|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,909 Year: 4,166/9,624 Month: 1,037/974 Week: 364/286 Day: 7/13 Hour: 2/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Potential Evidence for a Global Flood | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi Jzyehoshua, off to a rollicking start.
Personally I find that many new creationists come in here wanting to talk about many different issue and get distracted by going off in many directions. I'd advise you to narrow your focus and deal with specific items one at a time.
Again, there is evidence that a huge extinction event occurred which wiped out 95% of all marine life and at least 70% of land life. Don't you find it curious that, if this were due to a flood, that more marine life was killed than terrestrial life? Shouldn't it be the other way around?
I get that with carbon dating it's dating the half-lives of carbon, and with dendrochronology is comparing tree rings to determine age. However, I also see noticeable assumptions made in both cases. You're assuming the decay rate of half lives is the same. Why? And you're assuming the rate of tree ring growth is constant. Why? Simply put, the matter is one of correlations. See Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 for a fuller explanation. In a nutshell, there are three different dendrochronologies, from three different areas of the globe, that agree with each other with an error of 0.5%. These chronologies correlate with other chronologies, like the Lake Suigetsu varves in Japan, which is made from annual deposits. These annual age counting systems also correlate with levels of 14C in the organic samples of the tree rings and debris in the lake varves, such that when plotted against the counted ages they form an exponential curve that happens to match the curve for 14C based on its half-life. Exponential curves look like this:
This is a rather extraordinary correlation, given that the layers are linear incremental integers, and the 14C data is an exponential curve. Anyone trying to claim that these dates are wrong needs to explain this extraordinary correlation. And that is only the beginning of the data that supports an old earth.
If there are worldwide catastrophes wreaking havoc on the environment, is it possible they could affect atmospheric levels of carbon? Yes, the release of archaic methane (CH4) from the continental shelf boundary could alter the proportion of 14C to 12C in the atmosphere, as all the 14C in those gases would have decayed already (of course this also means that the deposits are over ~75,000 years old minimum to have unmeasurable levels of 14C). This would result in a significant jog in the data shown on this graph: Just a moment...
quote: No such jog exists within the time frame shown, so it appears that no such event occurred within the last 45,000 years. If you are going to propose one, then you need to explain how this fails to show up in the Lake Suigetsu data, or posit that it occurred before 45,000 years ago (in which case there would be no effect on any 14C dates).
Or even affect the decay rate itself? Amusingly, we know of no process at this time that significantly affects the radioactive rate of decay. If you want to discuss this further, there is a thread, Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics? that demonstrates some basic problems confronting any claim for changing decay rates. In a nutshell, these halos take hundreds of millions of years to form based on physics as we know it, and that if the decay rate changed, this would have affected the way these objects form, changing the radius of the different isotopes, and this would result in visible differences compared to what is seen.
Furthermore, we know the erosive effects of water and lava. If you have a global flood with volcanic activity, what effect might that have on decay rate of matter and carbon 14? Organic matter maybe, none whatsoever on 14C and any other radioactive material. This is radioactive decay, not to be confused with microbial decay or erosion etc. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : clrty Edited by RAZD, : incremental integers Edited by RAZD, : spling we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi again Jzyehoshua,
One of my pet peeves is the misuse of terms, especially scientific terms used in a specific manner in science. Thus I find it necessary to make sure we are talking about the same thing.
It might also delve into the question of whether there is evidence for microevolution as opposed to macroevolution, ... I understand where you want to go with this, but I think you are being a bit premature to introduce this before the possibility of a flood has been validated, and it doesn't really relate to this topic but to the feasibility of an building an ark. And before we even get there we need to have an understanding of what is meant by microevolution and macroevolution. See MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it? for a place where you can discuss what you mean by these terms. Then we can see how that compares to how they are used in science: Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Coyote,
I'm not sure what the longest is. Presumably a number of early humans have been sequenced, in part at least, as they have sequenced Neanderthal fossils going back 30,000 years and more. IIRC some cro-magnon sequences were run similar to the neanders, and from about the same time. It would be interesting to see how they nest with Mediterranean DNA. I would think the probability is high that they would, so they might not provide the same argument as your Pacfic NW. What about those south american fossils that are pushing the time frame for people in the americas? Enjoy. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Jzyehoshua, you have a lot to respond to ...
... so I'm going to add a little bit more.
I would like to see a topic created discussing the possible evidence for a global flood. One piece of possible evidence for a global flood would be mass extinctions, especially one where there were more extinctions of land organisms than of marine organisms. The problem with mass extinctions are (a) there are so many, that if this is evidence of a global flood, then there must have been multiple floods (or other catastrophes), and (2) there has been no mass extinction since apes evolved. The last mass extinction was at the end of the Cretaceous period, the KT boundary, some 65 million years ago. Meanwhile, apes evolved from earlier primates some ~30 to 25 million years ago: http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/evol.html
quote: With Homo sapiens only showing up some 200,000 years ago. This means that no apes of any kind have experienced a mass extinction. One of the other problems you have, is that it is possible to find bits and pieces of evidence that can support virtually any hypothesis, such as (for instance) that the earth is flat. However, for an hypothesis to be valid, not only must there be evidence that supports it, but there can be no evidence that contradicts it. Evidence of an oblate spheroid shaped earth orbiting the sun invalidates the flat earth (and the geocentric earth) hypothesis. Evidence that the earth is old invalidates the young earth hypothesis. To be scientifically valid, the hypothesis must not only address all the known evidence, but predict new evidence that has yet to be found, evidence that would not exist unless the hypothesis is true, and thus gives falsification tests for the hypothesis. THUS:
IF there were only one global world wide flood, and no other world wide catastrophes of any kind, THEN there would be only one mass extinction event in the fossil record. This is falsified by the evidence of multiple extinction events. AND:
IF there were a global flood that is recorded by humans, THEN there would be evidence of a mass extinction event while humans were living. This is falsified by the absence of mass extinctions after 25 million years ago, to say nothing of in the last 200,000 years. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : ) we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Panda,
A negative statement can be proven. If I asked you to prove that a cat does not go "woof" every time you hit it - it would only require 1 cat and a stick to prove that negative statement true. That only proves that this one cat did not go "woof" - not that there isn't A cat that would, so no you don't have a proof. Amusingly, there's also this to consider: Watch the mouth when the cat turns around. This of course could be faked, but how could you know?
A negative statement can be proven. Some very specific negative statements can be proven, general broad statements are much more difficult: "There is no milk in this bowl at the time I am looking at today" VS "there is no milk in any bowl" As the second is false it would be very difficult to prove true. It would be better to show that this specific negative could be proven than to just make critical statements. Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : added Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Way off-topic banner.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Pressie
Sorry to interfere, but I’ve never understood creationist arguments on the so-called polystrate fossils. Maybe Just Being Real could enlighten me on this. Message 189: I also think that they are the only people who claim that "geologists say that these sediments were deposited over millions of years". I am a geologist and I don't. Nice to see another geologist on the forum. In essence what they are doing is (a) finding fossils that extend through several layers of deposition, and (b) claiming that each layer was formed "over millions of years" thus creating an apparent paradox for the preservation of the fossil. The problem is that (b) hasn't been shown to apply to the cases that involve (a), AND there are other explanations for preserved fossils extending through many layers of sediment. A fossil specimen can be buried by soft materials\sediments during the fossilization process, and this softer material can subsequently be eroded away before the next layer of sediment is deposited -- creationists often ignore (or are ignorant of) erosion as part of the process. There are preserved trees in Michigan that are covered by sand dunes and periodically uncovered and recovered. They are still standing upright.Ghost Forest, Sleeping Bear Point | Michigan in Pictures Several layers of sediment have and can continue to form around these trees, and if buried by subsequent processes, this can lead to the formation of polystrate fossils in these cases. Alternatively, a fossil specimen can be deposited on the bottom of an anaerobic pond or streambed and become mummified before it is fossilized, this then keeps the specimen intact as various layers of fine sediment are deposited in several layers around it. The fossils of fish in the green river varves show the characteristics of fossilized mummies with subsequent sedimentary deposits around them. See ASA - January 1998: Re: Green River varves for and ex-YEC article on the Green River varves. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi Just being real, just a single point at a time eh?
No actually I was referring to something much simpler. The carbon 14 testing of things that should not possess any carbon 14 (like coal), and finding very significant amounts. Which make it impossible for them to be more than 50 k years old. You need to provide your sources again. I think you will find that the levels are just above the measurable threshold, which is not a "very significant amount" IMHO (of course this being a subjective statement it could be to you -- more likely the author of the site you got this from used those words to impress you). Do you understand how carbon-14 dating works? How Carbon-14 Dating Works | HowStuffWorksHow Carbon-14 Dating Works | HowStuffWorks quote: So the limit of detecting carbon-14 consumed by plants and animals that originally came from the atmosphere has a practical limit of 50 to 60 thousand years. This is not the only source of carbon-14 however. Carbon-14 is also found the graphite (carbon) rods used to control nuclear reactors, and can be formed from carbon-13 in natural nuclear reactions where they are near deposits of uranium. There is a HIGH correlation of coal containing carbon-14 with deposits of uranium, while other deposits of coal with NO uranium do not have any measurable levels of carbon-14 -- meaning they must be older than 50-60k years and contradict the YEC earth age concepts. Now if you want to discuss the validity of carbon-14 dating, that is off topic here, but there are several sites in this forum where you can go, read the current information there, and then provide your opinions: Forum on Dates and Dating
Also see Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 for a general overview of the correlations of many dating methods that show the earth is older than any YEC concept. I'll be happy to discuss carbon-14 and other dating mechanisms with you on any of these threads. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Pressie
Trying to do an C14 age determination on a coal seam is so absolutely ridiculously stupid, they could only be published in cartoons, anyway. Actually there are articles published in Radiocarbon on this. http://www.radiocarbon.org/ Specifically, when it comes to oil, scientists are looking for sources that are free from carbon-14 contamination in order to make scintillation basins to test for particles IIRC, and have found several sources with carbon-14 levels at the low end of detectability. These sources are also associated with uranium deposits and the radioactivity can "contaminate" the oil in several ways to produce detectable carbon-14. Also seeCD011.6: C14 date of old oil quote: Note (1) that 50,000 years is already older than any YEC concept of the age of the earth and (2) there are other deposits without detectable levels of carbon-14, and thus, even IF there are SOME young deposits of coal and oil, the evidence shows there are others which are even older than the dating limits. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : noteby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Pressie,
I still can't see where any real scientist even tried to do C-14 age determinations on either coal seams or oil deposits. I don't see where there would be any point to do the age calculation, as other dating methods show the coal deposits to be older than the limits of C-14. Rather they would be interested in finding the causes for the anomalous readings. The correlations of anomalous readings with uranium deposits or surface contamination or with instrument calibrations, for instance.
They measure the C-14, not the age. Agreed. And before an age is calculated in normal usage, one would also need to know if there were any reservoir affect involved, then the age is adjusted by the calibration curves (see 14C Calibration and Correlations message 1 - these corrections make the actual ages even older than the C14 ages).
Real scientists try to find deposits free of C-14 contamination in oil, but they seem very difficult to find. It does happen, though. How do the YEC's explain them, or do they just ignore it? I am not aware of any YECist discussing the C14 free oils.
I don't see anything about coal deposits in there. Some of my old bookmarks no longer work, so I did a little digging and found the TalkOrigins article by Kathleen Hunt that I originally was looking for: Carbon-14 in Coal Deposits
quote: And I'll bet they will find coal with levels that would indicate an age of 110,000 years when they do. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Pressie,
Quick off-topic request :: have you seen Exploring the Grand Canyon, from the bottom up.? Thanks
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi just being real,
Which btw brings me to another point. If you want to have a contest between creationist blunders and evolutionist blunders, there are just as many stones to throw in each camp. Obviously this would be a pointless endeavour. Actually it gets quite humorous to compare these 'blunders' and the hoaxes of creationists to those of science, especially to compare them with current knowledge and who provided it. See Scientific vs Creationist Frauds and Hoaxes No hoax yet has ever been uncovered by a creationist, they were all uncovered by science Science discards invalid information. Creationism holds on to, and repeats, invalid information. For instance creationists keep bringing up Piltdown man as if it were some icon necessary to science -- it isn't, it is discarded as a hoax and has no effect on modern science. The perpetuation of talk about Piltdown by creationists is dishonest. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Taq,
Then you need to point to specific formations that these pulses created and show how they produced alternating layers of fine grained sediments and diatoms as well as sorting organic debris by tiny differences in 14C. Until you do so, you have no argument. You may want to refer Robert Beyers to 14C Calibration and Correlations and the correlations between:
(1) Tree Rings and 14C: There are three long continuous (unbroken from today) dendrochronologies (and a lot of short ones) and one (of many) "floating" ones (where they are not directly connected to today), and they are:
quote: The last one is cross-linked with the other three, and correlates climate and 14C contents. It is not logically possible for the tree rings to have the same age and different 14C contents, because trees normally get their 14C from the atmosphere. The 14C measurements and tree ring age were made to develop a calibration curve to improve the accuracy of 14C dating:
quote: The solar cycle varies on a 28 year period, and this accounts for the small jagged teeth in the calibration curve: this is another correlation between the tree ring data and 14C, in addition to the correlation between all the sources of tree rings and the 14C content in the various rings. and (2) Lake Suigetsu Varves and 14C
quote: But that's not all, there is also this correlation between the layers and 14C AND the rate of deposition:
quote: I would like to see Robert Beyers (or any other creationist) explain how a flood can
You will notice that the title of this thread is "Potential Evidence for a Global Flood". The title is not "Imaginations on the Global Flood". You need to supply evidence to support your ideas. One should also note that these chronologies are continuous to the present times, and they show processes that we see today in uninterrupted progression into the past, which would NOT be the case if there were a world wide flood in those times. Does one throw out the Young Earth concept in order to keep a WWF concept? This data is not compatible with both these concepts. Enjoy. {The bulk of this message now hidden as being off-topic. - Adminnemooseus} Edited by RAZD, : spling Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hide much, do off-topic banner, add note.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi again Taq
... such as the chalk cliffs at Dover where there is several hundred feet of cocolithophores? Catastrophic flooding does not produce these features. with the cocolithophores showing evolution of species with transitions from species at the bottom to different species at the top? Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi Pressie,
Yes, Coccoliths show speciation in the fossil record. This is a good example Just a moment... It shows evolution, extinction of some species, etc. Sorry, this is off-topic and I should not have answered. No, it is not off-topic -- it is evidence that these deposits did not occur during a flood. Floods don't arrange things in neat sorted piles. Additionally, fossil layers of marine growth show long term growth, longer than is possible given the purported duration of the flood. Brachipods have growth rings typically showing ages of 20 to 30 years in a layer, and are attached to the sea floor with stalks. They are fossilized [i]in situ[/u] by silt build up that leaves their ecology undisturbed, and builds up another similar layer as the previous growth is gradually buried. The ages of continuous marine growth can be hundreds of years long - and thus could not be due to a flood. When we go around the world and look at all the fossil beds that creationists like Robert Byers claim to be evidence of floods, we see similar fossils of long term mature marine growth that is completely inconsistent with a flood model. See Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood? Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Percy
I can see a successor thread being useful. How about a focused successor thread? We could reopen Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood? with the caveat that the discussion is limited to what the fossils show and whether this is consistent with a generic flood (rather than the special case Noachin flood). Anything that does not address
Would be off topic. Anything that can cover both
Can then be taken as fossil evidence of a flood, an initial step to then determining if it is evidence for a global flood. If you want a new topic like this I can rewrite the OP to be this specific. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024