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

[createdtoworship]

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.

sorry to butt in, however I noticed a lack of explanation on your part. You do well in giving your premise, however there is much "xplainin" to do. I mean are you saying that after the flood there is a lessing of fossils in the geologic column and there is no evidence for this? Or are you saying that after the flood fossils ceased to be created? Because I am pretty sure that organisms did not become immortal after the flood, hence the creation of fossils. You seemed to need expansion on this thought.

 

[createdtoworship]

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.

ah another ad hominem...shall we expect anything less from this crowd?

here is a link, of the certifiables that were ridiculed and later vindicated...

"While it's true that at least 99% of revolutionary announcements from the fringes of science are just as bogus as they seem, we cannot dismiss every one of them without investigation. If we do, then we'll certainly take our place among the ranks of scoffers who accidentally helped delay numbers of major scientific discoveries throughout history. Beware, for many discoveries such as powered flight and drifting continents today only appear sane and acceptable because we have such powerful hindsight. These same advancements were seen as obviously a bunch of disgusting lunatic garbage during the years they were first discovered.

In science, pursuing revolutionary advancements can be like searching for diamonds hidden in sewage. It's a shame that the realms of questionable ideas contain "diamonds" of great value. This makes the judging crazy theories far more difficult. If crazy discoveries were always bogus, then we'd have good reason to reject them without investigation. However, since the diamonds exist, we must distrust our first impressions. Sometimes the "obvious" craziness turns out to be a genuine cutting-edge discovery. As with the little child questioning the emperor's clothing, sometimes the entire scientific community is misguided and incompetent. Sometimes only the lone voice of the maverick scientist is telling the truth.


Below is a list of scientists who were reviled for their crackpottery, only to be later proven correct. Today's science texts are dishonest to the extent that they hide these huge mistakes made by the scientific community. They rarely discuss the acts of intellectual suppression which were directed at the following researchers by their colleagues. And... after wide reading, I've never encountered any similar list.[1] This is very telling.





"When a true genius appears in this world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." - Jonathan Swift

THE LIST: scroll down

To add: Gilbert Ling, John C. Lilly

Arrhenius (ion chemistry)
Alfven, Hans (galaxy-scale plasma dynamics)
Baird, John L. (television camera)
Bakker, Robert (fast, warm-blooded dinosaurs)
Bardeen & Brattain (transistor)
Bretz J Harlen (ice age geology)
Chandrasekhar, Subrahmanyan (black holes in 1930)
Chladni, Ernst (meteorites in 1800)
Crick & Watson (DNA)
Doppler (optical Doppler effect)
Folk, Robert L. (existence and importance of nanobacteria)
Galvani (bioelectricity)
Harvey, William (circulation of blood, 1628)
Krebs (ATP energy, Krebs cycle)
Galileo (supported the Copernican viewpoint)
Gauss, Karl F. (nonEuclidean geometery)
Binning/Roher/Gimzewski (scanning-tunneling microscope)
Goddard, Robert (rocket-powered space ships)
Goethe (Land color theory)
Gold, Thomas (deep non-biological petroleum deposits)
Gold, Thomas (deep mine bacteria)
Lister, J (sterilizing)
T Maiman (Laser)
"Concepts which have proved useful for ordering things easily assume so great an authority over us, that we forget their terrestrial origin and accept them as unalterable facts. They then become labeled as 'conceptual necessities,' etc. The road of scientific progress is frequently blocked for long periods by such errors." - Einstein
Margulis, Lynn (endosymbiotic organelles)
Mayer, Julius R. (The Law of Conservation of Energy)
Marshall, B (ulcers caused by bacteria, helicobacter pylori)
McClintlock, Barbara (mobile genetic elements, "jumping genes", transposons)
Newlands, J. (pre-Mendeleev periodic table)
Nott, J. C. (mosquitos xmit Yellow Fever)
Nottebohm, F. (neurogenesis: brains can grow neurons)
Ohm, George S. (Ohm's Law)
Ovshinsky, Stanford R. (amorphous semiconductor devices)
Pasteur, Louis (germ theory of disease)
Prusiner, Stanley (existence of prions, 1982)
Rous, Peyton (viruses cause cancer)
Semmelweis, I. (surgeons wash hands, puerperal fever )
Steen-McIntyre, Virginia (southwest US indians villiage , 300,000BC)
Tesla, Nikola (Earth electrical resonance, "Schumann" resonance)
Tesla, Nikola (brushless AC motor)
J H van't Hoff (molecules are 3D)
Warren, Warren S (flaw in MRI theory)
Wegener, Alfred (continental drift)
Wright, Wilbur & Orville (flying machines)
Zwicky, Fritz (existence of dark matter, 1933)
Zweig, George (quark theory)"

clipped message:

from

Ridiculed science mavericks vindicated

Again note the first few lines of the quote, for a non creationist!:

"we cannot dismiss every one of them without investigation. If we do, then we'll certainly take our place among the ranks of scoffers who accidentally helped delay numbers of major scientific discoveries throughout history. Beware, for many discoveries such as powered flight and drifting continents today only appear sane and acceptable because we have such powerful hindsight. "

also note: that He mentions drifting continents which was invented by a creationist/global floodist, see my other posts.

