Summations Only

It's even worse than that!The time scale from dinosaurs to the flood has to be compressed by about 14,943X to make it fit.

Nonsense!You admit to an age of about 4,350 years ago for the flood.At that time period we are not dealing with geological strata, but with sediments--dirt!I've tested well over 100 archaeological sites, with probably more than half of them encompassing the 4,350 years ago time period. Not a one was within a geological stratum, nor did any produce evidence of a flood.Instead what we see is continuity across that time period: continuity of human cultures, fauna and flora, mtDNA, soil buildup, etc.But I guess that's just more evidence for you to ignore, misrepresent, obfuscate or deny.

Most of this entire thread is useless because of one simple fact:At 4,350 years ago we are dealing with soils, not rocks; sediments, not geological strata.Faith can hand-wave the dating all she wishes, but that doesn't change reality. If there was a global flood 4,350 years ago it would have been visible in soils that are 4,350 years old! One of the first things I learned in grad school (in archaeology) is that "If you want to find a 10,000 year old site, look in 10,000 year old dirt."I know it is amusing to see Faith struggle to fit her beliefs into the Grand Canyon's geological column, about which she knows little but believes a great deal, but the bottom line is that if there was a global flood at 4,350 years ago, as claimed, the Grand Canyon had nothing to do with it.You want to see some floods, look at the Channeled Scablands of southern and eastern Washington. Here is an excellent site!Channeled Scabland Eastern Washington Ice Age Floods Lake MissoulaThe Scablands were created as a series of ice dams in western Montana formed and broke at the end of the last glacial period. These floods scoured a quarter of the state on their way to the ocean, but the important thing is the various floods left a lot of evidence behind. Experts can track the extent of the floods, and can even get pretty good dates on them.What is important here in the Channeled Scablands is 1) we can see the effects of localized floods at the end of the last glacial period in pretty good detail, but 2) we can't see evidence of a flood that is claimed to be worldwide and a third of the age.

True, and the earliest Egyptian pyramids and the initial use of Stonehenge are also earlier than the 4,350 year ago date.As are probably hundreds of thousands of archaeological sites and a lot of other things that show no evidence of massive water damage.There are a lot of reasons why the claim of a global flood ca. 4,350 years is falsified.All of these, of course, led to the drastic need to find an earlier date for the flood, anywhere from 8,000-10,000 years ago, to the K-T boundary (66 million years ago), or even the P-T boundary (252 million years ago).But when you're making it all up ad hoc, what's a few hundred millions years here or there?

But that's the way creation "science" works: all evidence and interpretations must lead to conclusions that the bible is correct. No matter what!

...scientific creationism is little different from the flat earth movement. Both are based on the same kind of scientific evidence and on a more or less literal interpretation of the Bible. In fact, scientific creationism, geocentrism, and flat-earthism are respectively the liberal, moderate and conservative branches of a tree that has often been called Bible-Science. The intense hostility expressed by the scientific creationists towards the flat-earthers, does not extend to the geocentrists, who hover on the edge of respectability among scientific creationists. Indeed, though the Bible is, from Genesis to Revelation, a flat-earth book, the geocentrists have combined forces with liberal creationists to cast the flat-earthers into outer darkness.

​

Despite their internecine warfare, Bible-Scientists are in broad agreement on a number of issues. They agree on the usefulness of the Bible as a scientific text, the weakness of mere theories, the duplicity of conventional scientists, and the impossibility of reconciling conventional science with the Bible. The creation and flat-earth movements have similar foundations and histories, and both have used similar strategies to propagate their beliefs. Indeed, both believe they are battling the same behind-the-scenes opponent.

​

​

Perhaps some day the scientific creationists will make peace with the flat-earthers. While they disagree on details, they claim to be fighting the same enemy.

​

I believe the real source of Modern Astronomy to have been SATAN, wrote flat-earther David Wardlaw Scott. From his first temptation of Eve in the Garden of Eden until now, his great object has been to throw discredit on the Truth of God... John Hampden agreed, calling the spherical theory that Satanic device of a round and revolving globe, which sets Scripture, reason, and facts at defiance.

​

Henry M. Morris, director of the Institute for Creation Research, came to precisely the same conclusion about evolution: Behind both groups of evolutionists [theistic and non-theistic] one can discern the malignant influence of ‘that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world’ (Revelation 12:9). As we have seen, it must have been essentially the deception of evolution which prompted Satan himself to rebel against God, and it was essentially the same great lie with which he deceived Eve, and with which he has continued to ‘deceive the whole world.’

​

According to Charles Johnson, president of the Flat Earth Society, both deceptions will soon be over. He claims that the U.S. government -- perhaps the present administration -- will one day officially proclaim that the earth is flat. That day will also mark the downfall of evolution.

From "Scientific Creationism, Geocentricity, and the Flat Earth," by Robert J. Schadewald (1981).http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/crea-fe.htmPerhaps Faith would like to have this subject in a new thread?

{This should have never been posted in this topic. - Adminnemooseus}Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hidden - Nothing but snark.

Take your time.Those ugly facts that show your "imaginative speculations about [the] past" are horribly wrong will still be here.

Don't forget, the dates for the Channeled Scablands that formed the Palouse area are three times older than those attributed to the global flood.Why do we see the Scablands floods, that are so much older, in such good detail while not seeing any evidence of the claimed more recent and much larger flood?(And don't try to claim that our dating is off. Mindspawn tried that and RAZD handed him his posterior, giftwrapped. He hasn't shown his face for a week now. Hiding out?)

