. [[User:Nematocyte|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.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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. [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 10:58, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:Good point; I'll have to clarify that. (By the way, it is still a work in progress.) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 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.--[[User:Tims|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.
::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|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).--[[User:Tims|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.--[[User:Tims|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:
::::::# Speciation has been observed happening within a few generations, so I would argue that points 1 and 6 have been shown to be possible.
::::::# I don't understand this one.
::::::# I hope they find it one day!
::::::# See my comments below about dating.
::::::# I believe that this does not need to be false; it could be consistent with flood geology.
::::::# See No. 1.
::::::# This is not what flood geology proposes, so is a straw-man. See also my comments below about dating.
::::::# 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.
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 09:56, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Just to point out a couple of things,
::::::::# 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.
::::::::# 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.
::::::::# I do as well
::::::::# 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.
::::::::# 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.
::::::::# Mentioned above.
::::::::# 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 <ref> Baumgardner, John R., 1994. Patterns of ocean circulation over the continents during Noah's Flood. Proceedings of the third international conference on creationism, technical symposium sessions, pp. 77-86 </ref> 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. <ref> Poldervaart, Arie, 1955. Chemistry of the earth's crust. pp. 119-144 In: Poldervaart, A., ed., Crust of the Earth, Geological Society of America Special Paper 62, Waverly Press, MD.</ref>
::::::::# 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.--[[User:Tims|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?--[[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.
:::::::::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). --[[User:Tims|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.--[[User:Tims|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. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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.
::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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.--[[User:Tims|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. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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.”<ref>http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199606/0051.html</ref>--[[User:Tims|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 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter14.pdf here] regarding that. As for Morton's analysis, apart from the fact that it has been rebutted [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2006/0331.asp here], he is discussing something entirely different: how long it would take to reach today's level of saltiness ''without'' a flood. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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.--[[User:Tims|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. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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.<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)
:::::::::::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:
{{QuoteBox|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.[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/722]}}
:::::::::::That's just one of example of dates being changed (not just refined). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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.--[[User:Tims|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. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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).<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)
:::::::::::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 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3011/ here]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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.--[[User:Tims|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 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1573 here], if you haven't already. Saying that its better than radiometric dating doesn't fill me with confidence! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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.--[[User:Tims|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. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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.--[[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.

::::::::::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)

::::::::::: 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. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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.--[[User:Tims|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.
:::::::::::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|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.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 17:20, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 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". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:27, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
Realm of science, meaning, "good science."-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:27, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:I didn't mention anything about "good science" either, so that answer was less than helpful. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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! :-) Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]
::: 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.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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. -- Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]
::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. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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.{{unsigned|LateralQuercus}}

: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. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:23, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
Why not?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 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.--[[User:M|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.--[[User:Tims|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. [[User:LateralQuercus|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 [[Noah's Ark|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.{{Unsigned|Muchodelcrazy}}

: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? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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.[[User:Muchodelcrazy|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 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4018/ this]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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.[[User:Muchodelcrazy|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, [[koala]]s are not bears. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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 "[[koala]]s" 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. [[User:Muchodelcrazy|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?
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|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! [[User:Darkmind1970|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.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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.
:::: [[User:Darkmind1970|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?
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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. [[User:Darkmind1970|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. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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. [[User:Darkmind1970|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.
::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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 text''A 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. [[User:Darkmind1970|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 [http://www.creationontheweb.com 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?
::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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! [[User:Darkmind1970|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 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5026/ here]):
{{QuoteBox|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.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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. [[User:Darkmind1970|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?
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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. [[User:Darkmind1970|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 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2011/ ''Journal of Creation'']. You could also check out [http://www.biblicalgeology.net/ this]. But of course you would need to read more than just a paper or two to get a good understanding.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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. [[User:Darkmind1970|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.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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. [[User:Darkmind1970|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.--[[User:Aschlafly|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 '''R'''adioisotopes and the '''A'''ge of '''T'''he '''E'''arth. 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.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 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.--[[User:Aschlafly|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.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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]]?. [[User:Reasonableperson|Reasonableperson]] 23:12, 29 January 2008 (EST)

:That is not circular reasoning. Circular reasoning would go like this:
:# The Bible says that the world is 6,000 years old.
:# The evidence (e.g. rock layers) is explained ''on that basis''.
:# 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:
:# The biblical history is wrong, so there was no global flood, for example.
:# Dating methods are developed ''on this basis'' (e.g. assuming no global flood).
:# 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.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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:
:# The biblical history is wrong, so there was no global flood, for example.
:# Dating methods are developed ''on this basis'' (e.g. assuming no global flood).
:# 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,
#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.
#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.--[[User:Able806|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:
{{QuoteBox|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.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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).--[[User:Able806|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 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5613/ 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 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1860/ 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."[http://www.christianlogic.com/articles/short_list_of_fallacies.htm]. 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!
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|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. [[User:Darkmind1970|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.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 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''! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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

[[User:Darkmind1970|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.
:::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:54, 7 February 2008 (EST)

Neither you ([[User:Darkmind1970|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 [[Potassium|K]]-[[Argon|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:{{Cquote|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, "[http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/imp/imp-376.pdf 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]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 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. [[User:Darkmind1970|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.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:14, 7 February 2008 (EST)

== Three questions: ==

# 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.
#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.
#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. --[[User:TommyAtkins|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. [[User:AddisonDM|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, [http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG202_2.html 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: [http://www.wsl.ch/staff/felix.kaiser/PDFs/Friedrich_Dendro_RC04%20.pdf 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.
:::--[[User:TommyAtkins|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. [[User:AddisonDM|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. --[[User:AriannaK|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? --[[User:AriannaK|AriannaK]] 18:59, 14 February 2012 (EST)
::Please provide a cite from a reliable source.--[[User:JamesWilson|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. --[[User:AriannaK|AriannaK]] 19:03, 14 February 2012 (EST)
::::Here you go: [http://pearsonkt.com/summaryStreetOT/texts/Sci-National-Grade-4/iText/products/0-328-34278-5/unitc/ch11/331.html] Sand does not dissolve in water. --[[User:AriannaK|AriannaK]] 19:05, 14 February 2012 (EST)

Talk:Flood Geology

2012-02-15T00:03:27Z

AriannaK: /* Solution vs Suspension */

Talk:Flood Geology

2012-02-14T23:59:50Z

AriannaK: /* Solution vs Suspension */

Flood Geology

2012-02-14T23:57:26Z

AriannaK: Undo revision 961296 by JamesWilson (talk)Why are you reverting my edits? Do you WANT this article to have errors in it? Discuss plz.

'''Flood geology''' is the study of the Earth's geology from the point of view that the Earth's geology was radically redefined by a [[Great Flood|global flood]] in the relatively recent past, as recorded in [[Genesis]], as well as the scores of flood stories in other cultures throughout the world.<ref>http://www.icr.org/article/570/</ref>

== Genesis Flood account ==
Genesis provides the most detailed account of the global deluge, including specific dates, measurements, and even some key geological events during the flood. Consequently, flood geologists use it as a starting point for understanding the events of the deluge. Based on the Genesis account, flood geologists argue that the flood resulted from subterranean water erupting to the surface ("the springs of the great deep burst forth" <ref>Genesis 7:11, NIV</ref>), combined with 40 days and nights of rain. Although the rain stopped after 40 days, the flood waters continued to rise for 150 days, and lasted just over a year before Noah and the others on the boat were able to leave. During the flood, there was massive tectonic activity, including some land rising up and other land dropping, such that the waters ended up in newly-deepened oceans. All the animals and birds (except those on the ark), and large numbers of sea creatures perished, and many of them were buried so quickly that they became fossils, accounting for the vast majority of fossils existing today.

== Evidence ==
Flood geologists base their belief in a relatively recent global deluge on several strands of evidence. While none of these strands alone is sufficient to ''prove'' that a global flood occurred, flood geologists argue that a global deluge is the most reasonable and [[parsimonious]] explanation for the evidence.

=== Sedimentary rock ===
Sedimentary rocks are formed by sand and other sediments which settle out of suspension in water, as well as the hard parts of small aquatic organisms such as [[plankton]], which accumulate on the bottom of a body of water and undergo [[lithification]]. Although only about 8% of the earth's rocks are sedimentary, 75%-80% of the Earth's land area is covered in sedimentary rock.[http://honolulu.hawaii.edu/distance/gg101/Programs/program21%20SedimentaryRocks/program21.html] Therefore, geologists point out, there is irrefutable evidence that at least 75% of the Earth's land was once covered in water.

=== Sufficient water ===
There is enough water on Earth today to cover the entire surface to a depth of 2.7 kilometres (1.7 miles), if the surface was levelled out.<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter12.pdf Noah’s Flood—what about all that water?], Chapter 4 of the ''Creation Answers Book'', Dr. Don Batten (Ed.)</ref> Continents emerge because the average ocean depth is 3.7 km.<ref>http://www.mos.org/oceans/planet/features.html</ref>. Flood geologists argue that geological activity during and after the flood lowered the ocean basins, causing water to flow from the continents into the basins, and leaving dry land.<ref>{{Bible ref|Psalms|104|6-9|version=NASB}} "You covered it with the deep as with a garment; The waters were standing above the mountains. At Your rebuke they fled, At the sound of Your thunder they hurried away. '''The mountains rose; the valleys sank down''' To the place which You established for them. You set a boundary that they may not pass over, So that they will not return to cover the earth."</ref>

=== Fossils ===
Fossilization requires rapid burial in a sedimentary solution, and subsequent rapid lithification of the solution. Slow burial does not result in fossilization, because the remains decay prior to being fossilized. Therefore, every fossil was buried in rapidly deposited sedimentary material which subsequently turned to stone.

=== Fossil fuels ===
Fossil fuel formation requires the burial of enormous amounts of organic matter under a sedimentary solution, and the application of heat and pressure. Slow burial processes do not produce fossil fuels, because the organic matter decays prior to conversion into a fossil fuel. Therefore, all fossil fuels on earth were quickly buried under sedimentary material which subsequently turned to stone;

Similar processes have been observed in [[Spirit Lake]] following the eruption of [[Mount St. Helens]] in 1980.

=== Rock strata ===
Most sedimentary rocks are layered, forming sharply defined lines at varying depths. Were these formed over long periods, erosion would have softened these lines. The sharpness of the lines implies rapid deposition and lithification.

=== Pure sedimentary layers ===
If sedimentary layers were laid down over millenia, they would have experienced mixing. However, many rock strata are pure -- for example, the [[St. Peter Sandstone]], covering 500,000 sq miles of the United States, is 99.94% pure silica. While uniformitarian scientists state that it was deposited by the shore of a sea, they cannot explain how it remained so pure if it was laid out over a long period of time. However, the sorting processes of [[liquefaction]], consistent with a global flood, can make such an explanation.

=== Submarine canyons ===
Canyons can be found under the sea at the end of many major world rivers, including the Congo, Amazon, Ganges, and Hudson. They extend for thousands of miles underwater, thousands of feet under the sea; they are as deep as the Grand Canyon in places, and although not well understood by the mainstream scientific community, they are generally understood to have developed when sea-levels were significantly lower than today. Flood geologists argue that as the continents divided and the flood subsided, these major rivers drained the new continents, and the water flowed into the new low-lying areas, which would fill to become seas, leaving the sediments to dry out of their [[liquefaction|liquefied]] state.

=== Land canyons ===
As explanation for great land canyons such as the [[Grand Canyon]], flood geologists point to canyon formation events such as the catastrophic hot mud slides observed during the eruption of Mt. St. Helens. One particular hot mud slide at Mt. St. Helens carved a canyon 140 ft. deep and 17 miles long in a single day. Only a thin creek remains at the bottom of the canyon today, which would likely be interpreted as having carved the canyon "over millions of years," if it were not known first-hand that the canyon was carved in a single day.

=== Ancient accounts of a navigable Atlantic ===
Plato's ''Timaeus'' states:
: "In those days the Atlantic was navigable; and there was an island situated in front of the straits which are by you called the Pillars of Heracles [Straight of Gibraltar] ... and was the way to other islands, and from these you might pass to the whole of the opposite continent which surrounded the true ocean; for this sea which is within the Straits of Heracles is only a harbour, having a narrow entrance, but that other is a real sea, and the surrounding land may be most truly called a boundless continent."<ref>http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/timaeus.html</ref>

=== Plate tectonics ===

A clear problem with a global flood is that of repopulation: after the flood, very few non-marine species would survive. In particular, most of those observed today could not possibly have survived - this includes all insects, the vast majority of birds (Some species of albatross may have survived), the vast majority of mammals, and possibly freshwater fish depending on the salinity of the floodwaters.

Flood geology models include a means for these species to survive, most typically via artificial assistance - an Ark, as described in [[Genesis]].

An often-proposed explanation is that of continental drift - that the continents may once have been united in a single supercontinent, which broke into fragments and drifted into the formations seen today during the time between the start of repopulation and today. Continental drift in principle is nearly universally accepted by all geologists, with flood geology differing only in time: While conventional geology estimates the breakup of the supercontinent to have occurred over approximately sixty million years, flood geologists mostly claim that the process occurred during the flood year, whilst a few claim that it occurred at the time of [[Peleg]].

Flood geologists propose several models which would explain how continental drift could proceed at the rapid pace required to allow the rearrangement of continents during or shortly after the flood, then slow to the currently observed rate. One of the best known of these is the runaway subduction model of Dr. [[John Baumgardner]].<ref>http://www.globalflood.org/platetec/about.html</ref>

=== Total destruction ===

Flood geologists argue that the scale of destruction of the Flood, especially if rapid plate tectonics was involved, would mean almost certain total destruction of the pre-Flood world, including any evidence of civilisations predating the Flood, along with the destruction of the [[Garden of Eden]].
After the Flood, and particularly after the [[Tower of Babel]], new civilisations developed, that either survive to this day or that we find archaeological evidence of today.

== Dating ==

Flood geologists date the flood to around 2350 B.C., based on [[biblical chronology]].
They argue that archaeological dates which purport to show civilisations and artifacts being older than the Flood (see Criticisms) are incorrect because they are based on the presumption that none of these methods would be altered by the effects of a global flood in such a way as to render conclusions drawn from them invalid.<ref>One example is Carbon Dating which is calibrated according to known background levels of C14 in the atmosphere, but this calibration does not account for likely altered levels due to extensive volcanism during the Flood. See [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5026/ Carbon dating into the future] (Creation Ministries International).</ref> [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologetists]] state that the biblical flood would have occurred before the Egyptian pyramids were built and that the commonly cited Egyptian chronology is errant and built upon poor foundations. <ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2503</ref> Also, Christian apologists argue that ancient Sumerian history supports the flood account given in the Bible. <ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a009.html</ref> In addition, ancient Sumerian literature speaks of a world wide flood. <ref>http://home.comcast.net/~chris.s/sumer-faq.html#A1.6</ref>

[[Creationism|Creationist]] scientists also state that the chronology used to dispute a worldwide flood based on tree rings is invalid.<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=381</ref> <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/tree_ring.asp</ref><ref>http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/answers/c14_treerings.php</ref><ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/21066.htm</ref><ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/26/26_1a.html</ref><ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/abstracts/sum29_4.html</ref>

==Creationist Scientists Defense of Flood Geology ==
Creationist scientists assert that there are multiple lines of evidence from the field of geology showing that flood geology is correct. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geology.asp</ref><ref>http://www.creationism.org/topbar/geology.htm</ref><ref>http://www.grisda.org/georpts/gr11.htm</ref><ref>http://www.nwcreation.net/geologylinks.html</ref><ref>http://globalflood.org/</ref> Creationist scientists also state that there was enough water to cause a worldwide flood and various other objections to a worldwide flood are invalid. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/flood12.asp</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/flood.asp</ref>

== Common Criticisms ==

Critics claim that there is not enough water on the Earth to actually cause a worldwide flood, or ever has been; in addition, many archaeological records (notably tree-ring records and the records of various early civilizations, including Egypt and Sumeria) stretch through the period of time most often given as that of the Great Flood, without any actual reference to such an event.<ref>For a summary of other criticisms, see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html</ref>

== History ==

Until the rise of uniformitarian [[geology]] in the early 19th century, most geologists accepted the Noahic deluge as part of geology. But [[James Hutton]] proposed in 1795 that geology ought to be based on the processes that we see happening now, thereby automatically ruling the Flood out of consideration. During the 19th century a number of "[[scriptural geologist]]s" held out against the rising acceptance of Hutton's principles, but they fought a losing battle and interest in flood geology virtually died out by the end of the 19th century.

