Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Flood Geology

2007-05-17T20:06:00Z

Muchodelcrazy:

== 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)

Talk:Flood Geology

2007-05-17T20:04:01Z

Muchodelcrazy:

== 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)

Talk:Flood Geology

2007-05-17T19:59:42Z

Muchodelcrazy:

== 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 word-for-word causes?

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?

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)

Talk:Rapture

2007-05-17T02:10:01Z

Muchodelcrazy:

It seems that suggesting that the [[Pope]] may be the fulfillment of the condition that ''The Antichrist must be walking the earth in human form'' is unacceptable but it is OK to suggest the [[Euro]] fulfills the condition that ''The countries of the world must have the same currency'' and that the [[United Nations]] may be considered as ''One World Government, like the Revelation 7th beast''.
Surely they are equally daft and shouldn't be here either?
:"These things also belong to the wise: It is not good to show partiality in judgment." (Proverbs 24:23)
[[User:BillyBoy|BillyBoy]] 06:27, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:I agree. Potty. That's why I insisted on attributing the ideas to 'some evangelical commentators' rather than, as the way of it is around here, to 'Christians'! --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 08:35, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Oy a bruch!

Give me a break! The United Nations can't even agree that the Sudanese are practicing genocide in Darfur, let alone a single world government and currency. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 01:21, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Speaking as how a lot of you guys believe in YEC, we have been waiting for Jesus to return for 1/3 of all existence.

How does that fit with Matt. 16:28, Luke 9:27, Matt. 23:36, Mark 9:1, Luke 21:32, 1 Corinth. 7:29, Hebrews 1:2, 1 Peter 4:7, 1 John 2:18, Revelation 1:1, Revelation 3:11, etc.?

The NT makes it pretty clear that it's going to be "soon" according to the time of the authors. 2,000 years is not soon, especially if you consider the Earth to be 6,000 years old. [[User:Muchodelcrazy|Muchodelcrazy]] 22:10, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Flood Geology

2007-05-16T23:34:40Z

Muchodelcrazy:

Talk:Flood Geology

2007-05-14T22:59:11Z

Muchodelcrazy:

Talk:Flood Geology

2007-05-14T22:57:24Z

Muchodelcrazy:

Talk:Flood Geology

2007-05-14T02:36:10Z

Muchodelcrazy: You Just Gotta Be Kidding Me

== 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 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.

Talk:Great Flood

2007-04-05T07:13:11Z

Muchodelcrazy:

== General Discussion ==

Sorry, but your edit has created inaccuracies here. We need a REAL biblical scholar to help out.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:53, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
::Palmd001, if there's anything Christian Religion is founded upon, it is the absolute right of each believer to make his individual decision to become Saved in the Blood of the Lamb. We're not Papists, here, we're Christians, and each of us is endowed by our Creator with the rights and abilities of Biblical Exegesis. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:59, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I'm sorry, are you suggesting that Roman Catholics are ''not'' Christians? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:56, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

What I saw was amateurs working on a stub just to continue to make it a stub; there was no professionalism whatsoever. If you want to make edits here, either do the job well or don't do it at all. This page will be locked down until I'm done with it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:42, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:.''..was the last great event shared by mankind.'' This inaccuracy/opinion should be deleted. Also, Duns, please don't insult the Catholics in here. It is STRONGLY discouraged to insult others' religions here. SYSOP please make a note of it.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 19:49, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::Palmd001, I am a Catholic. I'm Duns Scotus. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 09:35, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::What is the anti-Catholic slur being passed around? And where is your evidence that states the Flood was not the last event shared by mankind? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:54, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:Its just above, Duns refers to Papists, a well known slur. As to the second, what is meant by "great event shared by mankind" It's just subjective. Was the Ressurection not a great event shared by mankind?[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 20:07, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::First, I didn't write the slur. Second, the flood had only eight survivors, Noah and his family, and from them spread the human race, as well as traditions about the flood being in every culture around the globe. That is the evidence. And third, Jesus resurrection was physically witnessed by a few Roman guards who fainted at the site, as well as upwards of 140 individuals with whom Jesus chose to show Himself. The Resurrection was THE greatest event in human history, but on the weekend it happened it didn't exactly make the 11 pm news. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:13, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Barnstar for Karajou ==

:::Karajou, your recognition of liberal media bias as early as 33 AD is an important marker for your assidious and often brilliant editing, here. I think you should be awarded a barnstar, or some sort of public marker of your essential rightness. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 15:29, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

=='Scientific' Evidence and its 'Value'==
This article needs more info on the geological evidence for the flood; additional cultural tales, and anything else of interest. This is NOT about Noah's Ark; that is another article in and of itself. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:17, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:Real evidence or made up stuff? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 23:22, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::The real stuff...not the stuff made up by scientists who can't stand the thought of God! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:41, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::By 'scientists who can't stand the thought of God,' do you mean the Christian geologists who first realized that a global flood was contradicted by the evidence? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::No, he means Satan inspired pagan atheists like Charles Lyell. His [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_modest_proposal Modest proposal] about geology was designed so that he could deny God and continue his baby eating ways. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 12:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

And just what exactly is your point for being involved with this article? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:56, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Perhaps he's interesting in conveying science rather than mythology. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:I can't be involved in the article, its locked and being micromanaged (not macromanaged thats impossible) by an admin. Just like every other article on this site where the facts have a "liberal" bias. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 13:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Utility of the 'Scientific' 'Method'==

So am I. Perhaps either one of you can get me proof as to how dinosaur tracks are fossilized, by using the scientific method. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:What are you talking about? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 13:07, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'm at a loss as to how dinosaur track fossilisation is relevent. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::It's extremely relevant! Fossilized tracks throughout the geological record are cleary incompatible with flood geology. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::No, no things can ONLY fossilize in a flood. Duh. I mean the only explanation for things like fossilized termite nests is that a wall of water hit them. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 13:14, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I know that, but I don't get why Karajou is asking me about it, or how it contributes in any way to his claims. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:12, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::This is not going to be a debate on what either one of us believe; my purpose is to improve this article, and I'm assuming that is your purpose here too. Therefore, I want evidence to post in this article as to how dinosaur tracks are fossilized, and I want it from an evolutionary point of view. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:13, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

In light of your claim that fossilized tracks are completely incompatable with flood geology, you're going to provide proof and sources for this. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I'd guese it's got something to do with mud or lava filling in the indentations, or the sand or mud being compressed into rock. It isn't my forte. What I'm wondering is how YEC think it occured when the tracks are found on top of strata they believe was laid down during the flood. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:17, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:[http://home.entouch.net/dmd/Tracks.htm Some examples]. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Okay, read through this paper [http://www.cudenver.edu/NR/rdonlyres/eocduwg6h2lbh2t2dodpuddbzjllqbuo2mnlqiu4b4iyfizk2ofo33fxize7onhybfyou7eebjjbacbn7fd67uzddhb/wright.pdf here]. Its a good starting point. Specific questions can be addressed as they arise. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 13:23, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:This is good; it explains the mainstream scientific view as to how these tracks were cast. It's going to be used here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::the ''schwerpunkt'' of the secularist perspective is what they call 'the geological time scale.' The secularists believe that, given enough time, anything is possible, not realizing that God can work wonders (ie, creating the entire universe) in less than a week. This is the real issue on which we must convince ourselves! If there is ample time, there can be fossilizations, and dinosaurs, and canyons and tectonic plates. If there is Biblical Time, and that means True Time, there can only be what is in God's Holy Word, which is All Truth and All Wisdom, Amen. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 14:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::k. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 14:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Now that the fossil tracks are done, I want scientific articles as to how dinosaur coprolites are preserved. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:If the dinosaurs were eating a largely vegetable diet, they could be passing stools with a high degree of cellulose, which might lend itself to better preservation. I'm not sure if the secularist 'scientists' have addressed dinosaur diet, but vegetarian dinosaurs might have been fed corn-on-the-cobb whilst on the ark. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 15:35, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I could be wrong, but isn't all that fossil stuff... well, worthless? It all boils down to 'X type of fossil can only form in the event of a sudden flood.' But there is nothing unusual about a flood - they happen all the time in many places, more rarely in most, and when considering the climate change in geological time its going to be a very common occurance. So all such arguments are quite usless unless they are able to distinguish between local and global flooding. No, if you were able to show that all of those fossils date to ''exactly the same time''...

:Precisely correct. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:44, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::I follow the argument... I agree too. Making such easily-falsified arguments does nothing for our credability. Creationists need to stop endlessly repeating long-dismissed claims, a habbit which many seem unable to escape. Even the old themodynamics-disproves-evolution, perhaps the weakest of all, crops up constantly. Because, I think, even creationists are eager to believe anything that matches their existing views without critical thinking. - BornAgainBrit

== On Kant ==

:Anything I provide will be twisted around. Why bother....[[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 15:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::No, it was not twisted around. I knew exactly what scientists have stated for years about this matter, and what they have said has been contradicted by plain observation. You are not at fault. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::*sigh*, okay, do as you see fit, do what you will. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 15:48, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Dr. John Bell, lived in the 1860s in England; brilliant physician who taught classes on medicine. His primary order of teaching was to make his students observe everything. One of his students was Arthur Conan Doyle, who would use that philosophy when he created Sherlock Holmes. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:53, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::In order to truly understand Immanual Kant's approach to epistemology one must have a firm understanding of the dynamic between Platonic Ideals and the scholastic approach of the early church. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::I've never read Kant, as I don't believe in Kant. I'd rather believe in Kan! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:49, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Its okay, you shared a fact, I wanted to share one too. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:50, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::You Kant critique pure reason. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Kant was a fallen and imperfect worldly philosopher that secularists cite to concatenate examples of their sinful free will. Truth is not accessible through flawed human reason, only by recourse to the Divine Truth perfectly revealed in the Most Holy Bible. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:53, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Totally, half way through Critique of Pure Reason I was so like "oh my gosh this dude is SOOO fallen and imperfect." Then I realized it was the TRANSLATOR that was really the fallen one. I need to learn German I guess. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:56, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::You raise an important question, Tmtoulouse, which is that the translators of God's Holy Word (that wasn't written directly in English) were clearly divinely inspired, and their errors were prevented by Divine Providence. Obviously for secularist translations, no such inspiration is possible (or necessary). [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes, which brings in this whole "English as a second language" stuff. English only all the way! If its good enough for God its good enough for the world! [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
== On Truth ==

