Questions about/problems with YEC

[KerrMetric]

As I said before, the continents spliting in the space of a year would make many, many volcanoes.

This is a perfect example of perhaps the biggest problem I have with Creationists. Their lack of science knowledge causing them to make statements that sound good to them as a hypothesis but in reality just highlight a complete lack of understanding.

Since you need the continents to 'split' and move around in a year you just state this as matter of fact.

This is basic physics. The amount of energy required to perform this task in such a small timeframe involves an amount of energy so many orders of magnitudes greater than that required to liquefy the crust and boil the oceans off. There is no possible way to direct the energy with an efficiency to perform the task you require and at the same time not have the detrimental effects I described above.

The physical world is controlled by laws of physics that cannot be compartmentalised in the way simplistic thinking dictates. You want to move continents and split them in a year - well there are consequences of that. You want a global flood there are consequences of that. You want to have a vapour canopy or fountains of the deep then there are consequences of that. You want high oxygen levels in the atmosphere Pre-Fall then there are consequences of that.

These consequences are often sufficient to render the Earth a sterile lump of molten rock or at least to cook everything living - be they on an Ark, in a cave or whatever.

The only way around this is to say the Lord suspended the laws of physics during these hypothetical events. Fine. But then don't have the gall to try to use physics to explain these hypotheses scientifically.

Again, you want the penny and the cake - miraculous occurrences but with scientific credibility. It isn't going to happen and the science communities laughter will continue.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Many of them are not. Have you seen Vishnu schist?






Just because you have learned a new term (strawman) from hanging around the internet doesn't mean it belongs where and when you choose. You are using it inappropriately here.

The different hardness of rock layers and formations could easily account for the different twist and turns flood waters take as they course through the landscape.

The strawman is well known by debaters. To my knowledge I'm the first to use it in defence of my arguements, after which it began to appear in other threads (not in these forums).

I'm using it very appropriatly here, as geologists are boxing all 'literalists' into one position and treating us the same.

 

[Willtor]

The different hardness of rock layers and formations could easily account for the different twist and turns flood waters take as they course through the landscape.

The strawman is well known by debaters. To my knowledge I'm the first to use it in defence of my arguements, after which it began to appear in other threads (not in these forums).

I sincerely doubt you are the first person to use the strawman fallacy defense online.

I'm using it very appropriatly here, as geologists are boxing all 'literalists' into one position and treating us the same.

This would be "poisoning the well," where you are classified as someone who makes weak arguments, so your arguments are classified as weak as soon as you make them. That's very different from a strawman.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I think you just made my case. You're statement reveals that there are greatly differing opinions between geologists, and that causal elements are difficult to assess. And that you want me to accept the findings of your hand-picked sources. No thanks.[/B]

 

[KerrMetric]

The different hardness of rock layers and formations could easily account for the different twist and turns flood waters take as they course through the landscape.

They do reflect that. But not in the single great flood scenario. The Grand Canyon bears no resemblance to what such a scenario would leave.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I sincerely doubt you are the first person to use the strawman fallacy defense online.



This would be "poisoning the well," where you are classified as someone who makes weak arguments, so your arguments are classified as weak as soon as you make them. That's very different from a strawman.

Well let's see how wrong I am. Here's what I believe my strawman to be: THis from Wickipedia-

The Straw Man Fallacy

Type: Red Herring
Etymology:

"Straw man" is one of the best-named fallacies, because it is memorable and vividly illustrates the nature of the fallacy. Imagine a fight in which one of the combatants sets up a man of straw, attacks it, then proclaims victory. All the while, the real opponent stands by untouched.

The straw man is the insistence that a consistant worldwide layer of sediment 'must be present' in order for the flood to have occurred. Because it cannot be found geologists claim victory over worldwide flood theory.

It is a straw man because with a flood of that magnitude that layer cannot exist as too much material is simply washed out to sea when the flood recedes, and geologist's know that. The untouched 'real opponent' is of course: the literal bible account.

 

[KerrMetric]

....because with a flood of that magnitude that layer cannot exist as too much material is simply washed out to sea when the flood recedes,

That is the strawman involved on here.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Wash it where? to Pluto?

The flood would have to lift, move and redeposit sediment. It can't wash away more evidence than it leaves. It can only take sediments from one place and put them someplace else. And it is going to leave as many sediments as it picked up in the first place. Both the eroded areas and the depositional areas would need to be consistent with flood conditions, and show the same relative stratigraphy.

The flood did lift, move, and deposit sediment; much of it into the ocean. You are treating the flood like a small local one. Any major river washes away more sediment than it leaves. The plumes of soil go for miles into the ocean, eventually leaving no evidence as it is carried away by ocean currents.

