Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Dating Methods Controversy Discussion
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 42 (998)
12-20-2001 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by mark24
12-20-2001 4:26 AM


One thing we know is that the water had to have sufficient oxygen when the Fish were burried, otherwize they wouldn't of been there in the first place. So it had to atleast have oxygen, we know that. Now the expermiment of lowering a fish to the bottom of sea floor is important, that signifies that you had to have rapid burrial of hundreds or thousands of these layers to burry the organism before it would decay. A football being snowed on for 14 days isn't a very good analogy. The football isn't going to decay like a living animal. The experiment was used in a cage so that they would measure how long it takes for the fish to decay without being attacked or eaten by predators. This ofcourse would not be controlable in a natural environment. So we know there were fish, we know there was bacteria anaerobic or not. This presents a problem for slow steady burrial.
If you file off a good amount of the varves and put it in a test tube with water and shake it up you automatically get it sorted into thousands of tiny layers. such a curent as he proposes is not needed in the Flood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by mark24, posted 12-20-2001 4:26 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by nator, posted 12-21-2001 1:01 PM TrueCreation has replied
 Message 28 by mark24, posted 12-21-2001 4:59 PM TrueCreation has replied
 Message 37 by mark24, posted 12-22-2001 5:43 PM TrueCreation has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 24 of 42 (1061)
12-21-2001 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by TrueCreation
12-19-2001 9:25 AM


You should be aware that cutting and pasting information from another source without attribution is very strongly discouraged here.
I found what you had posted at Answers In Genesis. Here is the site address for everyone:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Docs/213.asp#r9
In addition, I noticed that you left out a particularly interesting passage:
"However, the critics (who in any case err by relying on the incomplete data of fallible scientists, rather than the infallible God who knows all data) leave out some vital information that sheds light on the origin of 'varves'."
Why did you specifically exlcude this reference to the infallibility of God mixed with supposed scientific research?
Also, the references are mostly to creationist publications, not peer-reviewed scientific work. Of the couple of scientific sources listed, one was only a meeting abstract, which is far, far from a published, peer-reviewed paper.
The source material for this article is very weak.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by TrueCreation, posted 12-19-2001 9:25 AM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by TrueCreation, posted 12-21-2001 2:24 PM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 25 of 42 (1062)
12-21-2001 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by TrueCreation
12-20-2001 7:34 AM


Reality: Fossils are rare.
Reality: Fossilization occurs under unusual circumstances, which is why they are rare.
Reality: The most common fossils found are of those animals which live in places subject to sudden burial, such as tidal areas. (Think Trilobite)
Proposition: Worldwide flood caused all fossilization and the geologic layers as we see them today.
Problem: Why don't we find billions and billions of fossils, especially land animals?
IOW, why are fossils rare?
Problem: Why are the fossils we have found overwhelmigly weighted towards those that were bottom-dwelling sea creatures?
Problem: Why do we find fossil footprints in so many of the layers? Wouldn't the layers had to have been dried and compactd first?
Problem: In the Grand Canyon, one can see *sucessive* upright forests preserved in the layers.
Conclusion: As Creationist Geologists determined nearly 200 years ago, the Geologic record was not formed by a single catastrophic flood event, but by many small local events over a very, very long time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by TrueCreation, posted 12-20-2001 7:34 AM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by TrueCreation, posted 12-21-2001 2:57 PM nator has not replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 42 (1068)
12-21-2001 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by nator
12-21-2001 12:49 PM


