Great Flood Evidence?

[LloydK]

Dating Anomalies

LloydK said: Several lava dating anomalies along with other dating anomalies are listed here:
http://www.angelfire.com/sc3/creation_truths/evo_radiodating2.html
Lasthero said: I'm talking about the actual papers. Have you actually read the research in question yourself?
LloydK said: Some anomalous dinosaur fossil datings are listed here: http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html
Lasthero said: Again, I'm asking for the actual research, not someone's interpretation of it. I'd prefer to look at this straight from the source of the people who do the actual work.
LloydK said: I understand that datings have to be massaged a lot in order to correlate with each other. There is corruption in science, just like in politics. Here's an article that talks about how data is massaged: http://creation.com/radioactive-dating-anomalies.
Lasthero said: That link doesn't deal with correlations - it just says that the dates can't be trusted, but it doesn't explain why different methods agree. It doesn't explain why, for instance, when we date things like ice layers, the material in the layers dates back to the right age.
Also, simple saying that there's corruption in science is a smoke screen. It doesn't deal with any particular instance, it's just a way to dismiss correlating data out of hand.
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html#page. 16

The links I gave do show some of the actual research. I don't know that you bothered to read them. I haven't read anything that proves that conventional dating methods are reliable. But I've read a lot of material showing convincingly that they're not reliable.

LloydK said: I understand that datings have to be massaged a lot in order to correlate with each other. There is corruption in science, just like in politics. Here's an article that talks about how data is massaged: http://creation.com/radioactive-dating-anomalies.
Dr D.S. Hurd said: I would demand an apology as I have done this work personally, and I did it fully publicly, and I did not "massage" anything. I do not bother, and would not expect an apology because the creationists are not the sort to ever admit error.
The article cited by LloydK is a classic of sorts. The author, Tas Walker, earned a degree for a dissertation on how to optimally locate power plants in Australia. He claims that made him a "geologist." The specific geology claims regarding radiometric dates made by Walker are as phony as his claimed geology expertise. He started with "fossil wood" supposedly dated by C14 analysis as "from 20.7 to 28.8 thousand years old." The samples were supposedly recovered on a bedded limestone with Jurassic fossils. He didn't do that work. He cited another creationist, Andrew Snelling. Snelling is a geologist also trained in Australia who found work for the Institute for Creation Research, and now works for the Answers in Genesis Ministries.
Let us take a look at the location Snelling took his "wood" sample:
Do you see an obvious problem?
These are from Snelling's own creationist publication. Look closer:
The "woody" was from a superficial deposit filled with trees, and tree roots shown in the first photo. There is a strong dark carbon discoloration from surface vegetation seen in the second photo.
They then lied about the sources of the samples to the professional laboratories. They also lied to their followers about what they had done.

Can you give two or three examples of relevant data that you didn't have to massage? I didn't accuse you of massaging data and I didn't say all data is massaged. But nearly all data are based on assumptions about original conditions that apparently are way wrong. I believe a number of items of lava and other material known to be very recent have been dated in the millions of years by conventional dating methods as the links I gave show. You haven't proven here or linked to proof that Walker, Snelling and all Creationists are liars or dupes. I'm not a Creationist myself. I just find a lot of their arguments to be much more sound than that of the "mainstream". And there are lots of dissident scientists who persuade me that science is largely corrupt and it appears to be due mainly to authoritarian politics controlling science. Big business owns all the major science journals and decides who does peer review on submitted papers. Big business controls government bureaucracies and officials who decide which science grants to award. Big business owns the big foundations that award private research grants. That's how science got corrupt; the profit motive.

So far I haven't heard good conventional science arguments about how sedimentary rock layers can be deposited almost worldwide over millions of years and still manage to bury organisms before the organisms disintegrate and the strata not have lots of valleys in them where creeks flowed during those millions of years. Almost all strata are close to horizontal and parallel, with no little waterway valleys anywhere. Scientists have proven how sedimentary strata can form rapidly under flood or tsunami conditions and how fossils and coal can form rapidly as well. And ancient peoples all around the world reported global floods and many reported seeing mountains rise up or sink. So it's much easier for me to believe that there was one or more global floods and that the sedimentary rock strata and mountains formed recently.

