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

createdtoworship · Apr 5, 2013

StormanNorman said:
No doubt. I'm sure there have been those scientists that have doggedly clung onto their theories. But, at the end of the day, they lose. Science is a collective effort, not an individual one. It's competitve, in the public domain, and no one individual can dictate its course. It moves on which is why theories and hypotheses change quite often.
I would have to look at the data. There are multiple methods and even when there is a variance including large outliers, you can still statistically derive the best point estimate within reasonable confidence intervals. But, like I said, I would have to see the data first hand.

Here is a quote from the Book- mythology of modern dating methods - by john woodmorappe: enjoy!

"[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] et al. (1996b) have demonstrated that there exists a measurable bias between different laboratories which perform K-Ar age dating .

"Young basaltic rocks are among the most difficult for K-Ar age dating, often resulting in greater dispersion in the analytical results than assiciated with older rocks with higher K2O (fleck et al. 1996b p.205)

fleck, r.j. et al. 1996b . Age and character of basaltic rocks of the yucca Mountain region, southern Nevada. Journal of Geophysical Research 101 (B4):8205-8227

an another note: dates are rejected primarily on an after-the-fact basis, meaning if the date doesn't fit the chronology or bias it is not accepted.

"contrary to the claims that discrepant dates being rare, they are, in fact more than common. It has been shown they are the rule,not the exception." - mythology of modern dating methods - john woodmorappe

dates that are invalidated are often covered up and tagged with a special language to validate them. Orwellian language it is called. These include "delayed uplift ages, cooling ages, thermochronologic information, rejuvenated dates, inherited isochrons, and many other types of doublespeak."- ibid . woodmorappe pg 96

book can be found here:

Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: Mythology of Modern Dating Methods

I'm not following you here.

simple. If evolution were wrong, and millions of years. No one in their right mind would fess up. They would simply cover their tracks and hope no one noticed. Because that is a true embarassment.

Secondly, there has been some successful helium date methods: among which come out significantly young....more info...

the RATE project was a peer reviewed project... raising some issues with helium tests giving young dates....""billion-fold speed-ups of nuclear decay" have occurred, a massive violation of the principle that radioisotope decay rates are constant, a core principle underlying nuclear physics generally, and radiometric dating in particular"

Creation geophysics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

look up "Rate Project" if you have questions

Wait a second. I thought that the ocean crust expansions caused the flood...not vice versa.

my quess is subterrainian pressures built up, perhaps a lot of H2O down there. But not so much as to boil the oceans, only enough as suitable to release pressure. So it would be tectonics as the cause and the result, because you have settlement afterward. (the rest of the flood caused by a materializing water canopy over earth).

TheBear · Apr 5, 2013

How old is the earth, Grady?

Lucy Stulz · Apr 5, 2013

gradyll said:
I am always curious why Mr. Jan Peczkis uses the pen name "John Woodmorappe". That is a very strange thing for someone to do, don't you think?

But further, again as noted in another thread, many of Mr. Woodmorappe's ideas on radiometric dating are critiqued by Dr. Kevin Henke.

In addition Brent Dalrymple has taken the various YEC "researchers" who argue about "excess Ar" which tends to skew the K-Ar data to older dates for young volcanics.

Interestingly enough the problem of excess Ar usually isn't a big problem. In 1969 Dalrymple dated 26 "young volcanic eruptions" to see if there was a problem with the dating. Out of the 26 he studied 18 gave dates as expected. The other 8 gave a mix of too old and too young.

This isn't a bad track record for a measurement system. But here's the kicker: in the 1969 study those with excess argon usually had very noticable xenoliths. No doubt this is a HUGE red flag to you. You will certainly understand that if a volcanic eruption contains OLDER CHUNKS in it will, indeed, give older dates!

In fact when they removed the xenoliths from the younger flows, the dates came back in line with the actual dates.

So, you see, it is very important to understand the basic science. And that goes all the way back to what you learn in Geology 101 about "xenoliths".

an another note: dates are rejected primarily on an after-the-fact basis, meaning if the date doesn't fit the chronology or bias it is not accepted.

Click to expand...

I would have to see an example of this. That doesn't sound like the science I know. I suspect that rejections of an age rely more on the presence of indicators that the age is not representative (say, when one finds xenoliths near what is sampled or indicators from an isochron plot of some mixing event etc.)

simple. If evolution were wrong, and millions of years. No one in their right mind would fess up. They would simply cover their tracks and hope no one noticed. Because that is a true embarassment.

Click to expand...

