Scientific proof of flood.

[gluadys]

Oh, but I did answer your questions.

Do you think it is true that God made a real world?

Yes

So far so good

Do you think it is true that God made a world of order that follows natural laws and processes?

Yes, but some we don't understand.

Agree. Now, what would you say is the principal reason we do not understand some natural laws and processes?

Do you think it is true that God equipped us with sense, intellect and reason that is capable of comprehending the orderly processes of nature?
No, not completely.

Same question as above. What is the principal reason our comprehension of natural processes falls short?

You are correct about argon gas, but when the argon gas is removed makes no difference.

It is not in the rock when we finally test the rock.

Is it really too much to ask you to read one link?

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html#page 3

The answer to many of your questions is in this article written by a Christian physicist whose speciality is working with isotopes.

Since any argon gas originally in a rock is expelled when the rock is molten, then any argon gas found in the hardened rock is new argon created by the decay of Potassium 40. So a comparative measure of Potassium 40 and Argon 40 gives the age of the rock.

It is, of course, not as simple as that in nature, but Dr. Wiens goes on to describe how potassium-derived argon can be distinguished from other argon originally in the rock. So once parentless argon is distinguished from potassium-derived argon, the date can still be computed accurately.

So the decay process has been going on from the beginning of the universe by your judgement.

Not by my judgment at all. I don't have any expertise in this field. But there is a significant fact scientists have recorded (and again Weins discusses this).

There is another way to determine the age of the Earth. If we see an hourglass whose sand has run out, we know that it was turned over longer ago than the time interval it measures. Similarly, if we find that a radioactive parent was once abundant but has since run out, we know that it too was set longer ago than the time interval it measures. There are in fact many, many more parent isotopes than those listed in Table 1. However, most of them are no longer found naturally on Earth--they have run out. Their half-lives range down to times shorter than we can measure. Every single element has radioisotopes that no longer exist on Earth!

Now, if we look at which radioisotopes still exist and which do not, we find a very interesting fact. Nearly all isotopes with half-lives shorter than half a billion years are no longer in existence. For example, although most rocks contain significant amounts of Calcium, the isotope Calcium-41 (half-life 130,000 years does not exist just as potassium-38, -42, -43, etc. do not (Fig. 7). Just about the only radioisotopes found naturally are those with very long half-lives of close to a billion years or longer, as illustrated in the time line in Fig. 8. The only isotopes present with shorter half-lives are those that have a source constantly replenishing them.

This is conclusive evidence that the solar system was created longer ago than the span of these half lives!

Emphasis in the original

If I tested the molten material before it hardened and after it hardened one hour later it would give the same age?

Yes it would.

There is no point in trying to date test material that is still molten because both the parent and daughter material is being constantly mixed due to the movement of the fluid material and you cannot connect them.

As Wiens again points out (see what you miss when you refuse to read a link):

"When the molten material cools and hardens, the atoms are no longer free to move about. Daughter atoms that result from radioactive decays occurring after the rock cools are frozen in the place where they were made within the rock."

Would this age be zero or do decay isotopes exist?

There is no point trying to date rock which has only hardened an hour ago. Remember that we have practically no short half-life parent elements. Trying to measure something very small with a measuring stick for measuring very large quantities will not give a reliable answer. It would be like trying to measure nanometres (1 billionth of a metre) with an ordinary metre stick. The closest you can get to an exact measure is the nearest millimetre, which allows for a margin of error of 1 million nanometres.

Whether or not decay elements exist will depend on whether any atom in the parent element has decayed within that hour.

They exist, so the age given is a reference to the creation of the radioactive element.

No. Radiometry of rocks does not measure the age since the creation of the radioactive element. It only measures the amount of decay since the rock hardened. The element could be created long before, but its earlier decay products have been lost. We can only measure the time from when the rock was formed, not from when the element itself was formed.

But if trace isotopes are formed in the creation of the radioactive element then even one minute after the radioactive element was formed ( at the beginning of the universe ) there would be trace isotopes which appear to be decay elements, but in fact are caused by the building process of the radioactive element.

I have no idea what you are saying here, and I doubt that you do either. Please read the whole article by Dr. Wiens and you may then be able to propose sensible critiques.

So what does the radioactive dating indicate?

It indicates nothing unless it is calibrated with another time measuring instrument.

Most radioactive dating is not calibrated against other measures. Only Carbon-14 requires calibration.