There is no Truth that does not stem from The Word, the Lord, and His Holy Writ. Remember John: In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was God. Remember that none can come to the Father except by Him. Remember also to not erect false idols before God, especially your own intellectual vanities. What is a man, except a snail before the void? Without Jesus, we are nothing. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Black Sea flood? ==

Would it be reasonable to add a bit in the 'evidence' section to the [http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/ Black Sea food theory]? This is geological evidence that there ''was'' a flooding event at about 7000 BC that would have been a flood of most of the known world at the time. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:42, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'll probably put that in there; I find it intriging myself. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:12, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Here's the Greek flood story [http://www.maicar.com/GML/Flood.html] for writing that bit. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 23:16, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Thanks...and the article could use additional flood stories [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:41, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::::If you dig around, you'll see that prior to Ballard's theory the Russians had similar theories. However, the lack of translated papers and scientific exchange didn't get these theories to the west. Ballard did come up with his theory independently. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 15:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::I'm using Ballard's because it's most familiar to readers today. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:30, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Fossilization process==
I read years ago a book by Roy Chapman Andrews when I was a kid, titled "All ABout Strange Beasts of the Past" (I'm threatening the wife on getting the book via EBay!), and Andrews stated the time to become a fossil is about 5000 years. I looked on the web for citations from academia on the subject but cannot find any as of yet. Any other sources? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:53, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually, the time to fossilization is not all that relevant, as fossils are directly dated, as is the material they are found with, and unless God is just pulling our legs with physics, carbon dating is very accurate. Of course, God could take the role of the deceiver, or possible Satan could, and arrange strata and the laws of nature precisely to lead us to false conclusions.

Or not.

[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 22:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

At one point C-14 testing done on a live mollusk "proved" it had been dead for over 4000 years. I'd love to use that tidbit of info, but I have to have better sources than just someone's word...I want to know when it happened, where it happened, by whom, and what papers are available, otherwise it's little more than word-of-mouth. Same rule applies with the fossilization time. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:46, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html Something] a very quick Google search turned up:
{{QuoteBox|The notable exception involves certain mollusks, which get much of their carbon from dissolved limestone. Since limestone is very old it contains very little carbon-14. Thus, in getting some of their carbon from limestone, these mollusks "inherit" some of the limestone's old age! That is, the limestone carbon skews the normal ratio between C-12 and C-14 found in living things. No problem! If one dates such mollusks, one must be extra careful in interpreting the data. Not every mollusk shell presents such problems, and the dating of other material might yield a cross-check. Further study might even allow correction tables. The discovery has strengthened the carbon-14 method, not weakened it! By the way, shouldn't the creationist be worried over the old, carbon-14 age of the limestone? Why is it that limestone has so little C-14 in it?}}
:I'm not arguing for or against anything, but this attack on the C-14 dating method appears to be fairly weak. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:05, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
:This is apparently based on [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/141/3581/634 this report]. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:16, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::I believe that many people who support the Creation via science have, in their zeal, skewed the facts on certain subjects, such as the C-14 cited above. Which explains why I want basic, solid, irrefutable facts here. No bullpuckey from either side of the fence. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:28, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::In addition to the point raised there, it should be noted that carbon dating is only supposed to be used on ''dead'' matter. A living organism exchanges carbon with the atmosphere; it is when the organism dies that the clock starts.

::No dating method is perfect. There are always assumptions involved, and limitations on the method. Whenever a creationist presents an anomalous result, the first thing to do is to check how and when the method is supposed to be applied, and make sure that it was applied correctly. It won't be. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 15:13, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:::That's an argument of assumption that all creationists do that. It's got no place here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:49, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Certainly not something I'd add to the article, no. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 15:52, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

The comment that C14 dating is only supposed to be used on dead matter shows a misunderstanding of how it works. The C12:C14 ratio is supposed to be constant while an organism is alive and exchanging C with the environment, but changes once the organism dies because it is no longer exchanging C. Thus any "age" measurement of a living organism should show that it's been dead for no time. Furthermore, any measurement of a living thing that shows its been dead for longer than no time (as for the mollusk) shows that there is something wrong with the principle I've just explained above. With the mollusk, there ''was'' something wrong with the principle, but if that circumstance can be isolated, the principle stands in other cases.

So the Talk.Origins answer is probably valid. The problem comes, mainly with other dating methods, when these sorts of explanations get invoked on an ad hoc basis when the results are not what the evolutionists expect. But that's another argument.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:14, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:What? How does an explanation of ''why'' C14 dating only works on dead matter show that stating that C14 dating only works on dead matter is a misunderstanding? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:43, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
:::That was ''not'' an explanation of why it only works on dead matter. The point is that it should work on living matter also, except because it is used to determine the ''time since death'', it should return a zero result. If it returns a non-zero result, that indicates (sans other explanations), that there is a problem with the method. To simply dismiss a problem by asserting that it is not applicable to living things is not an answer. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:12, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:Phil, excuse my ignorance, but to me, your statement above makes no sense. Could you restate it please? You CAN "carbon date" living matter, but the answer will always be zero. Dead matter is the only matter that gives a non-zero number.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 09:09, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Your restatement (everything in your paragraph above after "Could you restate it please?") is exactly what I was saying. Perhaps I've misunderstood what people were saying on this page, but to summarise the line of argument (the relevant bits for this):
:::* Karajou mentioned that a ''living'' mollusk had been dated as being dead for 4,000 years, implying that the method was therefore unreliable.
:::* Tsumetai replied that the method should only be used on ''dead'' material, implying that the mollusk result is irrelevant.
:::* I replied that Tsumetai's reasoning was incorrect, as it ''can'' be used on living material, but ''should'' give a zero result, and that a non-zero result (e.g. the mollusk) ''does'' demonstrate that the method is unreliable (sans other explanations, such as the Talk.Origins one that Sid 3050 posted).
:::Is that clearer now?
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:56, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Thank you, that is much clearer, and I see your point. And if enough evidence against carbon dating's reliability accumulates, it will become invalidated. I do not think your particular incident mentioned falls into the "deadly evidence" category, however. While living organisms should give a zero answer, it is not valid to measure living organisms, and also the error bar in carbon dating is already known to be about 5000 years, so it is not meant to be more accurate than that. Learning from carbon dating that something is about half a million years old, give or take 5000 years is still helpful. With that error potential, a living organism could read 5000 years older or younger than it really is, without invalidating the method. It is not meant to be more exact than that. Your point is well taken though, and well made. If carbon dating were meant to be more accurate, then the results you gave would be "disturbing".[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 10:03, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::I agree that it does not fall into the "deadly evidence" category. However, I think you must be getting carbon dating confused with something else. I'm not sure what the accuracy of carbon dating is, but it has to be much better than 5000 years, as it is routinely used to date things much younger than that. And you will never learn from carbon dating that something is about half a million years old, as the upper limit of its capability (after which there will be essentially no C14 left) is around 60,000 years (although I think I've also read 100,000 years somewhere). So the problem with the mollusks is ''not'' they they fall within the minimum resolution, but that it's carbon ratio was never in synch with the atmospheric ratio in the first place (assuming the Talk.Origins explanation is correct). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:19, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Point taken, Phil, Ill look up the particulars. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 13:23, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::OK, with carbon dating in particular (not more modern methods) the limit is about 60000 years because the half life of c-14 is about 6000 years, so, aftern that many years, too little is left in the sample to accurately measure. So, what we need now is more data on the case you mentioned, alternative explanations, and further examples.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 13:31, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::In the past, creationists have used this case of a live mollusk being subjected to a C-14 test and "proven" dead for 4000 years as a case against evolution and the anti-creation crowd. The only way I will allow this episode in the article is 1) I want the facts of this incident as stated above, and 2) I want to see evidence that scientists elsewhere have replicated this test, as scientists are supposed to do whenever they verify the results of any experiment to prove its validity. We have to be as authoritative as possible, and in doing so be fair to the reader as well. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:50, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I'd actually leave it out. It might be a nice side story for a dedicated C-14 dating article (Do we have one? I think we do, but I can't remember the name) to show the limits of the technique and how the environment has to be taken into account. It's not pro or contra the "Did it happen?" debate in my eyes and has little to nothing to do with the Great Flood. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:12, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
::::I agree with that; this article is not the place for it, and I doubt that a Flood Geology article that I proposed below is either. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:12, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== This article will be replaced ==

Independently of Karajou and others working on this article, I had been working on an article for this page, off-line. Karajou has given me the okay to ''replace'' the current article with mine (which is well advanced but not ready to post yet), so I recommend that people don't waste their time and effort editing this article in the meantime.

Of course it may ''not'' be a waste of time, because people may not like my version and the page may be reverted to what is currently there, but we'll have to wait and see on that.

However, I think that there should be a separate article on [[Flood Geology]], so any ideas that people have on things such as fossilisation processes could be put in a Flood Geology article rather than this article.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:20, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:When that happens, let's all read it carefully and weigh in on it here before any changes are made. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:44, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

=== Done ===
Okay, I've "finished" my version and replaced the existing article with it.

As Karajou says, let's decided whether we want this new version or [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Great_Flood&oldid=63651 the version it replaced] before making alterations to it.

Although I have tried to write a "complete" article, I'm not for one moment suggesting that nothing more needs doing to it. I haven't included any pictures, and there's probably no reason the picture in the old one couldn't go in. Some sections could do with some further expansion, and a few more references could be included, as well as linking the Genesis references to an on-line Bible.

I have deliberately left out anything that would be better off in a [[Flood Geology]] article, other than a summary of the history of flood geology and what it's about. So there's nothing about fossils except a reference that Flood Geology believes that the flood caused most of the fossils.

The sections under [[Great Flood#Common themes of the Flood accounts]] are ''not'' meant to be comprehensive. ''Many'' more examples could be added, but would only serve to bulk out the article. In most cases, I have included references to three different flood accounts, and this could possibly be increased to four, but much more would be overdoing it, in my opinion. One or two more themes could be added, perhaps.