Conspiracy theory = unfalsifiable = fail.

the RATE project was a peer reviewed project... raising some issues with helium tests giving young dates....""billion-fold speed-ups of nuclear decay" have occurred, a massive violation of the principle that radioisotope decay rates are constant, a core principle underlying nuclear physics generally, and radiometric dating in particular"

Click to expand...

The only thing I've read about in which the rate of decay changes is some small article a few years back about a rare isotope of Si that seemed to have "seasonal" changes in decay rate due to neutrino flux from the sun. But it would apparently average out and I don't think the change was enormous.

If we were to see a massive "billion fold increase" in rate of nuclear decay across the board such that just about every radionuclide dating couplet showed ages in millions and billions of years for things that are really only thousands of years old, then we'd be diging through ash layers as the heat generated from this globally would probably be enormous.

How life could survive that is a mystery.

OldWiseGuy · Apr 5, 2013

Here's some more (gasp) scientific support for my theory (page 36, post #360).

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/18/science/earth/18juneau.html?_r=0

https://www.dmr.nd.gov/ndgs/ndnotes/Rebound/Glacial%20Rebound.htm

Split Rock · Apr 5, 2013

gradyll said:
Well destruction" is the main enemy of fossilization. In any type of rock. (Be it scavengers, or bacteria) That is why it's a rare event. It just so happens that water is a solvent capable of countering the destruction sealing and crystalizing the chemicals that rid the impression of bacteria/scavengers and other types of "destroyers."

without the sealing, there would be no cementing. That is what we call the fossil. So my point still stands, show me a sedimentary or nonsedimentary rock with a fossil in it, that did not involve water.

I guess I am confused as to what your point is..... you want someone to show you a fossil preserved in a type of rock that cannot preserve fossils???? Why????

Split Rock · Apr 5, 2013

gradyll said:
Here is a quote from the Book- mythology of modern dating methods - by john woodmorappe: enjoy!

"[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] et al. (1996b) have demonstrated that there exists a measurable bias between different laboratories which perform K-Ar age dating .

"Young basaltic rocks are among the most difficult for K-Ar age dating, often resulting in greater dispersion in the analytical results than assiciated with older rocks with higher K2O (fleck et al. 1996b p.205)

fleck, r.j. et al. 1996b . Age and character of basaltic rocks of the yucca Mountain region, southern Nevada. Journal of Geophysical Research 101 (B4):8205-8227

an another note: dates are rejected primarily on an after-the-fact basis, meaning if the date doesn't fit the chronology or bias it is not accepted.

"contrary to the claims that discrepant dates being rare, they are, in fact more than common. It has been shown they are the rule,not the exception." - mythology of modern dating methods - john woodmorappe

dates that are invalidated are often covered up and tagged with a special language to validate them. Orwellian language it is called. These include "delayed uplift ages, cooling ages, thermochronologic information, rejuvenated dates, inherited isochrons, and many other types of doublespeak."- ibid . woodmorappe pg 96

book can be found here:

Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: Mythology of Modern Dating Methods

As other have noted here, you have to understand the limitations of any technique to apply it properly. There are limitations to radiometirc dating, and some samples give false results based on various issues, such as the presence of xenoliths. These are all understood. What Woodmorappe is doing is Poisoning the Well (another one you like), by claiming that because it can give erroneous results if misapplied, then all the results are suspect.

gradyll said:
simple. If evolution were wrong, and millions of years. No one in their right mind would fess up. They would simply cover their tracks and hope no one noticed. Because that is a true embarassment.

Secondly, there has been some successful helium date methods: among which come out significantly young....more info...

the RATE project was a peer reviewed project... raising some issues with helium tests giving young dates....""billion-fold speed-ups of nuclear decay" have occurred, a massive violation of the principle that radioisotope decay rates are constant, a core principle underlying nuclear physics generally, and radiometric dating in particular"

Creation geophysics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

look up "Rate Project" if you have questions

The RATE Project like these others are all designed to give the results they do. By purposely misapplying a known and established technique, they try to bring doubt upon it. It is peer reviewed, in a sense.... peer reviewed by other "creation scientists," that is. It was not peer reviewed by the geological community.

Your other point is also wrong. That is the idea of convering up the issues with radiometric dating in order to avoid "embarassment." First of all, all the issues are right there, published in black and white for anyone to read. Ever since the 1960s when radiometric dating was first being established all the limitations and issues have been written on. That is how science gets things done. Not by secrecy. So how is this being "covered up?" What organization is behind this? You get a name for yourself in science by coming up with a better idea, not preserving an old one that doesn't work. In science, ideas get shot down all the time... if you cannot stand "the embarassment" of that, you don't last long. So, there is no shame, and no incentive as you suggest to covering anything up.

