Literal Flood believers, some questions

[Subduction Zone]

Okay I can see there is definitely something wrong with the "quote" function here.

This site has been closed down at least a couple of times recently. Perhaps it still needs a bit more work.

 

[EternalDragon]

As lasthero said "What assumptions"?

You do know that radiometric dating is very well established., don't you?

If it was don't you think creationists would then be trying to explain the long ages instead of disputing the dating methods?

Those methods still have to make assumptions and have given incorrect dates to currently formed volcanic rock. So to some it may be established because they maybe want to believe the results. Or want the results to fit their theory.

It's another case of historical science making assumptions about the past that they can't observe.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

If it was don't you think creationists would then be trying to explain the long ages instead of disputing the dating methods?

I've yet to find any science for which there isn't some group of whackaloons denying it.

Those methods still have to make assumptions and have given incorrect dates to currently formed volcanic rock.

If you test an assumption then is it still an assumption?

So to some it may be established because they maybe want to believe the results. Or want the results to fit their theory.

It's well established because it works and forms the basis of many industries.

It's another case of historical science making assumptions about the past that they can't observe.

We can and have tested these so called assumptions. They are no more problematic than assuming that the photons hitting your eyes came from the sun eight minutes ago (another "historical" science)

 

[EternalDragon]

If you test an assumption then is it still an assumption?

I guess you could test decay rates if you had a time machine. But we don't currently have one.

It's well established because it works and forms the basis of many industries.

Industries?

We can and have tested these so called assumptions. They are no more problematic than assuming that the photons hitting your eyes came from the sun eight minutes ago (another "historical" science)

No, that is present day operational science.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

I guess you could test decay rates if you had a time machine. But we don't currently have one.

You don't need a time machine to test predictions.

Industries?

Energy and mineral industries.

No, that is present day operational science.

Nope the right minute delay makes it historical.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I guess you could test decay rates if you had a time machine. But we don't currently have one.

Why do you think that a time machine would be needed?

There is no doubt about how nuclear decay works.

 

[lasthero]

I guess you could test decay rates if you had a time machine. But we don't currently have one

There are other dating methods, you know. We can cross check. We can test on objects of known age.

And guess what? They match. If radiometric dating is so unreliable, why would it give dates that match up with dating methods that rely on completely different techniques? Why would the dates we get from things like ice core dating, dendochronology, and coral growth rates show the same errors in the same way? What sense does that make?

 

[CabVet]

If it was don't you think creationists would then be trying to explain the long ages instead of disputing the dating methods?

No, because long ages contradict their interpretation of the Bible. So methods have to be wrong (regardless of whether they really are or not).

 

[Split Rock]

If it was don't you think creationists would then be trying to explain the long ages instead of disputing the dating methods?

No I don't, except for OECs who have no problem with the dates. You YECs can't handle the dates, so you have no choice but to dispute the methods. The alternative is unacceptable.

Those methods still have to make assumptions and have given incorrect dates to currently formed volcanic rock. So to some it may be established because they maybe want to believe the results. Or want the results to fit their theory.

You reject the dates because you don't like them. Period. They are considered "well established" because they WORK. Geologists wouldn't use them if they didn't work. Where do you think the consensus dates come from, if not the dating methods?

It's another case of historical science making assumptions about the past that they can't observe.

Its another case of you using creationist weasel words to avoid reality.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

There are other dating methods, you know. We can cross check. We can test on objects of known age.

And guess what? They match. If radiometric dating is so unreliable, why would it give dates that match up with dating methods that rely on completely different techniques? Why would the dates we get from things like ice core dating, dendochronology, and coral growth rates show the same errors in the same way? What sense does that make?

Break out the tin foil hats. It's a conspiracy.

 

[TheBeardedDude]

As the global flood waters recede they would break down into multiple thousands of large and small 'local floods', which is what is evidenced on the surface of the earth. The more, and varied, land area a flood effects the less likely uniform evidence will be found. Also deposition and sorting of the same material can occur multiple times during a very large flood. Science is looking for something that isn't there.

Receding flood waters would leave a record of decreasing water depth and energy. This is not consistent with the rock record. There are no local floods. This is why I asked the other questions too.

 

[EternalDragon]

Receding flood waters would leave a record of decreasing water depth and energy. This is not consistent with the rock record. There are no local floods. This is why I asked the other questions too.

If there was subduction and rising of the sea floors, the reverse would not be gradual receding. Regardless, the Appalachians show erosion from receding flood waters. The Grand Canyon is also evidence of recent flood waters. I am sure there are other mountain ranges that have evidence of receding flood waters as well.

 

[lasthero]

I am sure there are other mountain ranges that have evidence of receding flood waters as well.

You're sure, even though you've not done any research on the subject. Right.

Why don't you do an experiment?

 

[TheBeardedDude]

If there was subduction and rising of the sea floors, the reverse would not be gradual receding. Regardless, the Appalachians show erosion from receding flood waters. The Grand Canyon is also evidence of recent flood waters. I am sure there are other mountain ranges that have evidence of receding flood waters as well.

Mountain chains so evidence of erosion via wind, water, and ice. Please describe how the Appalachian mountains (we can just stick with the one example for simplicity) show evidence of erosion via "flood waters" and how you distinguish erosion via flooding from erosion via wind, water, and/or ice. (here's a hint, I know how but want to see how you try and explain it)

 

[EternalDragon]

Mountain chains so evidence of erosion via wind, water, and ice. Please describe how the Appalachian mountains (we can just stick with the one example for simplicity) show evidence of erosion via "flood waters" and how you distinguish erosion via flooding from erosion via wind, water, and/or ice. (here's a hint, I know how but want to see how you try and explain it)

Wind, water and ice are from the flood waters.

 

[EternalDragon]

You're sure, even though you've not done any research on the subject. Right.

Why don't you do an experiment?

I'll leave that up to the scientists.

 

[lasthero]

I'll leave that up to the scientists.

You could actually do it yourself. It wouldn't even be that hard - you're just simulating flood conditions.

 

[TheBeardedDude]

Wind, water and ice are from the flood waters.

Nevermind the amount of time needed to generate that much erosion then or the lack of deposition of flood deposits? (which, contrary to what you might believe, are not just simple sediment deposits. Hence the reason I asked multiple questions, feel free to answer those too)

 

[EternalDragon]

You could actually do it yourself. It wouldn't even be that hard - you're just simulating flood conditions.

You may be confusing local floods with a worldwide flood. No one can reproduce the exact conditions of that.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

You may be confusing local floods with a worldwide flood. No one can reproduce the exact conditions of that.

No one can reproduce the exact conditions of local floods either.