There is no precedent for studying the great flood. Local flooding models are useless. Consider that Mt. Everest was covered by water. That's about six miles deep over all of the earth. It inwashed at four to six times the speed of our tides today, and outwashed at the same rate. The largest body of sediments would probably be the continental shelves. Even there sediments would be inconsistant with normal flooding.

 

[KerrMetric]

The plumes of soil goe for miles into the ocean, eventually leaving no evidence as it is carried away by ocean currents.

Wrong.

There is no precedent for studying the great flood. Local flooding models are useless. Consider that Mt. Everest was covered by water. That's about six miles deep over all of the earth.

Pure fantasy.

 

[Willtor]

The flood did lift, move, and deposit sediment; much of it into the ocean. You are treating the flood like a small local one. Any major river washes away more sediment than it leaves. The plumes of soil goe for miles into the ocean, eventually leaving no evidence as it is carried away by ocean currents.

Then why are you trying to defend the global flood, scientifically?! If there's no evidence, then why do you expect science to support it?

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Maybe you are reading the wrong surveys?
Or maybe estimating flow etc is very difficult beyond order of magnitude.

I think you just made my case. You're statement reveals that there are greatly differing opinions between geologists, and that causal elements are difficult to assess. And that you want me to accept the findings of your hand-picked sources. No thanks.

Difficult to assess beyond order of magnitude.

The difference between a gully washer and a flood that wipes out houses isn't that hard to deal with.

The difference between a valley created by a stream/river with a high of roughly 50,000 cf/sec flow rate and a river with a high of roughly 1,000,000 cf/sec rate is rather striking.

The scablands were created by a flood with a flow rate of roughly 100,000,000,000,000 cf/sec, or better than 100 times the flow rate of the biggest Mississippi flood (and concentrated in a smaller area).

As I said, geologists know what a big flood looks like.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

The flood did lift, move, and deposit sediment; much of it into the ocean.

And it just happened to deposit it so that the sediment was thinest and youngest near the mid-oceanic ridges...
http://www.earthsci.org/processes/geopro/platec/plate.html
http://www.answers.com/topic/seafloor-spreading
and in particular: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea2.html#proof21

In the case of the Atlantic Ocean, the sediment varies in thickness. The thinnest sediment is near the Mid-Atlantic Ridge where new sea floor is currently being generated. That is to say, sediment thickness there is zero. The thickest sediment hugs the continental margins, which certainly have more than a few thousand years of accumulation. Try around 150 million year's worth! Funny, that the measured rate of sea floor spreading, when extrapolated backwards in time, gives the same age for the Atlantic sea floor as does radiometric dating. Funny, how the sediment gets thicker and thicker as one moves away from the sea floor spreading zone! That is, the farther we get from the Mid-Atlantic ridge the thicker the sediment tends to get; that thickness correlates with increased age of the sea floor as determined by radiometric dating as well as the known rate at which the Atlantic is widening.​

The largest body of sediments would probably be the continental shelves. Even there sediments would be inconsistant with normal flooding.

Yet somehow they seem perfectly consistant with a non-Global flood analysis.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Wrong.






Pure fantasy.

That's a thoughtful response. 8^)

 

[OldWiseGuy]

And it just happened to deposit it so that the sediment was thinest and youngest near the mid-oceanic ridges...
http://www.earthsci.org/processes/geopro/platec/plate.html
http://www.answers.com/topic/seafloor-spreading
and in particular: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea2.html#proof21

In the case of the Atlantic Ocean, the sediment varies in thickness. The thinnest sediment is near the Mid-Atlantic Ridge where new sea floor is currently being generated. That is to say, sediment thickness there is zero. The thickest sediment hugs the continental margins, which certainly have more than a few thousand years of accumulation. Try around 150 million year's worth! Funny, that the measured rate of sea floor spreading, when extrapolated backwards in time, gives the same age for the Atlantic sea floor as does radiometric dating. Funny, how the sediment gets thicker and thicker as one moves away from the sea floor spreading zone! That is, the farther we get from the Mid-Atlantic ridge the thicker the sediment tends to get; that thickness correlates with increased age of the sea floor as determined by radiometric dating as well as the known rate at which the Atlantic is widening.​

Yet somehow they seem perfectly consistant with a non-Global flood analysis.

Very clever wording, and a common tactic of evolutionary geologists/paleontologists, that of using the fossil to date the strata, or the strata to date the fossil, whichever supports the current thoery.

Here it seems you are attempting to 'date' the sediments by using the apparent age of the sea floor. Have you ever noticed that sand must be added to inland lake beaches periodically because the sand 'flows' downhill underwater and away from the beach. Could this be true of the sediments of the continetal shelf?

Is there a true correlation between the age of the ocean floor and the sediments laying upon it? When carefully read your statement above seems to want to imply this, although I'm not sure of the point you are trying to make.