What do you all think? Yeah, I know the bibliosceptics won't like it, but you can't please everybody, can you? :-)

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:09, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

==I like it...but==
Ok, first, I'm not going to change it, except to put the picture back. I like the picture. The concept and structure of the whole is sound, so there is no need to change it as it stands. But there are two criticisms, and they are minor:
*Each subheading could benefit from additional detail, and I don't mean everyone should just write in a blurb. By expanding the detail I mean also that the quality of writing must be good, like we're submitting this for a grade at the university.
*I'd like to see the differences between the Genesis account and the other stories. It's the difference between who is in control and who is not.
And the pic. I want the pic! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:28, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Modern explanations could also be expanded; I know there are some here who disagree with the Bible, and they want to include evidence against it. I am for that, provided several things are observed:
*It has to be in a separate subheading, and the information written in must be clear, concise, and well-sourced. It also can't be opinionated, i.e. "well I think that's wrong", lines like that.
*Such information has to be the most common ones, the ones most familiar to scientists and readers.
*It also has to be understood that such information may have a rebuttal attached. Rebuttals must not change the layout of that they are rebutting, due to a desire for clarity on both sides. And likewise, these rebuttals must be clear, concise, and well-sourced.
[[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:37, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:I expected that the picture would go back. The ''only'' objection I have to that picture is that I don't want it to mislead anybody that the ark was like depicted in that picture. But as a renaissance depiction of the flood, it's fine.
:"Modern Explanations" is one of the sections that I alluded to that should be expanded. However, it should be expanded with other explanations for the flood ''stories'', not with other explanations for flood geology evidence, because this is not that article. For example, there was a TV show that postulated that the flood story originated as a flood in the Tigris and Euphrates valleys, and that Noah was a beer trader who plied those rivers in his boat (or something like that). That could go in (if it's considered worthy enough). The bibliosceptics' reasons for considering the various flood stories to be unrelated local stories could be expanded a bit too.
:I'm not clear on what you mean by "differences between the Genesis account and the other stories". I think that the differences that are listed (e.g. Zeus being the cause in the Greek story) are clear enough already. Beyond that, the differences are not the point. The article takes the line that the non-Genesis stories (including the Gilgamish Epic) are actual histories of Noah's flood (accurately recorded in Genesis), but which have been corrupted over time, particularly with oral transmission. Highlighting the differences therefore amounts to highlighting the corruption, and I don't think that really needs any more emphasis than it already has. But perhaps I'm misunderstanding exactly what you are getting at.
:Anyway, once we are settled that the new version will remain (are others going to comment?), you can start adding in bits and we can then see what you are getting at more clearly.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:49, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I like the structure and layout you provided here, and I believe it can be expanded on. Other subheadings can be added at the bottom, such as what I cited above, without interfering with your's.

A small example of the differences can be had by comparing the Genesis account to the Gilgamesh account, as in God of the Bible is in control, versus the gods of Gilgamesh, who hide themselves from the violence of the flood. Something overall, perhaps a separate subheading, but after the remaining part of the details are put in. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:25, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Hmmm, Aschlafly has already altered the layout so that it now goes against what I was trying to do, although perhaps it doesn't matter too much; I'll have to think a bit more about it.
:The point you make about who's in control in each case is already mentioned, but I do think it could be useful to go into this more to illustrate the corruption that's occurred. What we need to avoid, I believe, is something that's "preachy", as this is an encyclopedia, not a Sunday School lesson.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:08, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::I think the question as to why God did it in the first place can be added, without being preachy; apart from that, relevant facts can be added in as needed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:00, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== 3000 BC? ==

There's been an ongoing argument, with one side repeatedly positing a lack of archaeological evidence before 3000 BC; unfortunately, that simply isn't true.

The first few Egyptian pharaohs reigned before 3100 BC, and we have a great deal of evidence of the beginnings of urbanisation of Mesopotamia around that time. The potter's wheel first starts to show up in that period, along with increasing use of bronze alongside copper.

Heck, the earliest parts of Stonehenge were already in place by 3000 BC.

That's not even getting into the uninterrupted tree-ring records stretching back about ten thousand years, none of which show any kind of indication of a global flood. --[[User:M|M]] 10:19, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:Not to mention living plants over 11,000 years old. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:23, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Remember the strength of faith.[[User:Saved|Saved]] 10:25, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::These dates you cite are often secularist, and often compromised for many (and amply enumerated elsewhere) reasons. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 10:28, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::How can a date '''often''' be secularist? You mean on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Fridays Stonehenge was built on a secular day whereas the rest of the time it was built on religious days? That really doesn't make sense. Also, if the dates are so easily compromised please either link me to said reasons, as I am obviously just ignorant of how time before 3000BC can just have dissapeared. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 10:43, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::MatteeNeutra, these dates, and supposed identification of plants '11,000' years old, and whatever, are based on improper Carbon14 Dating, which is even called into question by secularist authorities. [[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;308/5728/1551]] There's a very thorough walk-through, here, at Answers In Creation that explains why relying on these date ''estimates'' can be so problematic. [[http://www.answersincreation.org/carbondating.htm]] It isn't that this time, as you say, could have ''disappeared,'' it is that this time never was, because it only existed in the false measurements of secularist scientists. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 11:59, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Answers in Creation is an '''OEC''' site. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:02, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I can't get to your first link as you appear to need a subscription. Also, I have just spent about 3 or 4 minutes reading the answers in creation website and it seems to suggest that actually radiocarbon dating is pretty good:
::::"Radiocarbon dates are certainly not precise to within a year or two, but they are generally precise to within a few hundred years or better."<ref>http://www.answersincreation.org/carbondating.htm</ref>.
:::Can you possibly find another "secular authority" source for the apparent lack of faith in Carbon dating, for the benefit of people such as me who are not subscribed to that particular scientific site? [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 13:30, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

For anyone not knowing dendrochronology: it is an unrelated discipline to chemical dating, though it can sometimes be used in conjunction with that or archaeological records. The principle is that trees will add one well-defined 'ring' of growth for every growing season; the size of this ring varies with environmental conditions, and tends to vary in the same manner for all trees of the same type in a given area (since they all were exposed to the same weather conditions). Using this knowledge, the rings of a dead tree can be compared and matched with those of a tree still living to date the various events recorded by the dead tree's rings. The rings of the dead tree can then be compared and matched where they overlap with another, older dead tree, and so on; there are uninterrupted chains of such records stretching back to around 9,000 BC. None of these records show the effects that a global, extended flood would cause. --[[User:M|M]] 19:41, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:This is an excellent contribution to the debate here. Is there any way [[dendrochronology]] can be part of the current article? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:46, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::Sorry, I forgot to answer the matter of tree-ring dating. As another editor has raised it again (below), see my response there. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:13, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

I'll respond to a couple of posts, but first, I wasn't happy with the sentence that was there, which claimed that there was no evidence dated prior to 3000 B.C. There ''are'' claims of dates older than that (although young-Earth creationists do reject the older dates).

'''M''' wrote: ''The first few Egyptian pharaohs reigned before 3100 BC''. This is according to Egyptian chronologies which a number of archaeologists have questioned, suggesting that the Egyptian chronologies should be shortened. As for the other things you mentioned (potter's wheel, etc.), these things are likely dated by methods that are not totally reliable also (for example, many dates for the middle east are tied to the questionable Egyptian chronology).

'''Tsumetai''' wrote: ''Not to mention living plants over 11,000 years old.'' The oldest single living thing is the Bristlecone Pine, which, according to Wikipedia, is nearly 5,000 years old (i.e. dating to about 3000 B.C.!).

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:05, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:Shows what you get for trusting Wikipedia :P

:There's a Creosote bush that goes by the name of 'King Clone' which has those beat by a good stretch. Perhaps there's some quirk in the definition of 'single living thing?' [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:20, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::I used Wikipedia to find the actual age, but I already knew that the Bristlecone Pines were the oldest living things. Wikipedia has this to say about the Creosote bush and similar things:
:::The oldest single living organisms known are bristlecone pines, though some plants such as creosote bush or aspen, form clonal colonies that may be many times older. The existing growth in clonal colonies sprang as shoots from older growth so there is an unbroken chain of life that sometimes dates back several tens of thousands of years.
::You will note from this that the age of the organisms are not actually known; just that they are likely to be much older because of their nature. And although them being "several tens of thousands of years" old is stated as a fact, it is clear that this is not something measured or directly known. Therefore, they are not evidence against the date of the flood.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:01, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::No, it's a measurement [http://www.nps.gov/jotr/naturescience/creosote.htm based on C14 dating and extrapolation of growth rates]. Presumably the two measures are used as a cross-check; I'll see if I can find out more later.

:::Are you familiar with King's Holly, incidentally? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:18, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::::That's not exactly what the link says. First, an extrapolation of [current] growth rates is ''not'' a "measurement". Second, the link actually says that the age is an ''estimate'' based partly on C14 dating. So what did the C14 test actually measure if they were only able to use it as input to an estimate? I indicated earlier that there ''are'' items claimed to be older than 5,000 years, but that the dates of older items can be rather tenuous. I think this is an example. Bristlecone pines are ''measured'' by counting their tree rings (although even this may not be accurate), but the creosote bush is an ''estimate'' based partly on an ''extrapolation'' and partly on some unknown C14 test.
::::I've never seen King's Holly, but I know that it's a plant in Tassie, and like the creosote bush, it's age was not directly measured, but based (in this case) on a nearby fossil.
::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:35, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Tree ring records still haven't been discussed. This is solid scientific evidence that there has not been a world flood. [http://waynesword.palomar.edu/treedate.htm Here is a link](scroll down), but it is only meant to introduce the idea. In reality, it is not just one section of the tree that will match, but several in succession, and there is virtually no chance of them matching by coincidince. I couldn't imagine a way to refute it. It goes back 8,000 years and relies on no carbon dating (though other tests WITH carbon dating have expanded the study. different story.) So, yeah. Probably not a global flood. Not without a coverup.[[User:Muchodelcrazy|Muchodelcrazy]] 02:55, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
:First, I don't believe that this article is the place to discuss tree-ring dating. This is an article about the Flood, not about dating, and tree-ring dating is merely one dating method that is used by bibliosceptics to argue against the flood. While there may be some value in including a mention that uniformitarian dating methods conflict with the Biblical record, going much beyond that in trying to refute the Flood is going against the purpose of this article.
:Second, your inability to imagine a way to refute tree-ring dating results may say more about your imagination than anything else. [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2441 Here] is just such a refutation.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:13, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Sorry to sound so closed-minded, but the whole carbon-dating conversation makes me upset. Just "saying" that something isn't reliable in science is just as bad as "saying" that the Bible can't be trusted. And that's all it is is talk by people who know so little about science, or by ONE OR TWO scientists(Chritian scientists) vs. millions, discrediting cinvincing evidence. And, unfortunately, it's the same vice-versa most of the time.

