Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
1) Speaking of the flood, can you explain how the same flood that was as violent as you say was able to fossilize such things as foot prints?
Can you show me the layers in the earth that represent pre flood, during flood and post flood? If there was a global flood of the proportions you say, it should be Very easy.
2) I highly recomend studying up on K/Ar dating from a non creationist source, as you appear to have many misunderstandings about it.
A) again, it was never ment to be used on young samples. To do so is to prove that you do not understand how to use K/Ar dating. Not a flaw in the dating. I have said this before, but again, K/Ar dating has a very slow decay rate, which means it takes Very delicate instruments and pure samples to get a young reading. and certain types of contamination is expected. As the sample gets older, the contamination matters less and less. You get to a point where the contamination can no longer effect the date you get. However, this contamination can really effect young samples.
B) I noticed you never did say wether they cross checked their readings to make sure the dates they got were correct.
1) Unfortunately, my theory is only as good as the evolutionists. I don't have any solid proof (and I don't consider K-Ar solid proof either). The majority of the earth contains sediment layers (including the tops of all non-volcanic mountians) that creationists attribute to a great flood and a cataclysm that caused all the known coal, oil, gas, fossils, sediment layers at once.
No. Not just on top. Nor they found on all non-volcanic mountains.
...The only evidence I'm aware of to the contrary would be estimated erosion rates (which really are not predictable nor is the original amount that has been eroded away.
Can I quote you on this. Many of your YEC bretheren disagree.
Plate movements (which creations offer their hydroplate theory which is equally as plausable)
Actually, it is totally implausible.
....and K-Ar dating which I've already suggested as being ridiculous.
No. You said, "I don't consider K-Ar solid proof..." check above.
2) Let's be realistic...to say that something is too young to test is ridiculous. If I have a yardstick, I can still measure the width of a human hair if I have a big enough magnifying glass.
Well, if you have a magnifying glass that can resolve a millionth of a half-life from the analytical error and noise, sure...
The only way you can convince me that K-Ar dating is accurate is to take a volcano that is 6000 years old and give me both a K-Ar date of 6000 years and a C-14 date of 6000 years from some organic debris. If Hawaii is truly only 6000 or 7000 years old (like I believe it is) then wouldn't you get the same K-Ar dates that you see right now or would that be "too young to test acurately."
This is a simple chemistry problem. THe half-life of K40 is simply too long to see any 6ky signal above the noise. Next time I go to a horse race, I'll take your advice and time it with a calendar. You'll have to loan me your magnifying glass....
The fact that volcanic ash that is 1000 years old is getting millions of years old readings suggests that your 6000 year old volcano would also get similar readings.
Please provide actual data. Making up stories is nice, but we cannot actually discuss them.
It's not that the volcanos are too young to date...it's that evolutionists who are blinded by their own dogmas and they tend to throw away any reading or evidence that they think is unreasonable without trying to find out why they get the false readings or anomalies.
If you have some specific example, we'd be glad to discuss it. Otherwise this is just propaganda.
If you find me 4 samples from volcanos 1) Hawaii, 2) 4000 yr/old 3) 2000 yr/old 4) 1000 yr old I would bet you'd get a nice linear correlation between all 4. K-Ar doesn't work because the sample never truly had a 0 K to AR ratio...it was always contaminated and will always artificially read older than it really is. Not that any of us will be around, but I bet in 6000 years if they do a K-Ar test on Mt. St. Helens it will be exactly the same as your Hawaiian volcano. As for whether they did any other tests on Fossil Skull KNM-ER 1470, I'm not aware, but there are other theories on why all the other dating methods are flawed too (specifically, there is no way to know what the original ratios ever were...we at least ASSUME K-Ar was zero...evolutions pulled the baseline for the other methods to fit into their dating schemes).
Please provide evidence of this data tampering.
For evolutionists, dating is a circular scheme of deceit. We assume that something found in a layer is millions of years old so we set a baseline for our dating methods so that our test results fit our theories. We assume our layers are millions of years old because we date them with our flawed tests.
Please give an example. It is impossible to discuss vague charges.
Worse yet, fossils are not found uniformly throughout sediment layers. In many cases, fossils of neanderthal has been found mixed with fossils of modern man ...
Please explain why this is a problem.
[quote]...or fossils of "early life forms" mixed with animals or marine life of "later" eras. [quote]
Such as?
Oddly enough I bet if they were C-14 dated they would all seem to have the same C-14 dates suggestly that they lived and died together but what evolutionist in his right mind would C-14 date something millions of years old, right ;^).
