Updating The Theory of the Earth

[Dr GS Hurd]

A global flood would have had to eliminated all pre-existing ice layers, lake varves, and trees.

How could that be possible? That is insane. The existence of ice layers, lake varves, and tree-ring chronologies cannot be denied by a sane person. Just for tree-rings, The Ultimate Dendrochonology, website destroyed the "multiple rings" fraud.

If a falsehood is necessary for your comfort, I recommend that you stop participating on these anti-reality websites. Stop reading anything about science. Read the Bible exclusively and hope for resurrection.

 

[ddubois]

How could that be possible? That is insane. The existence of ice layers, lake varves, and tree-ring chronologies cannot be denied by a sane person. Just for tree-rings, The Ultimate Dendrochonology, website destroyed the "multiple rings" fraud.

If a falsehood is necessary for your comfort, I recommend that you stop participating on these anti-reality websites. Stop reading anything about science. Read the Bible exclusively and hope for resurrection.

I looked at the Ultimate Dendrochronology site and did not find any "multiple rings fraud" destroyed, although I did note it favors uniformitarianism. So I looked at Wikipedia and found
"Direct reading of tree ring chronologies is a learned science, for several reasons. First, contrary to the single ring per year paradigm, alternating poor and favorable conditions, such as mid-summer droughts, can result in several rings forming in a given year." Does this seem incredible to you?

As to apparent lake varves (turbidites?) with multiple layers per year, there seem to be many citations, such as the following:

1. Quigley, R. M, Glaciolacustrine and glaciomarine clay deposition: a North American perspective; in: Eyles, N., editor, Glacial geology—an introduction for engineers and earth scientists, Pergamon Press, New York, p. 151, 1983.

Does that seem incredible to you?

 

[Gene2memE]

SNIP...... I believe in the flood being about 3000 BC ..... SNIP

There was a global flood about 3000 BC?

No-one appears to have informed the Seine-Oise-Marne culture, the Longshan, Yangshao, Liangzhu, Qujialing and Dawenkou cultures of China, the Cycladic and Minoan peoples, the Jemdet Nasr/Sumerian culture, the Wartberg group, the Indus valley and Mehrgarh inhabitants of India/Pakistan and a couple of dozen other groups of the late Neolithic period.

These civilizations all straddle your 3000 BC demarcation, as they all existed both before and after it.

For example, archaeologists recognise the Indus civilization as existing between roughly 3300 BC and 1800-1700 BC, with more than 1000 sites of inhabitation identified. Yet, for your thesis to be correct, this civilization would have come to an abrupt end somewhere around 3000 BC. The same goes for the Dawenkou and Liangzhu cultures, which existed between around 3500 BC and 2600 BC, and the Liangzhu, which lasted from 3400 BC to about 2250 BC.

Somehow, you need to account for these civilisations continuing intact through a global flood as though nothing had happened.

 

[ddubois]

Are you guys christians?

This particular debate forum is open to both Christians and non-Christians. I happen to be a Christian.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I looked at the Ultimate Dendrochronology site and did not find any "multiple rings fraud" destroyed, although I did note it favors uniformitarianism. So I looked at Wikipedia and found
"Direct reading of tree ring chronologies is a learned science, for several reasons. First, contrary to the single ring per year paradigm, alternating poor and favorable conditions, such as mid-summer droughts, can result in several rings forming in a given year." Does this seem incredible to you?

As to apparent lake varves (turbidites?) with multiple layers per year, there seem to be many citations, such as the following . . .

You know you're clutching at straws here.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

I looked at the Ultimate Dendrochronology site and did not find any "multiple rings fraud" destroyed, although I did note it favors uniformitarianism.

Here is a slide I use a few times a year in lectures;

Can you read that "book" ?

How about this one?

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

How about this one:

I was the guy on the Right side of the track. I underlined a few of the more obvious stream beds. The bottom of the cut was dated to ~6400 years ago. There is no "flood."

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

How about this one:

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

As to apparent lake varves (turbidites?) with multiple layers per year, there seem to be many citations, such as the following:

1. Quigley, R. M, Glaciolacustrine and glaciomarine clay deposition: a North American perspective; in: Eyles, N., editor, Glacial geology—an introduction for engineers and earth scientists, Pergamon Press, New York, p. 151, 1983.

Does that seem incredible to you?