I know that this specific talk page probably isn't the best place, but it's already been brought up. If you want to believe in a global flood, go for it. Just stop pretending that the scientific evidence supports it. It doesn't and never will. Plus, with a divine, interveneing God, why do you even NEED scientific evidence? Just believe in it or dont, and stop speaking from misinformation.[[User:Muchodelcrazy|Muchodelcrazy]] 20:17, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
::Creationists don't just "say" that dating methods are not reliable; they back it up with evidence, often from non-creationists (which refutes the negatively-exaggerated "one or two"). I'm not "pretending" that the scientific evidence supports it, and I'd thank you to not impugn my motives like that. I ''believe'' that the scientific evidence is consistent with a global flood. You clearly don't, and that's your right, but please don't insult others who see things differently to you.
::Creationists "need" scientific evidence because our faith is not, despite atheistic propaganda, a blind faith, but a faith based on evidence. And you have accused us of misinformation without providing any evidence of that.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:43, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Isn't it fairly settled that Egypt goes waaaay before 3000 BCE? Also, you argue that "genealogies" can be compressed or expanded and are susceptible to error, making it ''certain'' that Egyptologists (who know a lot more than you, Phil!) are wrong. I'm sure that we can cross-apply this argument to analysis of Biblical genealogies. Biblical ''"scientists"'' say that the genealogies must go back only 6,000 years ago. But using your argument, I'm sure that that's susceptible to stretching, when it reaches an absurd result :-P
: Also, Ur goes back way before 3,000 BCE too. Are you a historian, Phil? What '''''are''''' you? I thoroughly read ancient primary sources and secondary interpretations, and there is not a single archaeologist, or historian, who is actually credible, who will say that Egyptian culture (or Etruscan culture, or proto-Greek culture) goes back only to 3,000 BCE. Even linguists agree that proto-Indo European has a greater vintage than that! Be serious here, for the love of God. When you realize the facts don't line up with your beliefs, then just take your beliefs ''on faith'', which is all they require, and stop insisting that science and history conform to your outmoded view of the way the world actually works. It is simply disgusting and an embarrassment to all that human understanding has struggled to achieve.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 20:31, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
::I'm not an expert on Egyptian history (as you note), but no, the Egyptian history is ''not'' settled. There are a number of archaeologists who question if not reject the conventional Egyptian chronology.
::And note that I was talking about a compression of chronology, not genealogies. The Egyptian chronology is nothing like as clear-cut as the biblical chronogenealogies, so being able to compress one does not mean that the other is capable of being compressed.
::Please define "credible" in your reference to archaeologists and historians, because if I produce an archaeologist who does accept a shorter chronology, I don't want him automatically rejected as not credible because he believes that.
::As I've just said to Muchodelcrazy, Christian faith is not a blind faith, but a faith based on evidence. And your final sentences amount to saying that "your beliefs don't fit with my beliefs, which I label "facts", so your belief must be wrong".
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:43, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Why shouldn't Christianity be blind faith? Is it because it has a negative connotation? Why not just kick it old school and "believe?"

Here's some sources for research: [http://www.religioustolerance.org/c14dats.htm][http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html]

I think that some people have a serious misconception about how radiometric dating. Scientists don't just do a test, go "this is what I found," and make an answer. If you read the articles, you'll notice that there's over 20 different radiometric tests with different elements. In a single sample, many of these tests (with much larger half-lives than C-14) are used. One test says a number. Another says a similar number. And so on and so on. Then this is done over and over again with similar items, such as two different dinosaur bones found right next to each other. The results come out very similar. Let's say that they find one test that says the dinosaur bones were 5000 years old. Does that refute the other 40 tests? ONE disagreement that, for all we know, could have been done by the guy who's new to the job?

In order to say that this method is wrong, you have to outweigh it, or at least to scientifically say it's wrong. It would be necessary to show that 40 coinciding data points were a.)a similar, phenominally rare, mistake or b.)random coincidince, which is even more phenominally rare (but, admittedly, possible. That's why they keep testing).

At the end of the day(actually, decades), it proves reliable. If you don't want to believe that, then just don't. This is my last post on the topic. Im gonna go read the Bible. [[User:Muchodelcrazy|Muchodelcrazy]] 03:13, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Radiocarbon dating

2007-04-03T00:19:56Z

Muchodelcrazy:

I made a few corrections of wild inaccuracies. For instance, half-life is basically a physical constant, not a guess. Nuclear decay is real, not some geologists fantasy. If nuclear decay is real, and our machines that measure these things are not imaginary, then radiocarbon dating is true, at least as a technique. It is not equally accurate in all times.

Seems fair. [[User:Muchodelcrazy|Muchodelcrazy]] 20:19, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Great Flood

2007-04-03T00:17:07Z

Muchodelcrazy:

Talk:Great Flood

2007-04-02T06:55:29Z

Muchodelcrazy:

== General Discussion ==

Sorry, but your edit has created inaccuracies here. We need a REAL biblical scholar to help out.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:53, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
::Palmd001, if there's anything Christian Religion is founded upon, it is the absolute right of each believer to make his individual decision to become Saved in the Blood of the Lamb. We're not Papists, here, we're Christians, and each of us is endowed by our Creator with the rights and abilities of Biblical Exegesis. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:59, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I'm sorry, are you suggesting that Roman Catholics are ''not'' Christians? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:56, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

What I saw was amateurs working on a stub just to continue to make it a stub; there was no professionalism whatsoever. If you want to make edits here, either do the job well or don't do it at all. This page will be locked down until I'm done with it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:42, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:.''..was the last great event shared by mankind.'' This inaccuracy/opinion should be deleted. Also, Duns, please don't insult the Catholics in here. It is STRONGLY discouraged to insult others' religions here. SYSOP please make a note of it.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 19:49, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::Palmd001, I am a Catholic. I'm Duns Scotus. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 09:35, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::What is the anti-Catholic slur being passed around? And where is your evidence that states the Flood was not the last event shared by mankind? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:54, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:Its just above, Duns refers to Papists, a well known slur. As to the second, what is meant by "great event shared by mankind" It's just subjective. Was the Ressurection not a great event shared by mankind?[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 20:07, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::First, I didn't write the slur. Second, the flood had only eight survivors, Noah and his family, and from them spread the human race, as well as traditions about the flood being in every culture around the globe. That is the evidence. And third, Jesus resurrection was physically witnessed by a few Roman guards who fainted at the site, as well as upwards of 140 individuals with whom Jesus chose to show Himself. The Resurrection was THE greatest event in human history, but on the weekend it happened it didn't exactly make the 11 pm news. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:13, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Barnstar for Karajou ==

:::Karajou, your recognition of liberal media bias as early as 33 AD is an important marker for your assidious and often brilliant editing, here. I think you should be awarded a barnstar, or some sort of public marker of your essential rightness. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 15:29, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

=='Scientific' Evidence and its 'Value'==
This article needs more info on the geological evidence for the flood; additional cultural tales, and anything else of interest. This is NOT about Noah's Ark; that is another article in and of itself. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:17, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:Real evidence or made up stuff? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 23:22, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::The real stuff...not the stuff made up by scientists who can't stand the thought of God! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:41, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::By 'scientists who can't stand the thought of God,' do you mean the Christian geologists who first realized that a global flood was contradicted by the evidence? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::No, he means Satan inspired pagan atheists like Charles Lyell. His [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_modest_proposal Modest proposal] about geology was designed so that he could deny God and continue his baby eating ways. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 12:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

And just what exactly is your point for being involved with this article? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:56, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Perhaps he's interesting in conveying science rather than mythology. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:I can't be involved in the article, its locked and being micromanaged (not macromanaged thats impossible) by an admin. Just like every other article on this site where the facts have a "liberal" bias. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 13:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Utility of the 'Scientific' 'Method'==

So am I. Perhaps either one of you can get me proof as to how dinosaur tracks are fossilized, by using the scientific method. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:What are you talking about? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 13:07, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'm at a loss as to how dinosaur track fossilisation is relevent. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::It's extremely relevant! Fossilized tracks throughout the geological record are cleary incompatible with flood geology. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::No, no things can ONLY fossilize in a flood. Duh. I mean the only explanation for things like fossilized termite nests is that a wall of water hit them. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 13:14, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I know that, but I don't get why Karajou is asking me about it, or how it contributes in any way to his claims. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:12, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::This is not going to be a debate on what either one of us believe; my purpose is to improve this article, and I'm assuming that is your purpose here too. Therefore, I want evidence to post in this article as to how dinosaur tracks are fossilized, and I want it from an evolutionary point of view. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:13, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

In light of your claim that fossilized tracks are completely incompatable with flood geology, you're going to provide proof and sources for this. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I'd guese it's got something to do with mud or lava filling in the indentations, or the sand or mud being compressed into rock. It isn't my forte. What I'm wondering is how YEC think it occured when the tracks are found on top of strata they believe was laid down during the flood. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:17, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:[http://home.entouch.net/dmd/Tracks.htm Some examples]. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Okay, read through this paper [http://www.cudenver.edu/NR/rdonlyres/eocduwg6h2lbh2t2dodpuddbzjllqbuo2mnlqiu4b4iyfizk2ofo33fxize7onhybfyou7eebjjbacbn7fd67uzddhb/wright.pdf here]. Its a good starting point. Specific questions can be addressed as they arise. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 13:23, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:This is good; it explains the mainstream scientific view as to how these tracks were cast. It's going to be used here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::the ''schwerpunkt'' of the secularist perspective is what they call 'the geological time scale.' The secularists believe that, given enough time, anything is possible, not realizing that God can work wonders (ie, creating the entire universe) in less than a week. This is the real issue on which we must convince ourselves! If there is ample time, there can be fossilizations, and dinosaurs, and canyons and tectonic plates. If there is Biblical Time, and that means True Time, there can only be what is in God's Holy Word, which is All Truth and All Wisdom, Amen. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 14:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::k. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 14:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Now that the fossil tracks are done, I want scientific articles as to how dinosaur coprolites are preserved. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:If the dinosaurs were eating a largely vegetable diet, they could be passing stools with a high degree of cellulose, which might lend itself to better preservation. I'm not sure if the secularist 'scientists' have addressed dinosaur diet, but vegetarian dinosaurs might have been fed corn-on-the-cobb whilst on the ark. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 15:35, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I could be wrong, but isn't all that fossil stuff... well, worthless? It all boils down to 'X type of fossil can only form in the event of a sudden flood.' But there is nothing unusual about a flood - they happen all the time in many places, more rarely in most, and when considering the climate change in geological time its going to be a very common occurance. So all such arguments are quite usless unless they are able to distinguish between local and global flooding. No, if you were able to show that all of those fossils date to ''exactly the same time''...