I find it odd how some people attack people for using information from sources other than their own witts. But what I also find odd is that the people who attack them attack them in attempts to make them seem as if what they are saying is irrelivant for various reasons. In this case it is because 'it wasn't published' technically it was published. In 'Creation ex nihilo' though I can tell you won't accept anything unless it is published in a secular source.
I don't copy and paste everything on the pages, I copy information that is needed and I feel is better explained than I can or if I tried to it would sound exactly the same. Also I try not to use information that is of someones personal opinion rather than the scientific aspects of the article. I find it interesting how you chose that specific quote though you missed much more here is the rest of what I 'missed'.
============================================
THE Green River Formation of Wyoming, USA, is familiar to geologists not only for its well-preserved fossils but also because it has come to the forefront of debate on the age of the earth. Critics of creationism have frequently appealed to the Green River Formation as irrefutable evidence for a multi-million-year-old earth.1, 2, 3
The reason is that the deposit is said to consist of several million thin layers of shale, each of which is said to represent a single season's deposition in an ancient lake (the coarser layers in the summer, and the finer layers in the winter). Each summer/winter pair of layers called varves would thus represent a single year. Most geologists claim that this formation alone must have taken several million years to be laid down. Old-earth geologist (and professing evangelical) Dr Davis Young put it like this:
'There are more than a million vertically superimposed varve pairs in some parts of the Green River Formation. These varve deposits are almost certainly fossil lake-bottom sediments. If so, each pair of sediment layers represents an annual deposit . . . . The total number of varve pairs indicates that the lakes existed for a few million years.'4
Obviously, this is a serious challenge to those who believe in a young age for the earth as indicated by Scripture (less than 10,000 years).
However, the critics (who in any case err by relying on the incomplete data of fallible scientists, rather than the infallible God who knows all data) leave out some vital information that sheds light on the origin of 'varves'. As long ago as 1961, creationists were pointing out features of the Green River Formation that were difficult to reconcile with the conventional varve interpretation.5 For instance, well-preserved fossils are abundant and widespread throughout the sediments. According to two conventional geologists:
'. . . fossil catfish are distributed in the Green River basin over an area of 16,000 km2 . . . The catfish range in length from 11 to 24 cm, with a mean of 18 cm. Preservation is excellent. In some specimens, even the skin and other soft parts, including the adipose fin, are well preserved.'6
Another evolutionist stated:
============================================
Does this make me a liar? Or any less intelligent? If someone has anything to say to this information I would accept it and respond. This is a Discussion on reality, logicality, feasibility, explination, and ideas on why we think this is this way because of this, not a battle of witts.
If I had to answer your question on 'Why did you specifically exlcude this reference to the infallibility of God mixed with supposed scientific research?' Then I would have to say it would be because of such people that automatically refute the scientific information because an aspect of supernatural opinion is included.
Who ever said that 'Creation ex nihilo' or Their Technical Journal is not peer-reviewed scientific work. Many of the researchers at AiG present their work to secular scientists, young or old earthers. And I would say it is very good information, scientifically sound.
You can have another chance on refuting anything that is in this topic of discussion. After all were here to discuss, not to attack anyone's belief.
If you think it is so weak then why not respond without just saying it's 'weak'. Without you propose a very 'weak' argument if one at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by nator, posted 12-21-2001 12:49 PM nator has not replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 42 (1069)
12-21-2001 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by nator
12-21-2001 1:01 PM


Reality: Fossils are rare.
-----Depends on where your digging. But overall I agree Fossils are rare, whether your uniformitarian, or creationary perspective
Reality: Fossilization occurs under unusual circumstances, which is why they are rare.
-----Fossilization requires non-contamination thus requiring rapid burrial, also depending on how 'beautifuly' preserved your fossil is. Such fossils like that are reperesented in varves are beautifully preserved and I would give no more than a couple hours for complete burrial in this area unless someone would be willing to give me reasons why it can take 'years' or be willing to duscuss longer times.
Reality: The most common fossils found are of those animals which live in places subject to sudden burial, such as tidal areas. (Think Trilobite)
-----That depends on how high on the 'geologic column' your looking at. And also insects such as a trilobite would reproduce much faster than say a human or a bird, thus there would be many more anyway.
Proposition: Worldwide flood caused all fossilization and the geologic layers as we see them today.
-----Sure was (technically not 'All' but 99.9% of them sure)
Problem: Why don't we find billions and billions of fossils, especially land animals?
IOW, why are fossils rare?
Who said we don't find billions and billions of fossils? We've found billions of fossils already and we've only looked at about 0.01% of the worlds Geologic layers. We defanantly find millions of land animals, though nothing compaired to fish because fish would have been burried easier because their allready in the water and they travel with 'schools' in the hundreds of thousands. Fossils are rare because it requires rapid burrial. Go to the plains in the middle of the united states, hundreds of thousands of buffalo were killed there but you'll never find any of their bones fossilized, unless someone burried it.
Problem: Why are the fossils we have found overwhelmigly weighted towards those that were bottom-dwelling sea creatures?
Because there were countless billions of fish in the sea compaired to land dwelling animals. Fish can produce hundreds more offspring than land dwelling animals. Land dwelling animals don't live in the water so they would avoid being in the water till the last minute (obviously).
Problem: Why do we find fossil footprints in so many of the layers? Wouldn't the layers had to have been dried and compactd first?
How would you find footprints in dried and compacted dirt unless it was done by some sort of massive dinosaur or animal, though we find human (sometimes thought to be not so human but whatever it was it was of similar weight) footprints in some layers, these layers had to be somewhat muddy or very moist, these layers weren't rock yet.
Problem: In the Grand Canyon, one can see *sucessive* upright forests preserved in the layers.
After the explosion of Mt. Saint Hellens, millions of trees were swept right off the hillsides and were deposited in a lake (forgot the lakes name). What happend to these trees is they stayed afloat ontop of the water, their bark all fell off and fell to the bottom of the lake, then after a while they turned so they faced vertically. After more weeks passed the tree became saturated and sank to the bottom of the lake and stood on end in the sediment. Today you can go there and see that they are in many feet of sediment, standing upright. Now if this senario were to take place in a worldwide flood you would get the same effect, but they would be burried by hundreds of feet of sediment. This is exactly what we see.
Conclusion: As creationist Geologists view the evidence, they come to an obvious conslusion.....By faith we trust God and say 'he just made it that way'....wait no that isn't it? Mabye its...according to the evidence we find that it is more than entirely possible that the evidence points to a Global Flood. Yeah that sounds right. And I should thank schrafinator for helping me show it as so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by nator, posted 12-21-2001 1:01 PM nator has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5194 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 28 of 42 (1079)
12-21-2001 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by TrueCreation
12-20-2001 7:34 AM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
One thing we know is that the water had to have sufficient oxygen when the Fish were burried, otherwize they wouldn't of been there in the first place. So it had to atleast have oxygen, we know that. Now the expermiment of lowering a fish to the bottom of sea floor is important, that signifies that you had to have rapid burrial of hundreds or thousands of these layers to burry the organism before it would decay. A football being snowed on for 14 days isn't a very good analogy. The football isn't going to decay like a living animal. The experiment was used in a cage so that they would measure how long it takes for the fish to decay without being attacked or eaten by predators. This ofcourse would not be controlable in a natural environment. So we know there were fish, we know there was bacteria anaerobic or not. This presents a problem for slow steady burrial.
If you file off a good amount of the varves and put it in a test tube with water and shake it up you automatically get it sorted into thousands of tiny layers. such a curent as he proposes is not needed in the Flood.

