Does a GLOBAL FLOOD truly seem like the BEST explanation for seashells on mountains?

[Split Rock]

THE CONTEXT of ALL this DEBATE was radiometric dating and it's assumptions:


"Scientists use observational science to measure the amount of a daughter element within a rock sample and to determine the present observable decay rate of the parent element. Dating methods must also rely on another kind of science called historical science. Historical science cannot be observed. Determining the conditions present when a rock first formed can only be studied through historical science. Determining how the environment might have affected a rock also falls under historical science. Neither condition is directly observable. Since radioisotope dating uses both types of science, we can’t directly measure the age of something. We can use scientific techniques in the present, combined with assumptions about historical events, to estimate the age. Therefore, there are several assumptions that must be made in radioisotope dating. Three critical assumptions can affect the results during radioisotope dating:

The initial conditions of the rock sample are accurately known.
The amount of parent or daughter elements in a sample has not been altered by processes other than radioactive decay.
The decay rate (or half-life) of the parent isotope has remained constant since the rock was formed."

the above clip was from AIG, answers in genesis.com

1. There is no such thing as "observational science." This is a made up term used by creationist organizations like AIG. Ask yourself this: Did you learn about "observational science" in High School? No you did not.

2. Events that occurred in the past leave their mark on the present. There is therefore often a record of the event that can be measured scientifically.

3. There is no assumption made about starting daughter material. Nor is there any assumption made about processes that can contaminate a sample. These are tested, and samples are not used that are likely contaminated.

4. Decay rates have been measured and do not change under anything but extreme circumstances.

 

[Split Rock]

But if large amounts of flood water are retained in catchment areas possibly leaving sediments while some drains away causing erosion, with some leaving no evidence at all of its passing, that would leave rather confusing evidence, wouldn't it?

This is all ad hoc rationalization. We have the physical evidence, and that evidence indicates there was no global flood. No one looking at the geological column would conclude there was a global flood. There is no historical record of a global flood from the time period it was supposed to have occurred. There are no genetic bottlenecks that would coincide with a global flood. It did not happen.

 

[Lethe]

The argument for a flood requires multiple independent lines of scientific inquiry to be wrong.
1) Genetic bottlenecking
2) Geological strata
3) Anchored dendrochronologies
4) Ice cores
5) Arguments regarding barometric pressure
etc

And that's basically the argument against the flood: it requires too many other, very well established observations to be wrong.

 

[Loudmouth]

you can't simply say that God "lied" when a being creates something with age dating factors involved. For example if I were a divine being and I created a tree with a trunk that had 300 rings in it (in one second). It would not be lying by all means. Else-Was God lying, when He created adam a full grown man? Or Eve? By your reasoning, God would be a liar in all of these situations!

God would be lying if he made sure that dendrochronology using those tree rings also matched up with the carbon isotope make up of insect and leaf debris that he put in lake varves and carbon dioxide trapped in fake annual ice layers. This type of correlation between several different types of records requires either real history or a purposeful deception. Take your pick.

Why did evolutionists plant these lies....

None of those are lies. In fact, if you want to continue to discuss these samples we can show you the lies that your creationist sources have been telling you. It may even be educational for you.

It's not that the evolutionists lied when they dated the above items, it's simply that radiometric dating has flaws like everything else.

The flaw is the lies that your creationist sources are feeding you. For example, the Mt. Ngauruhoe samples contain xenoliths. They contain much older rocks that did not completely melt in the magma chamber and were mixed in with fresh basalt. This was KNOWN from the peer reviewed literature before your creationist sources decided to date these rocks. The date in the table reflects the average age between the older xenoliths and the younger basalt that contain them.

You are only citing more reasons why creationists can not be trusted.

I wish it were all this easy, to simply call someone a liar. However this is another appeal to emotion to win over an audience to your persuasion.

I can do more than just say it. I can demonstrate it.