StormanNorman · Apr 5, 2013

gradyll said:
simple. If evolution were wrong, and millions of years. No one in their right mind would fess up. They would simply cover their tracks and hope no one noticed. Because that is a true embarassment.

It sounds like you are implying that there is this unspoken (or maybe spoken) conspiracy among the thousdands and thousands of scientist across a wide range of fields to keep the 'myth" of evolution going.

Loudmouth · Apr 5, 2013

gradyll said:
Here is a quote from the Book- mythology of modern dating methods - by john woodmorappe: enjoy!

"[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] et al. (1996b) have demonstrated that there exists a measurable bias between different laboratories which perform K-Ar age dating .

"Young basaltic rocks are among the most difficult for K-Ar age dating, often resulting in greater dispersion in the analytical results than assiciated with older rocks with higher K2O (fleck et al. 1996b p.205)

Yes, just as it is difficult to weigh a feather on a bathroom scale. This does not indicate that a bathroom scale is an inappropriate tool for measuring your weight.

It is claims like the one in the quote above that disqualify creationists from talking about radiometric dating. You actually need to know how it works. Heck, you need to know how science works. Creationists don't.

Loudmouth · Apr 5, 2013

gradyll said:
I understand your delemna, but you also have to add the several thousand of years between now and the flood.

How was limestone able to form at the top of mountains in the last few thousand years? Are you insane?

below excerpt from AIG, answers in genesis:

Yes, more lies from creationists. When is this going to stop? Seriously?

Floods do not produce thousands of feet of crinoid plates. Period.

Floods do not produce hundreds of feet of chalk. Period.

Lucy Stulz · Apr 5, 2013

oldwiseguy said:
It is also interesting to note that the earth's crust is solid rock, floating on molten rock, and barely floating at that.

Actually the lithosphere (the crust and the upper portion of the mantle that make up the tectonic plates) are setting on top of the aesthenosphere which is probably more like "silly putty" in consistency than floating on "molten rock".

Also of profound interest is the mechanism for the abatement of these waters, now encompassing the entire globe, the wind. A strong and steady wind can move much water, and the usual limiting factors, such as a containment feature, would be absent from the flood scene allowing plenty of room for the windblown water to move freely away from the land. As the floodwaters return to the sea the weight presses down on the seafloor causing magma to flow back under the continents and raising them.

But in the interim we have massive global water flooding at one time. This should leave (easily so) a layer that is global in extent that can mark one particular time horizon. This would be extremely hard to miss especially in this day and age of global geology information.

Notice the clarity of the water as it flows across the sand. At that speed there is no erosion, and as the flood waters flowed gently across many areas there would also be no or little erosion, especially healthy grasslands. It is where the flow of the waters are restricted or flow downhill that serious erosion takes place. A study of the earth's topography will easily reveal those areas.

BUT you've still got all life with the exception of those on the ark drowning simultaneously. Should leave something indicative of a global catastrophic extinction. Even if some of the life forms bodies were preserved it would be pretty impressive. If none of them were preserved we'd still see large swaths of the earth that had no life during these times which would still leave a mark. Globally correlatable.

Anyway that's my current working theory ( always subject to revision of course).

It is always fascinating what lengths one must go to to explain a global catastrophe that leaves no discernible mark whatsoever on the globe.

createdtoworship · Apr 5, 2013

Loudmouth said:
How was limestone able to form at the top of mountains in the last few thousand years? Are you insane?

I provide a source of information for you yet you did not even read it did you? There is another article at ICR I meant to attach to my previous comment, but you haven't read what was given so no need to provide more evidence. (lazyness)

Yes, more lies from creationists. When is this going to stop? Seriously?

they are not liars if they sincerely believe what they are saying. Even if it's wrong, its simply misinformation not lies. So you are doubly wrong here, and if you count the adhominem, triply wrong.

Floods do not produce thousands of feet of crinoid plates. Period.

Floods do not produce hundreds of feet of chalk. Period.[/QUOTE]

I would look at the illustrations provided, this may help your inquisition. Instead of simply using an appeal to popular oppinion, and a bit of ad hominem to help out your weakening argument.

createdtoworship · Apr 5, 2013

Loudmouth said:
Yes, just as it is difficult to weigh a feather on a bathroom scale. This does not indicate that a bathroom scale is an inappropriate tool for measuring your weight.