 

[createdtoworship]

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.

are you sure about this, see below. You should probably site a peer review from a geologist if you want to make a point on this issue.

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

I provided all info needed for my premise, you made claims with no evidence provided, until this post...and I address your issue below.

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.[/

I have below

(xenoliths are another subject, adressed in another post- no need to say the same things over and over)

but let me help out your premise:

you are saying there is less 40AR , in young rocks and therefore cannot be tested accurately, however on Geology.com is confident if you are skilled and have good materials one can date down to 10K years. Not far from a young earth date. So don't tell me that every single error in K/AR dating is from lack of 40AR in young rocks.


"Good materials and skilled hands can yield ages that are certain to within 1 percent, even in rocks only 10,000 years old, in which quantities of 40Ar are vanishingly small. "
Potassium-Argon Dating Methods - K-Ar and Ar-Ar Dating

 

[Joshua0]

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

So everyone agrees on what happened, everyone agrees on how it happened. Looks like there are just some of the people that do not trust radiometric dating. So the only thing in dispute here is how fast or slow this event was. Sort of like a speeding ticket. I really was not going that fast. Oh yes you were I got the results right here on my radiometric test kit. It does not matter that my radiometric has a dial that I can set anywhere I want to.

 

[Loudmouth]

are you sure about this, see below.

Yes, I am sure about this.

You should probably site a peer review from a geologist if you want to make a point on this issue.

So should you. Cite a peer reviewed paper showing that the K/Ar dating and the equipment that specific people have used is appropriate for very young samples.

I provided all info needed for my premise, you made claims with no evidence provided, until this post...and I address your issue below.

You have provided misinformation and lies from creationist websites.

I have below

(xenoliths are another subject, adressed in another post- no need to say the same things over and over)

but let me help out your premise:

you are saying there is less 40AR , in young rocks and therefore cannot be tested accurately, however on Geology.com is confident if you are skilled and have good materials one can date down to 10K years. Not far from a young earth date. So don't tell me that every single error in K/AR dating is from lack of 40AR in young rocks.


"Good materials and skilled hands can yield ages that are certain to within 1 percent, even in rocks only 10,000 years old, in which quantities of 40Ar are vanishingly small. "
Potassium-Argon Dating Methods - K-Ar and Ar-Ar Dating

Yes, with perfect samples and very precise equipment, neither of which is guaranteed. So what do creationists do? Cite dates from samples that are known to be poor and with equipment that is not precise. For example, the RATE group sent rocks from Mt. St. Helens to a lab that stated right up front that their equipment was not sensitive enough to date rocks less than 2 million years old using K/Ar dating. What did the RATE group do? Sent the samples anyway even though the equipment was advertised as not being appropriate for those samples:

"Specifically, personnel at Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, performed the K-Ar dating for Austin et al. This laboratory no longer performs K-Ar dating. However, when they did, their website clearly stated in a footnote that their equipment could not accurately date rocks that are younger than about 2 million years old ("We cannot analyze samples expected to be younger than 2 M.Y."; also see discussions by Bartelt et al.). "
Young-Earth Creationist 'Dating' of a Mt. St. Helens Dacite: The Failure of Austin and Swenson to Recognize Obviously Ancient Minerals

Not only that, but the samples contain xenoliths as is the usual case with creationists. They set up the method to fail, and they did so purposefully and knowingly. This is how creationism works. It is dishonest from start to finish.

 

[AV1611VET]

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

Yes.

 

[Lucy Stulz]

sorry to butt in, however I noticed a lack of explanation on your part. You do well in giving your premise, however there is much "xplainin" to do. I mean are you saying that after the flood there is a lessing of fossils in the geologic column and there is no evidence for this? Or are you saying that after the flood fossils ceased to be created? Because I am pretty sure that organisms did not become immortal after the flood, hence the creation of fossils. You seemed to need expansion on this thought.