:Precisely correct. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:44, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::I follow the argument... I agree too. Making such easily-falsified arguments does nothing for our credability. Creationists need to stop endlessly repeating long-dismissed claims, a habbit which many seem unable to escape. Even the old themodynamics-disproves-evolution, perhaps the weakest of all, crops up constantly. Because, I think, even creationists are eager to believe anything that matches their existing views without critical thinking. - BornAgainBrit

== On Kant ==

:Anything I provide will be twisted around. Why bother....[[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 15:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::No, it was not twisted around. I knew exactly what scientists have stated for years about this matter, and what they have said has been contradicted by plain observation. You are not at fault. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::*sigh*, okay, do as you see fit, do what you will. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 15:48, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Dr. John Bell, lived in the 1860s in England; brilliant physician who taught classes on medicine. His primary order of teaching was to make his students observe everything. One of his students was Arthur Conan Doyle, who would use that philosophy when he created Sherlock Holmes. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:53, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::In order to truly understand Immanual Kant's approach to epistemology one must have a firm understanding of the dynamic between Platonic Ideals and the scholastic approach of the early church. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::I've never read Kant, as I don't believe in Kant. I'd rather believe in Kan! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:49, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Its okay, you shared a fact, I wanted to share one too. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:50, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::You Kant critique pure reason. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Kant was a fallen and imperfect worldly philosopher that secularists cite to concatenate examples of their sinful free will. Truth is not accessible through flawed human reason, only by recourse to the Divine Truth perfectly revealed in the Most Holy Bible. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:53, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Totally, half way through Critique of Pure Reason I was so like "oh my gosh this dude is SOOO fallen and imperfect." Then I realized it was the TRANSLATOR that was really the fallen one. I need to learn German I guess. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:56, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::You raise an important question, Tmtoulouse, which is that the translators of God's Holy Word (that wasn't written directly in English) were clearly divinely inspired, and their errors were prevented by Divine Providence. Obviously for secularist translations, no such inspiration is possible (or necessary). [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes, which brings in this whole "English as a second language" stuff. English only all the way! If its good enough for God its good enough for the world! [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
== On Truth ==

There is no Truth that does not stem from The Word, the Lord, and His Holy Writ. Remember John: In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was God. Remember that none can come to the Father except by Him. Remember also to not erect false idols before God, especially your own intellectual vanities. What is a man, except a snail before the void? Without Jesus, we are nothing. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Black Sea flood? ==

Would it be reasonable to add a bit in the 'evidence' section to the [http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/ Black Sea food theory]? This is geological evidence that there ''was'' a flooding event at about 7000 BC that would have been a flood of most of the known world at the time. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:42, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'll probably put that in there; I find it intriging myself. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:12, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Here's the Greek flood story [http://www.maicar.com/GML/Flood.html] for writing that bit. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 23:16, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Thanks...and the article could use additional flood stories [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:41, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::::If you dig around, you'll see that prior to Ballard's theory the Russians had similar theories. However, the lack of translated papers and scientific exchange didn't get these theories to the west. Ballard did come up with his theory independently. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 15:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::I'm using Ballard's because it's most familiar to readers today. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:30, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Fossilization process==
I read years ago a book by Roy Chapman Andrews when I was a kid, titled "All ABout Strange Beasts of the Past" (I'm threatening the wife on getting the book via EBay!), and Andrews stated the time to become a fossil is about 5000 years. I looked on the web for citations from academia on the subject but cannot find any as of yet. Any other sources? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:53, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually, the time to fossilization is not all that relevant, as fossils are directly dated, as is the material they are found with, and unless God is just pulling our legs with physics, carbon dating is very accurate. Of course, God could take the role of the deceiver, or possible Satan could, and arrange strata and the laws of nature precisely to lead us to false conclusions.

Or not.

[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 22:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

At one point C-14 testing done on a live mollusk "proved" it had been dead for over 4000 years. I'd love to use that tidbit of info, but I have to have better sources than just someone's word...I want to know when it happened, where it happened, by whom, and what papers are available, otherwise it's little more than word-of-mouth. Same rule applies with the fossilization time. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:46, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html Something] a very quick Google search turned up:
{{QuoteBox|The notable exception involves certain mollusks, which get much of their carbon from dissolved limestone. Since limestone is very old it contains very little carbon-14. Thus, in getting some of their carbon from limestone, these mollusks "inherit" some of the limestone's old age! That is, the limestone carbon skews the normal ratio between C-12 and C-14 found in living things. No problem! If one dates such mollusks, one must be extra careful in interpreting the data. Not every mollusk shell presents such problems, and the dating of other material might yield a cross-check. Further study might even allow correction tables. The discovery has strengthened the carbon-14 method, not weakened it! By the way, shouldn't the creationist be worried over the old, carbon-14 age of the limestone? Why is it that limestone has so little C-14 in it?}}
:I'm not arguing for or against anything, but this attack on the C-14 dating method appears to be fairly weak. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:05, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
:This is apparently based on [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/141/3581/634 this report]. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:16, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::I believe that many people who support the Creation via science have, in their zeal, skewed the facts on certain subjects, such as the C-14 cited above. Which explains why I want basic, solid, irrefutable facts here. No bullpuckey from either side of the fence. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:28, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::In addition to the point raised there, it should be noted that carbon dating is only supposed to be used on ''dead'' matter. A living organism exchanges carbon with the atmosphere; it is when the organism dies that the clock starts.

::No dating method is perfect. There are always assumptions involved, and limitations on the method. Whenever a creationist presents an anomalous result, the first thing to do is to check how and when the method is supposed to be applied, and make sure that it was applied correctly. It won't be. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 15:13, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:::That's an argument of assumption that all creationists do that. It's got no place here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:49, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Certainly not something I'd add to the article, no. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 15:52, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

The comment that C14 dating is only supposed to be used on dead matter shows a misunderstanding of how it works. The C12:C14 ratio is supposed to be constant while an organism is alive and exchanging C with the environment, but changes once the organism dies because it is no longer exchanging C. Thus any "age" measurement of a living organism should show that it's been dead for no time. Furthermore, any measurement of a living thing that shows its been dead for longer than no time (as for the mollusk) shows that there is something wrong with the principle I've just explained above. With the mollusk, there ''was'' something wrong with the principle, but if that circumstance can be isolated, the principle stands in other cases.

So the Talk.Origins answer is probably valid. The problem comes, mainly with other dating methods, when these sorts of explanations get invoked on an ad hoc basis when the results are not what the evolutionists expect. But that's another argument.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:14, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:What? How does an explanation of ''why'' C14 dating only works on dead matter show that stating that C14 dating only works on dead matter is a misunderstanding? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:43, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
:::That was ''not'' an explanation of why it only works on dead matter. The point is that it should work on living matter also, except because it is used to determine the ''time since death'', it should return a zero result. If it returns a non-zero result, that indicates (sans other explanations), that there is a problem with the method. To simply dismiss a problem by asserting that it is not applicable to living things is not an answer. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:12, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:Phil, excuse my ignorance, but to me, your statement above makes no sense. Could you restate it please? You CAN "carbon date" living matter, but the answer will always be zero. Dead matter is the only matter that gives a non-zero number.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 09:09, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Your restatement (everything in your paragraph above after "Could you restate it please?") is exactly what I was saying. Perhaps I've misunderstood what people were saying on this page, but to summarise the line of argument (the relevant bits for this):
:::* Karajou mentioned that a ''living'' mollusk had been dated as being dead for 4,000 years, implying that the method was therefore unreliable.
:::* Tsumetai replied that the method should only be used on ''dead'' material, implying that the mollusk result is irrelevant.
:::* I replied that Tsumetai's reasoning was incorrect, as it ''can'' be used on living material, but ''should'' give a zero result, and that a non-zero result (e.g. the mollusk) ''does'' demonstrate that the method is unreliable (sans other explanations, such as the Talk.Origins one that Sid 3050 posted).
:::Is that clearer now?
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:56, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Thank you, that is much clearer, and I see your point. And if enough evidence against carbon dating's reliability accumulates, it will become invalidated. I do not think your particular incident mentioned falls into the "deadly evidence" category, however. While living organisms should give a zero answer, it is not valid to measure living organisms, and also the error bar in carbon dating is already known to be about 5000 years, so it is not meant to be more accurate than that. Learning from carbon dating that something is about half a million years old, give or take 5000 years is still helpful. With that error potential, a living organism could read 5000 years older or younger than it really is, without invalidating the method. It is not meant to be more exact than that. Your point is well taken though, and well made. If carbon dating were meant to be more accurate, then the results you gave would be "disturbing".[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 10:03, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::I agree that it does not fall into the "deadly evidence" category. However, I think you must be getting carbon dating confused with something else. I'm not sure what the accuracy of carbon dating is, but it has to be much better than 5000 years, as it is routinely used to date things much younger than that. And you will never learn from carbon dating that something is about half a million years old, as the upper limit of its capability (after which there will be essentially no C14 left) is around 60,000 years (although I think I've also read 100,000 years somewhere). So the problem with the mollusks is ''not'' they they fall within the minimum resolution, but that it's carbon ratio was never in synch with the atmospheric ratio in the first place (assuming the Talk.Origins explanation is correct). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:19, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Point taken, Phil, Ill look up the particulars. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 13:23, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::OK, with carbon dating in particular (not more modern methods) the limit is about 60000 years because the half life of c-14 is about 6000 years, so, aftern that many years, too little is left in the sample to accurately measure. So, what we need now is more data on the case you mentioned, alternative explanations, and further examples.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 13:31, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::In the past, creationists have used this case of a live mollusk being subjected to a C-14 test and "proven" dead for 4000 years as a case against evolution and the anti-creation crowd. The only way I will allow this episode in the article is 1) I want the facts of this incident as stated above, and 2) I want to see evidence that scientists elsewhere have replicated this test, as scientists are supposed to do whenever they verify the results of any experiment to prove its validity. We have to be as authoritative as possible, and in doing so be fair to the reader as well. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:50, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I'd actually leave it out. It might be a nice side story for a dedicated C-14 dating article (Do we have one? I think we do, but I can't remember the name) to show the limits of the technique and how the environment has to be taken into account. It's not pro or contra the "Did it happen?" debate in my eyes and has little to nothing to do with the Great Flood. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:12, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
::::I agree with that; this article is not the place for it, and I doubt that a Flood Geology article that I proposed below is either. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:12, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== This article will be replaced ==

Independently of Karajou and others working on this article, I had been working on an article for this page, off-line. Karajou has given me the okay to ''replace'' the current article with mine (which is well advanced but not ready to post yet), so I recommend that people don't waste their time and effort editing this article in the meantime.

