Meteor craters and the Flood year

[LittleNipper]

What does Davids' war praise have to do with meteorites and the flood year?

It is a Psalm of David, however, it is also INSPIRED by the Holy Spirit. The Bible is a Living Book and not some novel. The Bible does contain a song book; however, GOD's Word brings to us at the present introspect into what was, is and will be very often at the very same time. Does what you read really sound like anything David was involved in? Noah however also had a struggle. It would seem that The Holy Spirit provided a glimpse of someone else's struggle to David. The Holy Spirit was saying, "See, you're not the only one with troubles, trials and tribulations. With GOD you will survive!!!!!

 

[LittleNipper]

Fine then explain how the heat was dissipated without cooking Noah. You are aware that megatons can be converted into equivalent temperatures when those megatons are absorbed by the atmosphere. By the way, Big meteor impacts actually blow the atmosphere off of earth from horizon to horizon. This is beleived to have happened with some meteors

“Significant loss of shocked atmosphere limits the efficiency of acid-rain production with increasing impact energy, and the amount of projectile material retained allows us to constrain the minimum-size impactor required to deposit the observed Ir.”

For sufficiently energetic impacts, all of the atmosphere lying above the plane tangent to the Earth at the point of impact and all of the impactor are lost from the Earth. We conclude that the K/T impactor was most likely an asteroid >= 1014 kg in mass; data that suggest that acid rain was an important phenomenon imply that the asteroid was <= 1018kg in mass, or else all the shocked atmosphere would have been blown off.” Ann M. Vickery and H. Jay Melosh, “Atmospheric Erosion and Impactor Retention in Large Impacts, with Application to Mass Extinctions,” Geological Society of American Special Paper 247, 1990, p 289-300, p. 289

Well, It would seem that Noah and his Ark were placed at just the right spot and at the right moment to protect him. I don't necessary believe everything I read in secular science literature. I would not take it all so absolute. You would do better to apply absolutes to the Word of GOD...

Absolutely true.
Absolutely the Word of GOD...

 

[Vance]

What YEC's continually fail to remember is that the earth was detemrined to be vastly old BEFORE evolution was thought about. So, no, the arguments for the age of the earth were NOT developed to fit an "evolutionary" time scale. And, no, scientists do NOT reach conclusions about the age of the earth based on presumptions that it is old. It is simply what the evidence points to.

 

[LittleNipper]

Because according to the most prevalent YEC views, the entire geologic column is the result of a one year global flood. Thus any meteor found inside the column (and all of those are) must be during the flood.

I might suggest that meteor strikes still do happen and some modestly large ones may likely have happened for years after the Flood. I feel most YEC's believe that the geologic column is a RESULT of the FLOOD; however, that RESULT did not end the very moment Noah emerged from the ARK. There were likely still serious volcanic erruptions covering decaying bodies here and there. And the continents were likely still moving. The ice age was very likely a direct result of the Flood. You have to put aside what you have been told by Uniformitarians and start to come to possible conclusions applying what the Bible seems to indicate.
One has to understand that In the King James Version the word torrents is used. My feeling is that this means that there were areas of light drizzle and other areas of extreem downpours; however, this may also mean that the rain isn't what caused the FLOOD, but the rising of the ocean bottom coupled with the submergence of the continents. You need to think as GOD motivates you and not as secular scientists want or need to see things.

 

[Randall McNally]

Well, It would seem that Noah and his Ark were placed at just the right spot and at the right moment to protect him. I don't necessary believe everything I read in secular science literature. I would not take it all so absolute. You would do better to apply absolutes to the Word of GOD...

Absolutely true.
Absolutely the Word of GOD...

Why would God go to any lengths to use a natural process to destroy the world when He has to miracle some stuff anyway?

 

[LittleNipper]

What YEC's continually fail to remember is that the earth was detemrined to be vastly old BEFORE evolution was thought about. So, no, the arguments for the age of the earth were NOT developed to fit an "evolutionary" time scale. And, no, scientists do NOT reach conclusions about the age of the earth based on presumptions that it is old. It is simply what the evidence points to.