I am hopefully showing two possible scenarios:

1. The flood killed everything off but the wind blew all the water away and none (!!) of the bodies, bones, hard parts etc were preserved. This means that up until that time there were fossils forming in the rocks, during the flood and for a long time afterwards the rock record would show a distinct lack of fossils. Maybe near where the Ark came to rest but the rest of the planet as life re-established would show a marked fall-off in life. The rocks would be barren during this block of time globally.

This would be worse than even the Permian-Triassic extinction which over a longer time wiped out a huge amount of life on earth. The loss in biodiversity would be stunning.

2. The Flood preserved some massive "biocoenoses" or life assemblages (the animals lived all together and we aren't just seeing the bodies transported to a fossilization site). These massive biocoenses would all correlate across the globe to the same time. This was an "instantaneous" event. And would act like a big giant red "marker". Even if the globe wasn't covered with a solid layer of death from pole to pole, various pods across the globe showing near instantaneous death correlatable to the same time would be kind of interesting.

I was told I was looking for "fossils" but indeed no fossils would be quite telling, further even if some fossils were preserved the nature of their time horizon would indicate something big.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

They were all prob ridiculed by Christians.

 

[Tomk80]

They were all prob ridiculed by Christians.

They laughed at Galileo, they laughed at Bozo the clown. Just because you are ridiculed, doesn't mean your claims are profound, true, or insightful. That list means nothing. The list is irrelevant.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

They laughed at Galileo, they laughed at Bozo the clown. Just because you are ridiculed, doesn't mean your claims are profound, true, or insightful. That list means nothing. The list is irrelevant.

I guess if there was no grasping at straw, there'd be no grasping at all.

 

[createdtoworship]

I am hopefully showing two possible scenarios:

1. The flood killed everything off but the wind blew all the water away and none (!!) of the bodies, bones, hard parts etc were preserved. This means that up until that time there were fossils forming in the rocks, during the flood and for a long time afterwards the rock record would show a distinct lack of fossils. Maybe near where the Ark came to rest but the rest of the planet as life re-established would show a marked fall-off in life. The rocks would be barren during this block of time globally.

This would be worse than even the Permian-Triassic extinction which over a longer time wiped out a huge amount of life on earth. The loss in biodiversity would be stunning.

2. The Flood preserved some massive "biocoenoses" or life assemblages (the animals lived all together and we aren't just seeing the bodies transported to a fossilization site). These massive biocoenses would all correlate across the globe to the same time. This was an "instantaneous" event. And would act like a big giant red "marker". Even if the globe wasn't covered with a solid layer of death from pole to pole, various pods across the globe showing near instantaneous death correlatable to the same time would be kind of interesting.

I was told I was looking for "fossils" but indeed no fossils would be quite telling, further even if some fossils were preserved the nature of their time horizon would indicate something big.

interesting theory, it is sort of confusing however due to the fact that fossilization requires a solvent to seal the calcium carb. into the hard tissue under pressure. So during a global flood, you would see access sediment, and access fossilization. This in my theory is what laid down the global sedimentary rock in the first place. As water is need in massive amounts to fossilize (or rather water under extreme pressure which does not happen typically in localized floods)

 

[createdtoworship]

They laughed at Galileo, they laughed at Bozo the clown. Just because you are ridiculed, doesn't mean your claims are profound, true, or insightful. That list means nothing. The list is irrelevant.

it is actually relevant to the topic at hand. The use of adhominem in debate does not disqualify ones scientific views. This was all that was meant by the list, nothing more. You must prove your assessment of illelevancy. The burden of this proof lies in the one making the newer statements.

 

[createdtoworship]

Yes, I am sure about this.



So should you. Cite a peer reviewed paper showing that the K/Ar dating and the equipment that specific people have used is appropriate for very young samples.



You have provided misinformation and lies from creationist websites.




Yes, with perfect samples and very precise equipment, neither of which is guaranteed. So what do creationists do? Cite dates from samples that are known to be poor and with equipment that is not precise. For example, the RATE group sent rocks from Mt. St. Helens to a lab that stated right up front that their equipment was not sensitive enough to date rocks less than 2 million years old using K/Ar dating. What did the RATE group do? Sent the samples anyway even though the equipment was advertised as not being appropriate for those samples:

"Specifically, personnel at Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, performed the K-Ar dating for Austin et al. This laboratory no longer performs K-Ar dating. However, when they did, their website clearly stated in a footnote that their equipment could not accurately date rocks that are younger than about 2 million years old ("We cannot analyze samples expected to be younger than 2 M.Y."; also see discussions by Bartelt et al.). "
Young-Earth Creationist 'Dating' of a Mt. St. Helens Dacite: The Failure of Austin and Swenson to Recognize Obviously Ancient Minerals

Not only that, but the samples contain xenoliths as is the usual case with creationists. They set up the method to fail, and they did so purposefully and knowingly. This is how creationism works. It is dishonest from start to finish.

for someone who is fond of peer review, have you even quoted one on this forum, this year? I quoted the rate project already. Which is helium dating that shows young dates.