 

[Loudmouth]

Dating Anomalies


The links I gave do show some of the actual research. I don't know that you bothered to read them. I haven't read anything that proves that conventional dating methods are reliable. But I've read a lot of material showing convincingly that they're not reliable.

Have you read anything other than creationist websites?

Perhaps you should give this article a try.

"There are several important things to note about these results. First, the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods were defined by geologists in the early 1800s. The boundary between these periods (the K-T boundary) is marked by an abrupt change in fossils found in sedimentary rocks worldwide. Its exact location in the stratigraphic column at any locality has nothing to do with radiometric dating — it is located by careful study of the fossils and the rocks that contain them, and nothing more. Second, the radiometric age measurements, 187 of them, were made on 3 different minerals and on glass by 3 distinctly different dating methods (K-Ar and 40Ar/39Ar are technical variations that use the same parent-daughter decay scheme), each involving different elements with different half-lives. Furthermore, the dating was done in 6 different laboratories and the materials were collected from 5 different locations in the Western Hemisphere. And yet the results are the same within analytical error. If radiometric dating didn’t work then such beautifully consistent results would not be possible."
http://ncse.com/rncse/20/3/radiometric-dating-does-work

But nearly all data are based on assumptions about original conditions that apparently are way wrong. I believe a number of items of lava and other material known to be very recent have been dated in the millions of years by conventional dating methods as the links I gave show.

And we have shown you why they date older, and how the contamination is detectable. So why is this a problem?

More importantly, There have been many studies of lava flows with known ages, and there aren't any problems when the proper samples are used.

"This is not the only dating study to be done on an historic lava flow. Two extensive studies done more than 25 years ago involved analyzing the isotopic composition of argon in such flows to determine if the source of the argon was atmospheric, as must be assumed in K-Ar dating (Dalrymple 1969, 26 flows; Krummenacher 1970, 19 flows). Both studies detected, in a few of the flows, deviations from atmospheric isotopic composition, most often in the form of excess 40Ar. The majority of flows, however, had no detectable excess 40Ar and thus gave correct ages as expected. Of the handful of flows that did contain excess 40Ar, only a few did so in significant amounts. The 122 BCE flow from Mt Etna, for example, gave an erroneous age of 0.25 0.08 Ma. Note, however, that even an error of 0.25 Ma would be insignificant in a 20 Ma flow with equivalent potassium content. Austin (1996) has documented excess 40Ar in the 1986 dacite flow from Mount St Helens, but the amounts are insufficient to produce significant errors in all but the youngest rocks. "
http://ncse.com/rncse/20/3/radiometric-dating-does-work

None of these rocks date to billions or hundreds of millions of years old. At worst, you would need to subtract 0.25 million years from Ar/Ar dates.

You haven't proven here or linked to proof that Walker, Snelling and all Creationists are liars or dupes.

Snelling knew that the samples he was referring to contained xenoliths. The creationists are purposefully picking samples that aren't appropriate for dating the lava flows they are pointing to. That is lying.

 

[RickG]

Are you actually questioning the hypsographic curve? Really?
Are you actually claiming if the earth was smooth...it wouldn't be covered with water?

Do you dent these FACTS?

As you present it yes. I presented a link that showed continental shelf sediments exceeding 12 miles, much more than your hypsographic curve.

 

[RickG]

There may be several grains of truth to the flood mythology of Noah and similar mythologies from elsewhere in the ancient Middle East. About 25 years ago it was discovered (" Noah's Flood" by Ryan and Pitman) that in antiquity the Black Sea was a freshwater lake with a water level at least 155 meters (510 feet) below its present level. It was cut off from the Mediterranean Sea by a silt plug in the Straits of Bosporus. This plug broke through about 5600 BC due primarily to the dramatic rise in sea levels caused by the melting that ended the last ice age.. It created an immense waterfall whose sound was most likely audible for 100 or more miles. The Black Sea basin filled to its present level over a period of several weeks. It is estimated that the shore line advanced at the rate of a mile or more per day. For the people living around the lake it was a catastrophe of immense magnitude. It was likely the single most memorable flood in all of human history. The racial memory of this event probably inspired the Gilgamesh epic which in turn inspired the Noah narrative in the Bible. The evidence for this flood is scientifically solid. This prompted the National Geographic Society to finance an underwater search along the ancient shoreline for evidence of pre-flood human habitation. This search has been successful! A settlement has been found at a depth of 90 meters approximately 12 miles off the coast of Turkey. It is in a remarkable state of preservation because it is located in an area of the Black Sea where the water is completely devoid of oxygen with the effect that biological decomposition does not take place. This means that wooden artifacts such as tools, planks, housing beams etc are preserved intact. What is also quite amazing is that while there is solid scientific evidence for this local flood some 7600 YBP, there is no evidence at all for a worldwide flood just 4300 YBP. One would think that a more recent, more catastrophic event would have wiped out evidence of the earlier Black Sea event. There is also evidence for a similar event causing the flooding of the Gulf of Arabia about 10,000 YBP.