It is claims like the one in the quote above that disqualify creationists from talking about radiometric dating. You actually need to know how it works. Heck, you need to know how science works. Creationists don't.

you beg the question a couple of times in your reply, first its begging the question in your comparison of feathers and scales, as the measurement is what is being compared. You provided no details. Secondly you beg the question in your second sentence as well. Science is what needs to be expanded on so you beg the question as to what science entails (involving radiometric dating). Your comment fails miserably under scrutiny.

createdtoworship · Apr 5, 2013

Split Rock said:
As other have noted here, you have to understand the limitations of any technique to apply it properly. There are limitations to radiometirc dating, and some samples give false results based on various issues, such as the presence of xenoliths. These are all understood. What Woodmorappe is doing is Poisoning the Well (another one you like), by claiming that because it can give erroneous results if misapplied, then all the results are suspect.

Your other point is also wrong. That is the idea of convering up the issues with radiometric dating in order to avoid "embarassment." First of all, all the issues are right there, published in black and white for anyone to read. Ever since the 1960s when radiometric dating was first being established all the limitations and issues have been written on. That is how science gets things done. Not by secrecy. So how is this being "covered up?" What organization is behind this? You get a name for yourself in science by coming up with a better idea, not preserving an old one that doesn't work. In science, ideas get shot down all the time... if you cannot stand "the embarassment" of that, you don't last long. So, there is no shame, and no incentive as you suggest to covering anything up.

good reply, thanx. However I would look up the orwellian terms provided, and see how much they are infact used today. This would show you the vast errors and bias used. Your only argument is to in fact discredit the terms one at a time, which I doubt you will try to accomplish. But you may suprise me, who knows.

The RATE Project like these others are all designed to give the results they do. By purposely misapplying a known and established technique, they try to bring doubt upon it. It is peer reviewed, in a sense.... peer reviewed by other "creation scientists," that is. It was not peer reviewed by the geological community.

I will answer this when I have more time, on break at work.

your view of peer review is a self defeating statement, you would need to apply to both parties. And most don't, thats the thing.

Lucy Stulz · Apr 5, 2013

gradyll said:
I understand your delemna, but you also have to add the several thousand of years between now and the flood. This part you missed. So we basically have to show if it is possible to lay this much chalk in 2-4K years. There is a lot of math in this reply so get out your calculator:

--gasp---numbers??? Oh my!

below excerpt from AIG, answers in genesis:

Starting off strong!

"Dr Ariel Roth of the Geoscience Research Institute ... suggests that in the surface layers of the ocean these carbonate-secreting organisms at optimum production rates could produce all the calcareous ooze

But this isn't all the limestone on earth, is it? Remember your Dunham classification.

But let's stick with just ocean floor carbonates from oozes. OK, now you've got a layer of carbonate and let's say you can solidify it within a couple thousand years.

The rocks at the summit of Everest contain crinoids and carbonate pellets. (Crinoids lived in the ocean). You've exhausted a great deal of time just making the carbonate in the oceans since the flood, so when did Everest "pop up"? Must have been pretty dramatic to shoot up 29,000 feet in just a few years! The level of destruction necessary must have been pretty phenomenal. The frictional factors should have left some pretty nifty marks and melting/recrystallization along he margins of the Himalaya from this shocking event.

John Woodmorappe

Again, a pseudonym for Jan Peczkis. Just an fyi.

approached the matter in a different way. Assuming that all limestones in the Upper Cretaceous and Tertiary divisions of the geological column are all chalks

Why make that assumption???

, he found that these accounted for 17.5 million cubic kilometres of rock. (Of course, not all these limestones are chalks, but he used this figure to make the problem more difficult

If by "difficult" you mean ignoring all the potential problems that might arise from the existence of other types of limestone, then yeah, maybe.

Now here's a bigger question: what about shales? These are often made up of very fine clay minerals which take an exceptionally long time to "rain down" out of a body of water and due to their unique shapes (flat and platy) the water needs to be exceptionally calm.

Seems to me shales would be more of a problem for flood geologists and YEC than limestones.

Check out your hjulstrom diagram while you're reviewing Dunham.

Loudmouth · Apr 5, 2013

gradyll said:
you beg the question a couple of times in your reply, first its begging the question in your comparison of feathers and scales,

No, it isn't. K/Ar dating is not meant for dating very young rock. It never was. It isn't sensitive enough to measure very young dates just as your bathroom scale is not meant to accurately weigh feathers. I am not begging the question. I am stating facts.

You provided no details.

You provided no details that very young rock is within the sensitivity range of K/Ar dating.

Science is what needs to be expanded on . . .