I don't see a firm correlation between the sea floor itself and the sediments that rest upon it. Sediments can move and overflow one another depending upon their properties, while the substrate remains stable and constant.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

The flood did lift, move, and deposit sediment; much of it into the ocean. You are treating the flood like a small local one. Any major river washes away more sediment than it leaves. The plumes of soil go for miles into the ocean, eventually leaving no evidence as it is carried away by ocean currents.

There is no precedent for studying the great flood. Local flooding models are useless. Consider that Mt. Everest was covered by water. That's about six miles deep over all of the earth. It inwashed at four to six times the speed of our tides today, and outwashed at the same rate. The largest body of sediments would probably be the continental shelves. Even there sediments would be inconsistant with normal flooding.

do you have any idea of what this means?
where is the water? where did the water come from? why is there no evidence of a global flood but tons of evidence that nothing of the such happened, just varves alone.

how would such a massive movement of water effect the rotation of the earth?
etc
etc

it will go into my notes as one of the most extravagent claims i've ever seen from a YECist. the usual claim is that the earth was nearly flat when the flood happened and that the mountains pushed up since then, just to avoid the extraordinary problems with such a postulate.


wow
wow
wow

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Very clever wording, and a common tactic of evolutionary geologists/paleontologists, that of using the fossil to date the strata, or the strata to date the fossil, whichever supports the current thoery.

I would be carefull about bearing false witness about your neighbor.

 

[shernren]

Very clever wording, and a common tactic of evolutionary geologists/paleontologists, that of using the fossil to date the strata, or the strata to date the fossil, whichever supports the current thoery.

Gosh, I never knew anybody dated seabed strata using fossils. Obfuscation of the highest degree.

Here it seems you are attempting to 'date' the sediments by using the apparent age of the sea floor. Have you ever noticed that sand must be added to inland lake beaches periodically because the sand 'flows' downhill underwater and away from the beach. Could this be true of the sediments of the continetal shelf?

Which is precisely why a global flood which washes all the sediments onto the sea floor should cause an approximately uniform sediment distribution. Remember what you said earlier: that the global flood would have given sediments an amazing amount of mobility, thus leaving none of them to be studied on dry ground, hence a general lack of global flood evidence. (Gee, the flood must be neater than me: It cleans up after itself! ) This mobility coupled with nothing more than basic physics (matter settles in positions which give it its lowest gravitational potential - a uniform spherical distribution being ideal) would mean that a global flood model must be substantiated by a near-uniform sediment thickness all over the oceans.

The article notes that thickness-of-sediment distribution, apparent substrate age, and known ocean-widening rates correlate with each other. This is a defense of plate tectonics, as far as I can see. Even if the dating element is removed, though, the non-uniform sedimentary distribution would be enough to drive a big hole into the global flood idea.

it will go into my notes as one of the most extravagent claims i've ever seen from a YECist. the usual claim is that the earth was nearly flat when the flood happened and that the mountains pushed up since then, just to avoid the extraordinary problems with such a postulate.

True.

 

[gluadys]

The flood did lift, move, and deposit sediment; much of it into the ocean. You are treating the flood like a small local one. Any major river washes away more sediment than it leaves. The plumes of soil go for miles into the ocean, eventually leaving no evidence as it is carried away by ocean currents.

A river washes sediment from point A to point B. A flood washes sediment from point A to point B. Ocean currents carry plumes of riverine sediment from point A to point B. The sediment never disappears. It simply moves. So contrary to your last statement, there is always evidence. At point A there is evidence of erosion, and at point B there is evidence of sedimentation.

The question is, does this evidence match what a global flood would produce.

There is no precedent for studying the great flood. Local flooding models are useless. Consider that Mt. Everest was covered by water. That's about six miles deep over all of the earth. It inwashed at four to six times the speed of our tides today, and outwashed at the same rate.

And the research that established this rate is published where? And the consequent evidence that would be expected is....? And the observations that validated the predictions are reported where?

The largest body of sediments would probably be the continental shelves. Even there sediments would be inconsistant with normal flooding.

Why?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Then why are you trying to defend the global flood, scientifically?! If there's no evidence, then why do you expect science to support it?

I'm saying that the flood of Noah, the last of perhaps hundreds of similiar floods that occurred over perhaps millions of years, is fully plausible scientifically.

And I'm saying that it is 100 percent certain, as recorded in the bible.

 

[Willtor]

I'm saying that the flood of Noah, the last of perhaps hundreds of similiar floods that occurred over perhaps millions of years, is fully plausible scientifically.

And I'm saying that it is 100 percent certain, as recorded in the bible.

You have said that there is no evidence for a global flood. That means that science can't say it did happen. Evidence against it has been cited. That means science can say it didn't happen.

Now, regardless of whether science is right or wrong on this matter, it has said what it's going to say until further evidence presents itself.