Vastly old because they either did not believe the scriptural account or were taken in by the Tranquil Flood theory. If the FLOOD was tranquil there had to be a "logical" reason for all the geologic upheaval. So great and and multiple epics became the rational. Man has come to the wrong conclusions before and built on those conclusions. He didn't get stupid overnight.

 

[Randall McNally]

Vastly old because they either did not believe the scriptural account or were taken in by the Tranquil Flood theory. If the FLOOD was tranquil there had to be a "logical" reason for all the geologic upheaval. So great and and multiple epics became the rational.

Well, either that or they used observation, logic and reason. But hey, who cares when we're just making stuff up?

Man has come to the wrong conclusions before and built on those conclusions. He didn't get stupid overnight.

There are no wrong conclusions this time. The Earth is old. Move on.

 

[LittleNipper]

Well, either that or they used observation, logic and reason. But hey, who cares when we're just making stuff up?

There are no wrong conclusions this time. The Earth is old. Move on.

Just what makes the world old? Since GOD created Adam with the ability to speak, garden, and forage for food, Adam was not ever a baby in scientific metabobic terms. Why on earth would or should Christians presume that GOD created the Earth and the Universe any differently. It just suddenly was. And if you think is looks billions of years old then maybe that is simply your value judgment getting the better of you. So let no Christian presume to know when they were not even there.

 

[corvus_corax]

Just what makes the world old? Since GOD created Adam with the ability to speak, garden, and forage for food, Adam was not ever a baby in scientific metabobic terms. Why on earth would or should Christians presume that GOD created the Earth and the Universe any differently. It just suddenly was. And if you think is looks billions of years old then maybe that is simply your value judgment getting the better of you. So let no Christian presume to know when they were not even there.

This is known as "Creation with apparent age".
It's not scientific, its based on an unprovable and unfalsifiable biblical concept.
Just admit that you take all of this on faith and have no scientific evidence or theories to back up your claim.

 

[BrotherSteve]

How is it not scientific to use valid dating methods to acquire the ages of meteorite craters?

The methods are not validated.

How does this have anything to do with evolution? (Hint: it doesn't, so there's no need to bring the word "evolutionist" to the discussion at all)

Because evolutionist use similar arguments. The age of the earth is a key part of evolution--and a key part of your argument. Throw our this one thing and you have nothing to stand on.

Are you saying that unless dating techniques give an unexpected result, they can't be right because they fit the evidence? That's the implication that comes from taking your objection to its logical end.

Not at all. What I am saying is one cannot say that dating techniques are accurate based on small time-scales. There is NO evidence to substantiate how accurate any dating method is over the course of a million years. To say that dating methods are accurate for dating anything as millions of years is an ASSUMPTION.

Ages aren't assumed, they are concluded from evidence. If you are actually interested in how they work, then there are plenty of books you could read or threads in this forum in the thread archive you could peruse.

But radiometric dating methods have been validated:

1. The ages of the Hawaiian Islands predicted from plate tectonics are validated by K-Ar dates, which should not occur if they were so fatally flawed or mere assumptions: http://www.christianforums.com/t50891

2. Dates acquired from the use of other methods that use different nuclide systems that involve different types of decay with different decay constants agree with each other, which should not occur if they were so fatally flawed or mere assumptions: http://gondwanaresearch.com/radiomet.htm

Again, these can only be concluded from evidence on small time scales. There is no evidence to show they are accurate on large time scales.

Using dating methods to validate other dating methods is a weak argument.

There are characteristic features of meteorite craters (depending on size, of course) that indicate that the feature could only have been formed by a such a high pressure, large-scale impact: Meteorite Craters: Identifying Characteristics

How many times have

Yes, we have. Geologists have conclusively proved that the earth cannot be only a few thousand years old and that it must be much older, on the order of billions of years. There are numerous features on earth that are incompatible with an age of less than a few thousand years.