I addressed this, anaerobic decay is NOT an issue. It is a well understood phenomenon. It may stop,limit & slow decay, as not all bacteria are anaerobic. Anaerobic bacteria can only cause decay where they are present. If theres no O2, & are no anaerobes, theres no decay.
However, just because they're anaerobes doesn't mean they're super beasties, they may be affected by CO2, H2S, or anything else dissolved in the water.
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by TrueCreation, posted 12-20-2001 7:34 AM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by TrueCreation, posted 12-21-2001 5:28 PM mark24 has replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 42 (1083)
12-21-2001 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by mark24
12-21-2001 4:59 PM


I agree, but you are missing something, If there were fish in this water, then there had to be sufficient oxygen for this fish to even exist in the water, fish 'breath' persay threw their gills and they 'breath' oxygen, so we have to start out with 'sufficient' oxygen, so now we do have decay.
Would you be able to give an example of anything that could be in the water that would make there be no decay but have fish able to live in the water?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by mark24, posted 12-21-2001 4:59 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-21-2001 5:36 PM TrueCreation has replied
 Message 33 by mark24, posted 12-21-2001 6:28 PM TrueCreation has replied

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 30 of 42 (1085)
12-21-2001 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by TrueCreation
12-21-2001 5:28 PM


Certainly, there can be a diference in water chemisty beween that at the lake floor, and that of higher up.
Moose
------------------
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by TrueCreation, posted 12-21-2001 5:28 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by TrueCreation, posted 12-21-2001 5:39 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 42 (1086)
12-21-2001 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Minnemooseus
12-21-2001 5:36 PM


Would you be able to give any reference to this claim, I will take a little bit to look threw some search engines to find something to validate this. You should probley do the same, I am not saying there wouldn't be anything of difference that would effect decay rates but would like to validate it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-21-2001 5:36 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5194 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 32 of 42 (1087)
12-21-2001 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by TrueCreation
12-18-2001 10:59 PM


ive posted on the wrong thread sorry, this is the only way I know how to delete, edit & delete....
[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-21-2001]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by TrueCreation, posted 12-18-2001 10:59 PM TrueCreation has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5194 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 33 of 42 (1091)
12-21-2001 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by TrueCreation
12-21-2001 5:28 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
I agree, but you are missing something, If there were fish in this water, then there had to be sufficient oxygen for this fish to even exist in the water, fish 'breath' persay threw their gills and they 'breath' oxygen, so we have to start out with 'sufficient' oxygen, so now we do have decay.
Would you be able to give an example of anything that could be in the water that would make there be no decay but have fish able to live in the water?

