Scientific proof of flood.

[dlamberth]

The reefs were formed when the water level was at a low elevation during the ice age.

1. If the reefs of all of the worlds Gyots all formed at the same time, during the last ice age, than one would logically come to think that all of the reefs on all of the worlds Gyots would be the same, or least close to the same thickness. But that clearly is not the case, as can easly be demonstrated.

2. Reefs grow in warm water, they DO NOT grow in cold water. Remember, your argument is that it was during the last Ice Age when the reefs grew on what today are Gyots and in the northern hemisphere, the water was even colder in the northern hemisphere during the ice age than it is today. Yet Gyots in the Emperor/Hawaiian Seamount Chain, which is in cold water even today, had reefs. I'm not getting how reefs can grow in cold water can be backed up by science in the CPT young earth model. In the same breath, this process of how those Gyots grew reefs in warm water and submerged as they moved north into colder water CAN be explained with old earth plate dynamics model.

3. Why do drill cores of Nintoku Seamount, which is a Gyot in the central Emperor Chain show the youngest age to be 53.6-54.7 Million years and not 6K years? This IS explained with old earth plate dynamics model which is backed up by good solid science. How does young earth CPT model explain the age of basalt brought up in core drilling from these Gyot's?

4. Why is the flattened summit of the Nintoku Seamount at ~1650 feet below sea level? By your Ice Age arguments the summit should be at ~220 feel below sea level which simply is not the case with Nintoku and many, many others Gyot's. This IS explained with old earth plate dynamics model which is backed up by good solid science.


I'm sorry, I much as I try, I keep seeing that the CPT model falls far short of what we actually see with good solid science.

.

 

[TrueCreation]

3. Why do drill cores of Nintoku Seamount, which is a Gyot in the central Emperor Chain show the youngest age to be 53.6-54.7 Million years and not 6K years? This IS explained with old earth plate dynamics model which is backed up by good solid science. How does young earth CPT model explain the age of basalt brought up in core drilling from these Gyot's?

Does the Nintoku guyot show atoll growth? If so, what is the determined age of the atoll?

4. Why is the flattened summit of the Nintoku Seamount at ~1650 feet below sea level? By your Ice Age arguments the summit should be at ~220 feel below sea level which simply is not the case with Nintoku and many, many others Gyot's. This IS explained with old earth plate dynamics model which is backed up by good solid science.

Isostasy dictates that it would subside.

I'm sorry, I much as I try, I keep seeing that the CPT model falls far short of what we actually see with good solid science.

Just today in a petrology course the professor was discussing heat producing processes which are thought to have allowed the earth to remain as hot as it is and a student suggested that fusion occured in the core of the earth. Clearly the student was confused, but it appears that by your logic we should conclude that the earth actually is not as hot as we have measured...

I am thinking that logic is not the a point of strength in this forum.

-Chris Grose

 

[duordi]

1. If the reefs of all of the worlds Gyots all formed at the same time, during the last ice age, than one would logically come to think that all of the reefs on all of the worlds Gyots would be the same, or least close to the same thickness. But that clearly is not the case, as can easly be demonstrated.

2. Reefs grow in warm water, they DO NOT grow in cold water. Remember, your argument is that it was during the last Ice Age when the reefs grew on what today are Gyots and in the northern hemisphere, the water was even colder in the northern hemisphere during the ice age than it is today. Yet Gyots in the Emperor/Hawaiian Seamount Chain, which is in cold water even today, had reefs. I'm not getting how reefs can grow in cold water can be backed up by science in the CPT young earth model. In the same breath, this process of how those Gyots grew reefs in warm water and submerged as they moved north into colder water CAN be explained with old earth plate dynamics model.

3. Why do drill cores of Nintoku Seamount, which is a Gyot in the central Emperor Chain show the youngest age to be 53.6-54.7 Million years and not 6K years? This IS explained with old earth plate dynamics model which is backed up by good solid science. How does young earth CPT model explain the age of basalt brought up in core drilling from these Gyot's?

4. Why is the flattened summit of the Nintoku Seamount at ~1650 feet below sea level? By your Ice Age arguments the summit should be at ~220 feel below sea level which simply is not the case with Nintoku and many, many others Gyot's. This IS explained with old earth plate dynamics model which is backed up by good solid science.


I'm sorry, I much as I try, I keep seeing that the CPT model falls far short of what we actually see with good solid science.

.