 

[JoyfulExegesis]

God would be lying if he made sure that dendrochronology using those tree rings also matched up with the carbon isotope make up of insect and leaf debris that he put in lake varves and carbon dioxide trapped in fake annual ice layers. This type of correlation between several different types of records requires either real history or a purposeful deception. Take your pick.

None of those are lies. In fact, if you want to continue to discuss these samples we can show you the lies that your creationist sources have been telling you. It may even be educational for you.

The flaw is the lies that your creationist sources are feeding you. For example, the Mt. Ngauruhoe samples contain xenoliths. They contain much older rocks that did not completely melt in the magma chamber and were mixed in with fresh basalt. This was KNOWN from the peer reviewed literature before your creationist sources decided to date these rocks. The date in the table reflects the average age between the older xenoliths and the younger basalt that contain them.

You are only citing more reasons why creationists can not be trusted.

I can do more than just say it. I can demonstrate it.

I wonder: Does Gradyll think that we've never seen these kinds of lies from creationist sources many times before?

I gave the odometer analogy in hopes of driving the point home. Radiometric dating is like any other laboratory procedure. If applied capriciously and carelessly, it produces results that have limited significance. I suppose I should be grateful that gradyll didn't use the most blatant creationist argument against radiometric dating: the fact that it can't be used meaningfully on mollusk shells.

While debating a creationist, the guy actually provided a citation for his "proof" that radiometric dating was unreliable. I tracked down the citation and it was a scientific journal article where the author explained WHY carbon dating of mollusk shells provides NOT the age of the mollusk shell but of the carbonates in the surrounding environment. In other words, the LIE that he was using was a class quote-mine: Take an article which CONFIRMED the reliability and careful methodology of carbon dating and yet he pretended that the article destroyed all confidence in carbon dating. I would love to know if gradyll thinks that kind of dishonest quote-mining is anything but a violation of the Ninth Commandment.

Even before I understood the fact of the theory of evolution, I came to realize that I couldn't trust "creation science". Why? I had tracked down too many quotes and pseudo-science factoids. I had to admit to myself that the creationist "experts" I had trusted over the years were lying to me. And if one has the truth, why is lying necessary?

I finally asked my pastor that question. A very sad conversation followed. I was basically told that I had to make a choice as to which side I would be on. I told him that Jesus would surely be on the side of the truth. I told him that I knew that Jesus wouldn't be on the liars' side.

 

[Split Rock]

I wonder: Does Gradyll think that we've never seen these kinds of lies from creationist sources many times before?

I gave the odometer analogy in hopes of driving the point home. Radiometric dating is like any other laboratory procedure. If applied capriciously and carelessly, it produces results that have limited significance. I suppose I should be grateful that gradyll didn't use the most blatant creationist argument against radiometric dating: the fact that it can't be used meaningfully on mollusk shells.

While debating a creationist, the guy actually provided a citation for his "proof" that radiometric dating was unreliable. I tracked down the citation and it was a scientific journal article where the author explained WHY carbon dating of mollusk shells provides NOT the age of the mollusk shell but of the carbonates in the surrounding environment. In other words, the LIE that he was using was a class quote-mine: Take an article which CONFIRMED the reliability and careful methodology of carbon dating and yet he pretended that the article destroyed all confidence in carbon dating. I would love to know if gradyll thinks that kind of dishonest quote-mining is anything but a violation of the Ninth Commandment.

Even before I understood the fact of the theory of evolution, I came to realize that I couldn't trust "creation science". Why? I had tracked down too many quotes and pseudo-science factoids. I had to admit to myself that the creationist "experts" I had trusted over the years were lying to me. And if one has the truth, why is lying necessary?

I finally asked my pastor that question. A very sad conversation followed. I was basically told that I had to make a choice as to which side I would be on. I told him that Jesus would surely be on the side of the truth. I told him that I knew that Jesus wouldn't be on the liars' side.