Only using methods that have never been shown to work for billions of years.

Science works via falsification, not proof with 100% certainty. He has proved that the earth is older than a few thousand years by presenting evidence incompatible with that age. Positive statements, on the other hand, cannot be unfalsifiable or they wouldn't be scientific.

Science does not work "via falsification".

Example: God made a really large animal that walked on the earth during the flood (leaving really big foot prints that look like craters) so that scientist would think it was meteorites.

That statement, while logically doesn't make sense--cannot be falsified. Just about every statement you make about meteorites I can make about this giant animal, and there would be no way for you to falsify my statements.

Simply saying "you could be wrong" is not a valid objection and just shows a basic misunderstanding of how science works. You have to show evidence that what geologists say is wrong.

I wasn't trying to give a valid objection--just trying to point out that people are wrong. We all make mistakes sometimes. Geologist could be wrong about the age of the earth, etc. Scientist have been wrong before.

Otherwise we have explanations substantiated beyond any reasonable doubt without any evidence that contradicts them. There is no reason to consider them anything but provisionally true.

Not true!

Show me how you have proven that your dating techniques are valid for billions of years. Don't just say they are--show me some validated results. You can't, and neither can anyone else. It IS a theory...

YECists are finding evidence to support an (already disproved) preconceived theory while ignoring any evidence to the contrary, and they assume that YECism is automatically right no matter what.

How can you accept evidence found that contracicts YEC while you don't accpet evidence that supports YEC? That is not scientific.

Geologists are finding evidence that leads to a theory, which is the logical conclusion, and they are willing to concede that explanation if new evidence is uncovered.

YECists are putting the cart before the horse, and geologists are using the scientific method.

YECists also start with a theory, which they think is the logical conclusion. Then they find evidence to support their theory--just like any scientist would.

they are willing to concede that explanation if new evidence is uncovered.

I seriously doubt this is true based on your previous comments about YECists. However, YECists probably won't concede either.

The estimated age of the earth is still just an estimate based on a theory which cannot be shown to be true.

 

[Herman Hedning]

Man has come to the wrong conclusions before and built on those conclusions. He didn't get stupid overnight.

So true! Some of us had to work long and hard for it.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

The methods are not validated.

Wrong, as previously demonstrated.

Because evolutionist use similar arguments. The age of the earth is a key part of evolution--and a key part of your argument. Throw our this one thing and you have nothing to stand on.

Wrong. The age of the earth is determined independently of evolution. "Evolutionists" only use the same arguments because they are arguing about the age of the earth, not evolution, and they happen to be people who also accept the theory of evolution. These are independent concepts.

Not at all. What I am saying is one cannot say that dating techniques are accurate based on small time-scales.

Only if you define "small time-scales" as periods of millions of years.

There is NO evidence to substantiate how accurate any dating method is over the course of a million years.

Obviously you didn't read the thread I pointed to about the Hawaiian Island Chain, which demonstrated how K-Ar dates were consistent with plate tectonic determinations of their ages over periods of millions of years.

To say that dating methods are accurate for dating anything as millions of years is an ASSUMPTION.

No, it's a substantiated conclusion.

Again, these can only be concluded from evidence on small time scales. There is no evidence to show they are accurate on large time scales.

You are arbitrarily throwing out evidence you don't like. And your objection is invalid because you implicitly define "small times scales" as several million years.

Using dating methods to validate other dating methods is a weak argument.

No, it's not. We're talking about different dating methods involving (1) different types of nuclear decay, (2) different parent-daughter combinations, (3) different decay constants, and (4) different percentages of the parent decaying to a particular daughter used in the measurement (e.g., only ~10% of K-40 decays to Ar-40).

They are very different dating methods and they all agree on the same date. This is an extremely strong argument that you are dismissing for no reason.

This means that it's either an amazingly incredible coincidence or a vast conspiracy among scientists. And that's ridiculous.