 

[Lucy Stulz]

interesting theory, it is sort of confusing however due to the fact that fossilization requires a solvent to seal the calcium carb. into the hard tissue under pressure.

It should not be confusing in the slightest. Not all fossilization occurs in limestone.

And further, nothing I said necessitates some carbonate cementation without water.

So during a global flood, you would see access sediment, and access fossilization.

"access sediment" and "access fossilization"? I'm afraid I'm unfamiliar with those terms.

This in my theory is what laid down the global sedimentary rock in the first place.

Hopefully you don't mean all sedimentary rocks, right? When you start asking for this sort of thing you will run into some severe problems.

Remember, sedimentary rocks are not just "homogenous chunks of rock". MOst of them contain a huge amount of information in the fabric and structures in the sedimentary deposits. Be they dune-deposits showing aeolian structures or lacustrine deposits with varves, or ripple marks or raindrop impressions or mud cracks, etc etc etc. The list is almost inexhaustible.

Further on you can't assume all sedimentary rocks are carbonates. There's shales hundreds of feet thick indicating a Looooooooong time of relatively undisturbed water (or at least low enough energy that the clay minerals can settle out and orient into nice flat plates).

Again, the vastness of sedimentary geology will probably contain many, many things you will have to explain away and it will require that your hypothesis be constantly in rework phase as you struggle to explain this point over here while you nail down that point over there.

As water is need in massive amounts to fossilize (or rather water under extreme pressure which does not happen typically in localized floods)

Really? I wasn't aware of this 'water under extreme pressure' caveat. What about coal? Often times lenses of coal which preserve a great deal of structure occur in limited areal spots.

Fossilization, or the process of fossilization (technically called taphonomy) actually contains a large number of different aspects. And remember there are a wide variety of types of fossilization mechanisms.

Original material (some shells retain their original composition, say a CaCO3 shell or a silica spicule etc.)

Replacement fossils and perminerlized where the original material is removed and replaced with another mineral phase. Silica replacement is not uncommon, also carbonate replacement, sometimes of other carbonates!

Molds and Casts: in which the original "thing" is removed altogether and other material fills in the space.

Carbonization where a thin film of carbon can replace fossils.

You're going to have to work on shoehorning all these different types of fossilization into your hypothesis.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

it is actually relevant to the topic at hand. The use of adhominem in debate does not disqualify ones scientific views. This was all that was meant by the list, nothing more. You must prove your assessment of illelevancy. The burden of this proof lies in the one making the newer statements.

You are correct in that, the burden of proof is the on the one making the positive claim, which is why no one, save creationists, believe in a young earth or global flood. We have known for over two hundred years that we live on an old earth, and the flood story is a cultural myth. This is not disputed on any serious academic level, at all. As a creationist, you, are entitled to your own opinions and beliefs, but you're not entitled to your own facts. That's not how science works. Creationists start with the assumption that a global flood happened, then they selectively look for evidence that would ostensibly back up their claims. Nothing about the creation myth as described in the bible is anywhere remotely congruous with the facts. And if you were being honest with yourself, I would imagine that if you woke up tomorrow, and decided that religions and theism was hogwash, you would reject creationism as well?

Oh, and lists are silly. I have a list with 1,268 biologists all named Steve, who accept ToE. Do you think my list makes ToE any more or less valid?

Project Steve | NCSE

 

[Loudmouth]

for someone who is fond of peer review, have you even quoted one on this forum, this year?

Yes, quite often in fact. You can check out this post from yesterday:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7734709-16/#post62776347

I quoted the rate project already. Which is helium dating that shows young dates.

No, it doesn't. That is another dishonest study. Go figure.

RATE's Ratty Results: Helium in Zircons

And it was also never submitted for peer review.

 

[Loudmouth]

it is actually relevant to the topic at hand. The use of adhominem in debate does not disqualify ones scientific views. This was all that was meant by the list, nothing more. You must prove your assessment of illelevancy. The burden of this proof lies in the one making the newer statements.

The burden of proof lies with the one making the positive claim.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

No, it doesn't. That is another dishonest study. Go figure.

RATE's Ratty Results: Helium in Zircons

And it was also never submitted for peer review.

Which is why my default position for creationist claims is false, until proven otherwise. Their track record of twisting and falsifying data over the decades to support their agenda, is so sleazy.

 

[AkiraYamato]

A "global" flood is impossible.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

A "global" flood is impossible.

All available evidence would support your assertion.