Age of the Earth and the Flood

[Deamiter]

Young earth, global flood -- both because that's what the Scriptures say and because I think it fits the observed evidence, such as the fossil record, the best.

One small point about carbon dating -- it is only able to be used to date things within about the last 50,000 years, then there is too little c-14 to be measured. (There are problems with using it even for that, but carbon dating in particular cannot "prove" an extremely old earth) Of course, this raises problems when material that is supposedly much older than 50K years still has measurable c-14. There are secondary explanations, such as contamination, c-14 production from radiation, etc., but in certain cases, such as diamonds, these have not been shown to be sufficient. This does not prove a young earth, but gives an upper bound to the age of the earth.

I've never once seen a published account that even attempted to follow standard procedures that would document the amount of radioactive exposure of a particular diamond or coal deposit and show that it was insufficient to account for the deposit's C14 content. The average ICR article simply says, "We tested for the amount of C14 in this sample, and there's more than we think there should be."

How can you honestly evaluate creationist claims when they utterly fail to document their procedure or make claims based on evidence gathered without documenting important details (like precise location so the measurement can be repeated!)?

I know you think that creationist research has made great advances, but when you look at the articles that these creationists publish on only margionally peer-reviewed websites, they don't begin to follow the detailed procedures that you find in scientific journals. Whenever the authors are contacted for more details, they invariably claim that they don't remember the exact location or that the samples were donated thus 'protecting' their research from repetition that could potentially disprove their conclusions.

 

[laptoppop]

Actually the diamonds from the RATE project were collected and given to an outside lab for testing without telling them anything about what the expected results were.

 

[Jadis40]

Actually the diamonds from the RATE project were collected and given to an outside lab for testing without telling them anything about what the expected results were.

Yet the RATE results have been proven to be incorrect time and time again, including the "pet" claims:

1. Decay rates are not constant:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF210.html

2. Helium diffusion:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html

3. Carbon-14 in coal and diamonds:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html

4. Radiohalos:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/violences.html

And, for the actual reliability of the Rubidium-Strontium dating method, I'd refer you to this:

From http://geology.cr.usgs.gov/capabilities/gronemtrac/geochron/geochron.html

Strontium-isotope stratigraphy is a method that uses extremely precise Sr-isotope measurements of marine fossils in conjunction with the known Sr isotopic composition of sea water through time to provide an age for the fossil. This technique can also be used to determine ages for other geologic processes, such as dolomitization.

I'd also have to reference that the earth itself records numerous shifts in the poles of the earth which have been revealed through the study of paleomagnetism. There have been numerous reversals throughout the 4.6 billion year history of the earth.

http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Paleomagnetism

All those changes didn't take place over a span of 6000 years.

 

[laptoppop]

Interesting that you claim the RATE results have been falsified, when 1) the articles cited were released BEFORE the RATE report, 2) RATE included many objections and answers, and the Coal article doesn't even touch on diamonds.

 

[Jadis40]

Interesting that you claim the RATE results have been falsified, when 1) the articles cited were released BEFORE the RATE report, 2) RATE included many objections and answers, and the Coal article doesn't even touch on diamonds.

Yet, I see RATE as nothing more than an attempt of YEC to discredit radiometric dating methods that, despite claims to the contrary, (see my point about Rubidium-Strontium for one) are highly accurate.

 

[laptoppop]

I would encourage anyone interested to read the first report of the RATE group for themselves and make up their own mind. Warning: the link is a 600+ page PDF file -- 2.8 megabytes.
http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/rate-all.pdf

 

[juvenissun]

First, let me quality myself on my statement. I am a geologist and I know how flood occurs on today's earth.

I am making a claim that the Genesis Flood would either be a global flood or did not exist at all. A local flood is not a possible interpretation.

To make the reason simple: Because a local flood will not fit what's described in the scripture AT ALL. Provided that a local flood as we understand it today is not possible to lift the Ark and to move it to sea.

I hope someone could say that I am wrong on this claim.

 

[Servant222]

I am making a claim that the Genesis Flood would either be a global flood or did not exist at all. A local flood is not a possible interpretation.

To make the reason simple: Because a local flood will not fit what's described in the scripture AT ALL. Provided that a local flood as we understand it today is not possible to lift the Ark and to move it to sea.