Only using methods that have never been shown to work for billions of years.

Wrong, as previously demonstrated.

Science does not work "via falsification".

Yes it does. You are only demonstrating that you don't know how science works when you say things like this.

Science works to eliminate (falsify) alternate explanations to reach the most logical explanation that incorporates all of the data.

Example: God made a really large animal that walked on the earth during the flood (leaving really big foot prints that look like craters) so that scientist would think it was meteorites.

That statement, while logically doesn't make sense--cannot be falsified. Just about every statement you make about meteorites I can make about this giant animal, and there would be no way for you to falsify my statements.

My point exactly. Your explanation is not a scientific one because it is not falsifiable. Of course the fact that we find zero fossils of such creatures decimates the credibility of that claim. And my claims about meteorites actually have evidence backing them up, and yours does not.

I wasn't trying to give a valid objection--just trying to point out that people are wrong. We all make mistakes sometimes. Geologist could be wrong about the age of the earth, etc. Scientist have been wrong before.

This is a given, but you were using it as an argument against the conclusions of modern science as if it's in any way meaningful. It's true about any conclusion in science.

Not true!

Yeah it is. You are either unaware of why scientists make the conclusions they do or are in denial.

Show me how you have proven that your dating techniques are valid for billions of years. Don't just say they are--show me some validated results.

I already did that. You have no valid objection to why radiometric dating doesn't work except saying that it doesn't.

You can't, and neither can anyone else. It IS a theory...

The pinnacle of investigation in science is a theory.

But again, you are using the 'maybe you're wrong' style of argumentation once again. Simply saying something like 'maybe you're wrong' is not a valid objection. That's what your argument continually reduces to: 'you might be wrong about a conclusion I don't like because scientists are fallible, so I'm just going to ignore the evidence.'

How can you accept evidence found that contracicts YEC while you don't accpet evidence that supports YEC? That is not scientific.

There is no evidence that supports YEC.

YEC was disproved almost two centuries ago, by creationists trying to demonstrate that the earth was young and shaped by a global flood.

You are the one who arbitrarily ignores evidence that contradicts YEC, and that is not scientific.

YECists also start with a theory, which they think is the logical conclusion. Then they find evidence to support their theory--just like any scientist would.

That's why YEC, as it exists today, is not science.

Science doesn't work by starting with a fixed conclusion, assumed to be right no matter what, and then finding support. Did you even read my reply?

I seriously doubt this is true based on your previous comments about YECists.

Then you are wrong.

However, YECists probably won't concede either.

And that's the problem with YECists: they ignore contrary evidence without any valid justification.

The estimated age of the earth is still just an estimate based on a theory which cannot be shown to be true.

Nothing in science can be shown to be true, as in proved.

The notion of an "old" age of the earth is evidenced beyond any reasonable doubt, however. That is clear.

The evidence has been presented. The burden is on you to disprove it (science works by falsification). You have provided no valid objection to this evidence.

Your only objection has been a 'maybe they're wrong' style of argumentation, then ignoring the evidence.

And again, it is not a valid argument to say 'it's something that cannot be shown to be true, therefore it's false so I'm going to ignore it.'

 

[Jet Black]

Among other things, you assume that you actually KNOW the geologic age of those rocks. When have any ageing techniques that tell us rock are millions of years old ever been validated--they havn't?

This is categorically wrong, for a number of reasons. The dating methods can be matched perfectly with a number of independent methods of dating. The Hawaiian island chains have already been mentioned; we know how fast the crust is moving, we know how far the islands have gone from the hotspot, and so we can calculate how old the islands are - time=distance/speed. simple. this can be correlated with dating techniques. we can correlate carbon dating with varves, tree rings and ice cores on a global scale, matching trees from around the world with varve sequences from sugietsu in Japan through to poland. these can be matched with ice core sequences.

furthermore the nature of nuclear decay relies on the nuclear constants. studies of the Oklo phenomenon demonstrate that these constants have not changed, studies of stellar fusion indicate these constants have not changed. analsysis of the breakdown spectra from the remnants of SN1987A indicate that the decay rates have not changed, analysis of the spectral lines of distant stars, quasars and nebulae indicate that the constants have not changed. Analysis of stellar elemental compositions all over the universe indicate that decay rates have not changed, the organisation of the Herzprung-Russell Diagram indicates that decay rates have not changed.

so actually, dating techniques have been validated time and time again. you sir, are talking from where the sun does not shine.