Nope. Your beliefs are incorrect.The dating for those Palouse area Scablands floods is pretty good. Those dates are based on empirical evidence that can be confirmed in quite a number of ways.The dating for your global flood varies from 4,350 years ago to 65 million years ago to even 250 million years ago. You creationists are just making it up as you go to try to conform to your a priori beliefs. You have no evidence to support you or you'd be able to settle on a date. Various creationists claiming a range of >250 million years shows your lack of evidence, and that you folks don't even care about evidence.You shouldn't be in the science forums--you have no respect for the scientific method and little to no scientific knowledge. And you automatically put your ancient tribal myths over the scientific knowledge we take the time to post for you.What a joke!

OK. So all those claiming dates of 65 million years ago are wrong? And all those claiming dates of 250 million years ago are wrong?Oh, and where did your deity specify an exact date? I must have missed it.But if we are dealing with a mere 4300 years ago, then we are dealing with soils, not geological strata! All those hundreds of posts about the Grand Canyon are irrelevant. The dirt in your back yard will almost certainly contain soils dating to that time period, and they are probably not very deep. I'd bet that in most areas you'd find that time period within about 100-150 cm of the surface (depending on the sedimentation rate). All of those things about how the flood happened are myths and speculations based on myths followed by speculations on the speculations. You don't allow real world evidence to intrude upon your beliefs, so you have no way of judging whether your myths--or which of your myths--are correct.The idea of an old earth is based on evidence from many different fields, all coming together to form a cohesive whole--consilience it is called. Those individual data points can be tested and so far have been made more accurate with each test.To argue against an old earth means you have to do what the RATE (Radioactivity and the Age of The Earth) boys did. They spent over a million dollars of creationist money to prove that the earth is young, but ended up with evidence showing that the problems are insurmountable at this time. From "Assessing the RATE Project: Essay Review" by Randy Isaac:

The conclusions of the RATE project are being billed as groundbreaking results. This is a fairly accurate description since a group of creation scientists acknowledge that hundreds of millions of years worth of radioactivity have occurred. They attempt to explain how this massive radioactivity could have occurred in a few thousand years but admit that consistent solutions have not yet been found. The vast majority of the book is devoted to providing technical details that the authors believe prove that the earth is young and that radioisotope decay has not always been constant. All of these areas of investigation have been addressed elsewhere by the scientific community and have been shown to be without merit. The only new data provided in this book are in the category of additional details and there are no significantly new claims.

​

In this book, the authors admit that a young-earth position cannot be reconciled with the scientific data without assuming that exotic solutions will be discovered in the future. No known thermodynamic process could account for the required rate of heat removal nor is there any known way to protect organisms from radiation damage. The young-earth advocate is therefore left with two positions. Either God created the earth with the appearance of age (thought by many to be inconsistent with the character of God) or else there are radical scientific laws yet to be discovered that would revolutionize science in the future. The authors acknowledge that no current scientific understanding is consistent with a young earth. Yet they are so confident that these problems will be resolved that they encourage a message that the reliability of the Bible has been confirmed.

Since this whole issue deals with dating, not geological strata, here are a number of articles about the RATE study and its failure to confirm a young earth.Assessing the RATE Project: Essay Review by Randy Isaac:
Assessing the RATE ProjectDo the RATE Findings Negate Mainstream Science?:
Softwaremonkey - Menang Judi Slot Online Memakai Trik Tersembunyi Part 1
Softwaremonkey - Menang Judi Slot Online Memakai Trik Tersembunyi Part 2RATE’s Radiocarbon: Intrinsic or Contamination? by Kirk Bertsche:
RATE's Radiocarbon - Intrinsic or Contamination?RATE (Radioactivity and the Age of The Earth): Analysis and Evaluation of Radiometric Dating:
RATE and Age of the Earth - Radiometric DatingA Dialogue about RATE:
RATE Dialogue - in PSCF (March 2008)

No, you don't know much about them. You seem to think a quick scan of a website makes you an expert, but in reality you just cherry-pick a tidbit or two while not understanding, or misunderstanding, the rest.The real experts have studied that area for 40 or 50 years and have a deep understanding of it.But then they're doing real science...

Every creationist argument I've seen against radiocarbon dating has been nonsense.They try the stupidest little tricks, thinking they have the magic bullet to kill off scientific dating. Most of the time their little tricks result from their lack of understanding of the method; the rest of the time they're just lying.

Those "tiny little floods" such as the ones that created the Channeled Scablands left a lot of evidence behind. We can read that evidence and determine the age of the floods, the direction, and a lot of other details. And if you study those floods, they cut primarily through soils, and to a much lesser degree through rock. It is in soils that we can read the evidence of those floods, and they are less than 15,000 years old. I did my MA thesis on a site that was started shortly after the last of those floodsYour mythical global flood, which supposedly is much younger, about 4,350 years ago, didn't leave any such evidence. Creationists have to search back to 65 million years ago, and even 250 million years ago looking for something -- anything! -- that might have been left by a large flood. It just gets sillier by the minute.I don't know how you can convince yourself of all the nonsense you try to peddle off on us. Do you really think about all of this, or are you just grasping at strawmen?

This is overly silly, even for you.You are trying to cram events spanning millions of years all into a single flood year.Do you really believe all this nonsense? What happened to the amazing human mind that you were gifted with?(Want to buy a bridge?)