Meteor craters and the Flood year

[corvus_corax]

It is not any more scientific to INSIST that evolution had to have occurred, and it is totally okay to imagine that radioactivity had to started at point (A) and is moving to (z) because, well just because it fits my or your theories...

(The following seems to be my metaphor of the day)
Forensic science. Heard of it?
They (like biologists) look at evidence and construct models of what most likely happened. Saying that I "INSIST that evolution had to have occured" is like saying a forensic scientist INSISTS that his model HAD to have occured.
Do you see how wrong that it? I never "insisted" that it had to have occured, and as far as Ive seen most others dont "insist" on this either. What I see is evidence (and mountains of it). Based on that evidence, evolution presents the best current model for what has happened.

Science is not an "ends". Science is not justified by any means. If you want to make it your religion, that is up to you; however, you have made a religion out of it. Your theories and studies harbor some truth, but then Lucifer himself never started from a boldfaced lie------he simply stretched the truth to suit his whim...

Now you're equating science with the Devil? (Yes you were, otherwise why bring up that subject at all)

Well that explains a lot.

 

[LittleNipper]

(The following seems to be my metaphor of the day)
Forensic science. Heard of it?
They (like biologists) look at evidence and construct models of what most likely happened. Saying that I "INSIST that evolution had to have occured" is like saying a forensic scientist INSISTS that his model HAD to have occured.
Do you see how wrong that it? I never "insisted" that it had to have occured, and as far as Ive seen most others dont "insist" on this either. What I see is evidence (and mountains of it). Based on that evidence, evolution presents the best current model for what has happened.


Now you're equating science with the Devil? (Yes you were, otherwise why bring up that subject at all)

Well that explains a lot.

The simple fact is that no matter what the TV shows, forensic science is just as much an art as a science and they don't solve all the cases and they do make mistakes. I equate a love of Science as just as inherently evil as a love of money. GOD refuses to be second to anything or anyone.

 

[corvus_corax]

The simple fact is that no matter what the TV shows

Your experience, or are you trying to read something into my post?

forensic science is just as much an art as a science and they don't solve all the cases and they do make mistakes.

Of course mistakes are made. Of course not all cases are solved.
And, as Ive made clear, evolution is the current best model that we have. I never said it was perfect, I never said it was flawless, I never said mistakes havent been made.
But hey, if a science risks making mistakes, perhaps we should just throw the whole thing out?

I equate a love of Science as just as inherently evil as a love of money. GOD refuses to be second to anything or anyone.

I know some deists who would laugh so hard they'd fall out of their chair after reading your statement.

And I really think you should re-examine your statement "love of Science". You are assuming far too much LittleNipper.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

HOWEVER, you must ASSUME that the speed has always been constant. We know the speed things are happening presently and we can apply that. HOWEVER, assumptions must be accepted. Assumptions are not always correct. To suggest that other considerations are not acceptable because they do not fit YOUR criteria simply demonstrates Uniformitarian bias.

Another example of a creationist unable to deal with the relationship the two data sets have, choosing instead to pick on one irrelevant part as a distraction from the whole point behind why the example is raised.

Your objection is invalid not only because it has no evidence, and plenty against it, but it is also irrelevant in light of the relationship between the two data sets.

The ages we get using current plate tectonic rates match the ages we get from radiometric dating. That is the relationship which is the relevant point here.

Is this some sort of unbelievable coincidence or a vast conspiracy among scientists?

Those are really the only two options you have when confronted with the relationship between the ages of the Hawaiian Islands from both methods, which you need to object to for purely emotional reasons, as otherwise you'd have to accept the dating methods as valid.

 

[And-U-Say]

I read the article--it doesn't prove anything.

All you are doing is using techniques to determine the age of craters that fits with your theory. This is what evolutionist do. It is not scientific.



I was just trying to say that if you want to have a real scientific debate it is much easier to pick one topic to focus on that topic. Although you will be gone perhapse there is someone else who could respond.

The ignorance is breathtaking, simply breathtaking.

 

[BrotherSteve]

This is categorically wrong, for a number of reasons. The dating methods can be matched perfectly with a number of independent methods of dating. The Hawaiian island chains have already been mentioned; we know how fast the crust is moving, we know how far the islands have gone from the hotspot, and so we can calculate how old the islands are - time=distance/speed. simple.