I will let truecreation answer the CPT model questions as it is not my preferred model.

Duane

 

[dlamberth]

Just today in a petrology course the professor was discussing heat producing processes which are thought to have allowed the earth to remain as hot as it is and a student suggested that fusion occured in the core of the earth. Clearly the student was confused, but it appears that by your logic we should conclude that the earth actually is not as hot as we have measured...

I am thinking that logic is not the a point of strength in this forum.

-Chris Grose

What does this have to do with my comment:
I'm sorry, as much as I try, I keep seeing that the CPT model falls far short of what we actually see with good solid science.

.

 

[dlamberth]

I will let truecreation answer the CPT model questions as it is not my preferred model.

Duane

It is because you keep referencing Ice Age Sea levels as proof of CPT that I question you. When I look at what your saying, it does not hold up to scientific knowledge. It's what you are saying about the relationship between Ice Age Sea levels and the depths of the summits of Gyots that makes no sense at all to me simply because it does not stack up with what can be measured and tested. So I ask you basic geologic questions, and these questions are not being answered. I suspect the true reason why is because to do so one would have to call into question the validity of CPT.

If the truecreation CPT is not your preferred model, than please answer with the model that "you" prefer...hopefully with scientific backup of what you argue.

.

 

[duordi]

Actually, it proves no such thing.


What was that water elevation again? How deep are the reefs again? You have been giving some fairly specific numbers for water level during the ice age. These levels don't match with where we find the reefs. Therefore, another mechanism must be responsible, right?

Come to think of it a water canopy as predicted by the Bible and a world flood together would fit quite nicely into the constaints you give.
I haven't considered that, thanks.

but because the reefs are there, we know that at some point the water level was at that level for quite a bit of time (or that the islands continued to sink as the area under them cooled). Reefs take awhile to build (as do islands). Suggesting that this happened since the ice age doesn't fit the evidence.

Good point
If there was a water canopy then the water level on earth would be much lower and consistant for a peroid.

The coral is well below sea level. Much deeper than the 200 feet you keep referencing.

Another good point
I had never thought to consider that there should be evidence that the water line variation sould be greater then the ice cap variation would suggest.
But if there was a world flood that could not be avoided.

No, because you haven't identified it as a problem for the hawaiian islands yet. What specific evidence do you have that leads you to believe that what we find there isn't exactly what we would expect to find? You keep referencing the change in water level during the ice age yet the height of the hawaiin islands and the depth of the coral reefs on the oldest islands are well outside the boundaries of this change in level. Different mechanisms must have caused what we see there now if this is the case. Those mechanisms have already been discussed. The islands sink as the area cools. The patterns we see matches what we would expect and correlates to the other independent indicators of age.

Your model (even with the 'continental shelf') doesn't explain the coral or the erosion profile. That is the point. To throw out the independent lines of evidence that show us the islands are old because you keep saying 'continental shelf' would be silly.

You have some good points.
It is interesting that it is much easier to poke holes in anothers theory then it is to make a bulet proof theory yourself.

I do not have answers to all of your questions just as you do not have answers for all of mine.

I respect your decision to hang with your accepted dating systems and dump the continental shelf data.

As always I enjoy your posts.

Duane

 

[duordi]

Recently I have been considering if the ice ages were due to a catastrophic event?



The three references below discuss early maps dating in the 1400's and 1500's.

Maps were create by coping earlier maps and by exploration.

These three references contain maps with Antarctica before it was suppose to be discovered and even more interestingly they show Antarctica without ice cover.

But how can this be?

Rivers are shown and Antarctica is divided by an inland water way as shown in the Buache reference below.

In 1958 the inland water ways were discovered ( or rediscovered ) when a seismic survey was done which proved the map correct.

The Ross Sea which is covered by hundreds of feet of ice is also shown clear of ice with rivers flowing into it.

In 1949 coring was done to take samples of the ice and sediment at the bottom of the
Ross Sea. They clearly showed several layers of stratification, meaning the area went through several environmental changes. Some of the sediments were of the type usually brought down to the sea by rivers. Tests done at the Carnegie Institute in Washington DC, which date radioactive elements found in sea water, dated the sediments at about 4000 BC, which would mean the area was ice free with flowing rivers up until that time - exactly what is recorded on the Reis and Finaeus maps.

Who gathered the information for the maps and how long ago did they live?

This does not fit the idea of knuckle dragging ancestors or a prolonged ice age.