The biggest surprise for me wasn't that these professional creationists were lying and misrepresenting both the facts and what scientists were saying. It was that most creationists don't care if they are being lied to at all. As long as the lie tastes sweet, they will buy into it. If it is disproved later, they don't care and move on to the next lie they got from a "Creation Ministry" website. Afterall, they were never convinced by the so-called evidence for creationism in the first place. Finding out it is wrong means nothing to them. Its all about "talking points," anyway. This is why most professional creationists lie so often... they consistently get away with lying. They are never held accountable, along as they say "Hallelujah!" after they lie. Why should they stop?

 

[JoyfulExegesis]

The biggest surprise for me wasn't that these professional creationists were lying and misrepresenting both the facts and what scientists were saying. It was that most creationists don't care if they are being lied to at all. As long as the lie tastes sweet, they will buy into it. If it is disproved later, they don't care and move on to the next lie they got from a "Creation Ministry" website. Afterall, they were never convinced by the so-called evidence for creationism in the first place. Finding out it is wrong means nothing to them. Its all about "talking points," anyway. This is why most professional creationists lie so often... they consistently get away with lying. They are never held accountable, along as they say "Hallelujah!" after they lie. Why should they stop?

I would be interested in hearing how creationists here who favor such "creation science" ministries feel about the dishonesty problems with their arguments.

 

[createdtoworship]

God would be lying if he made sure that dendrochronology using those tree rings also matched up with the carbon isotope make up of insect and leaf debris that he put in lake varves and carbon dioxide trapped in fake annual ice layers. This type of correlation between several different types of records requires either real history or a purposeful deception. Take your pick.




None of those are lies. In fact, if you want to continue to discuss these samples we can show you the lies that your creationist sources have been telling you. It may even be educational for you.



The flaw is the lies that your creationist sources are feeding you. For example, the Mt. Ngauruhoe samples contain xenoliths. They contain much older rocks that did not completely melt in the magma chamber and were mixed in with fresh basalt. This was KNOWN from the peer reviewed literature before your creationist sources decided to date these rocks.

I was wondering how you knew what date they tested it? You said "This was KNOWN from the peer reviewed literature before your creationist sources decided to date these rocks." Yet all that was given was a simplistic chart, with no dates? So how is it that you know the date of the test?

Secondly there were errors in the mass labeling of xenoliths in the study. Peer review can be wrong, especially if not followed by someone of a PHD etc specializing in the field of study of the actual article that was peer reviewed. If you find Peer review of this sort, please provide. I myself have dozens of peer review from non-phd's. Anyone can provide that info. So let me give you the nitty gritty:

"Steiner (1958) stressed that xenoliths are a
common constituent of the 1954 Ngauruhoe lava,
but also noted that Battey (1949) reported the 1949
Ngauruhoe lava was rich in xenoliths. All samples
in this study contained xenoliths, including those
from the 1975 avalanche material. However, many
of these aggregates are more accurately described
as glomerocrysts and mafic (gabbro, websterite)
nodules (Graham et al., 1995). They are 3–5 mm
across, generally have hypidiomorphic-granular
textures, and consist of plagioclase, orthopyroxene,
and clinopyroxene in varying proportions, and very
occasionally olivine. The true xenoliths are often
rounded and invariably consist of fine quartzose
material. Steiner also described much larger xenoliths
of quartzo-feldspathic composition and relic gneissic
structure."

the above clip was from a PDF found here: from -Andrew A. Snelling, PhD,

https://static.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/The-Cause-of-Anomalous-Potassium-Argon-Ages.pdf

 

[createdtoworship]

I would be interested in hearing how creationists here who favor such "creation science" ministries feel about the dishonesty problems with their arguments.

again, it's one thing to be let estray, and another to be dishonest. I can say the same for you, but have refrained. Usually one will resort to name calling when all else fails. Case and point

 

[createdtoworship]

1. There is no such thing as "observational science." This is a made up term used by creationist organizations like AIG. Ask yourself this: Did you learn about "observational science" in High School? No you did not.

2. Events that occurred in the past leave their mark on the present. There is therefore often a record of the event that can be measured scientifically.