Did you bother to actually read the article you cited? It was about a 30 year old idea about "pulsed" glacial melts. It has nothing at all to do with anything relevant to the lake varves used in radiocarbon dating calibration. This is when I start calling for the crazy train.

 

[ddubois]

OK -- I get it -- you're an expert on this stuff and I am not. The best I can do when I wish to disagree with you is cite other expert opinions, and to you they always seem to be invalid. Even if you were wrong in your reasons for saying that the other experts are wrong, I don't know enough to know it.

I will say though that your vehemence, even if justified, suggests to me that deep inside you may not be as confident as you present yourself to be.

 

[ddubois]

There was a global flood about 3000 BC?

No-one appears to have informed the Seine-Oise-Marne culture, the Longshan, Yangshao, Liangzhu, Qujialing and Dawenkou cultures of China, the Cycladic and Minoan peoples, the Jemdet Nasr/Sumerian culture, the Wartberg group, the Indus valley and Mehrgarh inhabitants of India/Pakistan and a couple of dozen other groups of the late Neolithic period.

These civilizations all straddle your 3000 BC demarcation, as they all existed both before and after it.

For example, archaeologists recognise the Indus civilization as existing between roughly 3300 BC and 1800-1700 BC, with more than 1000 sites of inhabitation identified. Yet, for your thesis to be correct, this civilization would have come to an abrupt end somewhere around 3000 BC. The same goes for the Dawenkou and Liangzhu cultures, which existed between around 3500 BC and 2600 BC, and the Liangzhu, which lasted from 3400 BC to about 2250 BC.

Somehow, you need to account for these civilisations continuing intact through a global flood as though nothing had happened.

This may be a debate forum, but I try to be honest. I am aware of the problem you are pointing out and to me it is the point where the young earth hypothesis is the weakest. You could just stay in the near east and make your point. Underground Catalhoyuk in modern day Turkey has been called the world's oldest city, supposedly flourishing about 7000 BC. I really don't know how best to deal with this.

I am not comfortable with moving the flood date further back than 3300 BC though other young earth creationists might be willing to. There are only two easily described ways I can see how to synchronize my choice of young earth history and archaeology. One is to say that Catalhoyuk and some other sites are really pre-flood, which means the flood isn't everywhere as destructive as the currently dominant creationist thought indicates. This would be consistent with the Sumerian king lists which record pre-flood cities like Zipurrak, which the Sumerian version of Noah, Unatipshim, came from, and whose ruins we have discovered, along with some flood evidence.

The other way is to say that the C14/C12 ratio not only changed significantly at the time of flood, but also at some later times. The removal of anything that shielded us from cosmic rays should cause an increase in this ratio, whether it be the removal of a vapor canopy or the weakening of the earth's magnetic field (which as a matter of fact has been significantly weakening in recent times). If the ratio increased at some time t, the apparent ages from carbon dating before time t would be overstated. So the apparent ages using carbon dating of 1550 BC to 7000 BC might really be 1550BC to 3000 BC if there was a significant enough increase in the C14/C12 ratio at 1550 BC at the time of the Santorini explosion, for example.

 

[Loudmouth]

A global flood would have had to eliminated all pre-existing ice layers, lake varves, and trees.

Then we can test for that. We should only be able to find ice layers, lake varves, and trees ring records that go back 3,000 years. Do you agree with this or not?

I believe in the flood being about 3000 BC, so I have to believe that more than one tree ring, ice ring, and lake varve formed in some years, which I understand is quite possible.

That's not how seeking the truth works. You don't get to throw out the data because it doesn't fit your conclusion. The evidence indicates that these are annual records.

It would appear to me that you are not seeking the truth.

 

[ddubois]

Then we can test for that. We should only be able to find ice layers, lake varves, and trees ring records that go back 3,000 years. Do you agree with this or not?

I agree that if I use a 3000 BC very destructive flood date and assume one massive age age to follow, which I do, then the real date of any ice layers, lake varies, and tree rings should not go back further than 3,000 BC. That is the real date, not the apparent date from assuming that the processes we see now can be accurately assumed to continue exactly the same into the past. As to lake varves, I am certainly not an expert, but I imagine that a very turbid condition could in fact produce many layers in one year. Despite denial by mainstream scientists, I believe this has actually been demonstrated.


That's not how seeking the truth works. You don't get to throw out the data because it doesn't fit your conclusion. The evidence indicates that these are annual records.