Of course it may ''not'' be a waste of time, because people may not like my version and the page may be reverted to what is currently there, but we'll have to wait and see on that.

However, I think that there should be a separate article on [[Flood Geology]], so any ideas that people have on things such as fossilisation processes could be put in a Flood Geology article rather than this article.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:20, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:When that happens, let's all read it carefully and weigh in on it here before any changes are made. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:44, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

=== Done ===
Okay, I've "finished" my version and replaced the existing article with it.

As Karajou says, let's decided whether we want this new version or [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Great_Flood&oldid=63651 the version it replaced] before making alterations to it.

Although I have tried to write a "complete" article, I'm not for one moment suggesting that nothing more needs doing to it. I haven't included any pictures, and there's probably no reason the picture in the old one couldn't go in. Some sections could do with some further expansion, and a few more references could be included, as well as linking the Genesis references to an on-line Bible.

I have deliberately left out anything that would be better off in a [[Flood Geology]] article, other than a summary of the history of flood geology and what it's about. So there's nothing about fossils except a reference that Flood Geology believes that the flood caused most of the fossils.

The sections under [[Great Flood#Common themes of the Flood accounts]] are ''not'' meant to be comprehensive. ''Many'' more examples could be added, but would only serve to bulk out the article. In most cases, I have included references to three different flood accounts, and this could possibly be increased to four, but much more would be overdoing it, in my opinion. One or two more themes could be added, perhaps.

What do you all think? Yeah, I know the bibliosceptics won't like it, but you can't please everybody, can you? :-)

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:09, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

==I like it...but==
Ok, first, I'm not going to change it, except to put the picture back. I like the picture. The concept and structure of the whole is sound, so there is no need to change it as it stands. But there are two criticisms, and they are minor:
*Each subheading could benefit from additional detail, and I don't mean everyone should just write in a blurb. By expanding the detail I mean also that the quality of writing must be good, like we're submitting this for a grade at the university.
*I'd like to see the differences between the Genesis account and the other stories. It's the difference between who is in control and who is not.
And the pic. I want the pic! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:28, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Modern explanations could also be expanded; I know there are some here who disagree with the Bible, and they want to include evidence against it. I am for that, provided several things are observed:
*It has to be in a separate subheading, and the information written in must be clear, concise, and well-sourced. It also can't be opinionated, i.e. "well I think that's wrong", lines like that.
*Such information has to be the most common ones, the ones most familiar to scientists and readers.
*It also has to be understood that such information may have a rebuttal attached. Rebuttals must not change the layout of that they are rebutting, due to a desire for clarity on both sides. And likewise, these rebuttals must be clear, concise, and well-sourced.
[[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:37, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:I expected that the picture would go back. The ''only'' objection I have to that picture is that I don't want it to mislead anybody that the ark was like depicted in that picture. But as a renaissance depiction of the flood, it's fine.
:"Modern Explanations" is one of the sections that I alluded to that should be expanded. However, it should be expanded with other explanations for the flood ''stories'', not with other explanations for flood geology evidence, because this is not that article. For example, there was a TV show that postulated that the flood story originated as a flood in the Tigris and Euphrates valleys, and that Noah was a beer trader who plied those rivers in his boat (or something like that). That could go in (if it's considered worthy enough). The bibliosceptics' reasons for considering the various flood stories to be unrelated local stories could be expanded a bit too.
:I'm not clear on what you mean by "differences between the Genesis account and the other stories". I think that the differences that are listed (e.g. Zeus being the cause in the Greek story) are clear enough already. Beyond that, the differences are not the point. The article takes the line that the non-Genesis stories (including the Gilgamish Epic) are actual histories of Noah's flood (accurately recorded in Genesis), but which have been corrupted over time, particularly with oral transmission. Highlighting the differences therefore amounts to highlighting the corruption, and I don't think that really needs any more emphasis than it already has. But perhaps I'm misunderstanding exactly what you are getting at.
:Anyway, once we are settled that the new version will remain (are others going to comment?), you can start adding in bits and we can then see what you are getting at more clearly.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:49, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I like the structure and layout you provided here, and I believe it can be expanded on. Other subheadings can be added at the bottom, such as what I cited above, without interfering with your's.

A small example of the differences can be had by comparing the Genesis account to the Gilgamesh account, as in God of the Bible is in control, versus the gods of Gilgamesh, who hide themselves from the violence of the flood. Something overall, perhaps a separate subheading, but after the remaining part of the details are put in. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:25, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Hmmm, Aschlafly has already altered the layout so that it now goes against what I was trying to do, although perhaps it doesn't matter too much; I'll have to think a bit more about it.
:The point you make about who's in control in each case is already mentioned, but I do think it could be useful to go into this more to illustrate the corruption that's occurred. What we need to avoid, I believe, is something that's "preachy", as this is an encyclopedia, not a Sunday School lesson.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:08, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::I think the question as to why God did it in the first place can be added, without being preachy; apart from that, relevant facts can be added in as needed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:00, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== 3000 BC? ==

There's been an ongoing argument, with one side repeatedly positing a lack of archaeological evidence before 3000 BC; unfortunately, that simply isn't true.

The first few Egyptian pharaohs reigned before 3100 BC, and we have a great deal of evidence of the beginnings of urbanisation of Mesopotamia around that time. The potter's wheel first starts to show up in that period, along with increasing use of bronze alongside copper.

Heck, the earliest parts of Stonehenge were already in place by 3000 BC.

That's not even getting into the uninterrupted tree-ring records stretching back about ten thousand years, none of which show any kind of indication of a global flood. --[[User:M|M]] 10:19, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:Not to mention living plants over 11,000 years old. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:23, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Remember the strength of faith.[[User:Saved|Saved]] 10:25, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::These dates you cite are often secularist, and often compromised for many (and amply enumerated elsewhere) reasons. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 10:28, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::How can a date '''often''' be secularist? You mean on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Fridays Stonehenge was built on a secular day whereas the rest of the time it was built on religious days? That really doesn't make sense. Also, if the dates are so easily compromised please either link me to said reasons, as I am obviously just ignorant of how time before 3000BC can just have dissapeared. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 10:43, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::MatteeNeutra, these dates, and supposed identification of plants '11,000' years old, and whatever, are based on improper Carbon14 Dating, which is even called into question by secularist authorities. [[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;308/5728/1551]] There's a very thorough walk-through, here, at Answers In Creation that explains why relying on these date ''estimates'' can be so problematic. [[http://www.answersincreation.org/carbondating.htm]] It isn't that this time, as you say, could have ''disappeared,'' it is that this time never was, because it only existed in the false measurements of secularist scientists. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 11:59, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Answers in Creation is an '''OEC''' site. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:02, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I can't get to your first link as you appear to need a subscription. Also, I have just spent about 3 or 4 minutes reading the answers in creation website and it seems to suggest that actually radiocarbon dating is pretty good:
::::"Radiocarbon dates are certainly not precise to within a year or two, but they are generally precise to within a few hundred years or better."<ref>http://www.answersincreation.org/carbondating.htm</ref>.
:::Can you possibly find another "secular authority" source for the apparent lack of faith in Carbon dating, for the benefit of people such as me who are not subscribed to that particular scientific site? [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 13:30, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

For anyone not knowing dendrochronology: it is an unrelated discipline to chemical dating, though it can sometimes be used in conjunction with that or archaeological records. The principle is that trees will add one well-defined 'ring' of growth for every growing season; the size of this ring varies with environmental conditions, and tends to vary in the same manner for all trees of the same type in a given area (since they all were exposed to the same weather conditions). Using this knowledge, the rings of a dead tree can be compared and matched with those of a tree still living to date the various events recorded by the dead tree's rings. The rings of the dead tree can then be compared and matched where they overlap with another, older dead tree, and so on; there are uninterrupted chains of such records stretching back to around 9,000 BC. None of these records show the effects that a global, extended flood would cause. --[[User:M|M]] 19:41, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:This is an excellent contribution to the debate here. Is there any way [[dendrochronology]] can be part of the current article? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:46, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

I'll respond to a couple of posts, but first, I wasn't happy with the sentence that was there, which claimed that there was no evidence dated prior to 3000 B.C. There ''are'' claims of dates older than that (although young-Earth creationists do reject the older dates).

'''M''' wrote: ''The first few Egyptian pharaohs reigned before 3100 BC''. This is according to Egyptian chronologies which a number of archaeologists have questioned, suggesting that the Egyptian chronologies should be shortened. As for the other things you mentioned (potter's wheel, etc.), these things are likely dated by methods that are not totally reliable also (for example, many dates for the middle east are tied to the questionable Egyptian chronology).

'''Tsumetai''' wrote: ''Not to mention living plants over 11,000 years old.'' The oldest single living thing is the Bristlecone Pine, which, according to Wikipedia, is nearly 5,000 years old (i.e. dating to about 3000 B.C.!).