3. There is no assumption made about starting daughter material. Nor is there any assumption made about processes that can contaminate a sample. These are tested, and samples are not used that are likely contaminated.

4. Decay rates have been measured and do not change under anything but extreme circumstances.

funny many websites give definition for this "non existent" item!

University of Southern California definition:
http://www.usc.edu/org/cosee-west/Jul_Aug2012/For the Web/General informaion on OOS/Obs_sci.pdf

also the University of Georgia Department of Geology refers to it as well:

it mentions "observational science" in the first three paragraphs:

What is Science?

should I keep finding definitions for observational science for you?

 

[JoyfulExegesis]

again, it's one thing to be let estray, and another to be dishonest. I can say the same for you, but have refrained. Usually one will resort to name calling when all else fails. Case and point

So you are saying that you will simply continue to dodge the question? I expected as much.

"Lying for Jesus" grew from 300,000 results on Google in January to over 350,000 today. Have you ever asked yourself why it is such a common theme online?

At least you've stopped denying the lying and have simply resorted to "redefining" it in the hope of making it seem less damaging to the cause.

 

[createdtoworship]

Sorry to be so harsh, but your ignorance of the Bible is appalling. Why do you assume that Satan babysat? Do you rule out angels and even God himself? Isn't God omnipotent? How illogical and self-defeating for your case.However, don't young earth creationists solve any problem by saying, "God can do anything he wishes"? Moreover, Adam and Eve were driven out of the garden before having children. Once again you resort to lame arguments.

Remember what Adam said when he first saw Eve. "At last!" The Hebrew word definitely implies that Adam waiting a LOT longer than a few hours. (Perhaps he was waiting out her childhood and maturity?) But if you are going to say Eve grew up in a few hours, is that like the hyper-evolution after the ark landed which produced ALL species of the "horse kind" within 200 years? (That's much faster than any theory of evolution could imagine---yet Ken Ham bristles when anyone calls that Creation Museum exhibit "hyper-evolution".)

But why assume that Adam and Eve had no parents/care-takers at birth? They were FIRST to be HADAM (human) by being the first to be endowed with the Image of God---which creationists have traditionally described in spiritual terms. Genesis and the rest of the Tanakh says that humans as well as all animals come from "the dust of the ground". And yet even you agree that most humans and most other animals have parents! Do you disagree with the Bible when it says that they came from the dust of the ground----and also had parents? Or do you actually realize (and admit to yourself if not to everyone else) that when Genesis 2:7 says that Adam and Eve (ADAM, the humans) came from ingredients in the soil, the text is making that same statement about all living things being made from inorganic ingredients? Tell me, am I "but dust" or did I have parents? You seem to pretend here that one can only have one or the other. I guess if I am formed from the dust of the ground, I had no parents and was never an infant or teenager. (Great logic on your part.)

We know from the human genome that it is based on that of ancestors which also produced the Great Apes of Africa. So we already know that Adam was the end result of a LOT of processes after "the dust of the ground" which provided the ingredients for all life. Even the ERV locations check out. Even the broken Vitamin C gene location checks out. All of the nested hierarchies check out. Why would God try to fool us into noticing COMMON DESCENT in the genome if, in fact, God used COMMON DESIGN (of which there is zero evidence)? It is all just a big deception on the Creator's part. Right?

Yes. I affirm the theory of evolution because the Bible says nothing to deny it and the Creation which God gave us shouts the facts of evolution. So until you come up with either Biblical evidence or evidence from the created world that suggests that evolution did NOT happen nor play any role in the creation of Adam, then we have nothing to talk about. You just have denial and a lot of tired-old AiG arguments on your side, many of which date back to the 1960's and THE GENESIS FLOOD. That book got shredded back then and is in no better position now.