Yes, I have that paper and a number of other papers on the Black Sea, Caspian Sea, North Sea, English channel and other significant ice dam break outs at the end of the Pleistocene glaciation. I think significant correlation with the Black Sea is that Noah's description mentions "the mountains of Ararat", not Mt. Ararat specific. The mountains of Ararat border the Black Sea.

 

[RickG]

Collaboration
Where can I find folks to collaborate with on this matter? I'd like to help someone make weekly or monthly videos showing proofs of the Great Flood and related matters. And I'd like to help promote online conferences to get the truth out to the public, including to professionals. I think such efforts should be divorced from evangelism, because that gives people the impression that your motive is really that you're trying to convert them, rather than seeking truth.

LloydK, just wondering, have you ever thought about fact checking the Oard article? Like all the problems with it. Oard, like many of the creation science people utilize the "appeal to authority" concept. Oard was a meteorologist, that is, a weatherman. His articles concerning Noah's flood and the ice age may appear to be in his realm of expertise, but they are not. There is a huge difference between meteorology and "Climatology", and especially Paleoclimatology. Oard completely ignores everything that we know about paleoclimatology, geology, and geochemistry. We came out of the Wisconsin stage of the Pleistocene glaciation 10,500 years ago. There was no ice age 4,300 years ago. We know this through many different avenues of physical evidence, including that of ice cores, and marine oxygen isotopes. I mention my concern about Oard because I actually do hold academic credentials in that area. I have a M.S. in Earth Science (Univ. Memphis, 1977). My concentration was in Paleoclimatology and my thesis was on the occurrence and causes of continental glaciation.

 

[RickG]

Dating Anomalies

The links I gave do show some of the actual research. I don't know that you bothered to read them. I haven't read anything that proves that conventional dating methods are reliable. But I've read a lot of material showing convincingly that they're not reliable.

Lloyd, I followed the links but I saw no actual research, much less "original" research. And just FYI concerning the dating of dinosaur tissue. The sample was sent to the University of Georgia Carbon-14 Lab. I don't know how they identified it, but they certainly didn't call it dinosaur tissue and UGA has stated so. Can they show without a doubt that the indeed did send a sample of dinosaur tissue? Also ask them why they won't send another one and do so openly now.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

Can you give two or three examples of relevant data that you didn't have to massage?

I have given several. Here is one that is handy;

 

[-57]

Just because SOME layers form rapidly doesn't mean they all do.

Just because we don't find a polystrate tree in the strata doesn't mean t was deposited over millions of years.

 

[Loudmouth]

Just because we don't find a polystrate tree in the strata doesn't mean t was deposited over millions of years.

We use radiometric dating to measure the age of layers containing appropriate igneous rocks.

Can you show any references where radiometric dating was used to measure the sediments you claim have millions of years between them? Or is that something that was made up from whole cloth?

 

[RickG]

I suspect that no one is bothering to try to prove that rock strata can form extremely slowly. Non-Uniformitarians have been doing their work though, proving that strata can form rapidly, that coal and oil can form rapidly.

Uniformitarians expect people to believe their theory on Faith without any proof, while Creationists are helping people believe based on evidence, not blind faith. Ironic.

I gather you are unfamiliar with the petrology of sedimentary rocks and the diagenetic stages and regimes they undergo in the formation process. Feel free to ask questions.