You ASSUME the crust has always moved at this rate, that it the rate has not varried, and that it will continue to move at this rate.

correction: time = total distance/ average speed

furthermore the nature of nuclear decay relies on the nuclear constants.

Again, you ASSUME that the nuclear constant always were constant and always will be constant.

studies of the Oklo phenomenon demonstrate that these constants have not changed, studies of stellar fusion indicate these constants have not changed. analsysis of the breakdown spectra from the remnants of SN1987A indicate that the decay rates have not changed, analysis of the spectral lines of distant stars, quasars and nebulae indicate that the constants have not changed. Analysis of stellar elemental compositions all over the universe indicate that decay rates have not changed, the organisation of the Herzprung-Russell Diagram indicates that decay rates have not changed.

So, if we use data from stars (of an unknown age) we can validate our ageing techniques. Then we can probably use our ageing techniques to estimate the age of the stars. Then we can say that we have validated the ageing techniques and the age of the stars.

Still dating methods have not been validated using anything of a KNOWN age.

so actually, dating techniques have been validated time and time again. you sir, are talking from where the sun does not shine.

You can validate methods based on assumptions over and over. People can even come up with new ways to validate their work based on the assumptions previosuly set forth. However, until you produce many examples that are known to be millions-billions of years old, you have not truly validated anything except your assumptions.

 

[Vance]

First of all, we have no reason to believe that the speed has not been the same. Second, what would the speed have to be for it to fit into a young earth framework? Is that even geologically possible? What Creationists have failed to to is present a workable model that fits the evidence, one that actually works with the dozens and dozens of evidences we have that would seem to point to an old earth. Assuming that they have not changed has to be the default, and unless a Creationist can provide a workable model, or some valid reason to doubt uniformity, there can really be no Creationist scientific argument.

What it boils down to is that the ONLY people who reject the evidences of an old earth and universe are those who HAVE to for things to fit into the particular interpretation of Scripture they hold. The rest of the Christians who DON'T accept that interpretation of the text, including the majority of the Christian scientists, have no problem accepting the evidence says what it says it says.

 

[BrotherSteve]

Only if you define "small time-scales" as periods of millions of years.

You are arbitrarily throwing out evidence you don't like. And your objection is invalid because you implicitly define "small times scales" as several million years.

In comparison to Billions and Billions of years, I would say that several million is small time scale. I would also like to know what do we KNOW has been around for millions of years, not based on dating methods?

No, it's not. We're talking about different dating methods involving (1) different types of nuclear decay, (2) different parent-daughter combinations, (3) different decay constants, and (4) different percentages of the parent decaying to a particular daughter used in the measurement (e.g., only ~10% of K-40 decays to Ar-40).

They are very different dating methods and they all agree on the same date. This is an extremely strong argument that you are dismissing for no reason.

When a research area is hot many people will come up with differnet methods to accomplish the same task. In a scientific community if one person publishes something (like an accurate dating method) then others need only match the results of the first person using a different method and they will have a new method that is just as good as the old one.

All-in-all, there is still no validation of dating methods except other dating methods. This isn't true validation--to truely validate the dating methods you must have something that you know is millions or billions of years old to prove your case. Furthermore, if you only have once case that you use to validate your results there is no gaurantee that this is a correct answer.

It sure seems like many people don't understand the concept of verification and validation. Take some time and do some research and you will see how you have no real validation of your techniques. In most other areas of science validation results like you have presented would be laughed at.

My point exactly. Your explanation is not a scientific one because it is not falsifiable. Of course the fact that we find zero fossils of such creatures decimates the credibility of that claim. And my claims about meteorites actually have evidence backing them up, and yours does not.

We also can't find anything we KNOW was around millions of years ago--just show me a few things that are proven to be around for millions of years (not based on dating techniques). So that means that your claims are not falsifiable either.

Your only objection has been a 'maybe they're wrong' style of argumentation, then ignoring the evidence.

I just want to see some proof to validate these dating techniques. I have seen none. Therefore your arguemnts have no basis on which to stand.

 

[Vance]

Would you accept the explanation of a qualified scientist who opposes evolution?

http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2001issue07/index.shtml#dynamics_of_dating

and

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/roger_wiens_radiometric_dating.shtml

And, on the age of the earth in general:

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/index.shtml#young_earth_vs_old_earth

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

In comparison to Billions and Billions of years, I would say that several million is small time scale. I would also like to know what do we KNOW has been around for millions of years, not based on dating methods?

So you want me to show the age of something without being able to use the tools that show us this? That's a nonsensical thing to request.

It's just another distraction to avoid addressing the evidence that has been presented.

When a research area is hot many people will come up with differnet methods to accomplish the same task. In a scientific community if one person publishes something (like an accurate dating method) then others need only match the results of the first person using a different method and they will have a new method that is just as good as the old one.

And numeous radiometric dating methods all agree with each other. It's not just matched results once, but there are many examples of this.

You have provided no valid objection to this.

So is it just a mass conspiracy or a huge coincidence? Those are really the only options you have.

All-in-all, there is still no validation of dating methods except other dating methods. This isn't true validation--

Hand waving. Simply saying it's not "true validation" is not a valid objection.

All you are doing is trying to come up with flimsy excuses to avoid addressing the evidence arguing solely from personal incredulity.

to truely validate the dating methods you must have something that you know is millions or billions of years old to prove your case.

The Hawaiian Islands example fits the bill.

K-Ar dates match dates predicted from plate tectonics.

Furthermore, if you only have once case that you use to validate your results there is no gaurantee that this is a correct answer.

Then it's a good thing that we have several.

It sure seems like many people don't understand the concept of verification and validation. Take some time and do some research and you will see how you have no real validation of your techniques. In most other areas of science validation results like you have presented would be laughed at.

Funny, then, that scientists consider them seriously.

And your statements about what you think scientists would think of these examples (despite the fact that they use them, themselves), is vacuous considering you have demonstrated to lack a basic understanding of how science works, not to mention the basics of the sciences relevant to this discussion.

We also can't find anything we KNOW was around millions of years ago--just show me a few things that are proven to be around for millions of years (not based on dating techniques). So that means that your claims are not falsifiable either.

They are falsifiable if you can prove that the dating methods are inaccurate.

I just want to see some proof to validate these dating techniques. I have seen none. Therefore your arguemnts have no basis on which to stand.

Ignore the data all you like, but that doesn't make it go away. It just makes your objections more meaningless.

You have seen plenty and you have done nothing to object to them.

 

[BrotherSteve]

So you want me to show the age of something without being able to use the tools that show us this? That's a nonsensical thing to request.

Go ahead and use any tool you have that is not based on an assumption. The fact of the matter is that no matter how hard you try all your tools go back to some assumptions that cannot be proven or disproven.

Do you just not realize this or are you in denial?

And numeous radiometric dating methods all agree with each other. It's not just matched results once, but there are many examples of this.

You have provided no valid objection to this.

I don't have any objection to this. I believe that the ageing methodologies developed by scientists work as well as they can based on the available data. I even believe that different dating methods agree with one another.

However, there is no actual data to substantiate the dating methods.

If you presented a thousand different methods to measure the age of children but never actually used the birthdate of a child to show that the dating methods were correct, would the dating methods be correct? Would you consider them validated just because they matched one another?

So is it just a mass conspiracy or a huge coincidence? Those are really the only options you have.

It doesn't have to be either. There are many paths to the same wrong answer--that doesn't make the answer right, regardless of how many times you get there.

Hand waving. Simply saying it's not "true validation" is not a valid objection.

Typically validation is done by comparing the methods to reality. If you wanted to validate an algorithm to predict the number of big-macs sold every day you would create the algorithm and then validate it by seeing if it matches the actual number of big-macs sold on that day. This might only validate the algorithm for a certain type of day (holiday, weekend, etc), and would not nessesarily be valid for long time periods. To validate the algorithm against other algorithms only shows that it is as accurate as the other algorithm.

This is the problem I see with the dating methodologies. You don't really know how old the earth (or something else) is. Even based on dating methods there is not a definative answer. So, you can never validate that the dating methods work except by comparing them to other dating methods. The dating methods are never compared to reality because we just don't know--not me, not you, no one knows how old the earth actually is. It could be 50 billion years, it could be 6000 years. You can't prove it one way or the other.

I don't really see any substantial evidence to say that the dating methods are valid. You have not shown me any.

They are falsifiable if you can prove that the dating methods are inaccurate.

Don't forget that you can't PROVE they are accurate either. Which brings us to the problem at hand--there is no PROOF for either side. Only evidence that is based on assumptions.

I don't doubt the scienctific rigor that was put into the dating methodologies--but at some point they are based on unsubstantiated assumptions. At that point all the arguments that are based on an old earth fall apart.

 

[Randall McNally]

Actually, my feeling is that GOD simply allowed Satan to have a field day. Read the book of JOB. GOD didn't bring the trouble. Satan was ALLOWED to do what he wanted within the limits GOD set forth...

You mean you think Satan caused The Flood?

You, sir, have just forfeited any right to question the Scriptural consistency of any other Christian.

 

[Valkhorn]

Go ahead and use any tool you have that is not based on an assumption. The fact of the matter is that no matter how hard you try all your tools go back to some assumptions that cannot be proven or disproven.

Do you just not realize this or are you in denial?

No, sir, I believe YOU are in denial. You see, Creationism uses nothing but 'tools' which are based on assumtions. You assume the bible is true and that it is a literal account. You assume therefore that any evidence (real or fabricated) that goes along with your idea is right, and any evidence that goes against it (the entire mountain range of evidence) is invalid somehow.

I don't have any objection to this. I believe that the ageing methodologies developed by scientists work as well as they can based on the available data. I even believe that different dating methods agree with one another.

Great.

However, there is no actual data to substantiate the dating methods.

Incorrect.

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/R/Ra/Radiometric_dating.htm

Once you actually learn how radiometric dating works, maybe you will understand it better and not make these claims from ignorance?

If you presented a thousand different methods to measure the age of children but never actually used the birthdate of a child to show that the dating methods were correct, would the dating methods be correct? Would you consider them validated just because they matched one another?

So in other words, you believe that we cannot possibly know something unless someone wrote it down. "On Tuesday, April 5th, 235,252,525 BCE, this rock was formed"?

What you're trying to say is that there is no real way to validate the age since the entire age of a rock or fossil is not known?

Well, what if it was? The truth is that radiometric decay is just ONE way to date something's age. Radiometric dating uses a fundamental law of physics - that certain isotopes decay at certain MEASURED rates. No, we didn't have a camcorder back then, but with radiometric dating from different isotopes giving us the same answers, the evidence would be pretty overwhelming as to the true age of a rock or fossil.

It's like claiming a mountain isn't tall unless you measure it to the millimeter.

It doesn't have to be either. There are many paths to the same wrong answer--that doesn't make the answer right, regardless of how many times you get there.

And the Irony Meter shatters. Don't you see that one of the incorrect ways towards the right answer is ignoring all the evidence in favor of assumptions?

Isn't that EXACTLY what you are doing?

Typically validation is done by comparing the methods to reality. If you wanted to validate an algorithm to predict the number of big-macs sold every day you would create the algorithm and then validate it by seeing if it matches the actual number of big-macs sold on that day. This might only validate the algorithm for a certain type of day (holiday, weekend, etc), and would not nessesarily be valid for long time periods. To validate the algorithm against other algorithms only shows that it is as accurate as the other algorithm.

What scrutiny you demand on science. Yet I'm sure you demand no scrutiny on creationism.

This is the problem I see with the dating methodologies. You don't really know how old the earth (or something else) is. Even based on dating methods there is not a definative answer. So, you can never validate that the dating methods work except by comparing them to other dating methods. The dating methods are never compared to reality because we just don't know--not me, not you, no one knows how old the earth actually is. It could be 50 billion years, it could be 6000 years. You can't prove it one way or the other.

Actually, if that is the case, why make any assumptions? Why favor any assumption over another?

But, if a sheer mountain range of evidence points to an ancient Earth, couldn't you see that there is probably a certain age that things are pointing at?

Tree rings set the age of the earth to at least 5,000 years. Cave paintings have set the age of modern humans to at least 35,000 years. Ice cores have set the minimum age of the Earth to a greater 750,000 to 1,000,000 years old.

We find rocks and craters, and even fossils which can be dated to ages even older than that.

We even have found meteorites from space which have been dated CONSISTENTLY by independent isotope dating to the same age.

I don't really see any substantial evidence to say that the dating methods are valid. You have not shown me any.

Its because you'd rather ignore it. You'd rather assume.

Don't forget that you can't PROVE they are accurate either. Which brings us to the problem at hand--there is no PROOF for either side. Only evidence that is based on assumptions.

Baloney. I've addressed this earlier in the post.

I don't doubt the scienctific rigor that was put into the dating methodologies--but at some point they are based on unsubstantiated assumptions. At that point all the arguments that are based on an old earth fall apart.

Baloney again.

You just ignore the truth and see what you want to see. You assume, then blame others for assuming when they are not.

How ironic.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Go ahead and use any tool you have that is not based on an assumption.

Every method of measurement is based upon assumption. That's a nonsensical request.

The fact of the matter is that no matter how hard you try all your tools go back to some assumptions that cannot be proven or disproven.

Nothing in science can be proved, strictly speaking, so that objection is vacuous. Claims can be substantiated, however, and the "assumptions" invovled in radiometric dating are not blind: we have measured decay rates, for example.

They can be disproved, however, so you're wrong there also. One example is that if their assumptions were incorrect, they would neither agree with each other nor predictions from other known processes. Another example is providing evidence that there are terrestrial processes capable of changing decay rates.

Do you just not realize this or are you in denial?

I deny that the assumptions in volved in radiometric dating are unfalsifiable and unsubstantiated. That is clearly not the case.

I'm not the one in denial of the evidence, however.

I don't have any objection to this. I believe that the ageing methodologies developed by scientists work as well as they can based on the available data. I even believe that different dating methods agree with one another.

Then how can you explain this and object to these methods?

Basically you admit that they work and agree with each other, but you reject the results anyway without any valid justification.

However, there is no actual data to substantiate the dating methods.

Wrong as previously demonstrated. Ignoring evidence doesn't help.

If you presented a thousand different methods to measure the age of children but never actually used the birthdate of a child to show that the dating methods were correct, would the dating methods be correct? Would you consider them validated just because they matched one another?

That depends on the situation. If the methods are independent and reasonably based, then yes. There would be no valid objection against them. The only other explanation would be an inconceivably improbable coincidence.

It doesn't have to be either. There are many paths to the same wrong answer--that doesn't make the answer right, regardless of how many times you get there.

Apparently it does have to be either, because you chose one of the two options.

You are claiming that these methods agree with each other due to a huge coincidence.

Typically validation is done by comparing the methods to reality.

This is exactly what we do when methods are tested against each other, decay constants are observed, and they are tested against other known phenomena.

This is the problem I see with the dating methodologies. You don't really know how old the earth (or something else) is. Even based on dating methods there is not a definative answer. So, you can never validate that the dating methods work except by comparing them to other dating methods.

And they coincide with remarkable accuracy. That points to them working quite well, especially given they are based upon substantiated assumptions based upon observations of known processes. There is no valid objection to them.

The dating methods are never compared to reality because we just don't know--not me, not you, no one knows how old the earth actually is. It could be 50 billion years, it could be 6000 years. You can't prove it one way or the other.

Well, we can certainly prove that it is not 6,000 years old, for one. We can also prove that the earth must be on the order of several billions of years old. We can't just throw out the evidence we don't like.

Science isn't in the business of proof, so your objection is meaningless. You are using the same old "they might be wrong" style of argumentation that is not valid. You have to demonstrate why in order for that line or argumentation to carry any weight.

I don't really see any substantial evidence to say that the dating methods are valid. You have not shown me any.

Except for the evidence I showed you and you continually ignore. You don't deal with it, you just chalk it up to a massive coincidence because scientists might be wrong, and more honestly, because you have irrational emotional objections to the conclusions of science.

http://www.christianforums.com/t50891
http://gondwanaresearch.com/radiomet.htm

Don't forget that you can't PROVE they are accurate either. Which brings us to the problem at hand--there is no PROOF for either side. Only evidence that is based on assumptions.

The issue of positive proof is not the problem, because that is not a possibility in the first place. Evidence is the issue and it is against you, so you are trying to use meaningless, borderline solipsist arguments to dismiss it out of hand because you don't like what the evidence indicates.

If you are just objecting to the methodology of science in the first place and dismiss everything by saying "maybe they're wrong" over and over again, there's no point in you trying to debate the issue because evidence is irrelevant to you.

I don't doubt the scienctific rigor that was put into the dating methodologies--but at some point they are based on unsubstantiated assumptions. At that point all the arguments that are based on an old earth fall apart.

They aren't based upon unsubstantiated assumptions; they are substantiated assumptions and that is the point. They are not blindly employed just to make the methods work. The methods were constructed around these parameters because they were substantiated.

Regardless, that doesn't make the arguments for an old earth "fall apart" either. Of course that would mean any YEC arguments would immediately "fall apart" as well by the same illogic. You have to actually provide a valid justification for that to happen. Simply saying so doesn't make it true.

Hypocritically, you don't apply the same standard to science that you do to YEC, which only further reduces your credibility in terms of your opinion on these matters.

Your arguments continually boil down to either or both of these two categories:
1. Maybe scientists are wrong
2. Scientific conclusions are emotionally objectionable to me due to religious teachings

Basically your posts are just lengthy ways of saying, "scientists can't prove anything, so they could be wrong, and since I don't like their conclusions I'll just discard them without any rational justification."

 

[notto]

Mechanical Bliss is my anti-drug.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Mechanical Bliss again

 

[Dexx]

Since I believe that the geography of this planet was changed very fast, I feel meteors and asteroids certainly played a big part. Worm Wood will bring change again someday...

There have been a couple of other threads about this. One cited calculations for all these meteors hitting a young Earth. If all major impacts occurred between 4000BC and 0AD (let alone in just the flood year), then the combined energy would have boiled the oceans and left the Earth looking like Venus.

I prefer to think that either the Earth is old, or God made the meteor craters during creation week.

 

[anunbeliever]

Among other things, you assume that you actually KNOW the geologic age of those rocks. When have any ageing techniques that tell us rock are millions of years old ever been validated--they havn't?

Of course they have. YEC lies say that isotope dating has been proven inaccurate. But thats because they dont test correctly. There are a number of different isotope tests which coverify geological dating.

 

[anunbeliever]

Again, you ASSUME that the nuclear constant always were constant and always will be constant.
So, if we use data from stars (of an unknown age) we can validate our ageing techniques. Then we can probably use our ageing techniques to estimate the age of the stars. Then we can say that we have validated the ageing techniques and the age of the stars.

Still dating methods have not been validated using anything of a KNOWN age.

Steve you're really grasping here. Any one of these alleged dating methods can be called an assumption. But what do we conclude when they all agree? Jetblack was using stellar data to indicate that radiometric decay has remained constant. If tectonic movement and numerous radiometric dating methods and the fossil column all agree, is that not a strong argument?

You say that maybe tectonic plate movement was not constant in the past. If it was not constant, then the ages calculated by radiometric dating would not have matched the plate movement. Isnt it a much greater assumption to say that the apparent (but erroneous) age calculated by isotope dating matches the apparent (but erroneous) age calculated by tectonics?

 

[anunbeliever]

If you presented a thousand different methods to measure the age of children but never actually used the birthdate of a child to show that the dating methods were correct, would the dating methods be correct? Would you consider them validated just because they matched one another?

Sure would. Sounds completely reasonable.

 

[Crux]

I have no claim to expert status, and you raise some very interesting questions. I would certainly like to know the layers they are embedded in.
But a couple of thoughts re energy. Water has the highest heat capacity of any liquid (that i've been able to find) and one of the best latent heat of vaporisation. hence if you wanted to absorb energy, water is IT. so if there was a big meteor shower (maybe that's what the asteroid belt is too) and they were plummetting to earth, having a volume of water to quench the energy would be ideal, and even better, a layer of water at the impacts would be good too. Don't forget that YEC also believe( i think) that the techtonics and continental drift occurred over a short time too.
A meteor causing it would make a lot of sense.
Re: waves: the deeper the water the lower the amplitude and the longer the wavelength of the wave as a general rule, so in fact there would not be any crests, just undulations. Drop a bowling ball into a pool, and see what waves u get a couple of meters away even. a small toy wouldn't even capsize.

There would also be a lot of steam in the atmosphere for quite a while, with consequent hothouse/iceage effects.