Correct.
Here's the link to the study on C-14. I had to submit it with zzz instead because I'm not allowed to post links yet so substitue accordingly.
There are others, but that was the only one I bookmarked at the time...sorry. It's pretty detailed anyway and has footnotes to other original articles.
There are many. YECs feel threatened by radiometric dating and make all manner of wild assertions about it. All have been refuted.
At what point in the 'recent' creation of the Hawaiian islands did the techtonic movement slow down to its current measured state? (be specific) You left this part out of your ad-hoc explainations of the geology we see there.
There are 3 pieces to the puzzle, you only explained two with your cataclysmic (ad-hoc) model.
1) Radio dating of the different islands that show a linear progression away from the hotspots.
2) Erosion to sea level and more erosion as islands move away from the hotspot.
3) A rate of movement of the plates over a hotspot that can be physically measured today with a speed that correlates to current understanding of 1) and 2)
Why do all 3 of these (if we use measured rates from current day) all point to the formation of the hawaiian islands over a long amount of time?
There is no data point in either of the measured data for 1) or 2) that show that the rate of movement has changed during their formation. If it is measured to be slow today, why can't we see a slow down in measurements of 1) or 2)?
Last edited by notto; 21st October 2003 at 12:25 AM.
Woohoo...there is life in these here parts :^). Welcome back to this thread everyone. I'll try to answers everyones questions as I have time so be patient since there's 12 or so of you and only one of me (any creationists out there want to help back me up??? *grin*).
Arikay -
1) That's a very good question. I'm glad you asked. I would theorize that if water was exploding from the ground and the water canopy described in the Jewish Old Testament was raining down that not 100% of the surface area of all land masses would be experiencing "violent" conditions (unless you call rapid flooding and sediment burying violent). This condition could easily bury a footprint intact. I even read somewhere (don't know if it's true) that almost all fossilized footprints have been found leading away in a straight line as if the victim was running from something before being rapidly buried which would fit in line perfectly with the flood theory. As for the layers, you can find many links on the web that explain creationist's theory and how the layers fit in with the flood theory so I'll not try to explain them here. Creationists do however, believe that the flood better explains how species from supposedly different eras ended up mixed together or how they ended up in rock that was "millions of years old" when they shouldn't have existed. It explains why there is no delta formed from the remains of the Grand Canyon yet the Mississippi who is significantly larger never created a "Grand Canyon" and created a huge delta in the south. It explains why layers are almost perfectly parallel. It explains how sediment ended up on mountains (and not eroded off during millions of years). The fact is that evolutionist dogma is built on theories and interpretations of "evidence." Likewise, creationist theory is just that...theory and interpretations of "evidence." Neither camp has a "magic bullet" that definitively proves the other camp wrong as both theories are riddled full of holes. Either theory is plausable until a magic bullet is found (maybe the C-14 anomaly will prove to be the magic bullet against evolution...who knows).
2) *Sigh* Again you're not picking up on what I am alluding to and you are assuming that I didn't do my research on K/Ar dating before posting. I know how it is "supposed" to work and that "noise" affects the outcome. Let's take notto's example for instance of the data from Hawaii. What do we notice about the chart. For one, it's not perfectly uniform...there are areas where older rock tested in front of newer rock. Secondly, the chart is labeled "best K/AR age." It doesn't say average, weighted average, or whatever. It doesn't give the standard deviation of all samples. Simply put, the evolutionist took the age they were looking for that best made their chart and called it the "best age" and discarded all the other data. If you took 100 samples from each distance and threw out the high and low five and took an average you would have a significantly different graph. It's like taking a poll and throwing out all the calls that didn't fit the answer you were looking for and misreporting that the "majority" of people feel the way you do. It's a lie and evolutionists know it. Again let's look at the Sunset Crater lava flows that are 1000 years old. It has given false readings of 3 billion years old. Why do we know it's false? Because the flow is too young for K/Ar to effectivly date. If we didn't know how old the Crater really was, we'd all be thinking it's 3 billion years old!!!! Same thing with Hawaii. I'm suggesting that Hawaii is 7000 years old and because we don't have direct evidence to prove this, we are mistakingly accepting the K/Ar readings as accurate when they are just as bogus as the Sunset Crater readings. In fact, ALL THE EARTH, is too young to be measured by K/Ar and all readings are "noise" and that's why you can't get a consistant K/Ar reading anywhere and that's why we have fossils that carbon-date in the 1000's in layers that are supposed to be millions of years old. K/Ar is a sham based on faulty assumptions and using statistical data that would appall even a political polling group.
