|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Potential Evidence for a Global Flood | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
If you read my post, above, I am referring to the initial claim by creationists of coal dating to 1680 years, instead of millions of years. This claim was made by Ken Ham, Andrew Snelling, and Carl Weil in The Answers Book, published by Master Books, El Cajon, CA, in 1992 (page 73). This preceded Baumgardner's RATE study by quite a few years.
The Radiocarbon entry is as follows: Mo-334. River Naryn, Kirgizia 1680 170. A.D. 270Source This fooled Kam et al. into thinking coal was being radiocarbon dated to 1680170 years. It was charcoal! As for the other materials, coal, diamonds, etc. being dated by AMS in the RATE study, that has been satisfactorily dealt with by Bertsche's reply, cited in my above post. Baumgardner doesn't seem to make any headway in his rejoinder that you cited.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
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. Scientists correct their mistakes. The coal/charcoal blunder started by Ham et al. can still be found widely on creationist websites years after it was shown to be incorrect. It is just one of many such bogus claims made by creationists which litter the internet. The claims of C14 in diamonds and ancient coal made by the RATE boys is another such example. Those claims have been debunked, but still litter the internet. If the case for creationism (and a global flood) was actually supported by evidence, why is so much false information found on creationist websites? Surely there is accurate information which supports their case?Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Yet the finale thing is that the earth shows to have been covered in water to account for the layers of sedimentary rock in great depths below the k-t line. All deposited at once. Your evidence for this is? And why are you dealing with the k-t line when the flood is placed by biblical scholars at about 4,350 years ago, not 60 million years ago.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
The k-t line this YEC sees as the flood line or year. all belove deposited by the flood year. You have still ignored the important question of dating. You are mixing two events separated by about 65 million years. The flood is said by biblical scholars to have occurred about 4,350 years ago. Forget about the k-t boundary, as that was some 65 million years ago! The scientific evidence is clear: there is a progression of critters from the k-t boundary to the present, with modern humans showing up very near the end of that span. There is no evidence for humans anywhere near the k-t boundary. If you are going to imagine a global flood at the k-t boundary you need to show evidence that all forms of scientific dating are wrong, and that the entire geologic column since that time is wrong (among other things). Do you have any evidence, or are you just going on belief? (If so, see signature.)Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
I'm saying the k-t boundary is the flood boundary. so millions of years is rejected. The evidence is that there are accumulations of sediment. Yes layers are there but no reason to see them as otherwise then laid all together. Do you have any evidence to reject all of scientific dating beyond the fact that it doesn't fit with your belief? Because that is what you have to do if you wish to continue statements of this kind. First, you need to account for the fact that these layers you claim are "laid all together" date to different, often vastly different, times. Second, if you are rejecting scientific dating, how do you account for things like the change in radioactive decay rates that this would entail? There's no free lunch! If you reject certain parts of science there are consequences. Scientific knowledge is a cohesive whole, and if you change something in one area you are very likely to have something else change where you don't expect it--and you are going to have to explain that as well. For example, if you are going to change the decay rates to accommodate a young earth, what happens to the heat? To force the amount of decay we can document into a span of 10,000 or so years would mean cooking the earth, which obviously didn't happen. Even the RATE boys had to punt on this one.
Just segregated flows within a bigger event. There are different layers, but the dating shows they were not all within a short time frame. That alone busts the flood story.
Above the line is indeed a different fauna/flora fossil assemblage. This because it was laid in a later event under like processes but not the great flood. Above the line is indeed a different fauna/flora, but that is not proof of your mythical flood. Rather that fits better with our current scientific explanations than it does with a global flood.
it all works. The explanations arrived at through science are what work. Ancient tribal myths fail to explain the world as we see it, and the events that took place. You and others who try to explain the world and these events are forced to crazier and crazier "what ifs" in order to try and make your myths fit reality. So, since this thread is about evidence--how about producing some? In the post I am replying to the evidence seems to be as follows:The evidence is that there are accumulations of sediment. Yes layers are there... If that is the best you can do for evidence--a statement that applies to both scientific explanations as well as your explanation--you have nothing. Edited by Coyote, : SpeelingReligious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
As usual, no convincing evidence was offered in support of the global flood idea, and as usual evidence was presented which refutes the flood idea--only to be ignored.
What is so amusing is the nature of some of the "evidence" offered in support of the flood:--Massive sedimentary deposits, for example, that clearly can be dated to different time periods and that exhibit internal structures formed over large time spans, showing it could not have occurred during a single flood.Creationists also must ignore evidence from archaeologists, who deal with the period around 4,350 years ago all the time. Instead of a disruption which would have resulted from such a flood we find continuity of human cultures, genomes, fauna and flora, etc. This thread has shown that the idea of a global flood is a belief contradicted by the facts.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. |
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024