So find someone willing to do remedial debate practice. I don't do reruns. I want to trade posts with someone with a stronger knowledge of the scriptures (preferably in the original tongues, but I'm willing to compromise there if they have reasonable hermeneutical skills) and a knowledge of science which goes beyond Ken Ham cliches and Henry Morris pseudo-science. (I'm not usually so harsh. But when someone is as ill-informed and as illogical as you've displayed on this thread but display such a high level of arrogance, I take my instruction from the Book of Proverbs on how to handle the mocker of instruction and knowledge.)

regarding the need to babysit adam and eve is a moot point.

it's an argument from silence.

That is the fancy word for "no evidence"

You simply cannot quote any verse that suggested others were in the garden, other than satan, God and adam and eve.

So your argument that angels babysat adam and eve, because you simply cannot accept that in the first few days they were walking, talking and sinning that God created something with an age dating factor and is not therefore a liar.

Just recapping your argument.

 

[createdtoworship]

1) Yes, the 300 tree rings would be a deceptive history unless that divine being explained to observes why he had placed a false history into the tree.

2) "Was God lying, when He created adam a full grown man?" The Bible makes no such statement. Much as in English, you've confused "man" with "mankind". One is an adult male; the other is a species.

3) The Bible doesn't claim that Eve was created "full grown" either.

So all of your examples are completely arbitrary. You might as well ask, "Suppose God lied. Would you call him a liar?" The Bible says that God doesn't lie and that only the truth is in him. So your contrived examples defy the scriptures.

You've taken a popular myth ---"embedded age" or "appearance of age" ---and elevated it from mere tradition to the level of inerrant scripture. The Bible says NOTHING about "appearance of age." No tree rings. No Adam created a full grown man. No full grown Eve. Time periods/intervals are not provided. All we have is YOM as seven time divisions. The seventh one was clearly not described as 24hours. (The Bible says that the seventh YOM continues.)

Moreover, we know from the evidence in creation itself that the earth is billions of years old and that individual species were not created individually, instantaneously or otherwise.

Hypotheticals have no value as convincing illustrations in this case.

so you've downgraded you harsh language from "outright lies" to simply "deception", after criticism of your views. This would be what we would call the fallacy of "moving the goal posts"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts

the rest has been answered by KWCRAZY sufficiently, so I will not beat a dead horse:

 

[JoyfulExegesis]

funny many websites give definition for this "non existent" item!

....

University of Southern California definition:

....

also the University of Georgia Department of Geology refers to it as well:

More lying!

Did you actually READ either of the websites you cited? Or did you know that these were NOT "University of Southern California" and "University of Georgia Department of Geology" definitions? Am I supposed to give you the benefit of the doubt by suggesting you can't read? (Or simply avoided reading?)

In other words, we are once again faced with the question: dishonesty or just ignorance?

Those are NOT "university definitions." You found TWO PROFESSORS who happen to champion the beliefs you espouse and they happened to place COPIES of their articles published elsewhere concerning their personal viewpoints on their university webservers! Or do you actually expect us to believe that an individual professor's article published elsewhere and placed under his webpage on a university server is an official "science definition" of the university? [I don't think you are that naive. I think you knew exactly what you were doing.]

THANK YOU for making our point for us: that dishonest quote-mining is RAMPANT in creationist circles.

If "operational science" and "historical science" are such standard definitions, why did you have to find obscure articles (and try to fool us into thinking they were "university" definitions) instead of citing SCIENCE TEXTBOOKS?

Nobody asked whether or not you could find some professor somewhere who happens to agree with you and publishes materials which creationist websites like to cite. (The geology professor is also known for publishing and comparing creation accounts from various world religions. I think you knew of his interests in creation topics.)

You were asked to demonstrate that these are COMMONLY ACCEPTED SCIENCE DEFINITIONS found as standard terms in textbooks. You failed. Not simply because you were wrong. But because you demonstrated that we can't trust creationist quote-mining.

Be honest: Did you think you could slip this by us? Or are you so accustomed to creationist website deceptive quote-mining that you have become blind to the dishonesty?

My work is done here. I'm saving this one. What a great example of creationist copy-and-paste website ethics!