Have you read my Post #28 on this http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=34349909&postcount=28? The Mediterranean Flood, although not world-wide, was a massive flood and certainly could have affected the entire world as it was known at that time. Its occurrence is well-documented in peer-reviewed traditional scientific journals.

It also would have lifted the Ark and moved it to the sea, and explained why the dove was able to get an olive branch.

 

[Jase]

First, let me quality myself on my statement. I am a geologist and I know how flood occurs on today's earth.

I am making a claim that the Genesis Flood would either be a global flood or did not exist at all. A local flood is not a possible interpretation.

To make the reason simple: Because a local flood will not fit what's described in the scripture AT ALL. Provided that a local flood as we understand it today is not possible to lift the Ark and to move it to sea.

I hope someone could say that I am wrong on this claim.

Well, aside from the fact that the specs for the Ark wouldn't be able to be seaworthy in any amount of water, why can't a local flood carry an Ark? The flooding of the entire Mesopotamian valley is most certainly large enough to accomplish such a feat, without being illogically and absurdly large as the entire globe.

As a geologist, you should be well aware of the implications of a global flood on this planet, including the amount of plate tectonics, continental drift, and sea floor spreading that would have had to occur to shape the Earth as we see it today. The fact is, continents don't smash into each other at hundreds of miles per hour. They move at centimeters per year.

 

[united4Peace]

I opted for other as I believe in evolution a local flood but that Genesis is NOT a literal story of actual events.

I look at Genesis as being Metaphoric not literal

 

[LewisWildermuth]

First, let me quality myself on my statement. I am a geologist and I know how flood occurs on today's earth.

I am making a claim that the Genesis Flood would either be a global flood or did not exist at all. A local flood is not a possible interpretation.

To make the reason simple: Because a local flood will not fit what's described in the scripture AT ALL. Provided that a local flood as we understand it today is not possible to lift the Ark and to move it to sea.

I hope someone could say that I am wrong on this claim.

I will agree with you and I will add that a global flood like proposed by AiG and other major YEC groups is also completely unscriptural.

Known rivers, mountains, and other landmark from the "pre-flood" Earth are just the same as those in the "post-flood" Earth. No massive laying down of sediments, no radical change of the Earths surface is supported at all by the Bible.

I think it is pretty clear that since all types of flood scenarios are ruled out, the only thing left is that the story is not literal at all, that if it was based on any kind of literal event, that event is so inflated by the story as to be unrecognizable.

The literal event, if there was any, is not important to the story at all, only the spiritual meaning is of any importance.

 

[Caissie]

First, let me quality myself on my statement. I am a geologist and I know how flood occurs on today's earth.

I am making a claim that the Genesis Flood would either be a global flood or did not exist at all. A local flood is not a possible interpretation.

To make the reason simple: Because a local flood will not fit what's described in the scripture AT ALL. Provided that a local flood as we understand it today is not possible to lift the Ark and to move it to sea.

I hope someone could say that I am wrong on this claim.

I have also realized that the world wide flood theory does not fit with the old earth theory (and can not fit scientifically). Do you happen to know where I can get a book or an article about how these 2 theories do not fit?

 

[Iosias]

I believe the young earth creation theory and I believe in a world wide flood because that is what the Scriptures teach and there is no credible evidence to suggest otherwise

 

[juvenissun]

Have you read my Post #28 on this http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=34349909&postcount=28? The Mediterranean Flood, although not world-wide, was a massive flood and certainly could have affected the entire world as it was known at that time. Its occurrence is well-documented in peer-reviewed traditional scientific journals.

It also would have lifted the Ark and moved it to the sea, and explained why the dove was able to get an olive branch.

The Mediteranian Flood did not happen over night. It would have long enough time to allow ALL people to flee the flood. And it did not exist only for 1 year. In fact, it is still flooded NOW. And, there was no water came from the abyss in that case.

 

[juvenissun]

Have you read my Post #28 on this http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=34349909&postcount=28? The Mediterranean Flood, although not world-wide, was a massive flood and certainly could have affected the entire world as it was known at that time. Its occurrence is well-documented in peer-reviewed traditional scientific journals.

It also would have lifted the Ark and moved it to the sea, and explained why the dove was able to get an olive branch.