 

[LittleNipper]

Why would God go to any lengths to use a natural process to destroy the world when He has to miracle some stuff anyway?

Actually, my feeling is that GOD simply allowed Satan to have a field day. Read the book of JOB. GOD didn't bring the trouble. Satan was ALLOWED to do what he wanted within the limits GOD set forth...

 

[LittleNipper]

This is known as "Creation with apparent age".
It's not scientific, its based on an unprovable and unfalsifiable biblical concept.
Just admit that you take all of this on faith and have no scientific evidence or theories to back up your claim.

It is not any more scientific to INSIST that evolution had to have occurred, and it is totally okay to imagine that radioactivity had to started at point (A) and is moving to (z) because, well just because it fits my or your theories...

Science is not an "ends". Science is not justified by any means. If you want to make it your religion, that is up to you; however, you have made a religion out of it. Your theories and studies harbor some truth, but then Lucifer himself never started from a boldfaced lie------he simply stretched the truth to suit his whim...

 

[LittleNipper]

This is categorically wrong, for a number of reasons. The dating methods can be matched perfectly with a number of independent methods of dating. The Hawaiian island chains have already been mentioned; we know how fast the crust is moving, we know how far the islands have gone from the hotspot, and so we can calculate how old the islands are - time=distance/speed. simple.

HOWEVER, you must ASSUME that the speed has always been constant. We know the speed things are happening presently and we can apply that. HOWEVER, assumptions must be accepted. Assumptions are not always correct. To suggest that other considerations are not acceptable because they do not fit YOUR criteria simply demonstrates Uniformitarian bias.

 

[notto]

It is not any more scientific to INSIST that evolution had to have occurred, and it is totally okay to imagine that radioactivity had to started at point (A) and is moving to (z) because, well just because it fits my or your theories...

Science is not an "ends". Science is not justified by any means. If you want to make it your religion, that is up to you; however, you have made a religion out of it. Your theories and studies harbor some truth, but then Lucifer himself never started from a boldfaced lie------he simply stretched the truth to suit his whim...

Here comes the big stick!!!

By your logic Hovind = Lucifer.

 

[Valkhorn]

so actually, dating techniques have been validated time and time again. you sir, are talking from where the sun does not shine.

The sun might shine there. It depends on what angle it's at and what one is doing at the time.

 

[LittleNipper]

Here comes the big stick!!!

By your logic Hovind = Lucifer.

Any person who clearly is presenting theory that is contrary to the Word of GOD, and is expressing the opinion that it is the Biblical account that is questionable and not the human research or the understanding of the data, is placing himself in a very dangerous position.

I feel that you will find that MOST Creationist's always insist that at the very least their learned opinions are not contrary in anyway to the Biblical account. They place the GOD provided revelation above man's capabilities to not be wrong or be lead astray.

 

[notto]

Any person who clearly is presenting theory that is contrary to the Word of GOD, and is expressing the opinion that it is the Biblical account that is questionable and not the human research or the understanding of the data, is placing himself in a very dangerous position.

I feel that you will find that MOST Creationist's always insist that at the very least their learned opinions are not contrary in anyway to the Biblical account. They place the GOD provided revelation above man's capabilities to not be wrong or be lead astray.

And if they lie a bit along the way (which they do), they are Lucifer, by your own admission. Dr. Dino is Lucifer. Thanks for the heads up.
Your theories and studies harbor some truth, but then Lucifer himself never started from a boldfaced lie------he simply stretched the truth to suit his whim...