Originally Posted by gradyll: [bless and do not curse]

...so you've downgraded you harsh language from "outright lies" to simply "deception", after criticism of your views. This would be what we would call the fallacy of "moving the goal posts"

I really don't care whether you choose to rationalize your dishonesty as "mere" deception or "outright lies". I don't even care that you think the fact that two negative labels apply to your behavior somehow represents a contradiction of those who are shocked by your posts. But as a Christ-follower, I am HORRIFIED that someone whose position gets associated with the Savior would post such misleading claims and then quibble over some imagined ambiguity about the exact nature and label for such violations of the Ninth Commandment.

You should worry less about the alleged "moving goal posts" and instead wonder why you are wandering around out in the stadium parking lot looking for a way to get back into the game after being ejected by the officials.

But I will admit this: I was absolutely amazed that you would post such deceptive quote-mines immediately after the 350,000 "Lying for Jesus" Google results were discussed. (Were you intent on adding yet another to the total?) Poes have been known to post such outrageous examples in order to vilify Christians on Internet forums. Which side do you represent in this? I'm wondering.

 

[AV1611VET]

My work is done here.

May I get the door for you?

 

[freezerman2000]

so you've downgraded you harsh language from "outright lies" to simply "deception", after criticism of your views. This would be what we would call the fallacy of "moving the goal posts"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts

the rest has been answered by KWCRAZY sufficiently, so I will not beat a dead horse:

Sorry, but I pay no mind to people who tell me that because I don't believe the same way they do, I'm not a "proper" Christian in a sarcastic manner..the poster mentioned in your post comes to mind..he's on my ignore list..don't recap,either.

 

[freezerman2000]

May I get the door for you?

Hey,AV! How are ya?

 

[KWCrazy]

Do you disagree with the Bible when it says that they came from the dust of the ground----and also had parents?

So we already know that Adam was the end result of a LOT of processes after "the dust of the ground" which provided the ingredients for all life.

Yes. I affirm the theory of evolution because the Bible says nothing to deny it and the Creation which God gave us shouts the facts of evolution.

And this person had the audacity to accuse others of lying?

Clearly the Heavens proclaim the glory of the ignore feature.

Some of our Christian bretheren are going to have a lot of heresy and false teaching to explain one day.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hey,AV! How are ya?

LOL -- Just fine, thank you!

 

[KWCrazy]

the rest has been answered by KWCRAZY sufficiently, so I will not beat a dead horse:

Thanks. I love the dead horse icon.

Actually the accusation made against me is just another lie in a string of lies. I've never accused anyone of not being a proper Christian. I challenged those who were deliberately lying about the Bible to back up what they claim in the Scriptures. Amazing, none of them ever can. As a matter of fact, I've NEVER seen a T.E. produce passages of Scriptures to support their case. The lie about Genesis stating that Adam and Eve had parents was a lie I'd never head before. The lie about Yom meaning long periods of time gets old. Although, like the word "day" it can be used to represent a time period other than 24 hours, when used in the Scriptures with "evening and morning," or "on the _th day" it means a single calendar day 100% of the time. They know this. It's not a mistake, it's an outright lie.

When they say that there is nothing in the Bible that refutes evolution it's like denying that water exists on the planet earth. Show them the verses and they do not respond. Ask for supporting Scriptures and you don't get any.
Not ever.
Not from any of them.

They claim that the the world used in Genesis means the land where the Israelites lived, but it's the same word used earlier when it mentions, "The heavens and the earth, and the same used "and the earth was without form." They know the context. They know they are deliberately lying about the context, and yet they feel compelled to continue.

When people ask me what I belive, I tell them and show them why my belief is supported by Scriptures. For whatever reasons, these Christians feel motivated to come here and relentlesly attack what is written. Like the atheists, they tell the same lies and accuse God's word of being nothing more than analogy. It seems to me that if your faith is rooted in the Scriptures that you should be able to validate it with the Scriptures. Not surprisingly, none of them can.