 

[-57]

Here's a polystrate telephone pole:

View attachment 167019

I guess Noah had electricity. Would have been nice to use power tools to build the Ark.

This is the type of game creationists play. The take an example of where a geologists says that a specific sequence of layers takes millions of years to form, and then they twist that information into the claim that geologists say ALL layers take millions of years to form. That's not an honest way to deal with the science.

I would imagine all the strata that doesn't contain polystrate fossils....took millions of years to form. Yeah, yeah, that's it...that's the ticket.

 

[Loudmouth]

I would imagine all the strata that doesn't contain polystrate fossils....took millions of years to form.

Polystrate fossils don't require a global flood. Therefore, they are not evidence for a global flood.

 

[-57]

I'm a Christian first and foremost - I believe that God created our World - and also the Old original EARTH
I only listen to God and the bible allowing Him to interpret it for me. If this lines up with Science and Geology that is great! and a lot of it - DOES!
So I see no reason for anyone to argue really - be it a Scientist Geologist Atheist or Christian.

This diagram does it all for me by famous Christian Clarence Larkin who was able to use his gift of drawing
to explain our Creation.
There is so much EVIDENCE of this uncovered in Ancient Archaeology of which I've done much study.

So many times things are being unearthed that completely clashes with Science teachings
I could never trust Science for this reason. Time and time again Science is being proved wrong -
but mainly where they try to eliminate God's Creative World.
Science does have a place outside of Creation but unfortunately it's often used for OCCULT purposes as is in the
case for CERN that is riddled with the occult to the extent they make no effort to deny it and have the A huge effigy of Shiva out the front which they worship and dance to They had a celebration party recently and all the members were
bearing occult symbols some even wore horns!
They DO have their place but only as far as it doesn't clash with God's creation.

Here we see God's Created Original EARTH that was presided over by Satan and God's Angels.

We see The Fall - where Satan tried to Usurp God and the Chaotic Earth that followed.

Then we see our New Created World that God made from the dust of the original created Earth
Now all this lines up with Scripture! It is what I learned and saw in the bible without any understanding of
ancient history that IView attachment 167006 now have.

The problem I have with this view is that the bible talks of Satan being in the Garden of Eden in an unfallen state.

 

[-57]

Polystrate fossils don't require a global flood. Therefore, they are not evidence for a global flood.

Polystrate trees are 100% evidence....fact....that strata can form rapidly and doesn't need millions of years.

There is no arguing that point.

 

[Loudmouth]

Polystrate trees are 100% evidence....fact....that strata can form rapidly and doesn't need millions of years.

That doesn't mean that all strata formed quickly. You can build a house in 30 days. That doesn't mean that all houses were built 30 days ago.

 

[-57]

We use radiometric dating to measure the age of layers containing appropriate igneous rocks.

Can you show any references where radiometric dating was used to measure the sediments you claim have millions of years between them? Or is that something that was made up from whole cloth?

From what i understand using radiometric dating to measure sedimentary rock doesn't work. The Old earth sect tells us it only tells us the age of the original igneous rock.

 

[-57]

That doesn't mean that all strata formed quickly. You can build a house in 30 days. That doesn't mean that all houses were built 30 days ago.

I don't know how many times I need to say it...It PROVES strata doesn't need millions of years to form.

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't know how many times I need to say it...It PROVES strata doesn't need millions of years to form.

It doesn't prove that they were laid down by a recent global flood.

Finding one set of strata that doesn't need millions of years to form does not prove that all strata does not need millions of years to form.

I don't know how many times I need to say it.

If I can build a house in 30 days, does this mean that they built the Empire State Building in 30 days?

 

[-57]

As you present it yes. I presented a link that showed continental shelf sediments exceeding 12 miles, much more than your hypsographic curve.

Once again.....Are you actually questioning the hypsographic curve? Really?
Are you actually claiming if the earth was smooth...it wouldn't be covered with water?

Do you dent these FACTS?

 

[Loudmouth]

From what i understand using radiometric dating to measure sedimentary rock doesn't work. The Old earth sect tells us it only tells us the age of the original igneous rock.

"They tell us it takes millions and milllions of years for the sediment to deposit and accumulate."--57, post 22

Can you please show us a single scientific reference where the sediments you are referring to in that post were said to be laid down over millions of years.