However, in the second half of the 20th century, interest was revived amongst people keen to show that the biblical account was correct, and a small but growing number of geologists are now studying this field again, although the vast majority of geologists still reject the idea of a global flood on Earth. At the same time, there has been a recent resurgence of [[catastrophism]] in geological interpretation. <ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=print&ID=84</ref><ref>http://www.grisda.org/georpts/gr11.htm</ref>

Interest in Flood Geology was stimulated by the 1961 publication of ''[[The Genesis Flood]]'', by [[Henry Morris]] and [[John Whitcomb]]. Dr. Henry Morris had a number of arguments for geology supporting a worldwide flood. <ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=54</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=print&ID=84</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/article/842/</ref>
{{Creation vs. evolution}}
== External Links ==
*[http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=54 Geology and the Flood] by [[Henry Morris]], Ph.D.
*[http://www.creationism.org/symposium/symp3no2.htm Stratigraphic Evidence of the Flood] by Stuart E. Nevins.
* [http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/flood_models.asp Flood models: the need for an integrated approach] by A.C. McIntosh, T. Edmondson & S. Taylor.
*[http://www.nwcreation.net/geologylinks.html#anchorgeologycreationist Global Flood Geology from Creation Science Perspectives]
*[http://www.biblicalgeology.net/content/view/46 Biblical Geology: Properly Understanding the Rocks]

==References==

<references/>

[[Category: Young Earth Creationism]]
[[Category: Geology]]

Talk:Flood Geology

2012-02-14T23:48:41Z

AriannaK:

Talk:Flood Geology

2012-02-14T23:47:46Z

AriannaK: /* Solution vs Suspension */ new section

== 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:
# Because it is a copy and paste from a discussion forum on [http://uselessjunk.net/viewtopic.php?p=2459938&sid=3fc7ec562d310602fdb812187fb662ab another web-site]. Conservapedia articles are supposed to be original content.
# Because a list of this format and length is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article.
# 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.
# 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.
# I doubt that a forum post would be considered an acceptable source even for linking to in a footnote.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|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? --[[User:Cgday|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. [[User:Nematocyte|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.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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. [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 10:58, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:Good point; I'll have to clarify that. (By the way, it is still a work in progress.) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 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.--[[User:Tims|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.
::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|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).--[[User:Tims|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.--[[User:Tims|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:
::::::# Speciation has been observed happening within a few generations, so I would argue that points 1 and 6 have been shown to be possible.
::::::# I don't understand this one.
::::::# I hope they find it one day!
::::::# See my comments below about dating.
::::::# I believe that this does not need to be false; it could be consistent with flood geology.
::::::# See No. 1.
::::::# This is not what flood geology proposes, so is a straw-man. See also my comments below about dating.
::::::# 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.
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 09:56, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Just to point out a couple of things,
::::::::# 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.
::::::::# 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.
::::::::# I do as well
::::::::# 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.
::::::::# 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.
::::::::# Mentioned above.
::::::::# 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 <ref> Baumgardner, John R., 1994. Patterns of ocean circulation over the continents during Noah's Flood. Proceedings of the third international conference on creationism, technical symposium sessions, pp. 77-86 </ref> 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. <ref> Poldervaart, Arie, 1955. Chemistry of the earth's crust. pp. 119-144 In: Poldervaart, A., ed., Crust of the Earth, Geological Society of America Special Paper 62, Waverly Press, MD.</ref>
::::::::# 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.--[[User:Tims|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?--[[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.
:::::::::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). --[[User:Tims|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.--[[User:Tims|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. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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.
::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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.--[[User:Tims|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. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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.”<ref>http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199606/0051.html</ref>--[[User:Tims|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 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter14.pdf here] regarding that. As for Morton's analysis, apart from the fact that it has been rebutted [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2006/0331.asp here], he is discussing something entirely different: how long it would take to reach today's level of saltiness ''without'' a flood. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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.--[[User:Tims|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. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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.<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)
:::::::::::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:
{{QuoteBox|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.[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/722]}}
:::::::::::That's just one of example of dates being changed (not just refined). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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.--[[User:Tims|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. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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).<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)
:::::::::::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 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3011/ here]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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.--[[User:Tims|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 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1573 here], if you haven't already. Saying that its better than radiometric dating doesn't fill me with confidence! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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.--[[User:Tims|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. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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.--[[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.

::::::::::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)

::::::::::: 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. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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.--[[User:Tims|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.
:::::::::::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|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.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 17:20, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 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". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:27, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
Realm of science, meaning, "good science."-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:27, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:I didn't mention anything about "good science" either, so that answer was less than helpful. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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! :-) Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]
::: 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.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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. -- Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]
::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. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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.{{unsigned|LateralQuercus}}

: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. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:23, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
Why not?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 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.--[[User:M|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.--[[User:Tims|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. [[User:LateralQuercus|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 [[Noah's Ark|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.{{Unsigned|Muchodelcrazy}}

: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? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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.[[User:Muchodelcrazy|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 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4018/ this]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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.[[User:Muchodelcrazy|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, [[koala]]s are not bears. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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 "[[koala]]s" 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. [[User:Muchodelcrazy|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?
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|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! [[User:Darkmind1970|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.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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.
:::: [[User:Darkmind1970|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?
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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. [[User:Darkmind1970|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. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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. [[User:Darkmind1970|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.
::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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 text''A 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. [[User:Darkmind1970|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 [http://www.creationontheweb.com 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?
::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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! [[User:Darkmind1970|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 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5026/ here]):
{{QuoteBox|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.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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. [[User:Darkmind1970|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?
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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. [[User:Darkmind1970|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 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2011/ ''Journal of Creation'']. You could also check out [http://www.biblicalgeology.net/ this]. But of course you would need to read more than just a paper or two to get a good understanding.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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. [[User:Darkmind1970|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.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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. [[User:Darkmind1970|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.--[[User:Aschlafly|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 '''R'''adioisotopes and the '''A'''ge of '''T'''he '''E'''arth. 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.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 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.--[[User:Aschlafly|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.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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]]?. [[User:Reasonableperson|Reasonableperson]] 23:12, 29 January 2008 (EST)

:That is not circular reasoning. Circular reasoning would go like this:
:# The Bible says that the world is 6,000 years old.
:# The evidence (e.g. rock layers) is explained ''on that basis''.
:# 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:
:# The biblical history is wrong, so there was no global flood, for example.
:# Dating methods are developed ''on this basis'' (e.g. assuming no global flood).
:# 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.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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:
:# The biblical history is wrong, so there was no global flood, for example.
:# Dating methods are developed ''on this basis'' (e.g. assuming no global flood).
:# 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,
#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.
#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.--[[User:Able806|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:
{{QuoteBox|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.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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).--[[User:Able806|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 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5613/ 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 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1860/ 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."[http://www.christianlogic.com/articles/short_list_of_fallacies.htm]. 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!
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|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. [[User:Darkmind1970|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.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 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''! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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

[[User:Darkmind1970|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.
:::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:54, 7 February 2008 (EST)

Neither you ([[User:Darkmind1970|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 [[Potassium|K]]-[[Argon|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:{{Cquote|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, "[http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/imp/imp-376.pdf 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]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 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. [[User:Darkmind1970|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.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:14, 7 February 2008 (EST)

== Three questions: ==

# 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.
#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.
#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. --[[User:TommyAtkins|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. [[User:AddisonDM|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, [http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG202_2.html 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: [http://www.wsl.ch/staff/felix.kaiser/PDFs/Friedrich_Dendro_RC04%20.pdf 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.
:::--[[User:TommyAtkins|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. [[User:AddisonDM|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 ita shake. Does the sand dissolve? No, of course not. Sand isn't soluble in water. It can be SUSPENDED in water, but not dissolved. --[[User:AriannaK|AriannaK]] 18:47, 14 February 2012 (EST)

Flood Geology

2012-02-14T23:44:11Z

AriannaK: Undo revision 961286 by JamesWilson (talk)My edit was factual and I can prove it. Please don't revert again without discussing first.

'''Flood geology''' is the study of the Earth's geology from the point of view that the Earth's geology was radically redefined by a [[Great Flood|global flood]] in the relatively recent past, as recorded in [[Genesis]], as well as the scores of flood stories in other cultures throughout the world.<ref>http://www.icr.org/article/570/</ref>

== Genesis Flood account ==
Genesis provides the most detailed account of the global deluge, including specific dates, measurements, and even some key geological events during the flood. Consequently, flood geologists use it as a starting point for understanding the events of the deluge. Based on the Genesis account, flood geologists argue that the flood resulted from subterranean water erupting to the surface ("the springs of the great deep burst forth" <ref>Genesis 7:11, NIV</ref>), combined with 40 days and nights of rain. Although the rain stopped after 40 days, the flood waters continued to rise for 150 days, and lasted just over a year before Noah and the others on the boat were able to leave. During the flood, there was massive tectonic activity, including some land rising up and other land dropping, such that the waters ended up in newly-deepened oceans. All the animals and birds (except those on the ark), and large numbers of sea creatures perished, and many of them were buried so quickly that they became fossils, accounting for the vast majority of fossils existing today.

== Evidence ==
Flood geologists base their belief in a relatively recent global deluge on several strands of evidence. While none of these strands alone is sufficient to ''prove'' that a global flood occurred, flood geologists argue that a global deluge is the most reasonable and [[parsimonious]] explanation for the evidence.

=== Sedimentary rock ===
Sedimentary rocks are formed by sand and other sediments which settle out of suspension in water, as well as the hard parts of small aquatic organisms such as [[plankton]], which accumulate on the bottom of a body of water and undergo [[lithification]]. Although only about 8% of the earth's rocks are sedimentary, 75%-80% of the Earth's land area is covered in sedimentary rock.[http://honolulu.hawaii.edu/distance/gg101/Programs/program21%20SedimentaryRocks/program21.html] Therefore, geologists point out, there is irrefutable evidence that at least 75% of the Earth's land was once covered in water.

=== Sufficient water ===
There is enough water on Earth today to cover the entire surface to a depth of 2.7 kilometres (1.7 miles), if the surface was levelled out.<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter12.pdf Noah’s Flood—what about all that water?], Chapter 4 of the ''Creation Answers Book'', Dr. Don Batten (Ed.)</ref> Continents emerge because the average ocean depth is 3.7 km.<ref>http://www.mos.org/oceans/planet/features.html</ref>. Flood geologists argue that geological activity during and after the flood lowered the ocean basins, causing water to flow from the continents into the basins, and leaving dry land.<ref>{{Bible ref|Psalms|104|6-9|version=NASB}} "You covered it with the deep as with a garment; The waters were standing above the mountains. At Your rebuke they fled, At the sound of Your thunder they hurried away. '''The mountains rose; the valleys sank down''' To the place which You established for them. You set a boundary that they may not pass over, So that they will not return to cover the earth."</ref>

=== Fossils ===
Fossilization requires rapid burial in a sedimentary solution, and subsequent rapid lithification of the solution. Slow burial does not result in fossilization, because the remains decay prior to being fossilized. Therefore, every fossil was buried in rapidly deposited sedimentary material which subsequently turned to stone.

=== Fossil fuels ===
Fossil fuel formation requires the burial of enormous amounts of organic matter under a sedimentary solution, and the application of heat and pressure. Slow burial processes do not produce fossil fuels, because the organic matter decays prior to conversion into a fossil fuel. Therefore, all fossil fuels on earth were quickly buried under sedimentary material which subsequently turned to stone;

Similar processes have been observed in [[Spirit Lake]] following the eruption of [[Mount St. Helens]] in 1980.

=== Rock strata ===
Most sedimentary rocks are layered, forming sharply defined lines at varying depths. Were these formed over long periods, erosion would have softened these lines. The sharpness of the lines implies rapid deposition and lithification.

=== Pure sedimentary layers ===
If sedimentary layers were laid down over millenia, they would have experienced mixing. However, many rock strata are pure -- for example, the [[St. Peter Sandstone]], covering 500,000 sq miles of the United States, is 99.94% pure silica. While uniformitarian scientists state that it was deposited by the shore of a sea, they cannot explain how it remained so pure if it was laid out over a long period of time. However, the sorting processes of [[liquefaction]], consistent with a global flood, can make such an explanation.

=== Submarine canyons ===
Canyons can be found under the sea at the end of many major world rivers, including the Congo, Amazon, Ganges, and Hudson. They extend for thousands of miles underwater, thousands of feet under the sea; they are as deep as the Grand Canyon in places, and although not well understood by the mainstream scientific community, they are generally understood to have developed when sea-levels were significantly lower than today. Flood geologists argue that as the continents divided and the flood subsided, these major rivers drained the new continents, and the water flowed into the new low-lying areas, which would fill to become seas, leaving the sediments to dry out of their [[liquefaction|liquefied]] state.

=== Land canyons ===
As explanation for great land canyons such as the [[Grand Canyon]], flood geologists point to canyon formation events such as the catastrophic hot mud slides observed during the eruption of Mt. St. Helens. One particular hot mud slide at Mt. St. Helens carved a canyon 140 ft. deep and 17 miles long in a single day. Only a thin creek remains at the bottom of the canyon today, which would likely be interpreted as having carved the canyon "over millions of years," if it were not known first-hand that the canyon was carved in a single day.

=== Ancient accounts of a navigable Atlantic ===
Plato's ''Timaeus'' states:
: "In those days the Atlantic was navigable; and there was an island situated in front of the straits which are by you called the Pillars of Heracles [Straight of Gibraltar] ... and was the way to other islands, and from these you might pass to the whole of the opposite continent which surrounded the true ocean; for this sea which is within the Straits of Heracles is only a harbour, having a narrow entrance, but that other is a real sea, and the surrounding land may be most truly called a boundless continent."<ref>http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/timaeus.html</ref>

=== Plate tectonics ===

A clear problem with a global flood is that of repopulation: after the flood, very few non-marine species would survive. In particular, most of those observed today could not possibly have survived - this includes all insects, the vast majority of birds (Some species of albatross may have survived), the vast majority of mammals, and possibly freshwater fish depending on the salinity of the floodwaters.

Flood geology models include a means for these species to survive, most typically via artificial assistance - an Ark, as described in [[Genesis]].

An often-proposed explanation is that of continental drift - that the continents may once have been united in a single supercontinent, which broke into fragments and drifted into the formations seen today during the time between the start of repopulation and today. Continental drift in principle is nearly universally accepted by all geologists, with flood geology differing only in time: While conventional geology estimates the breakup of the supercontinent to have occurred over approximately sixty million years, flood geologists mostly claim that the process occurred during the flood year, whilst a few claim that it occurred at the time of [[Peleg]].

Flood geologists propose several models which would explain how continental drift could proceed at the rapid pace required to allow the rearrangement of continents during or shortly after the flood, then slow to the currently observed rate. One of the best known of these is the runaway subduction model of Dr. [[John Baumgardner]].<ref>http://www.globalflood.org/platetec/about.html</ref>

=== Total destruction ===

Flood geologists argue that the scale of destruction of the Flood, especially if rapid plate tectonics was involved, would mean almost certain total destruction of the pre-Flood world, including any evidence of civilisations predating the Flood, along with the destruction of the [[Garden of Eden]].
After the Flood, and particularly after the [[Tower of Babel]], new civilisations developed, that either survive to this day or that we find archaeological evidence of today.

== Dating ==

Flood geologists date the flood to around 2350 B.C., based on [[biblical chronology]].
They argue that archaeological dates which purport to show civilisations and artifacts being older than the Flood (see Criticisms) are incorrect because they are based on the presumption that none of these methods would be altered by the effects of a global flood in such a way as to render conclusions drawn from them invalid.<ref>One example is Carbon Dating which is calibrated according to known background levels of C14 in the atmosphere, but this calibration does not account for likely altered levels due to extensive volcanism during the Flood. See [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5026/ Carbon dating into the future] (Creation Ministries International).</ref> [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologetists]] state that the biblical flood would have occurred before the Egyptian pyramids were built and that the commonly cited Egyptian chronology is errant and built upon poor foundations. <ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2503</ref> Also, Christian apologists argue that ancient Sumerian history supports the flood account given in the Bible. <ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a009.html</ref> In addition, ancient Sumerian literature speaks of a world wide flood. <ref>http://home.comcast.net/~chris.s/sumer-faq.html#A1.6</ref>

[[Creationism|Creationist]] scientists also state that the chronology used to dispute a worldwide flood based on tree rings is invalid.<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=381</ref> <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/tree_ring.asp</ref><ref>http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/answers/c14_treerings.php</ref><ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/21066.htm</ref><ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/26/26_1a.html</ref><ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/abstracts/sum29_4.html</ref>

==Creationist Scientists Defense of Flood Geology ==
Creationist scientists assert that there are multiple lines of evidence from the field of geology showing that flood geology is correct. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geology.asp</ref><ref>http://www.creationism.org/topbar/geology.htm</ref><ref>http://www.grisda.org/georpts/gr11.htm</ref><ref>http://www.nwcreation.net/geologylinks.html</ref><ref>http://globalflood.org/</ref> Creationist scientists also state that there was enough water to cause a worldwide flood and various other objections to a worldwide flood are invalid. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/flood12.asp</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/flood.asp</ref>

== Common Criticisms ==

Critics claim that there is not enough water on the Earth to actually cause a worldwide flood, or ever has been; in addition, many archaeological records (notably tree-ring records and the records of various early civilizations, including Egypt and Sumeria) stretch through the period of time most often given as that of the Great Flood, without any actual reference to such an event.<ref>For a summary of other criticisms, see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html</ref>

== History ==

Until the rise of uniformitarian [[geology]] in the early 19th century, most geologists accepted the Noahic deluge as part of geology. But [[James Hutton]] proposed in 1795 that geology ought to be based on the processes that we see happening now, thereby automatically ruling the Flood out of consideration. During the 19th century a number of "[[scriptural geologist]]s" held out against the rising acceptance of Hutton's principles, but they fought a losing battle and interest in flood geology virtually died out by the end of the 19th century.