2B) Why on earth would I cross check a K/Ar date with another dating method that makes even more assumptions than K/Ar does about the starting ratios??? Especially when C-14 already proves the other readings as ridiculous.
I even read somewhere (don't know if it's true) that almost all fossilized footprints have been found leading away in a straight line as if the victim was running from something before being rapidly buried which would fit in line perfectly with the flood theory. A
Did they stop to build nests, eat, and 'poop' while they were running from whatever it was they were running from? Did the trees that are buried in different layers of sediment 'run' as well? How did insect burrows and bees nests get built in the middle of these flood sediments?
As for the straight line thing, it is easily disproven. Apparently some of the dinosaurs who were buried where just simply lounging around eating trees. These tracks are ON TOP of a coal seam but under other sediment. They are right next to trees that where not uprooted and that had grown right where they were found and not transported there.
Just how did these footprints get in between layers of coal? Was everything below them layed down before the flood (including the sedimentary rock and other coal seams)?
Last edited by notto; 21st October 2003 at 09:55 AM.
2) Let's be realistic...to say that something is too young to test is ridiculous. If I have a yardstick, I can still measure the width of a human hair if I have a big enough magnifying glass.
I have measured the diameter of human hairs and this statement is totally ridiculous.
You seem to know little about science if you think you can use any method to measure anything outside the dectection limits of the method.
No. Not just on top. Nor they found on all non-volcanic mountains.
Any examples of non-volcanic mountains that formed that have no sediment layers? (You can't include any that are non-explored...it has to be a mountain that a scientific crew scaled and specifically found an absense of sediment)?
Originally Posted by edgeo
Can I quote you on this. Many of your YEC bretheren disagree.
That's why this is all theory. YEC's and evolutions alike don't agree on all theories even in their own camps.
Originally Posted by edgeo
Actually, it is totally implausible.
Prove it. There are dozens of PHD creationists (from acredited mainstream universities)who have lined up on their side just as dozens of PHD evolutionists each saying they are right. The Departement of Defense even has people working on "theoretical plate movements" at Los Alamos giving credance that they don't completely buy the evolutionist solution. Their are holes in both sides and just because you believe your side is right, you can't call the other side implausible.
Originally Posted by edgeo
No. You said, "I don't consider K-Ar solid proof..." check above.
I have already refuted all K-Ar dates above. I consider all K-Ar dates eroneous and therefore not submissible as proof of any evolutionist theory.
Originally Posted by edgeo
Well, if you have a magnifying glass that can resolve a millionth of a half-life from the analytical error and noise, sure...
Agains see above. You are correct that anything 1000, 2000, 3000 years old is too young to use K-Ar. I'm supplying as a theory that the reason you cannot EVER get reliable and consistant K-Ar readings from anywhere on the planet is that the earth is < 10,000 years old and therefore all K-Ar readings are showing "noise." You can't prove me wrong on this one :^).
Originally Posted by edgeo
This is a simple chemistry problem. THe half-life of K40 is simply too long to see any 6ky signal above the noise. Next time I go to a horse race, I'll take your advice and time it with a calendar. You'll have to loan me your magnifying glass....
Blah blah blah...again read above. You can't throw out the data of a 1000 year old volcano because it's "too young" and then take the data as proof of a volcano that COULD BE only 6000 years old.
Originally Posted by edgeo
Please provide actual data. Making up stories is nice, but we cannot actually discuss them.
Do a web search on the volcanos I mentioned above and you will find your "stories." BTW...all the data was EVOLUTIONIST data...not creationist. You guys just merrily threw it away.
Originally Posted by edgeo
If you have some specific example, we'd be glad to discuss it. Otherwise this is just propaganda.
The thread was to provide a theory of how Hawaii falls into the YEC thoeries. I gave one. It doesn't matter if it has holes in it because I still submit that the erroneous data from K-Ar in the original example as well as current findings in the C-14 world prove that Hawaii is < 10,000 years old regardless of what YEC theories I come up with to explain how it got there. It's not propaganda...it's facts pulled from evolutionist data that is thrown away because it doesn't fit in their nice little world.
Originally Posted by edgeo
Please provide evidence of this data tampering.