If the existence of redundant archaeological and scientific information can be so easily ignored by the scientific community to promote a false recent history why would anyone think distant history accepted by the scientific community would be any better?

It was discovered before 1960, that the ancient maps were correct, that was over 45 years ago.

If the scientific community really corrects itself how long does it take to make the change?


http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/Piri_Reis_Map.html

http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/Finaeus_Map.html

http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/Buache_Map.html


Have a nice day
Duane

 

[duordi]

It is because you keep referencing Ice Age Sea levels as proof of CPT that I question you. When I look at what your saying, it does not hold up to scientific knowledge. It's what you are saying about the relationship between Ice Age Sea levels and the depths of the summits of Gyots that makes no sense at all to me simply because it does not stack up with what can be measured and tested. So I ask you basic geologic questions, and these questions are not being answered. I suspect the true reason why is because to do so one would have to call into question the validity of CPT.

If the truecreation CPT is not your preferred model, than please answer with the model that "you" prefer...hopefully with scientific backup of what you argue.

.

Oh, you did intend this for me, sorry for the mistake.

I do not consider the volcanos to have been created all at once however it is my opnion that the currently accepted view of the ocean levels during the ice age can not coexist with the age given for the island chain.

If the islands have been dated incorrectly then there is a problem with the current dating methods.
If the ice ages have been dated incorrectly then there is a problem with the current dating methodes.
Unless there is an explaination why erosion created a continental shelf with out affecting the islands it must be assumed the islands came later then currently thought.

So in summary I consider the islands a progressive event but an event which pogressed more quickly and started more recently then expected due to errors in dating system assumptions.


Duane

 

[dlamberth]

So in summary I consider the islands a progressive event but an event which pogressed more quickly and started more recently then expected due to errors in dating system assumptions.


Duane

When you say "more recently"...when are you talking about and how quickly? And for what's important to me, where is the science?

If you have gone through all of this already, I'm sorry. But, where are the errors in the present dating system? What sort's of errors are we looking at? And why do you not think that there are errors in your dating system?

.

 

[notto]

Unless there is an explaination why erosion created a continental shelf with out affecting the islands it must be assumed the islands came later then currently thought.

First you have to show that what we find at the Hawaiian islands isn't exactly what we would expect to find.

Where would you expect the continental shelf to be? How do you know it isn't there? On what data do you make this claim? What features would a continental shelf around a small island have? How do you know it isn't there? On what data do you make this claim?

You claim that the erosion profile of the Hawaiian islands isn't what we would expect with long ages. You haven't presented any specific data to back up this point.

 

[duordi]

When you say "more recently"...when are you talking about and how quickly? And for what's important to me, where is the science?

If you have gone through all of this already, I'm sorry. But, where are the errors in the present dating system? What sort's of errors are we looking at? And why do you not think that there are errors in your dating system?

.

When you say "more recently"...when are you talking about and how quickly? And for what's important to me, where is the science?

If you have gone through all of this already, I'm sorry. But, where are the errors in the present dating system? What sort's of errors are we looking at? And why do you not think that there are errors in your dating system?

.

It is amazing how many topics you hit in just a few short sentences.

The post off the main tree

duordi Early maps and the ice age. Today, 06:54 PM.
Gives both archaeological and scientific reference which places the ice age in the last 6,000 years.

This site

http://www.unb.ca/passc/ImpactDatabase/CILocSort.html


Shows the meteor impact database.

If meteors strikes are independent then they must cause impact craters in a random pattern.

If the meteor crater pattern is not random but densely packed in one location then the impacts must come form a common event, which is to say that a large meteor broke up as it approached Earth and caused multiple craters.

If the impacts come from a common event then they must have the same date of impact.



If the craters have been assigned different dates by a dating method and it is evident that they are not random but are from a common event then there is an error in the dating system.

Here is an enlarged meteor data base for Europe.

http://www.unb.ca/passc/ImpactDatabase/europe.html


It is my opinion that the data base indicates such a highly dense creator pattern that methods of data collection, and geological considerations can not explain the non random condition therefore the dating system must have errors due to flase assumptions.

For radioactive dating systems ( excluding carbon14 dating ) the assumption of the concentration of trace elements at the conception of a rock allows the dating system to be calibrated to any time span.

Did the trace elements all come from a decay process after the rock was formed or did the decay process start before the rock was formed in the raw materials?