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:05, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:Shows what you get for trusting Wikipedia :P

:There's a Creosote bush that goes by the name of 'King Clone' which has those beat by a good stretch. Perhaps there's some quirk in the definition of 'single living thing?' [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:20, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::I used Wikipedia to find the actual age, but I already knew that the Bristlecone Pines were the oldest living things. Wikipedia has this to say about the Creosote bush and similar things:
:::The oldest single living organisms known are bristlecone pines, though some plants such as creosote bush or aspen, form clonal colonies that may be many times older. The existing growth in clonal colonies sprang as shoots from older growth so there is an unbroken chain of life that sometimes dates back several tens of thousands of years.
::You will note from this that the age of the organisms are not actually known; just that they are likely to be much older because of their nature. And although them being "several tens of thousands of years" old is stated as a fact, it is clear that this is not something measured or directly known. Therefore, they are not evidence against the date of the flood.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:01, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::No, it's a measurement [http://www.nps.gov/jotr/naturescience/creosote.htm based on C14 dating and extrapolation of growth rates]. Presumably the two measures are used as a cross-check; I'll see if I can find out more later.

:::Are you familiar with King's Holly, incidentally? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:18, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::::That's not exactly what the link says. First, an extrapolation of [current] growth rates is ''not'' a "measurement". Second, the link actually says that the age is an ''estimate'' based partly on C14 dating. So what did the C14 test actually measure if they were only able to use it as input to an estimate? I indicated earlier that there ''are'' items claimed to be older than 5,000 years, but that the dates of older items can be rather tenuous. I think this is an example. Bristlecone pines are ''measured'' by counting their tree rings (although even this may not be accurate), but the creosote bush is an ''estimate'' based partly on an ''extrapolation'' and partly on some unknown C14 test.
::::I've never seen King's Holly, but I know that it's a plant in Tassie, and like the creosote bush, it's age was not directly measured, but based (in this case) on a nearby fossil.
::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:35, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Tree ring records still haven't been discussed. This is solid scientific evidence that there has not been a world flood. [http://waynesword.palomar.edu/treedate.htm| Here is a link](scroll down), but it is only meant to introduce the idea. In reality, it is not just one section of the tree that will match, but several in succession, and there is virtually no chance of them matching by coincidince. I couldn't imagine a way to refute it. It goes back 8,000 years and relies on no carbon dating (though other tests WITH carbon dating have expanded the study. different story.) So, yeah. Probably not a global flood. Not without a coverup.[[User:Muchodelcrazy|Muchodelcrazy]] 02:55, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Young Earth Creationism

2007-03-08T05:30:32Z

Muchodelcrazy:

== Conservative's edits ==

The total of those edits are given by [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Young_Earth_Creationism&diff=17299&oldid=17197 this dif] Objections to these edits include: 1) the removal of material discussing radiometric dating and starlight (it isn't clear to me why that material was removed given that the YEC responses are given). Second, he has thrown in a variety of quotes. Now, whether one calls these quotes quote-mines or not(they all are, but Conservative seems to dislike this term) a number of things are clear even ignoring issues of context, at least one of these quotes is out of date (1983 !) and none of them are at all relevant. This is an article about ''Young Earth Creationism.'' None of the quotes have anything to do with that since a) they aren't talking about YECism but possible issues with certain more standard scientific viewpoints and b) they don't alter the basic issues at hand such as the age of the earth(for example, whether or not we understand how "galaxies, stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe" has nothing to do with the age of the earth or whether evolution took place or whether there was a global flood or anything else relevant to YECism. Furthermore, the citation given for these quotes is another Wiki, and wikis are inherently unreliable and not useful souring. 3) The added material is poorly organized; even if it were to be included, it makes no sense as an organizational matter to have in the introduction a long list of example quotes (and certainly not before basic issues like the global flood. Furthermore, since the end of the paragraph discusses what arguments they use, it would make far more sense to put it there. I must also register concern that Conservative has unilaterally protected this article after making his own changes. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:16, 1 March 2007 (EST)
::Thank your for your feedback both in this talk page and on my discussion page. I used some of your feedback to edit the material. Secondly, CreationWiki sources the '''two quotes''' I used from CreationWiki. Thirdly, I believe that old earth creationist scientist such as Dr. Ross posit that the galaxies, planets, suns, etc were formed naturally as opposed to young earth creationists who believe they were created supernaturally at least for the most part. Third, radiometric dating discussion and starlight discussion can be found in one of the footnotes I cited. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:44, 1 March 2007 (EST)conservative

::: To you second point A wiki sourcing anything is not reliable. It doesn't matter whether it is used for one quote, 10 quotes a thousand quotes or whatever. Wikis are not reliable and should not be used for sourcing. To your third point that the quote about planetary formation is relevant because Ross believes in natural planetary formation- we aren't talking about Hugh Ross here, we are talking about YECism. If we have an article about OECism then it might be relevant there. To your fourth point, yes they are mentioned in the reference but they are both important enough and major enough to mention in the article- in its current form it does not discuss at all the mainstream evidence and the YEC responses to that evidence; it is hard for me to see how that isn't important, especially in regard to radiometric dating. Nothing you have done here in any way deals with the issue that this bad organization having a large set of quotes in the middle before you get to basic issues like who supports YECism. Nor did you address the concern about the decision to protect the article. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 16:54, 1 March 2007 (EST)

== Further problems with recent edits ==

At this point, you need to read almost a full page before one even finds out who actually supports YECism. At minimum, some of the evidence should be put in a later section so the introduction can be brief and actually give the relevant introductory details. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 16:15, 1 March 2007 (EST)

== Unacceptable edit, clear whitewashing. ==

The section detailing the popular acceptance had a note that the acceptance rate among scientists was around 5% (and the 5% number put inside a footnote). That has been replaced with the standard DI claim that the number of scientists skeptical of certain aspects of evolution is on the rise. First, there isn't any point to it in the footnote since it isn't supporting anything in the article. If it going to be here, it should be in the article. Second, the DI claim at best is about evolution and has nothing to do with YECism. C) removal of the number, especially replacing it with the DI's (essentially unreliable, usubsuntiated claim) gives a misleading pciture. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:44, 1 March 2007 (EST)

: Ok, we're getting slightly better now. Now, the DI part is still problematic. The DI 700 or so and all that has nothing to do with age of the earth or YECism. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:50, 1 March 2007 (EST)

::I wrote: "However, the ranks of scientists '''openly rejecting evolutionary ideas''' ([[macroevolution|macroevolutionary ideas]] posit the earth is millions of years old) is currently on the rise. [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2732]
The fact is that the effort in question is a very publicized effort and more scientists are signing on. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:55, 1 March 2007 (EST)conservative

::: Um, that this is a very publicized effort yes, the rest holds no water. First, claiming that the numbers are on the rise because more people have signed the same petition is illogical- to show a rise, one would need to show that the number of people at any given time were more than the number prior. One would presumably do that with some sort of sampling, not a compiled list. Second, this still has nothing to do with YECism. One could completely agree with that statement and still not be a YEC (heck, one could still be a mainstream scientist who completely accepts evolution and still sign that statement if one thinks that neutral drift, sexual selection and other ways of modifying the gene pool are sufficiently important). Furthermore, one could completely disagree with basic evolutionary biology claims and still not be a YEC (take Hugh Ross for example). On the whole, putting the DI's claim here is both misleading and irrelevant. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:07, 1 March 2007 (EST)

== 55% - macroevolution ==

The gallup poll did not say that 55% of scientists accepted "macroevolution" indeed macroevolution was not mentioned anywhere in the poll. The poll showed that 55% agreed with the statement that "Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God had no part in this process" and 39% agreed with the statement that "Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation." This gives a total of 96% accepting descent from a common ancestor (which is what I think the editor meant by "macroevolution" in this context). 22:49, 7 March 2007 (EST)
:Thanks for your input. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:54, 7 March 2007 (EST)conservative

I found this on source 23.

HUNTING

Schaller found that lionesses do 90% of the hunting and lions (males) only 10%. Furthermore the female leads the cubs to the freshly killed animal. (Rudnai 1973) This seems inconsistent with the Bible:

The lion tore enough for his whelps. (Nahum 2:12)

I didn't see how this source discredited science's claims about lions. Plus, you don't always have to be right the first time, you know. Science changes with new information. Until then, the best is done with what evidence is present. [[User:Muchodelcrazy|Muchodelcrazy]] 00:30, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Talk:Bible

2007-03-08T05:19:21Z

Muchodelcrazy:

no discussion of the Bible? [[User:Muchodelcrazy|Muchodelcrazy]] 00:19, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Talk:CE

2007-03-08T05:18:51Z

Muchodelcrazy:

Actually, on checking, I find that "common era" can be
*a generic term meaning ''any'' standardized system of numbering years based on any epoch, e.g. the Jewish year is in "the common era of the Jews."
*a term used to distinguish the "ordinary" BC/AD epoch ''from others used by Christians.'' E.g. "puts his death in the seventh year of Trajan, i.e. in 104 of the common era."[http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC04334900&id=qLfiIApQVDkC&pg=PA33&lpg=PA33&dq=%22common+era%22&as_brr=1]

And the phrase has been in use for well over a century.

Thus: "The common era of the Jews places the creation in B. C. 3760" (where B. C. here means "before the common era ''of the Jews.'') [http://books.google.com/books?vid=0HE_WUCP1d5BX8OJ&id=GMfyJ2PeD-cC&pg=RA12-PA207&lpg=RA12-PA207&as_brr=1 1874: The popular encyclopedia, volume V, p. 307]

"It was probably the original intention of Caefar to commence the new year with the fhorteft day, the winter folftice at Rome, in the year 46 B. C. (common era)." [http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC03079044&id=cS8EAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA2-PA4&lpg=RA2-PA4&&as_brr=1 1889: "Handy-book of Rules and Tables for Verifying Dates with the Christian Era"]

"Prior to the year A. D. 1865, the Jewish style, namely, the year of the world, was observed by Red Men in dating their documents. At the council held in G. S. 1526, this system was discontinued, and G. S. D. or Great Sun of the Discovery was adopted, the year 1492 being considered G. S. D. 1. To find the date of the old style, add to the common era 3760; e.g. 1877 + 3760 = 5637. To find the date by Red Men's style, subtract 1491 from the common era." ("Red Men" here is a reference to a fraternal organization.) [http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC03825672&id=kZLbGv92SjUC&pg=RA16-PA495&lpg=RA16-PA495&as_brr=1 1893: Official History of the Improved Order of Red Men].