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/plants/management/joysmanual/dissolvedoxygen.html
This shows O2 levels can vary by up to 97% between upper & lower layers. Showing fish & other organisms can live in the upper levels but not necessarily the lower.
A fish that dies will not decay at aerobic rates. Or, if oxygen is insufficient for aerobic bacteria, decay will cease if anaerobes are not present.
See prev posts re. other dissolved gases.
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-21-2001]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by TrueCreation, posted 12-21-2001 5:28 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by TrueCreation, posted 12-21-2001 10:23 PM mark24 has replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 42 (1101)
12-21-2001 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by mark24
12-21-2001 6:28 PM


I must be getting tired, because its getting hard to think. Im trying to make a model in a simple paint program with this information. Do you know how deep the Green River is? Tomorrow I will try and get this simple model done so I can think clearly. I find this link you gave me interesting, I was unaware of why there are these differences though it is so simple. I will make my model and tell you what I can conclude with the information I have so far. If you can try to find some information on the Green river and aspects of it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by mark24, posted 12-21-2001 6:28 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by mark24, posted 12-22-2001 3:44 AM TrueCreation has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5194 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 35 of 42 (1102)
12-22-2001 3:44 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by TrueCreation
12-21-2001 10:23 PM


Its 8.30 am & work beckons again
(12 hour day as well) there are 5-8 million couplets, each involving 2 layers, for a total of 10-16 million layers. The main deposit is a Calcium Carbonate marlstone, with layers of sandstone containing laminates of kerogen, a hydrocarbon. Couplet thickness is 0.2mm. The entire formation is 600m thick.
Any interpretation of the couplets needs to address the existence of this hydrocarbon as part of a cycle.
The inference is, that the kerogen is the result of organic deposition. Its cyclic nature is the result of summer growth of (mainly) photosynthesising organisms in the upper layers that die in winter to be depostied, ad infinitum.
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-22-2001]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by TrueCreation, posted 12-21-2001 10:23 PM TrueCreation has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 36 of 42 (1111)
12-22-2001 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by TrueCreation
12-19-2001 2:19 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[b]Would you be willing to present anything that would disprove its feasibility or its in-fact happening?[/QUOTE]
What event are we talking about? I'm lost.
quote:
That is why Im doing this forum, not to show everyone I believe this but because It is a good discussion to discuss the evidence, not to say well I believe something.
You haven't discussed much evidence at all, you know. You have engaged in a great deal of vague, wild speculation with no basis in evidence.
You are mostly making things up to fit your story, not explaining, in detail, any specific points of evidence that have been observed.
quote:
If you haven't already guessed it, lots of things have changed since before and during Darwins time.
Yes, and many current Creationists want to ignore all of it and want to set science back 300 years.
[QUOTE]And I agree that even today there are Biblical creationists that believe in a 'gap theory' a Blacksea local flood, and an old earth and all. But that is not biblically sound, they just believe that and promote it so that it is easier, and I admit if i had the same ideas It would be 100 times easier for me, but I believe what I believe because that is what I see the evidence points to.[/b]
Are you telling me that you have, with an open, willing mind, studied Evolutionary Biology, Geology, Paleontology, and Physics, as well as the Bible, and then come to the conclusion that science is all bunk?
No, you believe what you believe because of your faith, regardless of the evidence. I doubt that you have done much study of any science at all. (The non peer-reviewed stuff that the ICR and AIG puts out doesn't count.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by TrueCreation, posted 12-19-2001 2:19 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by TrueCreation, posted 12-22-2001 7:14 PM nator has replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5194 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 37 of 42 (1120)
12-22-2001 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by TrueCreation
12-20-2001 7:34 AM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
One thing we know is that the water had to have sufficient oxygen when the Fish were burried, otherwize they wouldn't of been there in the first place. So it had to atleast have oxygen, we know that. Now the expermiment of lowering a fish to the bottom of sea floor is important, that signifies that you had to have rapid burrial of hundreds or thousands of these layers to burry the organism before it would decay. A football being snowed on for 14 days isn't a very good analogy. The football isn't going to decay like a living animal. The experiment was used in a cage so that they would measure how long it takes for the fish to decay without being attacked or eaten by predators. This ofcourse would not be controlable in a natural environment. So we know there were fish, we know there was bacteria anaerobic or not. This presents a problem for slow steady burrial.
If you file off a good amount of the varves and put it in a test tube with water and shake it up you automatically get it sorted into thousands of tiny layers. such a curent as he proposes is not needed in the Flood.

Do you have a link to this pls? I don't understand a mechanism that sorts particulates of the same size/density into many, alternating layers of calcium carbonate, sandstone, & kerogen. Just by shaking a test tube. How does the densest/ largest particle one not get sorted just at the bottom?
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by TrueCreation, posted 12-20-2001 7:34 AM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by TrueCreation, posted 12-22-2001 6:54 PM mark24 has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024