So the radioactive dating systems are like a stop watch without lines and numbers on the face.
The clock can also be reset forward or backwards by mixing trace elements from surrounding rocks.
You can write the line and numbers in as you wish so you must have something to calibrate and test your assumptions for accuracy.

Once you calibrate and write identical lines on two watches they will agree but they can not be calibrated off one another as neither time scale is based on known data but only on assumptions.

The answer to the calibration dilemma is to find a geological event which must have occurred as part of the same event and then errors can be determined if there are any.

Unfortunately tradition has a way of setting like concrete even in the scientific community and so what was once considered an assumption soon is considered inspired text which can not be challenged.

I wrote a program which determined the odds against the meteor strikes in the Europe being random were about 8 million to 1, and it is so obvious that looking at the site map anyone can tell they are not close to random.

This however can not be accepted because it violates the faith in the current dating system which would be proven incorrect.

Enough for tonight.

If you have a specific dating system you wish to discuss let me know.

Duane

 

[notto]

This however can not be accepted because it violates the faith in the current dating system which would be proven incorrect.

No, as you have been repeatedly told, it is not accepted because you fail to account for
1) the geology of the areas you looked at
2) why we don't find meteors in geologically active areas or unexplorable/unexplored areas (only verified and visited craters appear on the graphic)
3) that you don't take into account where we have and have not looked for craters
4) that you don't take into account (and can't assess) what percentage of craters we have actually found vs. how many there actually are. (you can't claim the phenomena isn't random unless you know about all of the strikes - all you can state is that the pattern we find them in is not random which really isn't a revolutionary idea - we find them where we look and where they are easy to visit and verify.
5) that you don't take into account the condition of the craters themselves, if they are buried or not, and fail to explain why they don't all appear in the same layers if they happened at the same time.
6) you don't address or provide a mechansism that would explain the differences in dating we find at these sites.

Your analysis is lacking and superficial. That is why it is not accepted over the mainstream data that comes from those that have studied these craters and the data they collected. You simply made an analysis based on a graphic you found on a website. You over extrapolated what you can actually conclude from that picture and made assumptions that are faulty based on the data that you yourself pointed us to. You can't make the claims you have based on the data in that picture.

 

[dlamberth]

It is my opinion that the data base indicates such a highly dense creator pattern that methods of data collection, and geological considerations can not explain the non random condition therefore the dating system must have errors due to flase assumptions.

I see now that all of this is your opinion, which is fine on one level, but what I need is the science to back it up? Science from what I see comes up with a totally different picture.

For radioactive dating systems ( excluding carbon14 dating ) the assumption of the concentration of trace elements at the conception of a rock allows the dating system to be calibrated to any time span.

Did the trace elements all come from a decay process after the rock was formed or did the decay process start before the rock was formed in the raw materials?

I'm looking for a paper I read that addresses this point. Geologist are aware of this and today they do have a way to calibrate. Hopefully I can find it. To me, this is the crux. Time is the ruler of measurement in this discussion. If we do not trust the time frames, we do not trust the what is being told to us.

For me, thus far I have seen no science that backs up your time scale, so there's nothing to test. It's all, as you say, your opinion. At the same time, you have rejected the science that backs up the time scale for the old earth plate model, even though it's science that can be and IS tested.

 

[dad]

If we do not trust the time frames, we do not trust the what is being told to us.

Exactly.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

duordi Early maps and the ice age. Today, 06:54 PM.
Gives both archaeological and scientific reference which places the ice age in the last 6,000 years.

Early maps are often just totally wrong. They are based on incomplete data and often on lots of imagination.

The last ice age ended about 10,000 years ago and the evidence of multiple ice ages over earth's history is overwhelming.

This site

http://www.unb.ca/passc/ImpactDatabase/CILocSort.html


Shows the meteor impact database.

If meteors strikes are independent then they must cause impact craters in a random pattern.

If the meteor crater pattern is not random but densely packed in one location then the impacts must come form a common event, which is to say that a large meteor broke up as it approached Earth and caused multiple craters.

If the impacts come from a common event then they must have the same date of impact.

No. The most impacts are found in the geologically stable Baltic Shield. More geologically active areas have lost the evidence of strikes that may have occured there. This has been explained to you many times.

If the craters have been assigned different dates by a dating method and it is evident that they are not random but are from a common event then there is an error in the dating system.