So it's not a ''new'' phrase. In fact, it seems to me that "Christian era" means "the system used by Christians," whereas calling the AD/BC system the "common era" means "this system used by everyone" and thus emphasizes that Christian usage is '''the''' general usage of our society.

The story may be more complicated than that, but that's what I've found so far. Not sure when, how, by whom or for what reason the abbreviations BCE and CE were introduced. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:22, 20 December 2006 (EST)

:That's fascinating material. Thanks. Maybe I'm obsessed with this, but it does seem odd that a phrase recently pushed by schools, Wikipedia writers and tests has unknown origin. It's not even in the 1972 dictionary!!! In a current dictionary, it's defined as a substitute for BC/AD without any reference to Jewish people. My quote from the online rabbi shows Judaism is not the source.

:I'll study your sources further. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:22, 20 December 2006 (EST)

::There's probably an interesting story there. I grant you that the spread of BCE and CE probably ''do'' have ''something'' to do with acknowledging diversity, or political correctness, or liberalism, or something. It's always hard to find out how and why things go in and out of fashion, though. I have a long list of puzzles of that kind. Why did the phrase "to fill the bill" rather suddenly get replaced with "to fit the bill" circa 1990 or so? Why did the phrase "to go missing" or "went missing," which I'd always thought were British, suddenly become ubiquitous in the U. S. starting in, I don't know, the late 1990s? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:46, 21 December 2006 (EST)

== Original Research ==

Should original research be allowed in this article? Also, CE is not some conspiracy that is trying to destroy the foundations of Christianity. There are no citations in this article even attempting to show that this view is held outside of this web page. AD/BC where established by Christian scholars and prevailed because the "western" powers remained solidly Christian and happened to colonize most of the world. Now, the world might be 1/6th Christian, but the other 5/6ths are not. Science is a consensus of scientist from around the world and do not only include the U.S. So it would not be prudent to keep the current age as Anno Domini, since the "Lord" is no longer consisting of the majority of the world. The usage of AD is still valid, but CE is not trying to discredit or undermine in some way the original dating method. So I'm going to try to make this article more neutral in the future, but if a majority of you guys think i'm vandalizing or something like that, I'll move on.
As a side note, the Roman Catholic Church (the universal church of Christ) was responsible for the dark ages.

:So CE isn't trying to destroy the foundations of Christianity, but what it is trying to do is remove the word "Lord" from the vocabulary of the general public. I absolutely love Liberal Logic! --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 23:29, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:: Well if I may, there is a real concern here for Jews and Muslims - saying that is the year of the lord is inaccurate and indeed arguably idol worship to use the term. So for those religions at least use of the term "AD" is very problematic (BC less so for obvious reasons). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:33, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:: If the general public doesn't want the the word "LORD" in the vocabulary then it shouldn't be there. Unless Christianity suddenly implodes i don't think just because a shift in the secular world from AD/BC to CE/BCE is going to do anything. My main concern is if we are trying to counter bias with bias? Also, i'm going to get rid of the original research in this article unless someone adds some citations or something cause i'm not sure where that comes from. [[User:Pinion|Pinion]] 00:50, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::: If this was A Jewish or Muslim site, you might have a point. But as this is a Christian/Conservative Site that does not strive to be politically correct, your point is not valid. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:47, 6 March 2007 (EST)
:::: I wasn't commetning on whether it should be used ''here'' I was commenting on how the general motivations of those who use it are not nearly as nefarious as some editors here seem to think. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:55, 6 March 2007 (EST)

== Common Sense, ppl ==

I've heard some good evidence and argument in this talk page, but the idea that BCE and CE are a liberal agenda thing or one of "wikipedia's bias" signs is an absolutely baseless and, furthermore, stupid notion. Let me introduce a theory:

We don't know the year of Jesus's birth. We DO know that it is almost absolutely NOT 0 BC/AD. [http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmas_date.htm#year].

So BCE/CE was created with this date (since people are just used to it, no need to change it. Pretty conservative of them, wouldn't you say?) as the reference. It's just a reference date with no meaning, so we can have an absolute origin point on a timeline. Say it with me. "Its just a reference date." That felt good, huh?

Don't you think it's a positive thing for the Christian religion to remove an obvious error from it? Hell, they do us a favor by just separating the two topics. You should be thankful, not suspicious. [[User:Muchodelcrazy|Muchodelcrazy]] 00:18, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Talk:CE

2007-03-08T05:17:59Z

Muchodelcrazy: Common Sense, ppl

Talk:Da vinci code

2007-03-08T04:00:52Z

Muchodelcrazy:

The Da Vinci code article needed a LOT of work. I believe that the original author or authors have something of a misapprehension of the nature of an encyclopedia, which is really an objective source of basic information, rather than a source of editorial commentary. Specifically, the detailed refutation of the Da Vinci code's narrative has no place in a encyclopedic work; it'd be a fine blog or magazine article or something of the sort, but it's really got no place in a work of general reference. I did my best to clean up a lot of very subjective, biased language, but if anybody else cares to do more, there's more that can be done.

-- Snark

== Do we need an article this long? ==

I mean ok, so Dan Brown is an idiot whose idea of research seems to be googling and then taking whatever the top few websites say. Anyone with half a brain knows this. Do we really need to spend 3 pages debunking him? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:50, 1 March 2007 (EST)

== This article is unfair and unbalanced ==

Should be shortened (a lot). This article is not only a long one-sided monologue, it's also a dishonest one: no mention of the objections of Langdon to the Teabing’s theories for example. Do you really think that Dan Brown want you to believe that there is a secret sarcophagi under a small pyramid in the Louvre museum?

Stop the finger pointing game. Don Brown is not “responsible for feeding millions of pack reader with lies…”. Its novel is in fact an unhoped-for chance: millions of people have reopened their history books. A good opportunity to remember that 2000 years ago, one could say about Christians “See as they love one another”.

Does this group still alive today? If you think that a mere novel is a treat, the problem is not the Da Vincy Code.[[User:GuyLeb|GuyLeb]] 01:24, 7 March 2007 (EST)

: You don't need to eb Christian to see this book as stupid, uninformed, spreading all sorts of ignorance and not terribly well-written either. That said, I do agree that this article is way too long. A few short examples of the myriad problems with the book would be more than enough. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 01:25, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::Joshua, stupidity is often a very subjective and dangerous notion. Many Christian have enjoyed this book. Are they then less clever than you? This novel did not create the legends and the distortions: there were already there in plain sight, well published, accessible to anybody, so the book is not uninformed. It’s good to remember that, once, woman was equal to man in the church, and that was a revolution. But this book is not a statement, nothing but a different kind of Indiana Jones. And I agree, definitely not a piece of literature. [[User:GuyLeb|GuyLeb]] 07:41, 7 March 2007 (EST)
::: (I should first say that don't agree with all the criticism in this article, but some is accurate). Stupidty is a subjective notion yes, to the question of whether they are less clever than I am, for a fraction of them the answer is likely yes. And as to your comment that "This novel did not create the legends and the distortions: there were already there in plain sight, well published, accessible to anybody, so the book is not uninformed" actually is is pretty badly informed about even its own matters. The book confuses some of the actual scholarly arguments with conspiracy paranoia (that is, there are things which Langdon is surprised to learn which in real life are taken for granted by the vast majority of Biblical scholards regarding canonization of texts and related issues, Langdon takes for granted certain material that would be dismissed by any real scholar in the area). Brown fails to get basic dates and what happened at them correct. Now, whether or not the book is a "statement" is not relevant in that people treat it as one and it has confused a large number of uninformed or stupid people. To be blunt, if someone wants to read a well-written, well-researched conspiracy novel about much of the same material they should pick up Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 09:04, 7 March 2007 (EST)
:::: I guess we could talk uselessly for days without reaching any agreement. So I won’t try to convince you that Longdon is a villain but a character only, and than Don brown is nothing but a lucky novel writer, not the best, but not the worst, who does not deserve a scholar award because his book that was not a scholar work. I can’t share also the idea that reading this novel and asking questions is a proof of stupidity, and hope you will continue monitoring this site without holding up the stick of the anathema. [[User:GuyLeb|GuyLeb]] 19:26, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Srsly ==

PROTIP: Don't try to disprove fictional novels.[http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780385504201]

FICTION, people. Just because it encorporates some history and is (me'h)well-written, that does not make it real or even attempting to be real. [http://www.danbrown.com/novels/davinci_code/faqs.html]

If you read these links and still take this book seriously, you are probably more concerned with the validity of your religion than Dan Brown himself. Srsly.[[User:Muchodelcrazy|Muchodelcrazy]]

Talk:The Da Vinci Code

2007-03-08T03:56:37Z

Muchodelcrazy:

== Duplication ==

We seem to have dupliacte articles on this topic, one here and one at [[Da vinci code]]. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:20, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Which one should be deleted in your opinion: Da vinci code or The Da Vinci Code? The first option is the best title, but the second one has a better setup. The text looks as if it has been copied exactly. I could delete the first one and move the second to its title. Let me know what you think. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 20:25, 5 March 2007 (EST)

: "Da vinci code" is clearly wrong. "The Da Vinci Code" is better. I'm not sure we need such a long article on the topic at all though. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:39, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Ok, then would you like me to do the opposite with the two articles: delete the second one and move the first to its title? --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 20:41, 5 March 2007 (EST)

== Well-written, well-illustrated article ==

Wikipedia has a process for nominating "featured articles" (the ones that get featured each day on the main page).... if this were WIkipedia I'd think it was time to start the discussion process for this one. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:20, 6 March 2007 (EST)

== Srsly ==

PROTIP: Don't try to disprove fictional novels.[http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780385504201]

FICTION, people. Just because it encorporates some history and is well-written, that does not make it real or even attempting to be real. [http://www.danbrown.com/novels/davinci_code/faqs.html]

If you read these links and still take this book seriously, you are probably more concerned with the validity of your religion than Dan Brown himself. Srsly.[[User:Muchodelcrazy|Muchodelcrazy]] 22:56, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Talk:The Da Vinci Code

2007-03-08T03:02:06Z

Muchodelcrazy: Srsly

Talk:Tokugawa Shogunate

2007-03-08T02:50:04Z

Muchodelcrazy:

ELABORATE!!