On the other hand, all dating methods are cross-checked with each other since every method is subject to error. Cross-checking is not the same thing as calibration.

So radioactive dating is a faith based instrument.

It works like an echo, giving you back just what you tell it.

Duane

I know your faith requires you to believe this. But in this case your faith requires you to believe what does not accord with physical reality.

 

[gluadys]

Very clear except the part about how the decay elements are determined to be caused only from when the rock was created.

They assume a non radioactive rock started out with the same amount of decay elements as the radioactive rock.

This is not logical.

Duane

It is your assumptions that are not logical. See link in my previous post.

 

[duordi]

Not those who are christian, and there are a number of evolutionists amongst those.

true

But this is not what most people here believe. I think you should work on your reading comprehension if you haven't figured that out yet.

What also should be noted is that you utterly failed to answer the question. The question was whether people have heard of Kent Hovind? Now, from various responses it is obvious that they have and that they are not impressed. Not because those people do/do not believe in a God or believe that this God performs miracles or not, but because Hovind is a liar and a deceiver. He has no honor.

I have not read Kent Hovind.

Perhaps I should, just so I inderstand what the conflict is about.

So what percentage of the posters here would you say think God preformed miricules during the creation creation process?

I am open to being corrected.

Purhaps you should start a poll.

Duane

 

[Tomk80]

I have not read Kent Hovind.

Perhaps I should, just so I inderstand what the conflict is about.

So what percentage of the posters here would you say think God preformed miricules during the creation creation process?

I am open to being corrected.

Purhaps you should start a poll.

Duane

What you originally said was:

As you have realized by now most of the posters here reject the idea that God preforms miracles.

As I said, the posters here who are christian don't, even if they do believe in evolution. You said nothing about creation week in your original comment.

A number of evolutionists here are christian, I don't know how many, I don't care. What I want you to realize is that these people hold to the Nicean creed and thus do believe in the miracle of Jesus' resurrection. You seem to be thinking that people who hold the theory of evolution to be correct and believe in a God, do not believe that this God can perform miracles. Drop that thought, it is incorrect.

Of course, there are a fair number of atheists here. Since they don't believe in a god in any way, they also do not believe that this god performs miracles (because it is hard to perform miracles when you don't exist). They do not believe that a God could not perform miracles, they believe that their is no god.

 

[duordi]

What you originally said was:
[/i]
As I said, the posters here who are christian don't, even if they do believe in evolution. You said nothing about creation week in your original comment.

A number of evolutionists here are christian, I don't know how many, I don't care. What I want you to realize is that these people hold to the Nicean creed and thus do believe in the miracle of Jesus' resurrection. You seem to be thinking that people who hold the theory of evolution to be correct and believe in a God, do not believe that this God can perform miracles. Drop that thought, it is incorrect.

Of course, there are a fair number of atheists here. Since they don't believe in a god in any way, they also do not believe that this god performs miracles (because it is hard to perform miracles when you don't exist). They do not believe that a God could not perform miracles, they believe that their is no god.

Well I checked the info in the posters that answered Girl 4 Gods post

1 Achiest

1 Agnostic

1 Protestant

( I believe Glaudys does not think there is a creation week or flood so I would say this

would be a vote for no miracles during creation, but I may be corrected shortly.)

1 protestant

I myself would accept a miraculous creation.

That would put us at 50/50 or 75/25 depending on Glaudys

So you may or may not be correct in being critical of the word most.

Duane

 

[duordi]

Wow this thread has certainly gone off on some strange tangents. Is there any chance of it getting back to the discussion of the (lack of) scientific evidence for a global Noachian flood?

Actually in the past month I have researched three ancient civilizations.

The number of animals on the ark.

Variation of the species from both the Bible perspective and evolutionary perspective.

Carbon 14 dating

Non carbon 14 radioactive dating.

Tree ring dating.

The rules for a logical progression of a theory and what can or can not be considered to prove an idea correct or incorrect.

Erosion and the fossil geological record.

And these are only the ones I haven’t forgotten about.

Recently I have been studying varves which are layers on the bottom of a lake which are considered by many to be proof that the flood didn’t happen.

As is commonly the case

If you assume the flood didn’t happen then the varves prove it didn’t happen.

But if you assume the flood did happen then the varves prove the flood did happen.

So there you have it.