Here is an enlarged meteor data base for Europe.

http://www.unb.ca/passc/ImpactDatabase/europe.html


It is my opinion that the data base indicates such a highly dense creator pattern that methods of data collection, and geological considerations can not explain the non random condition therefore the dating system must have errors due to flase assumptions.

It is my opinion that your "logic" is totally wrong.

For radioactive dating systems ( excluding carbon14 dating ) the assumption of the concentration of trace elements at the conception of a rock allows the dating system to be calibrated to any time span.

Did the trace elements all come from a decay process after the rock was formed or did the decay process start before the rock was formed in the raw materials?

So the radioactive dating systems are like a stop watch without lines and numbers on the face.
The clock can also be reset forward or backwards by mixing trace elements from surrounding rocks.
You can write the line and numbers in as you wish so you must have something to calibrate and test your assumptions for accuracy.

That is why isochron dating was developed. The validity of these assumptions can be tested.

Once you calibrate and write identical lines on two watches they will agree but they can not be calibrated off one another as neither time scale is based on known data but only on assumptions.

The answer to the calibration dilemma is to find a geological event which must have occurred as part of the same event and then errors can be determined if there are any.

Unfortunately tradition has a way of setting like concrete even in the scientific community and so what was once considered an assumption soon is considered inspired text which can not be challenged.

Except that multiple methods based on different isotopes give the same results. I am wondering if you ever did read Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective. You are still repeating creationist misperceptions of dating methodology. I also doubt if you ever studied isochron methods.

I wrote a program which determined the odds against the meteor strikes in the Europe being random were about 8 million to 1, and it is so obvious that looking at the site map anyone can tell they are not close to random.

Did your program take into account the different geological stability of regions of Europe? I rather doubt it.

This however can not be accepted because it violates the faith in the current dating system which would be proven incorrect.

They can't be accepted because they start a false underlying assumption. The assumption that meteor strikes that have occured in all areas over the past are equally likely to have left evidence that has been found today.

FB

 

[Tomk80]

No. The most impacts are found in the geologically stable Baltic Shield. More geologically active areas have lost the evidence of strikes that may have occured there. This has been explained to you many times.

And most of the craters on the Baltic shield are found in the southern scandinavian part.

But again, the northern part, from what I can gather, isn't fully explored. At this point, companies like Beowulf Mining are beginning to explore it for Gold and Copper deposits. So I wouldn't expect to find many confirmed craters in those parts (which we don't).

 

[dlamberth]

Except that multiple methods based on different isotopes give the same results. I am wondering if you ever did read Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective. You are still repeating creationist misperceptions of dating methodology. I also doubt if you ever studied isochron methods.

Thank you for this source.

.

 

[duordi]

I see now that all of this is your opinion, which is fine on one level, but what I need is the science to back it up? Science from what I see comes up with a totally different picture.

Of course it is my opinion just as your theories are your opinion.

Scientific data is neutral however it is meaningless unless it is interpreted with assumptions and theories.

I

I'm looking for a paper I read that addresses this point. Geologist are aware of this and today they do have a way to calibrate.

You mean you do not know how they do it but you believe it anyway?

Hmm...

Hopefully I can find it.

Yes hopefully

To me, this is the crux. Time is the ruler of measurement in this discussion. If we do not trust the time frames, we do not trust the what is being told to us.

Hold on there.

First - you should read the data.

Then - you should gather information about several theories understand them and compare them.

Finally - you should select the theory which most reasonable matches the data and consider it your opinion.

Your order seems to be.

First you decide what you believe and do not consider it an opinion but a fact.

Next, you hope you can find a theory that supports it.

Then the data is considered, right, or is it?

I suppose if you already know it all for sure, why bother with considering the data at all?

Duane

 

[Valkhorn]

First - you should read the data.

We do. I do, for one.

You do not. And, I don't think you look at all the data, and mostly any data you do look at is picking and choosing whatever you want.

 

[duordi]

We do. I do, for one.

I have no problem with you pinch hitting.

How do (you) decide the quantity of trace elements which exist during the inception of a strata that is to be dated?

You do not.

And, I don't think you look at all the data, and mostly any data you do look at is picking and choosing whatever you want.

I am sorry you have such a low estimation of my integrity but please consider that unless you have the ability to read minds ( at grate distances ) you can not know this to be true.

Please consider emotional reactions of this sort will make it very difficult for me to consider your opinions logical and rational.

Have a nice day.

Duane