However, in the second half of the 20th century, interest was revived amongst people keen to show that the biblical account was correct, and a small but growing number of geologists are now studying this field again, although the vast majority of geologists still reject the idea of a global flood on Earth. At the same time, there has been a recent resurgence of [[catastrophism]] in geological interpretation. <ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=print&ID=84</ref><ref>http://www.grisda.org/georpts/gr11.htm</ref>

Interest in Flood Geology was stimulated by the 1961 publication of ''[[The Genesis Flood]]'', by [[Henry Morris]] and [[John Whitcomb]]. Dr. Henry Morris had a number of arguments for geology supporting a worldwide flood. <ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=54</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=print&ID=84</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/article/842/</ref>
{{Creation vs. evolution}}
== External Links ==
*[http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=54 Geology and the Flood] by [[Henry Morris]], Ph.D.
*[http://www.creationism.org/symposium/symp3no2.htm Stratigraphic Evidence of the Flood] by Stuart E. Nevins.
* [http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/flood_models.asp Flood models: the need for an integrated approach] by A.C. McIntosh, T. Edmondson & S. Taylor.
*[http://www.nwcreation.net/geologylinks.html#anchorgeologycreationist Global Flood Geology from Creation Science Perspectives]
*[http://www.biblicalgeology.net/content/view/46 Biblical Geology: Properly Understanding the Rocks]

==References==

<references/>

[[Category: Young Earth Creationism]]
[[Category: Geology]]

Flood Geology

2012-02-14T23:17:05Z

AriannaK: /* Sedimentary rock */ Nonsense. Of course they don't precipitate out of solution. Also it's not just flood geologists who say this; all geologists do.

'''Flood geology''' is the study of the Earth's geology from the point of view that the Earth's geology was radically redefined by a [[Great Flood|global flood]] in the relatively recent past, as recorded in [[Genesis]], as well as the scores of flood stories in other cultures throughout the world.<ref>http://www.icr.org/article/570/</ref>

== Genesis Flood account ==
Genesis provides the most detailed account of the global deluge, including specific dates, measurements, and even some key geological events during the flood. Consequently, flood geologists use it as a starting point for understanding the events of the deluge. Based on the Genesis account, flood geologists argue that the flood resulted from subterranean water erupting to the surface ("the springs of the great deep burst forth" <ref>Genesis 7:11, NIV</ref>), combined with 40 days and nights of rain. Although the rain stopped after 40 days, the flood waters continued to rise for 150 days, and lasted just over a year before Noah and the others on the boat were able to leave. During the flood, there was massive tectonic activity, including some land rising up and other land dropping, such that the waters ended up in newly-deepened oceans. All the animals and birds (except those on the ark), and large numbers of sea creatures perished, and many of them were buried so quickly that they became fossils, accounting for the vast majority of fossils existing today.

== Evidence ==
Flood geologists base their belief in a relatively recent global deluge on several strands of evidence. While none of these strands alone is sufficient to ''prove'' that a global flood occurred, flood geologists argue that a global deluge is the most reasonable and [[parsimonious]] explanation for the evidence.

=== Sedimentary rock ===
Sedimentary rocks are formed by sand and other sediments which settle out of suspension in water, as well as the hard parts of small aquatic organisms such as [[plankton]], which accumulate on the bottom of a body of water and undergo [[lithification]]. Although only about 8% of the earth's rocks are sedimentary, 75%-80% of the Earth's land area is covered in sedimentary rock.[http://honolulu.hawaii.edu/distance/gg101/Programs/program21%20SedimentaryRocks/program21.html] Therefore, geologists point out, there is irrefutable evidence that at least 75% of the Earth's land was once covered in water.

=== Sufficient water ===
There is enough water on Earth today to cover the entire surface to a depth of 2.7 kilometres (1.7 miles), if the surface was levelled out.<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter12.pdf Noah’s Flood—what about all that water?], Chapter 4 of the ''Creation Answers Book'', Dr. Don Batten (Ed.)</ref> Continents emerge because the average ocean depth is 3.7 km.<ref>http://www.mos.org/oceans/planet/features.html</ref>. Flood geologists argue that geological activity during and after the flood lowered the ocean basins, causing water to flow from the continents into the basins, and leaving dry land.<ref>{{Bible ref|Psalms|104|6-9|version=NASB}} "You covered it with the deep as with a garment; The waters were standing above the mountains. At Your rebuke they fled, At the sound of Your thunder they hurried away. '''The mountains rose; the valleys sank down''' To the place which You established for them. You set a boundary that they may not pass over, So that they will not return to cover the earth."</ref>

=== Fossils ===
Fossilization requires rapid burial in a sedimentary solution, and subsequent rapid lithification of the solution. Slow burial does not result in fossilization, because the remains decay prior to being fossilized. Therefore, every fossil was buried in rapidly deposited sedimentary material which subsequently turned to stone.

=== Fossil fuels ===
Fossil fuel formation requires the burial of enormous amounts of organic matter under a sedimentary solution, and the application of heat and pressure. Slow burial processes do not produce fossil fuels, because the organic matter decays prior to conversion into a fossil fuel. Therefore, all fossil fuels on earth were quickly buried under sedimentary material which subsequently turned to stone;

Similar processes have been observed in [[Spirit Lake]] following the eruption of [[Mount St. Helens]] in 1980.

=== Rock strata ===
Most sedimentary rocks are layered, forming sharply defined lines at varying depths. Were these formed over long periods, erosion would have softened these lines. The sharpness of the lines implies rapid deposition and lithification.

=== Pure sedimentary layers ===
If sedimentary layers were laid down over millenia, they would have experienced mixing. However, many rock strata are pure -- for example, the [[St. Peter Sandstone]], covering 500,000 sq miles of the United States, is 99.94% pure silica. While uniformitarian scientists state that it was deposited by the shore of a sea, they cannot explain how it remained so pure if it was laid out over a long period of time. However, the sorting processes of [[liquefaction]], consistent with a global flood, can make such an explanation.

=== Submarine canyons ===
Canyons can be found under the sea at the end of many major world rivers, including the Congo, Amazon, Ganges, and Hudson. They extend for thousands of miles underwater, thousands of feet under the sea; they are as deep as the Grand Canyon in places, and although not well understood by the mainstream scientific community, they are generally understood to have developed when sea-levels were significantly lower than today. Flood geologists argue that as the continents divided and the flood subsided, these major rivers drained the new continents, and the water flowed into the new low-lying areas, which would fill to become seas, leaving the sediments to dry out of their [[liquefaction|liquefied]] state.

=== Land canyons ===
As explanation for great land canyons such as the [[Grand Canyon]], flood geologists point to canyon formation events such as the catastrophic hot mud slides observed during the eruption of Mt. St. Helens. One particular hot mud slide at Mt. St. Helens carved a canyon 140 ft. deep and 17 miles long in a single day. Only a thin creek remains at the bottom of the canyon today, which would likely be interpreted as having carved the canyon "over millions of years," if it were not known first-hand that the canyon was carved in a single day.

=== Ancient accounts of a navigable Atlantic ===
Plato's ''Timaeus'' states:
: "In those days the Atlantic was navigable; and there was an island situated in front of the straits which are by you called the Pillars of Heracles [Straight of Gibraltar] ... and was the way to other islands, and from these you might pass to the whole of the opposite continent which surrounded the true ocean; for this sea which is within the Straits of Heracles is only a harbour, having a narrow entrance, but that other is a real sea, and the surrounding land may be most truly called a boundless continent."<ref>http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/timaeus.html</ref>

=== Plate tectonics ===

A clear problem with a global flood is that of repopulation: after the flood, very few non-marine species would survive. In particular, most of those observed today could not possibly have survived - this includes all insects, the vast majority of birds (Some species of albatross may have survived), the vast majority of mammals, and possibly freshwater fish depending on the salinity of the floodwaters.

Flood geology models include a means for these species to survive, most typically via artificial assistance - an Ark, as described in [[Genesis]].

An often-proposed explanation is that of continental drift - that the continents may once have been united in a single supercontinent, which broke into fragments and drifted into the formations seen today during the time between the start of repopulation and today. Continental drift in principle is nearly universally accepted by all geologists, with flood geology differing only in time: While conventional geology estimates the breakup of the supercontinent to have occurred over approximately sixty million years, flood geologists mostly claim that the process occurred during the flood year, whilst a few claim that it occurred at the time of [[Peleg]].

Flood geologists propose several models which would explain how continental drift could proceed at the rapid pace required to allow the rearrangement of continents during or shortly after the flood, then slow to the currently observed rate. One of the best known of these is the runaway subduction model of Dr. [[John Baumgardner]].<ref>http://www.globalflood.org/platetec/about.html</ref>

=== Total destruction ===

Flood geologists argue that the scale of destruction of the Flood, especially if rapid plate tectonics was involved, would mean almost certain total destruction of the pre-Flood world, including any evidence of civilisations predating the Flood, along with the destruction of the [[Garden of Eden]].
After the Flood, and particularly after the [[Tower of Babel]], new civilisations developed, that either survive to this day or that we find archaeological evidence of today.

== Dating ==

Flood geologists date the flood to around 2350 B.C., based on [[biblical chronology]].
They argue that archaeological dates which purport to show civilisations and artifacts being older than the Flood (see Criticisms) are incorrect because they are based on the presumption that none of these methods would be altered by the effects of a global flood in such a way as to render conclusions drawn from them invalid.<ref>One example is Carbon Dating which is calibrated according to known background levels of C14 in the atmosphere, but this calibration does not account for likely altered levels due to extensive volcanism during the Flood. See [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5026/ Carbon dating into the future] (Creation Ministries International).</ref> [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologetists]] state that the biblical flood would have occurred before the Egyptian pyramids were built and that the commonly cited Egyptian chronology is errant and built upon poor foundations. <ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2503</ref> Also, Christian apologists argue that ancient Sumerian history supports the flood account given in the Bible. <ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a009.html</ref> In addition, ancient Sumerian literature speaks of a world wide flood. <ref>http://home.comcast.net/~chris.s/sumer-faq.html#A1.6</ref>

[[Creationism|Creationist]] scientists also state that the chronology used to dispute a worldwide flood based on tree rings is invalid.<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=381</ref> <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/tree_ring.asp</ref><ref>http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/answers/c14_treerings.php</ref><ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/21066.htm</ref><ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/26/26_1a.html</ref><ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/abstracts/sum29_4.html</ref>

==Creationist Scientists Defense of Flood Geology ==
Creationist scientists assert that there are multiple lines of evidence from the field of geology showing that flood geology is correct. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geology.asp</ref><ref>http://www.creationism.org/topbar/geology.htm</ref><ref>http://www.grisda.org/georpts/gr11.htm</ref><ref>http://www.nwcreation.net/geologylinks.html</ref><ref>http://globalflood.org/</ref> Creationist scientists also state that there was enough water to cause a worldwide flood and various other objections to a worldwide flood are invalid. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/flood12.asp</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/flood.asp</ref>

== Common Criticisms ==

Critics claim that there is not enough water on the Earth to actually cause a worldwide flood, or ever has been; in addition, many archaeological records (notably tree-ring records and the records of various early civilizations, including Egypt and Sumeria) stretch through the period of time most often given as that of the Great Flood, without any actual reference to such an event.<ref>For a summary of other criticisms, see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html</ref>

== History ==

Until the rise of uniformitarian [[geology]] in the early 19th century, most geologists accepted the Noahic deluge as part of geology. But [[James Hutton]] proposed in 1795 that geology ought to be based on the processes that we see happening now, thereby automatically ruling the Flood out of consideration. During the 19th century a number of "[[scriptural geologist]]s" held out against the rising acceptance of Hutton's principles, but they fought a losing battle and interest in flood geology virtually died out by the end of the 19th century.

However, in the second half of the 20th century, interest was revived amongst people keen to show that the biblical account was correct, and a small but growing number of geologists are now studying this field again, although the vast majority of geologists still reject the idea of a global flood on Earth. At the same time, there has been a recent resurgence of [[catastrophism]] in geological interpretation. <ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=print&ID=84</ref><ref>http://www.grisda.org/georpts/gr11.htm</ref>

Interest in Flood Geology was stimulated by the 1961 publication of ''[[The Genesis Flood]]'', by [[Henry Morris]] and [[John Whitcomb]]. Dr. Henry Morris had a number of arguments for geology supporting a worldwide flood. <ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=54</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=print&ID=84</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/article/842/</ref>
{{Creation vs. evolution}}
== External Links ==
*[http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=54 Geology and the Flood] by [[Henry Morris]], Ph.D.
*[http://www.creationism.org/symposium/symp3no2.htm Stratigraphic Evidence of the Flood] by Stuart E. Nevins.
* [http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/flood_models.asp Flood models: the need for an integrated approach] by A.C. McIntosh, T. Edmondson & S. Taylor.
*[http://www.nwcreation.net/geologylinks.html#anchorgeologycreationist Global Flood Geology from Creation Science Perspectives]
*[http://www.biblicalgeology.net/content/view/46 Biblical Geology: Properly Understanding the Rocks]

==References==

<references/>

[[Category: Young Earth Creationism]]
[[Category: Geology]]

North Korea

2012-02-13T17:25:06Z

AriannaK: /* Military */ No they didn't, bcause there's no such thing as an "SB-25 Russian fighter." Looks like an unreliable source.

{{Country
|name =조선민주주의인민공화국 Chosŏn Minjujuŭi Inmin Konghwaguk ''Democratic People's Republic of Korea''
|map =Korea north rel 2005.jpg
|map2 =NorthKorea location.png
|flag =Flag of North Korea.png
|arms =Arms of North Korea.png
|capital =P'yongyang
|government =Communist totalitarian state
|language =Korean
|area =46,526 sq mi
|pop =23,301,725(2007)
|gdp-year =$22.85 billion (2006)
|gdp-pc =$1,007 (2006)
|currency = North Korean won
}}
'''North Korea''' is the world's most severe [[totalitarian]] [[dictatorship]] and one of the poorest and most [[famine]]-stricken nations on earth. It lies in eastern Asia and occupies the Korean peninsula north of a line that roughly follows the 38th parallel.
It was ruled by self-absorbed dictator and 'Dear Leader' [[Kim Jong Il]], who succeeded his father the 'Great Leader' [[Kim Il Sung]]. Upon Kim Jong-Il's death, it is expected his son Kim Jong-un will take over.

* They suffer from an incredible blackout of knowledge about the outside world. The control on the population exceeds anything the world has seen to date. [http://significatojournal.com/help-the-world/freedom-human-rights/north-korea-the-prison-nation]

Its official name is '''Democratic People's Republic of Korea''', but its government does not follow Western ideas of [[democracy]]. Rather, it is organized along [[Stalinism|Stalinist]] lines. Its "Supreme People's Assembly" is merely a [[rubber stamp]] parliament. [http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/2010/05/21/North-Korea-slammed-over-Cheonan-sinking/UPI-48941274459460/]

The official North Korean ideology is known as [[Juche]] (roughly translates as "national self-reliance"), and since the mid 1990s, [[Songun]] ("military first"). A cult-like devotion to the "Great Leader" and "Dear Leader" is expected of citizens, and heavily promoted in the North Korean news media which has little actual "news" and mostly consists of effusive praise toward [[Kim Jong Il]], grandiose and unsubstantiated claims about great feats by him and his father, and repetitious admonitions that the Korean people are totally united as one behind his leadership; in contrast between 600,000 and 3.5 million North Koreans have died of starvation in recent years because the Kim government has so mismanaged the economy, particularly agriculture, and has hampered outside efforts at relief. <ref>http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071009/COMMENTARY/110090010/1012&template=nextpage</ref>

==People==
*Population (2006): 23.1 million.
*Annual growth rate: About +0.98%.
*Ethnic groups: [[Korean]]; small ethnic Chinese and Japanese populations.
*Religions: [[Buddhism]], [[Confucianism]], [[Shamanism]], [[Chongdogyo]], [[Christian]]; autonomous religious activities have been virtually nonexistent since 1945.
*Language: Korean.
*Education: Years compulsory--11. Attendance--3 million (primary, 1.5 million; secondary, 1.2 million; tertiary, 0.3 million). Literacy--99%.
*Health (1998): Medical treatment is free; one doctor for every 700 inhabitants; one hospital bed for every 350; there are severe shortages of medicines and medical equipment. Infant mortality rate--23.29 /1,000 (2006 est.). Life expectancy--males 68 yrs., females 74 yrs. (2006 est.)

Amnesty International published a report in June 2010 which alleges that the North Korean health care system is "in shambles". Interviews with 40 individuals who defected from that country indicate a wide-spread shortage of medicine and medical implements; a lack of ambulatory services in major cities; the use of unsterilized needles; major operations and amputations done without anesthesia, on a system which spends the equivalent of one dollar per person per year on health care. This discrepancy is compounded by the fact that many citizens are forced to endure a starvation diet by subsisting on grass, tree bark and roots.<ref>http://www.news-medical.net/news/20100715/Amnesty-International-reveals-the-rotting-health-care-system-in-North-Korea.aspx</ref><ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100715/ap_on_re_as/as_nkorea_crumbling_health_care</ref>

==Religion==
Government policy and practice severely restricted the practice of religion and it is a dogmatically [[atheist]] regime. The 2007 KINU White Paper indicated that the regime utilizes authorized religious entities for external propaganda and political purposes, and that citizens are strictly barred from entering places of worship. Ordinary citizens consider such sites to be primarily "sightseeing spots for foreigners." KINU concluded that the lack of churches or religious facilities in the provinces indicates that ordinary citizens do not enjoy religious freedom.

Little is known about the day-to-day life of religious persons in the country. Members of government-controlled religious groups did not appear to suffer discrimination. Some reports claimed, and circumstantial evidence suggested, that many, if not most of these groups, have been organized by the regime for propaganda and political purposes, including meeting with foreign religious visitors.

The number of religious believers is unknown but was estimated by the Government to be 10,000 Protestants, 10,000 Buddhists, and 4,000 Catholics. Estimates by South Korean and international church-related groups were considerably higher. In addition, the Chondogyo Young Friends Party, a government-approved group based on a traditional religious movement, had approximately 40,000 practitioners, according to the Government.<ref> See [http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2008/108410.htm U.S. State Department "International Religious Freedom Report 2008"]</ref>

In Pyongyang there were reportedly four state-controlled Christian churches: two Protestant churches under lay leadership (Bongsu and Chilgol Churches), the Changchung Roman Catholic Church, and the Holy Trinity Russian Orthodox Church. The Chilgol Church is dedicated to the memory of former leader Kim Il-sung's mother, Kang Pan-sok, who was a Presbyterian deaconess. The number of congregants regularly worshiping at these churches is unknown.

The Presbyterian Church of Korea in the South was partnering with the Christian Association in North Korea to rebuild Bongsu Church. In the fall of 2006, a delegation of 90 Christians from South Korea visited the Bongsu church to celebrate completion of its first phase of renovation. According to religious leaders who traveled to the country, there were Protestant pastors at these churches, although it was not known if they were resident or visiting.

In its July 2002 report to the U.N. Human Rights Committee, the Government reported the existence of 500 "family worship centers." However, according to the 2007 Korea Institute for National Unification (KINU) White Paper, defectors interviewed were unaware of any such centers. Observers stated that "family worship centers" may be part of the state-controlled Korean Christian Federation, while an unknown number of "underground churches" operate apart from the Federation and are not recognized by the Government. Some NGOs and academics estimate there may be up to several hundred thousand underground Christians in the country. Others question the existence of a large-scale underground church or conclude that no reliable estimate of the number of underground religious believers exists. Individual underground congregations are reportedly very small and confined to private homes. At the same time, some NGOs reported that the individual churches are connected to each other through well-established networks. The regime has not allowed outsiders the access necessary to confirm such claims.

There were an estimated 300 Buddhist temples. Most were regarded as cultural relics, but religious activity was permitted in some. A few Buddhist temples and relics have been renovated or restored in recent years under a broad effort aimed at "preserving the Korean nation's cultural heritage." In 2007 reconstruction was completed on the Shingye or Singyesa (Holy Valley) Temple, which was destroyed during the Korean War. The Republic of Korea (ROK) Government and foreign tourists funded the reconstruction. A South Korean monk, the first to permanently reside in North Korea, has lived at the temple since 2004 but serves primarily as a guide for visiting tourists rather than as a pastor caring for Buddhists living in the area.

The Government announced in June 2007 that 500 monks and Buddhist followers were making day-long pilgrimages to the recently renovated Ryongthong temple in Kaesong strictly for religious purposes. Foreign diplomats in Pyongyang who visited the temple were told that the two monks living there may be joined by more. State-controlled press reported on several occasions that Buddhist ceremonies had been carried out in various locations. Official reporting also linked descriptions of such ceremonies with the broader theme of Korean unification.

The Holy Trinity Russian Orthodox Church opened in Pyongyang in 2006. The church was reportedly commissioned by Kim Jong-il after he visited an Orthodox cathedral in Russia in 2002. Two North Koreans who studied at the Russian Orthodox Seminary in Moscow have been ordained as priests and are serving at the church. The purported aim of the church was primarily to provide pastoral care of Russians in the country, but one religious leader with access to the country speculated that the church likely extended pastoral care to all Orthodox Koreans as well. Similar to other religious groups, no reliable data exists on the number of Orthodox believers.

Several foreigners residing in Pyongyang attended Korean-language services at the Christian churches on a regular basis. Some foreigners who visited the country stated that church services appeared staged and contained political content supportive of the regime, in addition to religious themes. Foreign legislators attending services in Pyongyang in previous years noted that congregations arrived at and departed services as groups on tour buses, and some observed that they did not include any children. Other foreigners noted that they were not permitted to have contact with congregants. Foreign observers had limited ability to ascertain the level of government control over these groups, but it was generally assumed they were monitored closely. According to the 2007 KINU White Paper, defectors reported being unaware of any recognized religious organizations that maintained branches outside of Pyongyang.

Several schools for religious education exist. There are 3-year colleges for training Protestant and Buddhist clergy. A religious studies program also was established at Kim Il-sung University in 1989; its graduates usually worked in the foreign trade sector. In 2000 a Protestant seminary was reopened with assistance from foreign missionary groups. Critics, including at least one foreign sponsor, charged that the Government opened the seminary only to facilitate reception of assistance funds from foreign faith-based NGOs. The Chosun Christian Federation, a religious group believed to be controlled by the Government, contributed to the curriculum used by the seminary. The Chosun Christian League operates the Pyongyang Theological Academy, a graduate institution that trains pastors affiliated with the Korean Christian Federation.

==Government and Political Conditions==
North Korea has a centralized government under the rigid control of the communist Korean Workers' Party (KWP), to which all government officials belong. A few minor political parties are allowed to exist in name only. Kim Il-sung ruled North Korea from 1948 until his death in July 1994. Kim served both as Secretary General of the KWP and as President of North Korea.

Little is known about the actual lines of power and authority in the North Korean Government despite the formal structure set forth in the constitution. Following the death of Kim Il-sung, his son--Kim Jong-il--inherited supreme power. Kim Jong-il was named General Secretary of the KWP in October 1997, and in September 1998, the Supreme People's Assembly (SPA) reconfirmed Kim Jong-il as Chairman of the National Defense Commission and declared that position as the "highest office of state." However, the President of the Presidium of the National Assembly, Kim Yong-nam, serves as the nominal head of state. North Korea's 1972 constitution was amended in late 1992 and in September 1998.

The constitution designates the Central People's Committee (CPC) as the government's top policymaking body. The CPC makes policy decisions and supervises the cabinet, or State Administration Council (SAC). The SAC is headed by a premier and is the dominant administrative and executive agency.

Officially, the legislature, the SPA, is the highest organ of state power. Its members are elected every four years. Usually only two meetings are held annually, each lasting a few days. A standing committee elected by the SPA performs legislative functions when the Assembly is not in session. In reality, the Assembly serves only to ratify decisions made by the ruling KWP.

North Korea's judiciary is "accountable" to the SPA and the president. The SPA's standing committee also appoints judges to the highest court for four-year terms that are concurrent with those of the Assembly.

Administratively, North Korea is divided into nine provinces and four provincial-level municipalities--[[Pyongyang]], [[Chongjin]], [[Nampo]], and [[Kaesong]]. It also appears to be divided into nine military districts.

===Principal Party and Government Officials===
*Kim Il-Sung--Eternal President (deceased since 1995)
*Kim Jong-il--General Secretary of the KWP; Supreme Commander of the People's Armed Forces; Chairman of the National Defense *Commission; son of North Korea's founder Kim Il-sung
*Kim Yong-nam--President of the Presidium of the Supreme People's Assembly; titular head of state
*Pak Gil-yon--Ambassador to D.P.R.K. Permanent Mission to the UN
*Pak Ui-chun--Minister of Foreign Affairs

===Propaganda===

The DPRK is notorious for its heavy use of political propaganda, revisionist history and [[cult of personality]] surrounding Kim Jong-il and Kim il-Sung. The media is heavily controlled and only state-controlled radio and television broadcasts are permitted for public consumption. This control allows the regime to propagate its many lies and perceptions of the country.

==== Cult of Personality ====

The North Korean state maintains an intense cult of personality surrounding Kim and his son, Kim Jong-il. All North Koreans wear badges with an image of either (or both) Kims and portraits of the deceased leader are voluminous both in cities and the countryside. The capital city of Pyonyang has over 600 statues of Kim, including a 25-metre bronze statue built in 1972 for his sixtieth birthday.

Kim's personality cult is largely based on historical revisionism and many absurd "facts" to emphasize his "divine" abilities and power. Among these:

*He was born under a double rainbow on the sacred Baektul Mountain in 1942. At the moment of his birth, a bright star lit up the sky, the seasons spontaneously changed from winter to spring and a double rainbow appeared in the sky.(In truth, he was born in Vyatskoye, Siberia in 1941.)<ref>http://asianhistory.about.com/od/profilesofasianleaders/p/BioKimJongil.htm</ref>

*During the Japanese colonial rule of Korea, he fought in more than 100,000 battles in 15 years (over 20 battles a day). (While Kim was in the Soviet army, he never participated in actual combat.)<ref>http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/champion/65/pers_cult.htm</ref>

*He scored eleven holes-in-one the first time he ever played a game of golf.<ref>http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/02/16/kim.birthday.reut/</ref>

*He invented the hamburger. <ref>http://listverse.com/2010/05/30/top-10-crazy-facts-about-kim-jong-il/</ref>

====Revisionist history====

Despite overwhelming historical and historiographical evidence, North Korean media and schools maintain the myth that the South started the Korean war and that the North was victorious.

====Anti-American and other propaganda ====

As well as the state-sponsored propaganda served up to its own citizens, the DPRK attempts to push its message onto South Koreans as well.

The best examples are found on the North Korean side of the DMZ, where massive hillside signs point to the U.S. as an enemy of reunification and boast of a prosperous life in the North. More absurd is Jikong-dong, also known as "Propaganda village," a fake town intended to show the fine living conditions in the North.<ref>http://www.nickspics.net/v/Travel/South_Korea_2009/IMG_2075_5DMK2.JPG.html</ref> The town is devoid of human life and was quickly exposed as a sham when Southern officials noticed that all city lights turned on and off at the same time each day, most windows contained no glass and there was no evident civilian life. The town also boasts the world's tallest flagpole, bearing a North Korean flag weighing 600 pounds.<ref>http://www.flickr.com/photos/aaronbrownphotos/3514929586/</ref>

An extensive collection of North Korean propaganda, most of them Anti-American, can be found [http://www.nikopopp.com/NorthKoreanPropaganda/ here].

===Foreign Relations===
North Korea's relationship with the South has determined much of its post-[[World War II]] history and still undergirds much of its foreign policy. North and South Korea have had a difficult and acrimonious relationship from the Korean War. In recent years, North Korea has pursued a mixed policy--seeking to develop economic relations with South Korea and to win the support of the South Korean public for greater North-South engagement while at the same time continuing to denounce the R.O.K.'s security relationship with the United States and maintaining a threatening conventional force posture on the DMZ and in adjacent waters.

The military demarcation line (MDL) of separation between the belligerent sides at the close of the Korean War divides North Korea from South Korea. A demilitarized zone (DMZ) extends for 2,000 meters (just over 1 mile) on either side of the MDL. Both the North and South Korean governments hold that the MDL is only a temporary administrative line, not a permanent border.

During the postwar period, both Korean governments have repeatedly affirmed their desire to reunify the Korean Peninsula, but until 1971 the two governments had no direct, official communications or other contact.

====Reunification Efforts Since 1971====
In August 1971, North and South Korea held talks through their respective Red Cross societies with the aim of reuniting the many Korean families separated following the division of Korea and the Korean War. In July 1972, the two sides agreed to work toward peaceful reunification and an end to the hostile atmosphere prevailing on the peninsula. Officials exchanged visits, and regular communications were established through a North-South coordinating committee and the Red Cross. These initial contacts broke down in 1973 following South Korean President Park Chung-hee's announcement that the South would seek separate entry into the United Nations, and after the kidnapping of South Korean opposition leader Kim Dae-jung--perceived as friendly to unified entry into the UN--by South Korean intelligence services. There was no other significant contact between North and South Korea until 1984.

Dialogue was renewed in September 1984, when South Korea accepted the North's offer to provide relief goods to victims of severe flooding in South Korea. Red Cross talks to address the plight of separated families resumed, as did talks on economic and trade issues and parliamentary-level discussions. However, the North then unilaterally suspended all talks in January 1986, arguing that the annual U.S.-ROK "Team Spirit" military exercise was inconsistent with dialogue. There was a brief flurry of negotiations that year on co-hosting the upcoming 1988 Seoul Olympics, which ended in failure and was followed by the 1987 bombing of a South Korean commercial aircraft (KAL 858) by North Korean agents.

In July 1988, South Korean President Roh Tae-woo called for new efforts to promote North-South exchanges, family reunification, inter-Korean trade, and contact in international forums. Roh followed up this initiative in a UN General Assembly speech in which South Korea offered for the first time to discuss security matters with the North. Initial meetings that grew out of Roh's proposals started in September 1989. In September 1990, the first of eight prime minister-level meetings between North Korean and South Korean officials took place in Seoul. The prime ministerial talks resulted in two major agreements: the Agreement on Reconciliation, Nonaggression, Exchanges, and Cooperation (the "Basic Agreement") and the Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula (the "Joint Declaration").

The Basic Agreement, signed on December 13, 1991, called for reconciliation and nonaggression and established four joint commissions. These commissions--on South-North reconciliation, South-North military affairs, South-North economic exchanges and cooperation, and South-North social and cultural exchange--were to work out the specifics for implementing the basic agreement. Subcommittees to examine specific issues were created, and liaison offices were established in Panmunjom, but in the fall of 1992 the process came to a halt because of rising tension over North Korea's nuclear program.

The Joint Declaration on denuclearization was initialized on December 31, 1991. It forbade both sides from testing, manufacturing, producing, receiving, possessing, storing, deploying, or using nuclear weapons and forbade the possession of nuclear reprocessing and uranium enrichment facilities. A procedure for inter-Korean inspection was to be organized and a North-South Joint Nuclear Control Commission (JNCC) was mandated to verify the denuclearization of the peninsula.

On January 30, 1992, the D.P.R.K. finally signed a nuclear safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), as it had pledged to do in 1985 when it acceded to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). This safeguards agreement allowed IAEA inspections to begin in June 1992. In March 1992, the JNCC was established in accordance with the Joint Declaration, but subsequent meetings failed to reach agreement on the main issue of establishing a bilateral inspection regime.

As the 1990s progressed, concern over the North's nuclear program became a major issue in North-South relations and between North Korea and the United States. The lack of progress on implementation of the Joint Declaration's provision for an inter-Korean nuclear inspection regime led to reinstatement of the U.S.-R.O.K. Team Spirit military exercise for 1993. The situation worsened rapidly when North Korea, in January 1993, refused IAEA access to two suspected nuclear waste sites and then announced in March 1993 its intent to withdraw from the NPT. During the next two years, the United States held direct talks with the D.P.R.K. that resulted in a series of agreements on nuclear matters, including the 1994 Agreed Framework (which broke down in 2002 when North Korea was discovered to be pursuing a uranium enrichment program for nuclear weapons--see below, Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula).

At his inauguration in February 1998, R.O.K. President Kim Dae-jung enunciated a new policy of engagement with the D.P.R.K., dubbed "the Sunshine Policy." The policy had three fundamental principles: no tolerance of provocations from the North, no intention to absorb the North, and the separation of political cooperation from economic cooperation. Private sector overtures would be based on commercial and humanitarian considerations. The use of government resources would entail reciprocity. This policy set the stage for the first inter-Korean summit, held in Pyongyang June 13-15, 2000.

R.O.K. President Roh Moo-hyun, following his inauguration in February 2003, has continued his predecessor's policy of engagement with the North, though he abandoned the name "Sunshine Policy." The United States supports President Roh's engagement policy and North-South dialogue and cooperation. Major economic reunification projects have included a tourism development in Mt. Geumgang, the re-establishment of road and rail links across the demilitarized zone (DMZ) and a joint North-South industrial park near the North Korean city of Kaesong (see further information below in the section on the Economy). In August 2007, the R.O.K. and D.P.R.K. announced plans to hold a second inter-Korean summit, scheduled for October 2-4 in Pyongyang.

===Relations Outside the Korean Peninsula===
Throughout the Cold War, North Korea balanced its relations with China and the Soviet Union to extract the maximum benefit from the relationships at minimum political cost. In the 1970s and early 1980s, the establishment of diplomatic relations between the United States and China, the Soviet-backed Vietnamese occupation of Cambodia, and the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan created strains between China and the Soviet Union and, in turn, in North Korea's relations with its two major communist allies. North Korea tried to avoid becoming embroiled in the Sino-Soviet split, obtaining aid from both the Soviet Union and China and trying to avoid dependence on either. Following Kim Il-sung's 1984 visit to Moscow, there was an improvement in Soviet-D.P.R.K. relations, resulting in renewed deliveries of Soviet weaponry to North Korea and increases in economic aid.

The establishment of diplomatic relations by South Korea with the Soviet Union in 1990 and with China in 1992 seriously strained relations between North Korea and its traditional allies. Moreover, the fall of communism in eastern Europe in 1989 and the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991 resulted in a significant drop in communist aid to North Korea. Despite these changes and its past reliance on this military and economic assistance, North Korea continued to proclaim a militantly independent stance in its foreign policy in accordance with its official ideology of "juche," or self-reliance.

Both North and South Korea became parties to the Biological Weapons Convention in 1987. (North Korea is not a member of the Chemical Weapons Convention, nor is it a member of the Missile Technology Control Regime, or MTCR.)

North Korea has maintained membership in some multilateral organizations. It became a member of the UN in September 1991. North Korea also belongs to the Food and Agriculture Organization; the International Civil Aviation Organization; the International Postal Union; the UN Conference on Trade and Development; the International Telecommunications Union; the UN Development Program; the UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization; the World Health Organization; the World Intellectual Property Organization; the World Meteorological Organization; the International Maritime Organization; the International Committee of the Red Cross; and the Nonaligned Movement.

In the mid-1990s, when the economic situation worsened dramatically and following the death of D.P.R.K. founder Kim Il-sung, the North abandoned some of the more extreme manifestations of its "self reliance" ideology to accept foreign humanitarian relief and create the possibility, as noted below, for foreign investment in the North. In subsequent years, the D.P.R.K. has continued to pursue a tightly restricted policy of opening to the world in search of economic aid and development assistance. However, this has been matched by an increased determination to counter perceived external and internal threats by a self-proclaimed "military first" ("Songun") policy.

During the present period of limited, extremely cautious opening, North Korea has sought to broaden its formal diplomatic relationships. In July 2000, North Korea began participating in the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), with Foreign Minister Paek Nam-sun attending the ARF ministerial meeting in Bangkok. The D.P.R.K. also expanded its bilateral diplomatic ties in that year, establishing diplomatic relations with Italy, Australia, the Philippines, Australia, Canada, the U.K., Germany, and many other European countries.

In the September 19, 2005 Joint Statement issued at the end of the fourth round of Six-Party Talks, the United States and the D.P.R.K. committed to undertake steps to normalize relations (see below, Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula). The D.P.R.K. and Japan also agreed to take steps to normalize relations and to discuss outstanding issues of concern, such as abductions. The U.S.-D.P.R.K. and Japan-D.P.R.K. bilateral working groups on normalization of relations met in March and September 2007.

====Terrorism====
The D.P.R.K. is not known to have sponsored terrorist acts since the 1987 bombing of KAL flight 858. Pyongyang continues to provide sanctuary to members of the Japanese Communist League-Red Army Faction (JRA) who participated in the hijacking of a Japan Airlines flight to North Korea in 1970.

The D.P.R.K. has made several statements condemning terrorism. In October 2000, the United States and the D.P.R.K. issued a joint statement on terrorism in which "the two sides agreed that international terrorism poses an unacceptable threat to global security and peace, and that terrorism should be opposed in all its forms." The United States and the D.P.R.K. agreed to support the international legal regime combating international terrorism and to cooperate with each other to fight terrorism. The D.P.R.K. became a signatory to the Convention for the Suppression of Financing of Terrorism and a party to the Convention Against the Taking of Hostages in November 2001. In the February 13, 2007 Initial Actions agreement, the [[United States of America]] agreed to begin the process of removing the designation of the D.P.R.K. as a state sponsor of terrorism. On Saturday October 11, 2008. The United States officially removed North Korea from the Terrorism Watch List. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,436382,00.html North Korea no longer a recognized Terrorist sponsor.]</ref>

====Abductions====
In the past, the D.P.R.K. has also been involved in the abduction of foreign citizens. In 2002, Kim Jong-il acknowledged to Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi the involvement of D.P.R.K. "special institutions" in the kidnapping of Japanese citizens between 1977 and 1983 and said that those responsible had been punished. While five surviving victims and their families were allowed to leave the D.P.R.K. and resettle in Japan in October 2002, 12 other cases remain unresolved and continue to be a major issue in D.P.R.K.-Japanese relations. In October 2005, the D.P.R.K. acknowledged for the first time having kidnapped R.O.K. citizens in previous decades, claiming that several abductees, as well as several POWs from the Korean War, were still alive. In June 2006, North Korea allowed Kim Young-nam, a South Korean abducted by the North in 1978, to participate in a family reunion.

In 2001, a series of articles in foreign and Russian Federation newspapers, resting on reports from Russian Federation human rights activists and Amnesty International and the New York based Human Rights Watch alleged the D.P.R.K. abduction of up to 30,000 North Korean dissidents as well as common citizens to work in the Siberian labor and forestry camps in a scheme to pay off billions owed by North Korea to the Russia of both Soviet and Federation times. This forced labor was similar in nature and form to the gulags of Soviet Russia (see [[KAL 007 Survivors and Gulags of Russia]]).

===United States policy towards North Korea===
====U.S. Support for North-South Dialogue and Reunification====
The United States supports the peaceful reunification of Korea on terms acceptable to the Korean people and recognizes that the future of the Korean Peninsula is primarily a matter for them to decide. The United States believes that a constructive and serious dialogue between the authorities of North and South Korea is necessary to resolve outstanding problems, including the North's nuclear program and human rights abuses, and to encourage the North's integration with the rest of the international community.

====Efforts to De-nuclearizethe Korean Peninsula====
[[File:DPKR camps and nukes.png|right|200px|thumb|Locations of major hard-labor/re-education camps where the inmate population exceeds 20,000 each, nuclear-related facilities, and the test bomb site]]
North Korea joined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as a non-nuclear weapons state in 1985. North and South Korean talks begun in 1990 resulted in the 1992 Joint Declaration for a Non-Nuclear Korean Peninsula (see, under Foreign Relations, Reunification Efforts Since 1971). However, the international standoff over the North's failure to implement an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency for the inspection of the North's nuclear facilities led Pyongyang to announce in March 1993 its intention to withdraw from the NPT. A UN Security Council Resolution in May 1993 urged the D.P.R.K. to cooperate with the IAEA and to implement the 1992 North-South Denuclearization Statement. It also urged all UN Member States to encourage the D.P.R.K. to respond positively to this resolution and to facilitate a solution to the nuclear issue.

The United States opened talks with the D.P.R.K. in June 1993 and eventually reached agreement in October 1994 on a diplomatic roadmap, known as the Agreed Framework, for the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. The Agreed Framework called for the following steps:
*North Korea agreed to freeze its existing nuclear program and allow monitoring by the IAEA.
*Both sides agreed to cooperate to replace the D.P.R.K.'s graphite-moderated reactors with light-water reactor (LWR) power plants, by a target date of 2003, to be financed and supplied by an international consortium (later identified as the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization or KEDO).
*As an interim measure, the United States agreed to provide North Korea with 500,000 tons of heavy fuel oil annually until the first reactor was built.
*The United States and D.P.R.K. agreed to work together to store safely the spent fuel from the five-megawatt reactor and dispose of it in a safe manner that did not involve reprocessing in the D.P.R.K.
*The two sides agreed to move toward full normalization of political and economic relations.
*The two sides agreed to work together for peace and security on a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula.
*The two sides agreed to work together to strengthen the international nuclear non-proliferation regime.
In accordance with the terms of the Agreed Framework, in January 1995 the U.S. Government eased economic sanctions against North Korea in response to North Korea's freezing its graphite-moderated nuclear program under United States and IAEA verification. North Korea agreed to accept the decisions of KEDO, the financier and supplier of the LWRs, with respect to provision of the reactors. KEDO subsequently identified Sinpo as the LWR project site and held a groundbreaking ceremony in August 1997. In December 1999, KEDO and the (South) Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO) signed the Turnkey Contract (TKC), permitting full-scale construction of the LWRs.

In January 1995, as called for in the 1994 Agreed Framework, the United States and D.P.R.K. negotiated a method to store safely the spent fuel from the D.P.R.K.'s five-megawatt nuclear reactor. Under this method, United States and D.P.R.K. operators worked together to can the spent fuel and store the canisters in a spent fuel pond; canning began in 1995. In April 2000, canning of all accessible spent fuel rods and rod fragments was completed.

In 1998, the United States identified an underground site in Kumchang-ni, North Korea, which it suspected of being nuclear-related. In March 1999, after several rounds of negotiations, the United States and D.P.R.K. agreed that the United States would be granted "satisfactory access" to the underground site at Kumchang-ni. In October 2000, during D.P.R.K. Special Envoy Marshal Jo Myong-rok's visit to Washington, and after two visits to the site by teams of U.S. experts, the United States announced in a Joint Communiqué with the D.P.R.K. that U.S. concerns about the site had been resolved.

As called for in former Defense Secretary William Perry's official review of U.S. policy toward North Korea, the United States and the D.P.R.K. launched Agreed Framework Implementation Talks in May 2000 The United States and the D.P.R.K. also began negotiations for a comprehensive missile agreement, pursuant to the Perry recommendations.

In January 2001, the Bush Administration discontinued nuclear and missile talks, specifying that it intended to review the United States' North Korea policy. The Administration announced on June 6, 2001, that it was prepared to resume dialogue with North Korea on a broader agenda of issues--including North Korea's conventional force posture, missile development and export programs, human rights practices, and humanitarian issues.

In October 2002, a U.S. delegation confronted North Korea with the assessment that the D.P.R.K. was pursuing a uranium enrichment program, in violation of North Korea's obligations under the NPT and its commitments in the 1992 North-South Joint Declaration on Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and the Agreed Framework. North Korean officials asserted to the U.S. delegation, headed by then-Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs James A. Kelly, the D.P.R.K.'s "right" to a uranium enrichment program and indicated that that it had such a program. The U.S. side stated that North Korea would have to terminate the program before any further progress could be made in U.S.-D.P.R.K. relations. The United States also made clear that if this program were verifiably eliminated, it would be prepared to work with North Korea on the development of a fundamentally new relationship. Subsequently, the D.P.R.K. has denied the existence of a uranium enrichment program. In November 2002, the member countries of KEDO's Executive Board agreed to suspend heavy fuel oil shipments to North Korea pending a resolution of the nuclear dispute.

In late 2002 and early 2003, North Korea terminated the freeze on its existing plutonium-based nuclear facilities at Yongbyon, expelled IAEA inspectors, removed seals and monitoring equipment at Yongbyon, announced its withdrawal from the NPT, and resumed reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel to extract plutonium for weapons purposes. North Korea announced that it was taking these steps to provide itself with a deterrent force in the face of U.S. threats and U.S. "hostile policy." Beginning in mid-2003, the North repeatedly claimed to have completed reprocessing of the spent fuel rods previously frozen at Yongbyon and publicly said that the resulting fissile material would be used to bolster its "nuclear deterrent force." There is no independent confirmation of North Korea's claims. The KEDO Executive Board suspended work on the LWR Project beginning December 1, 2003.

President Bush has made clear that the United States has no intention to invade or attack North Korea. The President has also stressed that the United States seeks a peaceful end to North Korea's nuclear program in cooperation with North Korea's neighbors, who are directly affected by the threat the nuclear program poses to regional stability and security.

In early 2003, the United States proposed multilateral talks on the North Korean nuclear issue. North Korea initially opposed such a process, maintaining that the nuclear dispute was purely a bilateral matter between the United States and the D.P.R.K. However, under pressure from its neighbors and with the active involvement of China, North Korea agreed to three-party talks with China and the United States in Beijing in April 2003 and to Six-Party Talks with the United States, China, R.O.K., Japan and Russia in August 2003, also in Beijing. During the August 2003 round of Six-Party Talks, North Korea agreed to the eventual elimination of its nuclear programs if the United States were first willing to sign a bilateral "non-aggression treaty" and meet various other conditions, including the provision of substantial amounts of aid and normalization of relations. The North Korean proposal was unacceptable to the United States, which insisted on a multilateral resolution to the issue and opposed provision of benefits before the D.P.R.K.'s complete denuclearization. In October 2003, President Bush said he would consider a multilateral written security guarantee in the context of North Korea's complete, verifiable, and irreversible elimination of its nuclear weapons program.

China hosted a second round of Six-Party Talks in Beijing in February 2004. The United States saw the results as positive, including the announced intention of all parties to hold a third round by the end of June and to form a working group to maintain momentum between plenary sessions.

At the third round of Six-Party Talks in Beijing, in June 2004, the United States tabled a comprehensive and substantive proposal aimed at resolving the nuclear issue. All parties agreed to hold a fourth round of talks by the end of September 2004. Despite its commitment, the D.P.R.K. refused to return to the table, and in the months that followed issued a series of provocative statements. In a February 10, 2005, Foreign Ministry statement, the D.P.R.K. declared that it had "manufactured nuclear weapons" and was "indefinitely suspending" its participation in the Six-Party Talks. In Foreign Ministry statements in March, the D.P.R.K. said it would no longer be bound by its voluntary moratorium on ballistic missile launches, and declared itself a nuclear weapons state.

Following intense diplomatic efforts by the United States and other parties, the fourth round of Six-Party Talks were held in Beijing over a period of 20 days from July-September 2005, with a recess period in August. Discussions resulted in all parties agreeing to a Joint Statement of Principles. In the September 19, 2005 Joint Statement, the six parties unanimously reaffirmed the goal of verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in a peaceful manner. The D.P.R.K. for the first time committed to abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs and to return, at an early date, to the NPT and to IAEA safeguards. The other parties agreed to provide economic cooperation and energy assistance. The United States and the D.P.R.K. agreed to take steps to normalize relations subject to bilateral policies, which for the United States includes our concerns over North Korea's ballistic missile programs and deplorable human rights conditions. While the Joint Statement provides a vision of the end-point of the Six-Party process, much work lies ahead to implement the elements of the agreement.

A fifth round of talks began in November 2005, but ended inconclusively as the D.P.R.K. began a boycott of the Six-Party Talks, citing the "U.S.' hostile policy" and specifically U.S. law enforcement action that had led in September to a freeze of North Korean accounts in Macau's Banco Delta Asia (BDA). The United States held discussions in Kuala Lumpur (July 2006) and New York in (September 2006) with other Six-Party partners, except North Korea, along with representatives from other regional powers in the Asia-Pacific region, to discuss Northeast Asian security issues, including North Korea. On July 4-5, 2006 (local Korea time), the D.P.R.K. launched seven ballistic missiles, including six short- and medium-range missiles and one of possible intercontinental range. In response, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1695 on July 15, which demands that the D.P.R.K. suspend all activities related to its ballistic missile program and reestablish existing commitments to a moratorium on missile launching. The resolution also requires all UN Member States, in accordance with their national legal authorities and consistent with international law, to exercise vigilance and prevent missile and missile-related items, materials, goods and technology from being transferred to the D.P.R.K.'s missile or weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs, prevent the procurement of missiles or related items, materials, goods and services from the D.P.R.K., and the transfer of any financial resources in relation to the D.P.R.K.'s missile or WMD programs. The D.P.R.K. immediately rejected the resolution.

On October 9, 2006, North Korea announced the successful test of a nuclear explosive device, verified by the United States on October 11. In response, the United Nations Security Council, citing Chapter VII of the UN Charter, unanimously passed Resolution 1718, condemning North Korea and imposing sanctions on certain luxury goods and trade of military units, WMD and missile-related parts, and technology transfers. <ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6032525.stm</ref>

The Six-Party Talks resumed in December 2006 after a 13-month hiatus. Following a bilateral meeting between the United States and D.P.R.K. in Berlin in January 2007, another round of Six-Party Talks was held in February 2007. On February 13, 2007, the parties reached an agreement on "Initial Actions for the Implementation of the Joint Statement" in which North Korea agreed to shut down and seal its Yongbyon nuclear facility, including the reprocessing facility and to invite back IAEA personnel to conduct all necessary monitoring and verification of these actions as agreed between the IAEA and the D.P.R.K. The other five parties agreed to provide emergency energy assistance to North Korea in the amount of 50,000 tons of heavy fuel oil (HFO) in the initial phase and the equivalent of 950,000 tons of HFO in the next phase of North Korea's denuclearization. The six parties also established five working groups to form specific plans for implementing the Joint Statement in the following areas: denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, normalization of D.P.R.K.-U.S. relations, normalization of D.P.R.K.-Japan relations, economic and energy cooperation, and a Northeast Asia peace and security mechanism. All parties agreed that the working groups would meet within 30 days of the agreement, which they did. The agreement also envisions the directly-related parties negotiating a permanent peace regime on the Korean Peninsula at an appropriate separate forum. As part of the initial actions, North Korea invited IAEA Director General ElBaradei to Pyongyang in early March for preliminary discussions on the return of the IAEA to the D.P.R.K.

The sixth round of Six-Party Talks took place on March 19-23, 2007. The parties reported on the first meetings of the five working groups. At the invitation of the D.P.R.K., Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill visited Pyongyang in June 2007 as part of ongoing consultations with the six parties on implementation of the Initial Actions agreement. In July 2007, the D.P.R.K. shut down the Yongbyon nuclear facility, as well as an uncompleted reactor at Taechon, and IAEA personnel returned to the D.P.R.K. to monitor and verify the shut-down and to seal the facility. In July 2007, the R.O.K. provided the first shipment of 50,000 tons of HFO under the Initial Actions agreement. The Six-Party Heads of Delegation met July 18-20, 2007 to discuss implementation of the D.P.R.K.'s next phase commitments, including the D.P.R.K.'s provision of a complete declaration of all nuclear programs and disablement of existing nuclear facilities. All five working groups met in August and September to discuss detailed plans for implementation of the next phase of the Initial Actions agreement, and will report the results of those discussions to the next Six-Party plenary meeting. As part of the denuclearization process, the D.P.R.K. invited a team of experts from the United States, China, and Russia to visit the Yongbyon nuclear facility in September 2007 to discuss specific steps that could be taken to disable the facility.

==Military==

Although North Korea has no enemies, its government says it needs nuclear weapons as a deterrent against "the U.S. nuclear threat".<ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100409/ap_on_re_as/as_nkorea_parliament North Korea denounces new Obama nuclear strategy]"</ref>

North Korea now has the fourth-largest army in the world. It has an estimated 1.21 million armed personnel, compared to about 680,000 in the South. Military spending is estimated at as much as a quarter of GNP, with about 20% of men ages 17-54 in the regular armed forces. North Korean forces have a substantial numerical advantage over the South (between 2 and 3 to 1) in several key categories of offensive weapons--tanks, long-range artillery, and armored personnel carriers. The North has perhaps the world's second-largest special operations force, designed for insertion behind the lines in wartime. While the North has a relatively impressive fleet of submarines, its surface fleet has a very limited capability. Its air force has twice the number of aircraft as the South, but, except for a few advanced fighters, the North's air force is obsolete.<ref>[http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/air-force-equipment.htm North Korea Air Force Equipment]</ref> The North deploys the bulk of its forces well forward, along the demilitarized zone (DMZ). Several North Korean military tunnels under the DMZ were discovered in the 1970s.

Over the last several years, North Korea has moved more of its rear-echelon troops to hardened bunkers closer to the DMZ. Given the proximity of Seoul to the DMZ (some 25 miles), South Korean and U.S. forces are likely to have little warning of any attack. The United States and South Korea continue to believe that the U.S. troop presence in South Korea remains an effective deterrent. North Korea's nuclear weapons program has also been a source of international tension (see below, Reunification Efforts Since 1971; Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula).

In 1953, the Military Armistice Commission (MAC) was created to oversee and enforce the terms of the armistice. Over the past decade, North Korea has sought to dismantle the MAC in a push for a new "peace mechanism" on the peninsula. In April 1994, it declared the MAC void and withdrew its representatives.

==Economy==
North Korea's economy declined sharply in the 1990s with the end of communism in Eastern Europe, the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the dissolution of bloc-trading with the countries of the former socialist bloc. Gross national income per capita is estimated to have fallen by about one-third between 1990 and 2002. The economy has since stabilized and shown some modest growth in recent years, which may be reflective of increased inter-Korean economic cooperation. Output and living standards, however, remain far below 1990 levels. Other centrally-planned economies in similar situations opted for domestic economic reform and liberalization of trade and investment. North Korea formalized some modest wage and price reforms in 2002, and has increasingly tolerated markets and a small private sector as the state-run distribution system has deteriorated. The regime, however, seems determined to maintain control. In October 2005, emboldened by an improved harvest and increased food donations from South Korea, the North Korean Government banned private grain sales and announced a return to centralized food rationing. Reports indicate this effort to reassert state control and to control inflation has been largely ineffective. Another factor contributing to the economy's poor performance is the disproportionately large share of GDP (thought to be about one-fourth) that North Korea devotes to its military.

North Korean industry is operating at only a small fraction of capacity due to lack of fuel, spare parts, and other inputs. Agriculture is now 30% of GDP, even though agricultural output has not recovered to early 1990 levels. The infrastructure is generally poor and outdated, and the energy sector has collapsed. About 80% of North Korea's terrain consists of moderately high mountain ranges and partially forested mountains and hills separated by deep, narrow valleys and small, cultivated plains. The most rugged areas are the north and east coasts. Good harbors are found on the eastern coast. Pyongyang, the capital, near the country's west coast, is located on the Taedong River.
*GNI (2004 estimate): $20.8 billion; 26.7% in agriculture and fishery, 27.2% in mining, 13.7% in manufacturing, 32.3% in services (2004).
*Per capita GNI (2004): $914.
*Agriculture: Products--[[rice]], [[potato]]es, [[soybean]]s, [[cattle]], [[pig]]s, [[pork]] and [[egg]]s.
*Mining and manufacturing: Types--military products; machine building; chemicals; mining (gold, coal, iron ore, limestone, magnesite, etc.); metallurgy; textiles; food processing; tourism.
*Trade (2006): Exports--$1.47 billion: minerals, non-ferrous metals, garments, machinery, electric and electronic products, chemicals, precious metals, wood products, and shellfish products. The D.P.R.K. is also thought to earn hundreds of millions of dollars from the unreported sale of missiles, narcotics and counterfeit cigarettes, and other illicit activities. Imports--$2.88 billion: minerals, petroleum, machinery, textiles, chemicals, non-ferrous metals, and animal products.
*Major trading partners (2006): (1) China, (2) R.O.K., (3) Thailand, (4) Russia and (5) Japan.

North Korea experienced a severe famine following record floods in the summer of 1995 and continues to suffer from chronic food shortages and malnutrition. The United Nations World Food Program (WFP) provided substantial emergency food assistance beginning in 1995 (2 million tons of which came from the United States), but the North Korean Government suspended the WFP emergency program at the end of 2005. It has since permitted the WFP to resume operations on a greatly reduced scale through a Protracted Relief and Recovery Operation. External food aid now comes primarily from China and South Korea in the form of grants and long-term concessional loans. South Korea also donates fertilizer and other materials, while China provides energy. South Korea suspended food and fertilizer shipments to the North in response to North Korea's missile launches in July 2006. However, when severe floods later that month threatened to produce another humanitarian crisis, South Korea announced a one-time donation of 100,000 tons of food, matching contributions from South Korean non-governmental organizations (NGOs). South Korea resumed fertilizer shipments to North Korea in late March 2007. In early July, South Korea announced that it would provide $20 million worth of food assistance to the D.P.R.K. through the World Food Program. South Korea also resumed bilateral food aid in June 2007. Following severe flooding in North Korea in August 2007, South Korea announced that it would provide $7.5 million worth of emergency aid materials to North Korea, and $3.2 million to NGOs providing flood assistance in North Korea. The R.O.K. also provided $39.4 million in construction materials to the D.P.R.K. to assist with reconstruction efforts following the floods. The United States provided $100,000 to two U.S. NGOs for antibiotics in the wake of the floods. The United States also announced that is was prepared to engage in discussions with the D.P.R.K. of monitoring arrangements to provide additional substantial humanitarian assistance, including food aid, to the country.

====Development Policy====
In 1991, following the collapse of the Soviet Union and termination of subsidized trade arrangements with Russia, other former Communist states, and China, North Korea announced the creation of a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) in the northeast regions of Najin (sometime rendered "Rajin"), Chongjin, and Sonbong. Problems with infrastructure, bureaucracy, and uncertainties about investment security and viability have hindered growth and development of this SEZ. The government announced in 2002 plans to establish a Special Administrative Region (SAR) in Sinuiju, at the western end of the North Korea-China border. However, the government has taken few concrete steps to establish the Sinuiju SAR, and its future is uncertain. In addition, North Korea and South Korea have established a special economic zone near the city of Kaesong, where about 20 South Korean companies operate manufacturing facilities employing North Korean workers (see further information under North-South Economic Ties).

North Korea implemented limited micro- and macroeconomic reforms in 2002, including increases in prices and wages, changes in foreign investment laws, a steep currency devaluation, and reforms in industry and management. Though the changes have failed to stimulate recovery of the industrial sector, there are reports of changed economic behavior at the enterprise and individual level. One unintended consequence of the 2002 changes has been severe inflation. An increasing number of North Koreans now try to work in the informal sector to cope with growing hardship and reduced government support.

====North-South Economic Ties====
Two-way trade between North and South Korea, legalized in 1988, had risen to more than $1 billion by 2005, much of it related to out-processing or assembly work undertaken by South Korean firms in the Kaesong Industrial Complex (KIC). A significant portion of the total also includes donated goods provided to the North as humanitarian assistance or as part of inter-Korean cooperation projects. Although business-based and processing-on-commission transactions continued to grow, the bulk of South Korean exports to North Korea in 2006 was still non-commercial.

Since the June 2000 North-South summit, North and South Korea have reconnected their east and west coast railroads and roads where they cross the DMZ and are working to improve these transportation routes. North and South Korea conducted tests of the east and west coast railroads on May 17, 2007. Much of the work done in North Korea has been funded by the South. The west coast rail and road are complete as far north as the KIC (six miles north of the DMZ), but little work is being done north of Kaesong. On the east coast, the road is complete but the rail line is far from operational. Since 2003, tour groups have been using the east coast road to travel from South Korea to Mt. Geumgang in North Korea, where cruise ship-based tours had been permitted since 1998.

As of August 2007, 26 South Korean firms were manufacturing goods in the KIC, employing nearly 17,000 North Korean workers. Most of the goods are sold in South Korea; a small quantity is being exported to foreign markets. Ground was broken on the complex in June 2003, and the first products were shipped from the KIC in December 2004. Plans envision 250 firms employing 350,000 workers by 2012.

==History==
The Korean Peninsula was first populated by peoples of a Tungusic branch of the Ural-Altaic language family, who migrated from the northwestern regions of Asia. Some of these peoples also populated parts of northeast China (Manchuria); Koreans and Manchurians still show physical similarities. Koreans are racially and linguistically homogeneous. Although there are no indigenous minorities in North Korea, there is a small Chinese community (about 50,000) and some 1,800 Japanese wives who accompanied the roughly 93,000 Koreans returning to the North from Japan between 1959 and 1962. Although dialects exist, the Korean spoken throughout the peninsula is mutually comprehensible. In North Korea, the Korean alphabet (hangul) is used exclusively.

Korea's traditional religions are Buddhism and Shamanism. Christian missionaries arrived as early as the 16th century, but it was not until the 19th century that major missionary activity began. Pyongyang was a center of missionary activity, and there was a relatively large Christian population in the north before 1945. Although religious groups exist in North Korea today, the government severely restricts religious activity.

By the first century AD, the Korean Peninsula was divided into the kingdoms of Shilla, Koguryo, and Paekche. In 668 AD, the Shilla kingdom unified the peninsula. The Koryo dynasty--from which Portuguese missionaries in the 16th century derived the Western name "Korea"--succeeded the Shilla kingdom in 935. The Choson dynasty, ruled by members of the Yi clan, supplanted Koryo in 1392 and lasted until Japan annexed Korea in 1910.

Throughout its history, Korea has been invaded, influenced, and fought over by its larger neighbors. Korea was under Mongolian occupation from 1231 until the early 14th century. The unifier of Japan, Hideyoshi Toyotomi, launched major invasions of Korea in 1592 and 1597. When Western powers focused "gunboat" diplomacy on Korea in the mid-19th century, Korea's rulers adopted a closed-door policy, earning Korea the title of "Hermit Kingdom." Though the Choson dynasty recognized China's hegemony in East Asia, Korea was independent until the late 19th century. At that time, China sought to block growing Japanese influence on the Korean Peninsula and Russian pressure for commercial gains there. The competition produced the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-95 and the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05. Japan emerged victorious from both wars and in 1910 annexed Korea as part of the growing Japanese empire. Japanese colonial administration was characterized by tight control from Tokyo and ruthless efforts to supplant Korean language and culture. Organized Korean resistance during the colonial era was generally unsuccessful, and Japan remained firmly in control of the Peninsula until the end of World War II in 1945. The surrender of Japan in August 1945 led to the immediate division of Korea into two occupation zones, with the United States administering the southern half of the peninsula and the U.S.S.R. taking over the area to the north of the 38th parallel. This division was meant to be temporary until the United States, U.K., Soviet Union, and China could arrange a trusteeship administration.

In December 1945, a conference was convened in Moscow to discuss the future of Korea. A five-year trusteeship was discussed, and a joint Soviet-American commission was established. The commission met intermittently in Seoul but deadlocked over the issue of establishing a national government. In September 1947, with no solution in sight, the United States submitted the Korean question to the UN General Assembly. Initial hopes for a unified, independent Korea quickly evaporated as the politics of the Cold War and domestic opposition to the trusteeship plan resulted in the 1948 establishment of two separate nations with diametrically opposed political, economic, and social systems. Elections were held in the South under UN observation, and on August 15, 1948, the Republic of Korea (R.O.K.) was established in the South. Syngman Rhee, a nationalist leader, became the Republic's first president. On September 9, 1948, the North established the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (D.P.R.K.) headed by then-Premier Kim Il-sung, who had been cultivated and supported by the U.S.S.R.

Soviet supervision over the setting up and initial administration of the North Korean government was vested in a Soviet Civil Administration Bureau which carried out policies formulated in the Politburo and passed down through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Political Administration Department of the Sovie [[Red Army]]. Through ministrations of this agency, a veritable flood of Soviet advisors permeated the governmental, economic, social and educational structures of North Korea. Although outwardly maintaining an advisory status, Soviet advisors, in fact, exercised control and supervision over all policy matters. In this manner the USSR created a satellite state which was politically subservient and subject to economic manipulation.

By 1949 nationalization of banking, heavy industry and communications, the agrarian [[redistribution]] program and the political monopoly of unions had taken place and the new regime demonstrated a willingness to lower the standard of living of its people by exporting vitally needed foodstuffs and raw materials in order to obtain the instruments of war.

====Korean War of 1950-53====
:''Main article: '''[[Korean War]]'''''
Almost immediately after establishment of the D.P.R.K., guerrilla warfare, border clashes, and naval battles erupted between the two Koreas. North Korean forces launched a massive surprise attack and invaded South Korea on June 25, 1950. The United Nations, in accordance with the terms of its Charter, engaged in its first collective action and established the UN Command (UNC), to which 16 member nations sent troops and assistance. Next to South Korea, the United States contributed the largest contingent of forces to this international effort.

North Korean forces quickly overran Southern ones, capturing almost the entire peninsula save the southern city of Busan. To relieve the Busan perimeter, U.S. General [[Douglas MacArthur]] led a massive amphibious landing at Inchon, over 100 miles behind the North Korean flanks. Kim's forces were pushed back and the battle line fluctuated north and south, and after large numbers of Chinese "People's Volunteers" intervened to assist the North, the battle line stabilized north of Seoul near the 38th parallel.

Armistice negotiations began in July 1951, but hostilities continued until July 27, 1953. On that date, at Panmunjom, the military commanders of the North Korean People's Army, the Chinese People's Volunteers, and the UNC signed an armistice agreement. Neither the United States nor South Korea is a signatory to the armistice per se, although both adhere to it through the UNC. No comprehensive peace agreement has replaced the 1953 armistice pact.

====Atrocities of the Korean War====
[[Fred Schwarz]] wrote:
:''When the Communists retreated in North Korea, they took with them all the able-bodied personnel to serve as laborers. Those who could not stand the rigors of the northward journey-- old men and women, pregnant women, very young children and babies-- they massacred and buried in a [[mass grave]] if they belonged to the untrustworthy social classes. The advancing American troops time and again found mass graves filled with the bodies of those murdered by the Communists.''<ref> [http://www.schwarzreport.org/yct/01ycttc.htm You Can Trust the Communists - To Be Communists]
</ref>

==Books==
*''The Aquariums of Pyong Yang'' by Kang Chol-hwan
*''Eyes of the Tailless Animals'' (1999) by Soon Ok Lee
*''North Korea'' by Bruce Cuming
*[http://www.time.com/time/columnist/arnold/article/0,9565,1108801,00.html ''Pyongyang: A Journey in North Korea''] (graphic novel) by Guy Deslisle
*[http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/124221.Don_Oberdorfer ''The Two Koreas''] by Don Oberdorfer

== External links ==
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ6E3cShcVU Documentary on current conditions in North Korea]
*[http://www.theodora.com/wfbcurrent/korea_north/index.html Korea, North - 2007] Geographic.org
*[http://www.worldchristianministries.org/idop/idop3.asp Testimony of a high-ranking defector]

== References ==
<references/>

{{Copyright Details (US Government)}}
source= [http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2792.htm]
{{Asian Countries}}
[[Category:Dictatorships]]
[[Category:Communist States]]
[[Category:Korea]]

Talk:Mystery:Why Do Atheists Dislike Underdogs?

2012-02-09T14:46:22Z

AriannaK: /* UK has worse social mobility than most other developed countries plus ungodly UK citizens and poodles and other underdogs */

Uhh quick question, aren't Atheists in competition with Christians to rule the United States... But there so many more Christians than Atheists? Are Atheists the underdogs in that competition? [[User:Curiousity|Curiousity]] 20:56, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:There isn't any competition for what religions to "rule" the US. Christianity and Atheism are just at a minor, petty feud with each other. [[User:JLefkowitz|JLefkowitz]] 21:47, 6 February 2012 (EST)
== Britain's hatred of the underdog ==

Since when? --[[User:JohnSpheniscidae|JohnSpheniscidae]] 21:23, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:I see that Andy has seen fit to remove the fact tags that I inserted seeking references for the bizarre assertions that he makes about the British character. No explanation was given for the removal. No surprises there I guess. I will await an explanation or a reference. If neither are forthcoming I will reinsert the fact tags. At that point I assume I will be blocked and reverted and any offending evidence will be burned. As an underdog on this site I am only too aware of the irony. --[[User:JohnSpheniscidae|JohnSpheniscidae]] 23:36, 6 February 2012 (EST)

::John, Britain's attitude against the underdog is common knowledge. Please research the issue and add references if you think it is really necessary.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:38, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:::If it's common knowledge you should be able to back it up easily enough. What about Americans love of the Yankees? [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 23:46, 6 February 2012 (EST)

:::Is it really common knowledge ? I was really enthusiastic about this encyclopedia but I am starting to see its limits...--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 23:45, 6 February 2012 (EST)
::::[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/2293974/Top-10-FA-Cup-upsets.html Here] is a source showing a British love for sporting underdogs, and let's not forget [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9whxWNI7bE Susan Boyle.] [[User:IvanC|IvanC]] 08:32, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::::[http://www.bharatbhasha.net/entertainment.php/330808 Here] is an entire article on the subject. [http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/beastliness-foetal-attraction-and-britains-love-of-the-underdog-1234349.html Here] is an article which references the British love of the underdog quite a lot. [http://www.webstercontent.com/articles/163541/1/Underdog-Spirit--the-UKs-Obsession-With-the-Underdog/Page1.html Here] is another. Don't you think that it is time to delete that part of the "article?" [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 18:25, 7 February 2012 (EST)

The claim that the British hate underdogs is easily one of the worst statements to come from conservapedia. If anything, Britain is probably the MOST supportive of underdogs. Take football (the good kind) for example. The English football league system is enormous, possibly the biggest in the world, going down 23-24 tiers. Even the lowest of these clubs gain support. How much more "underdog" can you get? I also have two atheist friends (at least they tell me their atheists), one of whom supports Blackburn Rovers, who are going through a torrid time at the moment, currently near the bottom of the table, and having just lost 7-1 to Arsenal, yet he still backs them fully.

After such a heavy counter to your statements by many of the posters here, are you going to give us some evidence for your claims? --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 23:40, 7 February 2012 (GMT)

==Weak argumentation==
I am not an atheist but I believe your arguments can be countered easily. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 21:32, 6 February 2012 (EST)

== Survival of the fittest ==

1. Survival of the fittest (natural selection) is not a lifestyle choice. It is a biological theory. Just because evolutionary scientists accept the theory does not mean that they promote it as a way to live in human society.

2. Survival of the fittest (natural selection) is also accepted by creationists. Why then does the author of this "mystery" article point the finger at atheists alone?

--[[User:JohnSpheniscidae|JohnSpheniscidae]] 21:59, 6 February 2012 (EST)

== IQ and Atheism ==

If atheists have an above-average IQ, doesn't that mean that non-atheists, i.e. religious folks, have a below average IQ? --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 22:13, 6 February 2012 (EST)

:That sort of simplistic argument appeals to potential atheists. But upon closer look it suggests that atheism is less appealing the smarter one is, above around 105 in IQ.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:43, 6 February 2012 (EST)
::Justin, as far as the issue of IQ and atheism, I wanted to help you out and point out that you misspelled the word atheism. :) I bet if you worked on your spelling and vocabulary that your IQ would go up. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:51, 7 February 2012 (EST)

:::Okay, I guess I'm missing something. I thought that the average [[IQ]] was 100, but our article doesn't mention that so maybe I'm mistaken. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient Wikipedia agrees], but the statement isn't referenced. Is that not the case? Because if it is, and if we can divide everyone into two groups (atheists and non-atheists) then if one group has an above average IQ (atheists), the other must necessarily have a below average IQ (as a group, though obviously individual IQs would run the gamut). Or am I just misunderstanding the claim being made? Conservative, thanks. For whatever reason I didn't get the little red squiggles in the "Subject/headline" field and I've always had a problem with the i before e rule (which oddly doesn't apply here). Thankfully, technology is (usually) around to save me. --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 03:05, 7 February 2012 (EST)

== Faith and hope ==

Atheism is not a denial of faith or hope. It is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods. No more. No less. --[[User:JohnSpheniscidae|JohnSpheniscidae]] 23:42, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:Wasn't "hope" a central pillar of the election campaign of a certain B. Hussein Obama? [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 23:44, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:Well, atheism does technically lack faith in terms of worship. [[User:JLefkowitz|JLefkowitz]] 23:51, 6 February 2012 (EST)
::Yeah, but that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. "I don't believe in God, therefore the Giants cannot beat the Packers"? Doesn't work logically. [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 23:54, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:::I agree there. The argument presented especially fails when considering people who have a team nearby playing in sports. Regardless of who is favored to win, sports fans that have local teams playing will probably cheer for them. Just because atheists don't believe in God doesn't mean that they don't believe in anything. [[User:JLefkowitz|JLefkowitz]] 00:06, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::::What I meant was that atheism says nothing about either faith or hope ''per se''. An atheist can have faith in all manner of things other than gods. And they can certainly have hope. --[[User:JohnSpheniscidae|JohnSpheniscidae]] 00:12, 7 February 2012 (EST)

== Do Atheists dislike underdogs? ==

Whilst I recognise that this is Andy's website, and he is free to write about whatever mystery he is unable to answer; I feel that someone must point out that there appears no reason at all to suspect that atheists dislike underdogs. Certainly Andy has not given one other than "common knowledge". Well, the knowledge cannot be all that common because I have never heard of it.

However my objection goes further than simply one of insufficient evidence; I simply don't think the claim is true. I was at a major rugby 7's tournament in the weekend in NZ, obviously one of the most atheistic countries in the world, and in an event with excesses of drinking, incivility and lewdness (all atheistic traits as I'm sure we can agree). I can assure everybody that apart from when NZ was involved '''without exception''' the teams that got the most support were always the lesser team or underdog. I have witnessed this trait in sporting crowds all throughout the world, from South America to Australia to the UK - whenever there is no local team playing crowds invariably support the underdog.
I don't see any reason at all to think that atheists see things differently, and this essay does not provide assistance. I hope we can have a sensible discussion about this idea. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 00:15, 7 February 2012 (EST)

:You say, "I don't see any reason at all to think that atheists see things differently." I would be astounded if two groups of people, atheists and Christians, who have fundamentally opposite view of reality, saw things identically. It would be like saying a color-blinded person saw reality exactly the same as someone with perfect color perception. Surely they don't.

:As to New Zealand, atheism is not nearly as high there as in European nations, including Britain. [http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html] Also, fan conduct at a stadium is probably not a representative sample.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:38, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::On your first point, I would agree that there are many things that atheists and Christians will not see identically; however I don't know why support or otherwise for underdogs would be one of them. In any case you have not offered any evidence that they see this particular thing differently - it appears you have simply assumed it. I don't think it is inappropriate to ask for some form of positive evidence.
::Your next points, are valid, but they are only valid in a rebuttal sense. They do nothing to provide support for your thesis that atheists and Christians differ in their support for underdogs. I would say that as for NZ it has been 15 years since we have had a theist of any variety as Prime Minister (and standards have slipped markedly in that time!)
::Let me approach this in a different way. When did you first know that atheists don't support underdogs in the same way as Christians? Was it in an article you read, or something someone told you? Or was it something you realised for yourself after noticing a general trend? Perhaps if we work out why you think its true we might be able to gather some evidence for it -positive or negative. I have an open mind on this, but we do need to see some form of evidence. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 01:38, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::Andy - fan conduct at a stadium is what brought this discussion about, is it not? You wrote this article to illustrate your own point about atheist fans at the Superbowl. Please tell me, how do we tell when "fan conduct is ... relative" and when it is not? [[User:Bobson|Bobson]] 07:56, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::They might not be as atheistic as the UK, but they are more atheistic than the USA, so it still contradicts your point that the more atheists there are, the less they root for the underdog. I'm still waiting for even a shred of evidence here. You state "The lack of cheering by atheists for the upset victory by the Giants in the Super Bowl...", I'm just wondering where you got your facts there. Do you observe it yourself? How could you know who was an atheist and who wasn't? Did you read some statistic somewhere? Where? So far it appears you're using a circular argument: atheists didn't rot for the underdog. How do i know this? Atheists never root for the underdog. Evidence? Well, look at the Super Bowl! Also, keep in mind the Giants weren't even much of an underdog, the Patriots were favored only by about 3 points. They were the real underdog 4 years ago. If you really wanted to make your point here, you should have gone with Tebow, as he was a real underdog who a lot of Christians rooted for. He's still one atypical example, and the reason a lot people who didn't like him is because they thought he was overhyped, getting much more attention than many better players, some even on his own team. He really isn't a very good quarterback, at least not yet. [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 10:05, 7 February 2012 (EST)

== Is this serious? ==
If this page had not been added by Aschlafly I would propose speedy deletion as obvious parody. To suggest that people in the UK do not support the underdog shows a lamentable lack of knowledge of the British and of UK culture in general. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 03:16, 7 February 2012 (EST)

==''Britain's attitude against the underdog is common knowledge''==

Aschlafly, you claim that the British don't favor the underdog. OTOH, there seems to be a fine tradition in Great Britain to stand up for the ''little man'' - and the bookies don't complain that no one is ever betting on the outsider.

I don't recall that Hollywood changed ''Karate Kid'' or ''Rocky'' to please the British market. Nevertheless they were successful over there, more successful than ''Apollo Creed - the movie'' could ever have been.

The whole ''mystery'' seems to be made up! In fact, the root seems to be the following reasoning:

*Aschlafly doesn't like atheists.
*Aschlafly likes underdogs (with the possible exception of [[North Korea]]).
*Therfeore atheists don't like underdogs.

For those who think ''wait, that isn't fallacious enough for me'', another gem is thrown in:

*Stalin was an atheist.
*Stalin '''''probably''''' didn't like underdogs-
*Therefore atheists don't like underdogs.

Aschlafly, obviously you can't cave in in front of the many critics above: the more critics there are, the more wrong they have to be, as you become an underdog yourself.

Unfortunately, sometimes the underdog fights for the wrong side.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:18, 7 February 2012 (EST)

:In the USA atheists are the underdog. Do true American Christians therefore root for them? Anyway, one of administrator Karajou's rules does apply here: "... do the research when you write an article. I’ll have more respect for you if you hit the books and do a detailed article then [sic] if you simply put in one or two sentences...". [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 09:35, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::Also, on the international stage the USA are probably the most non-underdog nation in the world. Do Americans root against the USA when their Olympic basketball team plays Slovenia? Clearly there are many cases in which they are the underdog (e.g. World Cup), but we are still the overall favorites in international competition, having won 2549 medals in Olympic games (more than twice our nearest competitor). Are Americans more likely to root for Barbados, who have only ever won a single bronze? [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 09:52, 7 February 2012 (EST)

== Who do atheists root for? ==

I did a little research, and found some circumstantial evidence that suggests that a slightly higher proportion of those rooting for the Patriots may have been atheists. This assumes people usually root for the home team. Of course, this is certainly not always the case, and many New Yorkers hate the Yankees specifically because they are the antithesis of the underdog, and rooting for them is seen as rooting for WalMart or Ticketmaster. In any case, we assumethe New England states are the most likely to root for the Patriots, and [http://www.gallup.com/poll/114022/State-States-Importance-Religion.aspx according to this], the 6 New England states are among the top 10 least religious in the country. The other most unreligious geographic area is the Pacific Northwest. However, these states are the ones most likely to support the Seahawks, who most certainly ''are'' underdogs. The most religious area is, unsurprisingly, the South, where the Falcons, Cowboys, Titans, Panthers, and Texans are going to be the most popular (the Bucs, Dolphins, and Jags, while technically southern, are probably going to be less popular outside of Florida, and the Jags have little fanbase at all). Some of those teams are perennial underdogs, others not so much, depending on each season and who they're playing. So it seems that statistically, it is likely that a slightly higher proportion of NE fans may have been atheists than NY fans, if only because New England has a slightly higher rate of non-religiousness than NY. New York, [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703453804575479961782758620.html having more fans overall] than the Patriots, still might have had more atheists rooting for them. There's really no way of knowing at this point. Nevertheless, this has nothing to do with atheists supporting underdogs or not. They, like anyone else, probably root for the home team more, and in this one case, the "atheist home team" was the favorite. The truth is, should, heaven forbid, Tom Brady break his back in a car accident today, and never play football again, the Patriots would immediately be labelled underdogs in the 2012 season, but those New Englanders, atheists and all, would keep rooting for them, because they'd still be the home team.

Also, the Packers were underdogs for years, but after winning the Super Bowl last year, they weren't the underdog in a single game they played. And after last year's win they became the country's most popular team, [http://www.businessinsider.com/most-popular-nfl-teams-2011-12#1-green-bay-packers-10 according to this site (other give different results)]. This sort of contradicts the statement that America loves underdogs. If they did, the Packers would be unpopular, and the Seahawks (perhaps currently the most atheistic team in the league) might be somewhere on that top 10 list. [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 11:08, 7 February 2012 (EST)

==Citation Needed==
Hi Mr Schlafly, I noticed that you removed the "citation needed" I added on this page. Is it because a "Mystery" page is considered to be an essay and therefore does not need as much reference ? --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 15:26, 7 February 2012 (EST)

:You added numerous citation tags. If you feel references are needed for those points, then please take a look for them first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:36, 7 February 2012 (EST)

::Yes, I do feel references are needed. Unfortunately, I am not able to add references because I believe there is no references backing your claims. Also, I believe it is up to you to provide references when you add some disputable information. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 16:01, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::I agree. I've been looking for anything indicating that Brits as a rule disfavor underdogs more than anyone else, as well as the fact that atheists were against the Giants in the Super Bowl. In fact, I looked for anything indicating trends of sports favorite among atheists and came up with basically nothing. I found a few discussion groups on atheist websites about some teams here and there, but they were far too few to indicate any sort of overall trend (one of the few NFL teams mentioned by name was the Bills, a classic underdog). Are there any sources for anything in this article? [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 16:25, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:: No, there is not. Citations are not needed for claims that fit the worldview of Aschlafly or the senior sysops. See [[Homosexuality]] and [[Barack Obama]] for reference. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 17:47, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::::Rachel, you are being a deceitful liberal as far as one of your claims. The [[Homosexuality]] article has over 300 footnotes plus I did note that your claim as far as that article lacked support and specifics. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:25, 7 February 2012 (EST)

== UK has worse social mobility than most other developed countries plus ungodly UK citizens and poodles and other underdogs ==

UK has worse social mobility than most other developed countries - including the United States. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/mar/10/oecd-uk-worst-social-mobility] It would seem being an underdog in the UK is more difficult than in many other developed nations. [[Social Darwinism]] started in Britain too. Plus, ungodly UK citizens and poodles and other underdogs: [[Bestiality and Britain]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:48, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::Social mobility has not improved in Britain for 30 years.[http://www2.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/news/archives/2007/SocialMobilityDec07.aspx] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:31, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::::Hum, apparently social mobility is pretty good in atheist countries like Denmark, Norway, Finland and Sweden ! --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 21:49, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::::By the way, social mobility in the US is not good, it is even worse that it is in atheistic France.--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 22:54, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::::::PhilipN, the degree of equality of opportunity is not the same thing as equal results. Who are the poor in the United States? What are the causes of their poverty? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:25, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::::::::First, the degree of equality of opportunity is not the same thing as equal results in UK neither. Second, you did not answer to my first objection that atheistic Denmark and Norway have the best social mobility. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 00:36, 8 February 2012 (EST)
PhilipN, I already discussed with you the benefits of having a cultural legacy of Protestantism and this would apply to both Denmark and Norway (see: [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page#.22Clearly.2C_the_.22secular.22_in_secular_Europe_is_not_working_out_well_in_many_countries.22 Protestant cultural legacy]). Plus, Norway has significant oil revenues and a cultural legacy in the somewhat recent past of hard working fisherman and farmers. I certainly have nothing against the Norweigans and just a few weeks ago I met a very nice Norweigan Christian. In Europe, people from Germany and Scandanavian countries, which have a cultural legacy of Protestantism (and thus the Protestant work ethic), are often hard workers. As far as America, I again suggest you look at the most common causes of poverty. Perhaps, you will find there is still a lot of opportunity in America. At the same time, I am a big believer in blooming where you are planted. I know a man in one of the poorest countries in Africa who had enough gumption to be successful in his country (he told me college was free in his country when he attended at least, but many people did not have enough drive to attend due to their pessimistic attitude). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:26, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::Addendum: Give the higher degree of social stratification of British society and the lack of social mobility in Britain compared to other Western nations, I would be hard pressed to say they are a society that historically roots for the underdog compared to other Western societies. In 1975, Helmut Schmidt wrote of Britain: “If one asks oneself what are the true reasons for the differentiated development of societies and economies between the British and most ones on the Continent, I think it has something to do with the fact that British society, much more than the Scandinavian, German, Austrian, and Dutch societies, is characterized by a class-struggle type of society. This is true for both sides of the upper class as well as for the working classes. I think that the way in which organized Labour on the one hand and industrial management on the other had dealt with their problems is outmoded.”[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:41, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::Good reference: a 37 year old quote from a German socialist. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 09:35, 8 February 2012 (EST)
Sorry, but what ON EARTH has any of the above got to do with whether the British support the underdog or not? Absolutely nothing. The fact is that the British are known world wide for 'supporting the underdog' and this 'article' is a joke. As I suggested earlier, if anyone other than Aschlafly had written it it would already have been deleted as parody and the author blocked. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 08:43, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::Conservative, you are being a deceitful liberal by trying to pass this 2 year old report from a French think tank off as convincing evidence. Be careful, I might have to call Transitional Services on you. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 08:56, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::Davidspencer, are you related to [[Herbert Spencer]]? In case you are not aware, Herbert Spencer was a British Social Darwinist. Put that in your British social stratified society and smoke it! :) By the way, unlike the British, the countries of France, Germany and the United States no longer have Kings and Queens. The American revolutionaries said, "We have no king, but King Jesus!" [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:48, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::::Not that I know of. Are you?
:::::I asked what this section had to do with the attitude of the British towards underdogs, you replied with a non-answer about someone who died over 100 years ago. Can you please try to stay roughly on topic when replying? Davidspencer 10:53, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::::Would that be the same British queen who's also the head of the state religion? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 10:52, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::::::GeorgeLi, who said I was ever for state religions? I am on record for stating that atheism is a religion and the pseudoscience of Darwinism is a promotion of the atheist religion. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:56, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::::::::But the queen isn't anything to do with the "atheist religion," is she? She's head of the Anglican Church. Why do you keep making irrelevant comments? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 11:07, 8 February 2012 (EST)
Davidspencer, one last thing, unlike Britain, the countries of Finland, Norway and Sweden never had feudalism. :) 10:56, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::Yes they did.<ref>http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/GeogHist/histories/history/hiscountries/D/denmark.html</ref><ref>http://www.collegetermpapers.com/TermPapers/Geography/Denmark.shtml</ref><ref>http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/157748/Denmark/33870/Medieval-Denmark</ref><ref>http://www.zum.de/whkmla/region/scandinavia/swe12501397.html</ref> --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 11:00, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:Believe it or not I am probably more aware and more knowledgeable than you are of British and European history. What does fuedalism and the lack of it in extremely socialistic European countries have to do with the support of the British for the underdog? [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 11:00, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::Nothing, of course. It's just a case of a couple of people who sadly won't admit they're wrong. Best to just drop it and go back to editing the worthwhile articles. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 11:02, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::True, I do not want to be 90/10'd for pointing out the blindingly obvious. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 11:05, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::::::Davidspencer, unlike you, I don't feel the urge to brag about my supposed superiority of knowledge in a given subject area. :) Your comment further illustrates that you no

doubt come from a higher than average socially stratified society with lower than average socially mobility in the Western World and feel the need to needlessly elevate yourself! :) By the way, consider reading Luke 14:7. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:12, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::::::"...unlike you, I don't feel the urge to brag about my supposed superiority of knowledge in a given subject area." Wow...
:::::::This coming from the user who talks like he knows the UK better than people who actually live there and ridicules those who disagree. User:Conservative, you are not as smart as you think you are. Just because you found a quote about the relevant subject by one person who might agree with you if interpreted a certain way, doesn't make you automatically the most knowledgable person on the subject. --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 16:46, 8 February 2012 (GMT)

User Conservative: you make some interesting points about the cultural legacy of protestantism in Scandinavia but why doesn't the same apply to the UK? As well as being historically a centre of protestant and non-conformist thought, protestantism and non-conformism were central to the English Revolution, the colonisation of the New World, liberal humanism (eg the work of Adam Smith), the first stock and insurance markets, the Industrial Revolution and the British Empire. It still remains in Britain's cultural DNA. In fact, the UK today is far more conservative than the social democratic Scandinavian countries, both socially and economically. So why doesn't your Gladwellesque reasoning apply here? [[User:Rafael|Rafael]] 14:09, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::RedGoliath, who said that I/we don't live in the UK? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:26, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::I doubt someone with such a strong interest in American politics wouldn't be living in the US. [[User:LouW|LouW]] 18:59, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::::LouW, [[Vox Day]] comments on the United States frequently and he lives in Italy and hasn't lived in the United States in a decade if memory serves. Second, I/we think it is fair to say that I have commented on world events more frequently than other Admins on the front page (Europe, Asia, etc.). Third, if the United States has Greece like economic problems, it is such a big economy it would no doubt bring down the rest of the world. When the Roman Empire collapsed for example, it causes problems elsewhere. Fourth, most of my/our content at Conservapedia deals with topics that many people are interested in worldwide and my/our content helps Conservapedia have more of a global audience. Fourth, we live in a very mobile society today plus English is spoken in many places. Lastly, you don't know if I/we are many people or one. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:19, 8 February 2012 (EST)
Rafael, I did think of that. Although having the mindset of working hard helps a "underdog" become a bigger dog, I also think a society not having unnecessary barriers in the way helps too which Gladwell does talk about in his book. I also know that England has a history of social stratification compared to other countries. Here is what a Christian site says about England: “In the 1800s England had one hundred sixty crimes punishable by hanging, including ones as trivial as stealing a loaf of bread.” “I thought of this when I was reading in the Gulag Archipelago by Alexander Solzhenitsyn of the lengthy prison sentences that Soviet children received for stealing when they were hungry.”[http://bible.org/seriespage/lamp-loaves-and-loudmouth-leviticus-24] The Bible has restitution for stealing.

Also, there is no doubt that atheists are more likely historically to promote social Darwinism and England was at the forefront of social Darwinism.

Since people tend to be their own worst enemies, I do think an underdog's biggest asset is not having a bad mindset and having good habits and a good society should promote an industrious/virtuous mindset. In the Western World, although there are certainly young ladies who have husband's cheat on them, there are also plenty who have sex before marriage and wind up being single mothers with unruly kids. I also think feminism and selfish males increase divorce rates which causes single motherhood. Single motherhood can be a big factor when it comes to poverty and less social mobility in a society.

Here are some relevant statistics about the above as far as the United States:

In terms of household structure, households headed by women are far more likely to be poor than
other types of households. There are 4.1 million female-headed families in poverty and 2.9
million married-couple families in poverty; in total over 14.4 million households are headed by
women.73 Half of all women will potentially experience single motherhood at some point in
their lifetimes; 80 percent of black women and 45 percent of white women will become family
heads at some time during their childbearing years.74 In 2000, the distribution of female-headed
household types with children was as follows: 12 percent were headed by a woman with a
cohabitating male partner, 14.3 percent were headed by a grandmother, and 73.8 percent by a
single mother. A larger share of the households headed by a grandmother is black.75
Poverty rates in female-headed households are typically 3 to 4 times as high as those for the
overall population.76 Individuals in households that become headed by a female are extremely
likely to enter into poverty:

• When a two-adult household becomes a female-headed household, 20.1 percent entered
poverty.77
• The transition to a female-headed family accounts for 59 percent of the poverty
beginnings for female heads with children: 38 percent of these poverty spell
beginnings result from a marital breakup and 21 percent result from what is most likely
unmarried motherhood.78
• Persons in households that have been female-headed for 2 or more years are more likely
enter poverty than persons in two-adult and single male-headed households.79
• More than 6 out of 10 children who have experienced persistent or long-term
poverty have spent time in single parent families.80
Many female-headed households begin with a divorce. Nationally, over 13 million women are
divorced, and 18.4 percent of them are living in poverty.81 Divorce erodes the economic wellbeing
of custodial parents and their children. There is considerable evidence that upon divorce
women and children experience substantial financial declines, with income dropping;
divorced men’s relative income, on the other hand, remains stable or even increases.82 Median
household income for custodial parent households declines 40 percent, on average, during
the 5 years following divorce. Moreover, the decline in economic well-being held for poorly
educated and highly educated couples alike.83 Of those experiencing a new marital break-up, 23
percent become poor with the month that the break-up occurs (31% for female-headed families,
19% for families with elderly members).84 A father leaving the family increases the likelihood
that families with children will be poor: in one study the percent of families below poverty
increased by ten percentage points (about a 46% increase in the total number of families).85
13
Female-headed households than 6 out of 10 children who have experienced persistent or long-term
poverty have spent time in single parent families.80
Many female-headed households begin with a divorce. Nationally, over 13 million women are
divorced, and 18.4 percent of them are living in poverty.81 Divorce erodes the economic wellbeing
of custodial parents and their children. There is considerable evidence that upon divorce
women and children experience substantial financial declines, with income dropping;
divorced men’s relative income, on the other hand, remains stable or even increases.82 Median
household income for custodial parent households declines 40 percent, on average, during
the 5 years following divorce. Moreover, the decline in economic well-being held for poorly
educated and highly educated couples alike.83 Of those experiencing a new marital break-up, 23
percent become poor with the month that the break-up occurs (31% for female-headed families,
19% for families with elderly members).84 A father leaving the family increases the likelihood
that families with children will be poor: in one study the percent of families below poverty
increased by ten percentage points (about a 46% increase in the total number of families).85
13
Female-headed households’ status is closely tied to poverty because single parent families
typically have just one potential earner and are less likely than married parents to have a fulltime
worker. When there is only one adult earner in the household, fewer hours are worked and
fewer hours are available to be worked due to care giving responsibilities. Though employment
rates are high for single women with children (almost 80% work)86, mothers who never
marry are 70 percent less likely to be working full time compared to women who have only
marital births.87 If there is not another earner in the household, grandmother-headed households
with children have extremely high odds of experiencing poverty, significantly higher (40%) than
those headed by a single mother.88[http://www.heartlandalliance.org/whatwedo/advocacy/reports/causes-of-poverty.pdf]

Martin Seligman wrote about [http://psychology.about.com/od/lindex/f/earned-helplessness.htm "learned helplessness"] and I do think that liberal's constant promotion of victimhood promotes "learned helpflessness" and often central government controlled social programs do also. After all is said and done, I think "America's war on poverty" has been a colossal failure as it rewards bad habits and causes a dependent mindset. I think when families and local communities were in charge of charity, there was more accountability and less fostering of a dependency and a victimhood mindset. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:26, 8 February 2012 (EST)

:Wow, look at all those words! I didn't read any of them, but I can only assume [[User:Conservative]] won the argument. --[[User:BaileyJ|BaileyJ]] 19:07, 8 February 2012 (EST)

::I believe you forgot the "ir" before relevant. As far as I am concerned, this has nothing to do with the discussed matter... There is no more reason to say that religion is the reason why Uk has worse social mobility than the US than to say that religion is the reason why Sweden has better social mobility than the US. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 19:16, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::PhilipN, you can continue to assert that religion and religious cultural legacies do not affect social mobility and industriousness, but you have failed to provide data to support this notion. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:58, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::::I never said that cultural legacies has no effect on social mobility but I maintain that religion is irrelevant here. I have some nice data for you:
::::* [[United Kingdom]] : 19% of atheists/agnostics<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/programmes/wtwtgod/pdf/wtwtogod.pdf</ref> and a bad social mobility (0.5)<ref>http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/2/7/45002641.pdf</ref>
::::* [[United States]] : 9% of atheists/agnostics<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/programmes/wtwtgod/pdf/wtwtogod.pdf</ref> and a bad social mobility (~0.47)<ref>http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/2/7/45002641.pdf</ref>
::::* [[Denmark]] : 43-80% of atheists/agnostics<ref>http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html</ref> and a very good social mobility (~0.15)<ref>http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/2/7/45002641.pdf</ref>
::::* [[Sweden]] : 46-85% of atheists/agnostics<ref>http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html</ref> and an average social mobility (~0.28)<ref>http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/2/7/45002641.pdf</ref>
::::* [[Australia]] : 24-25% of atheists/agnostics<ref>http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html</ref> and a very good social mobility (~0.18)<ref>http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/2/7/45002641.pdf</ref>
::::--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 22:59, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::::Philip, my main point in this section was the UK has poor social mobility and I have provided more than enough evidence that they have a history of this. I gave some statistics above which helps explain the US and social mobility and said there is a difference between equality of opportunity vs. achieving equal results (we do live in a multi-variable world). I also commented already on Denmark/Sweden. Lastly, since you seem to not want to address my points, I see it pointless to continue with you here. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:07, 9 February 2012 (EST)
:::::::Ok, on the basis that you now want points addressed instead of avoided can you tell what any of this, ANY IF IT AT ALL, has to do with British support of the underdog, or the lack of such support? You have sidetracked this into an attempted discussion of social mobility which has nothing to do with either the article nor with the points raised concerning the article. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 02:31, 9 February 2012 (EST)
Davidspencer, a society which is truly underdog friendly is going to: not have unnecessary structural impediments to achievement, have high expectations of its populace in terms of their moral, spiritual and intellectual development, instill a high work ethic and reward achievement to the highest degree possible. If it does this, it will equip people to move from underdog status to moving to a higher level of competence. Bottom line: The Germans, Scandinavians and many of the Asian societies are economically outperforming the Brits and many Brits appear to be wallowing in their underdog status plus your society has low social mobility. Here is what the Guardian said in 2005: "British productivity, or output per worker, remains slightly ahead of that of Germany but is still well adrift of the levels in France or the United States." Step up your game, British laggard underdogs! :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:21, 9 February 2012 (EST)
:You know that Germany has a huge welfare state and socialized medicine, right? --[[User:AriannaK|AriannaK]] 09:46, 9 February 2012 (EST)
:Congratulations. Reasonably on topic reply. It does however display a woeful lack of knowledge of the British and British culture. Tell me, do you really think that a culture which did not support the underdog would have taken so much to heart the ski-jumper as they did during the winter olympics? Or as someone else has mentioned the devoutly christian Susan Boyle would have been taken to British hearts in the way that she was? [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 08:12, 9 February 2012 (EST)

::::::Conservative, I do want to address your points but those are not always clear to me. I do agree with you on the fact that the UK has poor social mobility and that the US have a better social mobility than the UK and I really do agree that we live in a multi-variable world and that is exactly my point. I do not agree with your linking the social opportunities with religion and I believe I have provided more than enough evidence that those are not related.--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 00:19, 9 February 2012 (EST)

::::::User: BaileyJ, I realize that liberals are often allergic to data and the real world, nevertheless Britain having a history of societal stratification compared to many Western nations is still real. In addition, irresponsible centrally controlled social programs creating dependency and less social mobility is also still real. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:03, 8 February 2012 (EST)

== Atheists and surprises ==

"The belief system of an atheist clings a denial that there will be any surprises like Hell. Victory by an underdog is an unexpected surprise, which is unsettling for atheists who insist that there must not be any big surprises in an afterlife."

Not correct. Hell would indeed be a surprise to atheists (as the non-existence of Heaven would be to theists, for that matter; they deny the possibility of that surprise), but that relates to an afterlife. Underdogs winning is a surprise in this life, and there is no evidence whatsoever to believe that atheists are more prone than theists to deny the possibility of surprises in this life. Furthermore "The belief system of an atheist clings a denial that…" is not proper English and "unexpected surprise" is redundant. It is the very essence of surprises to be unexpected.

Besides, I wonder how this article stacks up to the following Conservapedia rules:

Conservapedia commandment no 1: ''Everything you post must be true and verifiable.

Conservapedia guideline about attribution: ''There's a difference between stating flatly that "the earth is 6,000 years old" and reporting that "Young Earth creationists say that the earth is 6,000 years old." […] Simply by attributing a statement to the person who said it, we can turn bias into fact. That is, we convert a statement about something from a biased assertion into an attribution. We don't say "X". We say that "A said X." […] Thus, a good article "describes" - it does not "prescribe".'' [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 09:18, 8 February 2012 (EST)

<references/>