Duane

 

[Tomk80]

Well I checked the info in the posters that answered Girl 4 Gods post

1 Achiest

1 Agnostic

1 Protestant

( I believe Glaudys does not think there is a creation week or flood so I would say this

would be a vote for no miracles during creation, but I may be corrected shortly.)

1 protestant

I myself would accept a miraculous creation.

That would put us at 50/50 or 75/25 depending on Glaudys

So you may or may not be correct in being critical of the word most.

Duane

You have a great way of missing the point. What you said was that people did not think God could perform miracles. You did not specify when and where God should have done these miracles. Indeed, Gluadys might not believe God performed specific miracles during creation week, since she probably does not believe there is a creation week. However, she does believe God is capable of doing miracles, as she is a christian, hence subscribes to the Nicean creed and hence believes miracles are possible.

Furthermore, the atheists and agnostics probably believe God is capable of miracles. However, they do not believe he exists, which are two different things.

 

[caravelair]

If you assume the flood didn’t happen then the varves prove it didn’t happen.

they prove it didn't happen regardless of any assumptions.

But if you assume the flood did happen then the varves prove the flood did happen.

no, even if you assume a flood (which is a rediculous thing to do) varves do not prove a flood. a global flood cannot explain their existence.

 

[duordi]

they prove it didn't happen regardless of any assumptions.

no, even if you assume a flood (which is a rediculous thing to do) varves do not prove a flood. a global flood cannot explain their existence.

It is commonly believed that the varve layers on the bottom of several lakes are yearly cycles.
There is some debate about the fossil problem.

Fossils are found which are 10 varves high which would mean that the fossil remained for several years without decay while the varve layers were formed.

Also the top of the fossil shows no increase in decay when compared to the bottom of the fossil.

This would seem impossible.

Options vary as to why or how this could be so.

If the fish dug into the varve layers some disruption of he varve would seem unavoidable and this is not evident.

Some propose a chemical in the lake, water temperature or lack of oxygen as methods to preserve the fossils.

This is difficult to accept as a chemical would be in the varve, temperature conditions would not be expected to last several years ( this part of the is not considered as part of the ice age) and low oxygen conditons do not extend the decay process long enough.

There is also the problem of why the fossils in the best varves are the best preserved while the fossils which are not are scavenged or decayed.

The number of varves layers also increase toward the center of the lake.

I found several references to this condition for lakes in different locations.

As there were no theories based on the assumption that the flood did occur I decided to try it to determine how it would fit with the data.

Here is my first attempt.

First I assumed that the varve is caused by change in sediment type indicating a cycle in water flow conditions.

This may not be due to yearly changes but any cyclic change.

Even a hard rain could cause a varve as the water flow would cycle.

If there was a flood then all areas which were connected to a world ocean would experience tidal motion which would cycle twice in 24 hours.

Sediment thickness would depend on the amount of agitation the Earths oceans were experiencing.

10 varves can now be caused in 5 days which would be in keeping with the condition of the fossils.

This would also explain the sudden increase in dead fish fossils as not all the fish would be expected to survive a catastrophic flood condition.

The fact that the fish were of radome ages also would support a catastrophic event condition.

The flood did not last just one year but the time required for land on a mountain top to be above water was about a year.

In fact the water level may still be higher then before the flood.

There are also I am sure, lakes and rivers also which are connected to the ocean which experience tidal water movement at the present time.

The increase in varves at the center of the lakes are expected as the water level changes would cause more varves at the center where the lake existed longest.

The lake may have existed before the flood causing yearly or rainfall varves,

during the flood causing tidal varves,

and again after the lake is lowered enough to be disconnected from the ocean the varves may again be yearly or rain cycles.

The number of tidal varves (730 / year) which would be expected easily explains the number of varves, even if rainfall is not considered as viable.

There is a typical site containing information on varves listed below.

Please note:

I did not send you to a YEC site as I consider they would be biased but instead gave a site which is in favor of evolution and old dating of Earth.

Please respond with sites that do not have obvious biases.

http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/fobu/sec5.htm

"In this basin (Fossil, Wyo.) hundreds of thousands of beautifully preserved fish are entombed in the varved sediments. Even the delicate fin and tail rays and other bones originally held in place only by tissue are virtually undisturbed, and even the scales are in place almost completely undisturbed. It seems to me that the picture of this lake as a thermally stratified water body provides nearly all the necessary information to account for the excellent preservation of these fish. Only in the stagnant hypolimnion could they have escaped being torn to pieces by scavengers or distorted by bottom feeders. It is significant that all the well preserved fish are in varved sediments. Those in non-varved sediments are a disordered mass of broken and chewed up bones.

The only part of the story lacking now is how the fish died and got into the hypolimnion. Limnology offers two possible explanations. Sometimes when the surface of a lake gets excessively warm, fish will plunge into deep water and might thus penetrate the hypolimnion, be overcome by hydrogen sulphide, and also have the gas in their swim bladders chilled so that they sank at once to the bottom. Once there, only anaerobic bacteria would attack them. The other hypothesis is that the thermally stratified lake was suddenly chilled so that it overturned more rapidly than the hydrogen sulphide could be oxydized and so killed off large numbers of fish. This seems a little more probable as the fossil fish are of all ages and sizes."



Considering all I have read I would say I would consider the scientific data to support the catastrophic flood assumption more then the a non-catastrophic assumption.

The interesting part of this topic is that consideration of the flood as a source of varves my indicate methods which would prove the varves were caused by tidal conditions.

You do not need a world wide flood to have tidal varves or rain varves, so even if the flood ideas is detestable the possibility of explaining the fish fossil record in this way should be considered.

The magnitude of the tides change as the position of the sum and the moon change with respect to Earth.

This variation may be observed in the varves.

If this pattern is observed an exact tidal varve (½ day) may be determined which would corrispond to the sun moon pattern which would be very predictable.

The varves are very thin and may not have the precision to determine this but it is an interesting idea.

Duane

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Of course if you neglect the composition of varves (and parts of websites that support the conclusion that varved sedimentary formations are biannual deposits), you can postulate any story you like. It just means the story has no credibility or explanatory power, especially when it is not derived from any evidence.

 

[duordi]

Of course if you neglect the composition of varves (and parts of websites that support the conclusion that varved sedimentary formations are biannual deposits), you can postulate any story you like. It just means the story has no credibility or explanatory power, especially when it is not derived from any evidence.

So the assumption that a varve is a yearly occurrence is assigned as evidence even when the fossils indicate it is not yearly.

But the assumption that any cyclic water movement can cause a varve is assigned as non-credible even though there is no evidence against it?

If this is the best logical argument you can make, your position is very weak.

Duane

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

So the assumption that a varve is a yearly occurrence is assigned as evidence

It's not assumed, it's concluded from the evidence.

even when the fossils indicate it is not yearly.

Except that's not actually true.

But the assumption that any cyclic water movement can cause a varve is assigned as non-credible even though there is no evidence against it?

Evidence against it lies in the composition of the varves, which you conveniently avoided. Not to mention the fact that there is zero evidence for what you are saying.

If this is the best logical argument you can make, your position is very weak.

Duane

If the best logical argument you can make is fanciful storytelling not grounded in any evidence and ignores what the composition of varves is, your position is very weak.

Like I said, if you avoid the composition of varves, you can make up any superficial story at all because you (1) aren't addressing the details of what varves are and (2) not allowing the evidence to dictate the conclusion.

 

[duordi]

It's not assumed, it's concluded from the evidence.

Site please:


Duane

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

We observe varves forming today.

The composition of varves is consistent with annual seasonal changes in a freshwater environment.

If you really think geologists just say, "here's a bunch of thin layers of sediment, so let's just say they're deposited biannually and run with it" you're wrong. It's the nature of those layers and the fact that we observe them forming today that leads to the conclusion that these lithified varves were deposited biannually.

In science the evidence dictates the conclusion, not the other way around as is done by creationists.

 

[zeontes]

We observe varves forming today.

The composition of varves is consistent with annual seasonal changes in a freshwater environment.

If you really think geologists just say, "here's a bunch of thin layers of sediment, so let's just say they're deposited biannually and run with it" you're wrong. It's the nature of those layers and the fact that we observe them forming today that leads to the conclusion that these lithified varves were deposited biannually.

In science the evidence dictates the conclusion, not the other way around as is done by creationists.

From some basic research on the varves they are made with or without pollen. The pollen can be C-14 tested and in that way they can be cross-checked and calibrated with tree ring data. See this is why it is considered accurate if both the tree rings and pollen in lake varves correlate.

 

[duordi]

We observe varves forming today.