Then why don't you do just that? Expand on the science of K/Ar dating and show us why it should be able to accurately date very young rocks. Also, expand on the science of radiometric dating in general including a discussion on xenoliths, closure temperatures, and other methodologies such as Ar/Ar dating.

Loudmouth · Apr 5, 2013

gradyll said:
I provide a source of information . . .

You provided lies from known creationist liars.

There is another article at ICR . . .

Strike two. We need peer reviewed papers from real geologists.

they are not liars . . .

Yes, they are.

They know that they are passing on falsehoods. They don't care.

I would look at the illustrations provided, this may help your inquisition. Instead of simply using an appeal to popular oppinion, and a bit of ad hominem to help out your weakening argument.

So you have to be coddled before you will look at facts?

Mr Strawberry · Apr 5, 2013

Loudmouth (in exasperation at another unbelievable creationist post) said:
Are you insane?

Ah, the eternal unspoken question that throbs in the brain of every reader of creationist posts. "Are they for real? Are they being serious? Seriously? They really mean what they're saying? Nah, it must be a joke. It's not a joke? Really? Well they must be insane then, it's the only explanation. No one in their right mind could come out with that sort of drivel without serious help from Class A drugs. I mean, for heavens sake, what do they DO to these people? Oh well, better not actually say that or the moderators will start throwing their weight about. Better try and frame an answer that doesn't make it too obvious I think the guy's one sandwich short of a picnic."

You are not alone.

OldWiseGuy · Apr 5, 2013

Lucy Stulz said:
Actually the lithosphere (the crust and the upper portion of the mantle that make up the tectonic plates) are setting on top of the aesthenosphere which is probably more like "silly putty" in consistency than floating on "molten rock".

Click to expand...

The point is that the continental crust is barely floating, and can be pressed down substantially under the weight of ice or water.

But in the interim we have massive global water flooding at one time. This should leave (easily so) a layer that is global in extent that can mark one particular time horizon. This would be extremely hard to miss especially in this day and age of global geology information.

Click to expand...

Massive flooding doesn't mean uniform or widespread erosion or deposition. It depends on the terrain, water velocity, etc.

BUT you've still got all life with the exception of those on the ark drowning simultaneously. Should leave something indicative of a global catastrophic extinction. Even if some of the life forms bodies were preserved it would be pretty impressive. If none of them were preserved we'd still see large swaths of the earth that had no life during these times which would still leave a mark. Globally correlatable.

Click to expand...

You are looking for fossil evidence. Fossils only occur under certain conditions. Billions of animals die and decompose continually on the earth leaving no trace.

God may have restored the critters like he did in Genesis 1. It was, after all, a supernatural event.

Loudmouth · Apr 5, 2013

oldwiseguy said:
Massive flooding doesn't mean uniform or widespread erosion or deposition. It depends on the terrain, water velocity, etc.

Global flooding means global sedimentation and erosion. Global flooding would remove the ice caps from both poles. Global flooding would interrupt forest growth world wide. Global flooding would stop annual deposition of freshwater diatoms in glacial lakes and sorting of insect and leaf debris by 14C content. Guess what? None of these geologic features show any evidence of a global flood.

God may have restored the critters like he did in Genesis 1. It was, after all, a supernatural event.

So now we are back to the argument that if Noah's flood is true it will look like no flood occurred at all.

Lucy Stulz · Apr 5, 2013

oldwiseguy said:
The point is that the continental crust is barely floating

What do you mean 'barely floating'? If I put a pen on a bit of silly putty do you fear it will be "barely floating" on the silly putty?

You are looking for fossil evidence.

Au contraire, mon frere. I am looking in this case for a distinct lack of fossil evidence. This event presumably if the bible is to be believed, represents the wiping out of all life in a "geologic instant". So there will be some amount of time with no new fossils forming in it as life re-establishes from a localized "ark" somewhere in Turkey (or wherever) So the absence of life will be a shocking bit of evidence.

But even so, when all life is killed off across the globe at one instant there should still likely be a significant assemblage or numerous assemblages across the earth indicating a single event in which all life forms were killed off.

God may have restored the critters like he did in Genesis 1. It was, after all, a supernatural event.

So why not just call it all "supernatural" and be done with it? Why twist all this scientific stuff into a knot in order to "explain" how a global event would leave not a single sign of its existence?

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

In the grip of grace

NON-WOKED

Well-Known Member

Wake me when it's soup.

Conflation of Blathers

Conflation of Blathers

Newbie

Contributor

Contributor

Well-Known Member

In the grip of grace

In the grip of grace

In the grip of grace

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Contributor

Newbie

Wake me when it's soup.

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency