http://www.ucgstp.org/lit/gn/gn046/noahsflood.htm
Noahs flood, did it really happen.
"According to the Bible, Noahs Flood was both universal and catastrophic, "
That is debatable. Although I am going to only talk about science, I did want to bring this up. The word translated to mean earth, erets, can also mean country or area. It is possible that a local area flooded, God told noah to build a boat and save animals since he knew he couldn't get away from the flood quick enough. Afterwards God promised never to flood that area again.
So it is possible to read it literally and accept a local flood, but like I said, since the article is attempting to prove a global flood through science, science will be the main target of this post.
"Even today large underground reservoirs of water and a surprising number of underground streams exist throughout the earth. But in the pre-Flood world these were likely even more common. "
These many underground reservoirs make up only a tiny amount of total water, even ten times as much water underground would mean almost nothing for a global flood.
(http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/earthwherewater.html)
"This comment about the fountains of the deep being broken up indicates that there were tremendous movements of landpossibly even continentslikely causing massive volcanic eruptions, too. "
We have just recently seen what happens when we get a rather small amount of movement by the plates. The movement required to make the oceans cover the land and the continents move would be so large the flood would be an after thought. This movement would cause massive scaring and melting on the continents that would be observable today, but we do not see this.
"This water-deposited strata offers abundant evidence of massive floods unlike anything seen in human history outside the Bible. We understand, of course, that everything in the geologic record cannot be explained by one flood. "
I find one problem with creationist arguments is that they don't look at the details. There are tons of water deposited strata, but does that mean a global flood? When we look at the details we are left with many questions, like how did non water deposited strata get in between this strata, why does it appear in some strata that there were dry and wet cycles, why are delicate foot prints preserved in the strata, etc.
There are many details that aren't explained by the single global flood theory.
"Notice, for example, this description of one outcropping at Agate Springs in northwestern Nebraska: What remains of the hill covers about ten acres. This bone bed was accidentally discovered in 1876. It contains the bones of rhinoceroses, camels, giant wild boars, and other animals, buried together in a confused mass as only water would deposit them. "
Like I said, watch the details. Why are these bones of animals all from around the same "evolutionary" time? Why are they are relatively modern, why don't we find any dinosaur bones mixed in, what about supposably ancient fish bones? A single global flood shouldn't mess up the bones all from the same evolutionary era, but from all eras, why don't we see that?
If this jumble of bones is considered evidence for the flood, why don't we see many other areas of jumbled bones? Why aren't the bones of all eras mixed in when we do find these jumbles.
"Many people have had the experience of hiking into the mountains and finding fossilized seashells, fish and other aquatic creatures. This proves that these strata were under water at one time in the past. "
Remember the details.
Many areas are believed to have been underwater at some point in the past. Mount Everest is thought to have risen out of a sea. So, the finding of aquatic creatures on land is not proof of the flood over standard geology. Now we look at the details, all of the seashell groupings I have seen all come from the same era. Where are the mixed in modern sea shells, fish and mammal bones? Take the shells on Mt Everest for example, not only are they all ancient shells, they belong to the same time frame that Mt Everest was actually the bottom of a sea.
"In light of such obvious evidence, why dont modern geologists and scientists readily accept the validity of the Flood? One reason is that these relatively recent formations are dated by geologists as occurring (in most cases) millions of years before the biblical Flood. The theory of evolution has had such a strong influence on the thinking of the intelligentsia of this world that the truths of the Bible have largely been forgotten or dismissed. "
We have already seen how this is no where near obvious evidence. This appears to be the building of the conspiracy theory that geologists falsify data because it supports evolution. Scientists often gain their notability by falsifing theories, such as current geology or evolution.
This conspiracy theory that is hashed out a bit more in the article when it claims that geologists have become prejudiced by the theory of evolution. A history and science lesson can tell us that that isn't true.
"But what most people dont realize is that this geologic column doesnt exist in most places on earth. "
Here is a list of 25 places where the geological column can be found,
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/
Although it isn't found all over the world parts can be found in many places. If the global flood theory was true, the geological column shouldn't exist at all. there is no reason why a flood should be able to organize the strata in the same order all over the world, and there is no reason why the fossil record should match up with the column.
"any instances exist where the dates obtained in a laboratory do not match the modern idea of how old certain formations are supposed to be according to a predetermined, theoretical geologic column (see Serious Problems With Dating Methods ). "
After reading over that link it appears these are all old claims, addressed in "Appendix A" bellow.
"When properly understood and correctly interpreted, the geologic formations of the earth clearly point to past catastrophes. Its easy to understand that many of these formations were the result of one or more catastrophic floods when true scientific facts are considered without the bias of modern interpretations of the geologic record. "
This seems rather hypocritical. The article just accused geologists of having prejudice because of evolution but it is now suggesting that the reader have prejudice because of the bible. "Properly understood" means, interpreted based on the preconceived idea the flood is true.
"Regrettably, far too many of our leading intellectuals have accepted the prejudices of an educational system built around the theory of evolution. This thinking foolishly denies the existence of the Creator or that He brought a global deluge on the earth because men and women were immersed in violence and other sins. "
Completely false. Evolution is not atheism, the acceptance of evolution does Not deny the existence of a creator. It does say that the man made interpretation of the bible which says a global flood occured is not correct, and that if God creation contradicts mans interpretation of the bible, it is man and not God that is incorrect. The bible has been reinterpreted in light of science before, such as the famous geocentrist debate, this is no different. The problem is that some people can't accept the fact that they might have read the bible wrong and are willing to lie before they admit it.
Appendix A
Since that was rather long, I'm going to make this a bit shorter,
C-14 dating Molusks.
C-14 dating should not be used to date animals that get their C-14 from the water instead of the air. Thus it is not an error with C-14 but an error of the article not understanding the limitations of the dating method.
Constant decay
We can tell decay has remained relatively constant because if it had changed significantly it would have left evidence of the change behind. For example, marks from the heat produced by the radioactive decay would be observable on the earth. Energy output from stars would change, because light takes time to get here, we could see this past change, etc.
We have not observed anything to suggest the decay rates have changed in any significant amount (to compress 4.5 billion to 6000 the decay rates would have to increased by 750,000x)
Using the methods right
The most important thing is to know how the methods work and their limitations. These are not perfect ways of dating things. Understanding how errors can happen, the limitations and the date range given, is very important to understanding how radiometric dating works.
Mount St Helens
K-Ar dating is ment for old samples, Mount St Helens is too young a sample to date so it will give odd dates. The reason it gave odd dates is given in the article, excess argon. What they don't mention is there is a way to test for excess argon. Ar-Ar dating can give correct dates of younger samples, it can also tell us if there is any parentless argon (argon not related to the decay chain) in the sample. Why was Ar-Ar dating not done to these samples? Either Austin did not understand he needed to do this, and thus the error is his fault and not radiometric dating, or he knew it would prove him wrong and radiometric dating right and so he purposely left it out.
Either way, excess argon is not a problem when you know how to use radiometric dating correctly.
Cars don't fly
As we can see the problem with radiometric dating seems to be that creationist do not know how to use it correctly. An analogy I like to use.
If I push a BMW off a cliff and it crashes down at the bottom. Should I go out and tell everyone that BMW's are not good cars and are not reliable? Is it really the cars fault that it can't fly, or is it my fault for assuming that cars can fly in the first place?
After reading a few more articles, I have noticed similar errors, and misinformation as we see in this article. I would recommend double checking anything you read from these sites, try to learn for yourself, and maybe ask questions here. If you are willing to learn that is.
-Ari
Noahs flood, did it really happen.
"According to the Bible, Noahs Flood was both universal and catastrophic, "
That is debatable. Although I am going to only talk about science, I did want to bring this up. The word translated to mean earth, erets, can also mean country or area. It is possible that a local area flooded, God told noah to build a boat and save animals since he knew he couldn't get away from the flood quick enough. Afterwards God promised never to flood that area again.
So it is possible to read it literally and accept a local flood, but like I said, since the article is attempting to prove a global flood through science, science will be the main target of this post.
"Even today large underground reservoirs of water and a surprising number of underground streams exist throughout the earth. But in the pre-Flood world these were likely even more common. "
These many underground reservoirs make up only a tiny amount of total water, even ten times as much water underground would mean almost nothing for a global flood.
(http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/earthwherewater.html)
"This comment about the fountains of the deep being broken up indicates that there were tremendous movements of landpossibly even continentslikely causing massive volcanic eruptions, too. "
We have just recently seen what happens when we get a rather small amount of movement by the plates. The movement required to make the oceans cover the land and the continents move would be so large the flood would be an after thought. This movement would cause massive scaring and melting on the continents that would be observable today, but we do not see this.
"This water-deposited strata offers abundant evidence of massive floods unlike anything seen in human history outside the Bible. We understand, of course, that everything in the geologic record cannot be explained by one flood. "
I find one problem with creationist arguments is that they don't look at the details. There are tons of water deposited strata, but does that mean a global flood? When we look at the details we are left with many questions, like how did non water deposited strata get in between this strata, why does it appear in some strata that there were dry and wet cycles, why are delicate foot prints preserved in the strata, etc.
There are many details that aren't explained by the single global flood theory.
"Notice, for example, this description of one outcropping at Agate Springs in northwestern Nebraska: What remains of the hill covers about ten acres. This bone bed was accidentally discovered in 1876. It contains the bones of rhinoceroses, camels, giant wild boars, and other animals, buried together in a confused mass as only water would deposit them. "
Like I said, watch the details. Why are these bones of animals all from around the same "evolutionary" time? Why are they are relatively modern, why don't we find any dinosaur bones mixed in, what about supposably ancient fish bones? A single global flood shouldn't mess up the bones all from the same evolutionary era, but from all eras, why don't we see that?
If this jumble of bones is considered evidence for the flood, why don't we see many other areas of jumbled bones? Why aren't the bones of all eras mixed in when we do find these jumbles.