The Mediterranian flood did not happen over night, and it did not recede in one year. It was a consequence of a tectonic event. People demoted the Genesis Flood to local flood because they think the local flood happened commonly and virtually everywhere. It is simply a WRONG interpretation.

 

[juvenissun]

Well, aside from the fact that the specs for the Ark wouldn't be able to be seaworthy in any amount of water, why can't a local flood carry an Ark? The flooding of the entire Mesopotamian valley is most certainly large enough to accomplish such a feat, without being illogically and absurdly large as the entire globe.

As a geologist, you should be well aware of the implications of a global flood on this planet, including the amount of plate tectonics, continental drift, and sea floor spreading that would have had to occur to shape the Earth as we see it today. The fact is, continents don't smash into each other at hundreds of miles per hour. They move at centimeters per year.

First, the flood on the Mesopotamian Valley never have enough water to lift up a huge thing like the Ark. It would be similar to lift up a ocean liner and move it through the Mississippi River. Second, even the Ark could be moved by a huge flood, in that case, the Ark would most likely bump on something and broke before reaching the sea.

As far as the speed of tectonic change, that is a matter not directly related to the cause of flood.

 

[juvenissun]

I will agree with you and I will add that a global flood like proposed by AiG and other major YEC groups is also completely unscriptural.

Known rivers, mountains, and other landmark from the "pre-flood" Earth are just the same as those in the "post-flood" Earth. No massive laying down of sediments, no radical change of the Earths surface is supported at all by the Bible.

I think it is pretty clear that since all types of flood scenarios are ruled out, the only thing left is that the story is not literal at all, that if it was based on any kind of literal event, that event is so inflated by the story as to be unrecognizable.

The literal event, if there was any, is not important to the story at all, only the spiritual meaning is of any importance.

I think what you said is also a quick jump. AiG and others proposed a very fast pace of tectonic change after the flood. I am not sure it is completely out of question after all. I am very puzzled by the description that big water came from "below". The most recent geological knowledge does suggest both water and oil could come abundantly from igneous rocks. And there were some geologists over the past Century who did suggest some kind of sudden and quick crustal movement. Notice that Plate Tectonics is still only a model so far, not a fact.

 

[juvenissun]

I have also realized that the world wide flood theory does not fit with the old earth theory (and can not fit scientifically). Do you happen to know where I can get a book or an article about how these 2 theories do not fit?

I think even there are books for the Young Earth Theory, there probably is not a book for the Old Earth Theory. In fact, just pick up any Geology 101 book, and it IS a book about the old earth theory. When people talk about the old earth theory, they do not talk about the global flood, because it is an incompatible idea from any known point of view.

 

[Jase]

I think what you said is also a quick jump. AiG and others proposed a very fast pace of tectonic change after the flood. I am not sure it is completely out of question after all. I am very puzzled by the description that big water came from "below". The most recent geological knowledge does suggest both water and oil could come abundantly from igneous rocks. And there were some geologists over the past Century who did suggest some kind of sudden and quick crustal movement. Notice that Plate Tectonics is still only a model so far, not a fact.

As a geologist, you should know that the Theory of Plate Tectonics will never become a fact. We can however use satellites to measure the movement of the Earth's plates, and we know how volcanism and Earthquakes work.

 

[Servant222]

The Mediterranian flood did not happen over night, and it did not recede in one year. It was a consequence of a tectonic event. People demoted the Genesis Flood to local flood because they think the local flood happened commonly and virtually everywhere. It is simply a WRONG interpretation.

Well, first, I'm not suggesting that the Mediterranean flood is the same one described in the Bible- only pointing out that immense floods that affected vast areas HAVE occurred in the geologic past. Floods of the magnitidue of the Mediterranean would have been considered preposterous before the 20th century and the advent of plate tectonics.

Second, you should read the accounts by Professor Kenneth J. Hsu and the papers generated as a result of the research done during the voyages of the drilling ship Glomar Challenger to get a better idea of how catastrophic the Mediterranean flood really was. It may not have happened overnight, but it was extremely fast and would likely NOT have allowed people to get out of the way. Also, like the Indian Ocean tsunami, flood waters would have surged far inland in many areas, and then receded; again, matching the Biblical descriptions.