The composition of varves is consistent with annual seasonal changes in a freshwater environment.

If you really think geologists just say, "here's a bunch of thin layers of sediment, so let's just say they're deposited biannually and run with it" you're wrong. It's the nature of those layers and the fact that we observe them forming today that leads to the conclusion that these lithified varves were deposited biannually.

In science the evidence dictates the conclusion, not the other way around as is done by creationists.

No site, no research. Hmm...

I hate to have to say this but isn't your last statement hypocritical.

I gave you a site data and research showing why the varves in a specific case are not annual.

You have stated your opnion without a site or data or research.

I used to believe that indeed that all non-flood people were scientific.

You have been shown to be otherwise.

You are exactly what you accuse the creationists of being.



Duane

 

[duordi]

From some basic research on the varves they are made with or without pollen. The pollen can be C-14 tested and in that way they can be cross-checked and calibrated with tree ring data. See this is why it is considered accurate if both the tree rings and pollen in lake varves correlate.

Actually I was looking for research on varves creation.

If the research proves the varves can be caused by the cycle a lake would go through after a heavey rain,

First sand would settle then a clay layer of samller particles.

I would have my answer.

Tree rings can be bi annual or miss a year, the reaseach has been done.

If there is a flood, the tree ring record would not go through the flood, but the reproted data would, as carbon dating would be done to find a close tree match and a fit would be forced with the best fit technects used.

I would expect the tree ring to match the varves closly until the tidal effect interfears with it.

The question I have is can a varve be caused by tidal action?

I can think of no reason that it can not nor has anyone able to give one.


If asking questions is a crime, then I am guilty.

Duane

PS the post that started this discussion is

duordi Judgement before discussion? Today, 02:19 PM.

 

[zeontes]

Here is site that you might find useful on the subject of both kinds of varves:

www.unr.edu/homepage/fbiondi/WeinheimerBiondi.pdf


One of my recent searches dealt with data concerning the end of the ice age. The last major cold snap of 1300 years duration was called the Younger Dryas here a few studies concerning that time frame. These graphs show the data used to come up with the dates for that event.

http://www.agu.org/revgeophys/mayews01/node6.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/hughen2000/hughen2000.html

"Based on a marked change in ring-width and growth pattern, the YD termination is clearly identified in the German pine chronology. Its absolute age of 11,570 BP appears synchronous, within the errors of the respective chronologies, to related signals in the Greenland ice cores (GRIP, GISP2) and in lacustrine varve sequences."

http://www.pages.unibe.ch/products/scientific_foci/ql_dfg/friedrichabstract.html

So in this last source, they have an absolute age that appears synchronous using tree rings, C-14, ice cores and varve sequences. These folks are not trying to pull a fast one on us, they are using every means possible to come to an understanding of the world that we live in. I can understand the desire to have literal understanding of the Bible. I have come to accept that what is written in the Bible is the way that they believed it to be. To me that makes more sense than to try to fit the Bible into the five senses science category.

The senses and sciences are limited, take for instance walking on water: when it comes to walking on the water, 50 years ago there was nothing in the sciences that could explain how Peter and Jesus walked on the water. Yet slowly, but surely, science has come up with more and more information that indeed shows that matter is both particles and electromagnetic waves, energy. My mind takes that in. I can comprehend with my senses mind, if we can float a frog in mid air using a magnetic field, then certainly walking on water is possible. (I would bet there are some folks on this board who still do not believe that they walked on water.) So what if we cannot get to the flood through the senses or support the first few chapters of Genesis, that does not change the truth that we are here and that God is very real.

I know that God did not lie. I also know that men have embellished the texts as they saw fit to reflect what they believed. So I have come to the conclusion that it is a waste of time trying to poke holes in what others have come up by way of the senses. The old trees exist, you can go see them in California. I have no doubt that if you line up the rings yourself you would see that they go back as far as they say. That is the nature of science, it has to be repeatable in order to pass peer reveiws. But it still does not change the truth, it just adjusts our understanding.

 

[Tomk80]

So the assumption that a varve is a yearly occurrence is assigned as evidence even when the fossils indicate it is not yearly.

Might I suggest, without having seen the complete evidence, that it might be an option that the fossil forming actually took multiple years? Hence, the varves would build up around it?

 

[WILLOWTREE/WT]

Evidence for the Ark:


http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2222753#post2222753

WT