What data tampering? I'm theorizing that if the earth is less than 10,000 years old, then the K-Ar samples you guys are quoting is simply noise and that if you take sample 6000 years from now from St. Helens, then you would get similar readings to the Hawaii volcanos because you are measuring noise. K-Ar is worthless if the earth is < 10000 years old as Creationist believe. As for KNM-ER 1470, I DARE any evolutionist to submit a sample for AMS C-14 dating. I would almost bet the farm it will have traces of C-14 far above what contamination can account for and prove the layer it was found in is < 60,000 years old.
Originally Posted by edgeo
Please give an example. It is impossible to discuss vague charges.
If you don't see how rationalizing the readings from Hawaii as being accurate and throwing away the readings from other KNOWN volcanic material because it's "too young" is circular reasoning, then you are blind as a bat. You have to PROVE that Hawaii is older than 6 or 7 thousand years old before you can ASSUME the K-Ar readings are accurate and the fact that they are not uniform (i.e. the author of the given website shows the figures as "best date" as opposed to average and doesn't list the standard deviation) puts a lot of doubt on the validity of the dating.
Originally Posted by edgeo
Please explain why this is a problem.
fossils of progressively older fossils should be found in their proper layers...not mixed with newer fossils.
Originally Posted by edgeo
Such as?
I'm not your secretary...do web searches and you will find the examples.
Originally Posted by edgeo
There are many. YECs feel threatened by radiometric dating and make all manner of wild assertions about it. All have been refuted.
YEC's are beginning to embrace parts of dating because of the obvious holes in it. There is no way any evolutionist can prove me wrong on the K-Ar thing because you have to prove the earth is old FIRST to be able to use it which cannot be done. It's circular logic. Also the recent discoveries of C-14 in "C-14 dead" material suggests that the earth is at least < 250,000 years old and all other dating methods are flawed. I am not going to argue each and every YEC theory. Do a web search and you'll find someone somewhere that has refuted this or that. I am simply saying the thread's author is incorrect to assume that you can't fit Hawaii into a young earth model and I am also saying that K-Ar dating is bogus.
Did they stop to build nests, eat, and 'poop' while they were running from whatever it was they were running from? Did the trees that are buried in different layers of sediment 'run' as well? How did insect burrows and bees nests get built in the middle of these flood sediments?
As for the straight line thing, it is easily disproven. Apparently some of the dinosaurs who were buried where just simply lounging around eating trees. These tracks are ON TOP of a coal seam but under other sediment. They are right next to trees that where not uprooted and that had grown right where they were found and not transported there.
link
link
Just how did these footprints get in between layers of coal? Was everything below them layed down before the flood (including the sedimentary rock and other coal seams)?
I was only giving my own 2 cents on how tracks could be buried intact. For creationist theories of how the other stuff you describe could have happened watch this :^):
The Young Age of the Earth , a video by Robert V. Gentry ( Earth Science Associates , 1996; phone: (800)467-6380, 76 minutes). This excellent video features Robert and David Gentry, Walter Brown, and Andrew Snelling. The young age of the earth is demonstrated by parentless polonium radiohalos in granites and the amounts of helium in zircons found deep in the earth's crust. Radiohalo evidence for rapid coal deposit formation, giant coal beds, huge dinosaurs graveyards, polystrate trees, dinosaur tracks in coal seams, and other data are best explained by the Flood. Dr. Brown's hydroplate theory is used to explain how the Flood could have caused mountains, continental drift, the Grand Canyon, and the mid-Atlantic ridge.
Why on earth would I cross check a K/Ar date with another dating method that makes even more assumptions than K/Ar does about the starting ratios???
Because if you use diffferent methods, making different assumptions about different starting ratios and get the same answer, you're left with two possibilities:
1) The answer is correct
2) Both measurements just happen to be wrong by exactly the same amount
Keep making measurements, and 2) becomes indefensible.
Nice try, but I was simply trying to give evidence that refutes the acceptance of ANY K/Ar samples as the earth is simply too young to date with this method (from a creationist standpoint). All K/Ar measurements are "noise."
As for all the links to all the wonderful discussions, it doesn't matter. For every theory that you think "falsifies" the flood there is a creationist theory saying otherwise. Both sides are nothing but theories and interpretations of "evidence" with no hard facts. There is no evolutionist magic bullet that "falsifies" the great flood theory (or vice-versa for that matter). Both sides are theoretical and both worth following up on regardless of what camp you fall into. Both sides have REPUTABLE scientists working for them with PHD's in various fields. Evolutionists just love to bash YEC's as stupid or pseudo-science because they know they have holes in their own theories, too (like the BIG GAPING HOLE OF DATING!!!!!).
Linear Mode