"Many people have had the experience of hiking into the mountains and finding fossilized seashells, fish and other aquatic creatures. This proves that these strata were under water at one time in the past. "
Remember the details.
Many areas are believed to have been underwater at some point in the past. Mount Everest is thought to have risen out of a sea. So, the finding of aquatic creatures on land is not proof of the flood over standard geology. Now we look at the details, all of the seashell groupings I have seen all come from the same era. Where are the mixed in modern sea shells, fish and mammal bones? Take the shells on Mt Everest for example, not only are they all ancient shells, they belong to the same time frame that Mt Everest was actually the bottom of a sea.
"In light of such obvious evidence, why dont modern geologists and scientists readily accept the validity of the Flood? One reason is that these relatively recent formations are dated by geologists as occurring (in most cases) millions of years before the biblical Flood. The theory of evolution has had such a strong influence on the thinking of the intelligentsia of this world that the truths of the Bible have largely been forgotten or dismissed. "
We have already seen how this is no where near obvious evidence. This appears to be the building of the conspiracy theory that geologists falsify data because it supports evolution. Scientists often gain their notability by falsifing theories, such as current geology or evolution.
This conspiracy theory that is hashed out a bit more in the article when it claims that geologists have become prejudiced by the theory of evolution. A history and science lesson can tell us that that isn't true.
"But what most people dont realize is that this geologic column doesnt exist in most places on earth. "
Here is a list of 25 places where the geological column can be found,
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/
Although it isn't found all over the world parts can be found in many places. If the global flood theory was true, the geological column shouldn't exist at all. there is no reason why a flood should be able to organize the strata in the same order all over the world, and there is no reason why the fossil record should match up with the column.
"any instances exist where the dates obtained in a laboratory do not match the modern idea of how old certain formations are supposed to be according to a predetermined, theoretical geologic column (see Serious Problems With Dating Methods ). "
After reading over that link it appears these are all old claims, addressed in "Appendix A" bellow.
"When properly understood and correctly interpreted, the geologic formations of the earth clearly point to past catastrophes. Its easy to understand that many of these formations were the result of one or more catastrophic floods when true scientific facts are considered without the bias of modern interpretations of the geologic record. "
This seems rather hypocritical. The article just accused geologists of having prejudice because of evolution but it is now suggesting that the reader have prejudice because of the bible. "Properly understood" means, interpreted based on the preconceived idea the flood is true.
"Regrettably, far too many of our leading intellectuals have accepted the prejudices of an educational system built around the theory of evolution. This thinking foolishly denies the existence of the Creator or that He brought a global deluge on the earth because men and women were immersed in violence and other sins. "
Completely false. Evolution is not atheism, the acceptance of evolution does Not deny the existence of a creator. It does say that the man made interpretation of the bible which says a global flood occured is not correct, and that if God creation contradicts mans interpretation of the bible, it is man and not God that is incorrect. The bible has been reinterpreted in light of science before, such as the famous geocentrist debate, this is no different. The problem is that some people can't accept the fact that they might have read the bible wrong and are willing to lie before they admit it.
Appendix A
Since that was rather long, I'm going to make this a bit shorter,
C-14 dating Molusks.
C-14 dating should not be used to date animals that get their C-14 from the water instead of the air. Thus it is not an error with C-14 but an error of the article not understanding the limitations of the dating method.
Constant decay
We can tell decay has remained relatively constant because if it had changed significantly it would have left evidence of the change behind. For example, marks from the heat produced by the radioactive decay would be observable on the earth. Energy output from stars would change, because light takes time to get here, we could see this past change, etc.
We have not observed anything to suggest the decay rates have changed in any significant amount (to compress 4.5 billion to 6000 the decay rates would have to increased by 750,000x)
Using the methods right
The most important thing is to know how the methods work and their limitations. These are not perfect ways of dating things. Understanding how errors can happen, the limitations and the date range given, is very important to understanding how radiometric dating works.
Mount St Helens
K-Ar dating is ment for old samples, Mount St Helens is too young a sample to date so it will give odd dates. The reason it gave odd dates is given in the article, excess argon. What they don't mention is there is a way to test for excess argon. Ar-Ar dating can give correct dates of younger samples, it can also tell us if there is any parentless argon (argon not related to the decay chain) in the sample. Why was Ar-Ar dating not done to these samples? Either Austin did not understand he needed to do this, and thus the error is his fault and not radiometric dating, or he knew it would prove him wrong and radiometric dating right and so he purposely left it out.
Either way, excess argon is not a problem when you know how to use radiometric dating correctly.
Cars don't fly
As we can see the problem with radiometric dating seems to be that creationist do not know how to use it correctly. An analogy I like to use.
If I push a BMW off a cliff and it crashes down at the bottom. Should I go out and tell everyone that BMW's are not good cars and are not reliable? Is it really the cars fault that it can't fly, or is it my fault for assuming that cars can fly in the first place?
After reading a few more articles, I have noticed similar errors, and misinformation as we see in this article. I would recommend double checking anything you read from these sites, try to learn for yourself, and maybe ask questions here. If you are willing to learn that is.
-Ari