Let me turn this around. My understanding is that it is standard mainstream science practice to throw out outlier data. Do you deny that is what is being done with carbon dating of dinosaur bones under 40,000 years?

And unlike mainstream science practice of claiming the data they don't like is just in error, I am only saying their interpretation is in error, and I am stating why I think so.

It would appear to me that you are not seeking the truth.

We each see life through our own lenses. Our culture, education, philosophical outlook all introduce biases -- both for you and for me. Now we all see through a mirror darkly. But because you can't appreciate where I am coming from, you should be careful of judging where I am going. If you knew me, you absolutely would not question that I am seeking the truth with my whole heart.

 

[Loudmouth]

I looked at the Ultimate Dendrochronology site and did not find any "multiple rings fraud" destroyed, although I did note it favors uniformitarianism. So I looked at Wikipedia and found
"Direct reading of tree ring chronologies is a learned science, for several reasons. First, contrary to the single ring per year paradigm, alternating poor and favorable conditions, such as mid-summer droughts, can result in several rings forming in a given year." Does this seem incredible to you?

As to apparent lake varves (turbidites?) with multiple layers per year, there seem to be many citations, such as the following:

1. Quigley, R. M, Glaciolacustrine and glaciomarine clay deposition: a North American perspective; in: Eyles, N., editor, Glacial geology—an introduction for engineers and earth scientists, Pergamon Press, New York, p. 151, 1983.

Does that seem incredible to you?

How could the process that creates extra rings occur the same way on multiple continents, and then also agree with stalagmites, ice layers, and lake varves which form by completely different mechanisms?

 

[Loudmouth]

We each see life through our own lenses. Our culture, education, philosophical outlook all introduce biases -- both for you and for me. Now we all see through a mirror darkly. But because you can't appreciate where I am coming from, you should be careful of judging where I am going. If you knew me, you absolutely would not question that I am seeking the truth with my whole heart.

Anyone who has to reject data because it conflicts with their beliefs is not seeking the truth. It is that simple.

 

[ddubois]

How could the process that creates extra rings occur the same way on multiple continents, and then also agree with stalagmites, ice layers, and lake varves which form by completely different mechanisms?

That seems like a good question, and I don't have an answer at this point. I will try to set this aside for now and get an answer when I can.

 

[Loudmouth]

That seems like a good question, and I don't have an answer at this point. I will try to set this aside for now and get an answer when I can.

Just for clarity, there are at least two major tree ring data sets: the German Oak series and the North American Bristlecone Pine series.

For ice layers, you have two major sources: Antarctica in the Southern hemisphere and Greenland in the Northern hemisphere.

I am sure that there are several continents for both lake varves and stalagmites (i.e. speleothems).

What you need to explain is how all of these records are able to produce the same data points even though they form on different continents, different hemispheres, and through completely different processes.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

The photo of the stream channels I posted above was a small part of a larger project I did ~20 years ago. We were following a canyon "clear out" for a large road project. This is just an upper part of one trench. The bottoms of the cuts were about 45 ft. deep. We were excavating a Native American hearth exposed in the side of the cut.

We obtained C14 data for most of the charcoal deposited in these hearths, some were redundant, and some had too little charcoal to date. The data plotted against depth below surface are in the next chart.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

The things to note are that the dates are all lined up with depth. The two sequences are the two trenches, with sequence #2 from higher up the canyon in a situation that was influenced by a bend which piled up the sediments a bit faster. There is no evidence of any "flood" other than the typical coastal canyon flows following typical rain fall.

There is a gap that corresponds to the "Intermediate" period. I was interested if this was reflected in the surrounding region.

 

[ddubois]

Anyone who has to reject data because it conflicts with their beliefs is not seeking the truth. It is that simple.

Come on. Aren't you rejecting carbon-dating of dinosaur bones because it conflicts with your belief in uniformitarianism as it relates to radiometric dating? You think that is good science, probably. You probably believe in evolution, good science again, even though it means rejecting calculations demonstrating the impossibility of human DNA being formed by random chance. To those of us who are not as committed to the evolutionist/uniformitarian belief system as you are, it appears that it is you who are rejecting the data.

I just now went of the internet and came across the statement that the left brain is very concerned with maintaining a coherent belief system, even to the extent of rejecting data that doesn't fit the existing system of beliefs. And this applies not only to religious people, but to academics. What do you say to that?