Even after reading through Woodmorappe and Oard's failed attempt at a scientific paper, which would embarrass any sophomore or above student in geology, it never ceases to amaze me how much trouble some Young Earth creationists have in getting their facts and observations correct. If Young Earth creationists want to impress conventional Earth scientists with their ideas, they first need to least to double check the basic observations and facts that they present in their arguments to make sure they are correct and not the vivid imagination of the creationist sources they are citing. Otherwise, after the first couple of paragraphs, stuffed with all sorts of obvious misstatements of facts and errors, most conventional scientists will stop simply stop reading them not wanting to waste their time on someone who hasn't done their homework.
The first example is from Message 18,
when James J of Milwaukee, wrote
"This is also proved out by air bubbles found
in amber. These bubbles have roughly twice the
oxygen and CO2 than is found today."
[NOTE: "The Earth's atmosphere contains about 77% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 1% water vapor, 0.9% argon, and 0.03% carbon dioxide, and traces of other gases." from
Alternate View Column AV-27 ]
This is a garbled version of research by Gary Landis and associates concerning analyses they did on samples of Cretaceous amber. They didn't argue that both carbon dioxide and oxygen were both double present levels. They argued that the oxygen level during the Cretaceous was about 35 percent versus the modern oxygen level of 21 percent. That is about 67 percent more oxygen in the Cretaceous, not double than present. What they did argue that the amount of oxygen in the air during the Miocene was 14 percent, of which the Cretaceous figure is 114 more than in the Miocene, not present.. The Cretaceous air was different than modern air, if the amber measurements can be trusted, but certainly not the differences stated by Mr. James. Whether amber actually contains an accurate, unaltered sample of Cretaceous air is still a matter of considerable debate. In fact, other research would argue that the oxygen content during the Cretaceous was not much different than it is now.
Th carbon dioxide content is argued to have been 6 to 10 times present. Although it has tremendous greenhouse and ecological consequences, changing the carbon dioxide and the oxygen content isn't going lengthen lifespans or any other of the miraculous results ascribed to it by Mr. James.
Go read "Interview with Robert E. Sloan by Joe Cain Session 1 at:
Page not found | Science and Technology Studies - UCL — University College London
and "Air bubbles, amber, and dinosaurs" at:
Geology, Geophysics, and Geochemistry Science Center | U.S. Geological Survey
[NOTE: The use of the word "hyperbolic" in the original post sounds he is trying to say "hyperbaric" a technobabble term used by Carl Baugh. ]
In case of the "skeletons of people 10-12' tall" are concerned, a person might want to read "Men Over Ten Feet Tall " at:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part2.html
Then in message 18, it was stated:
"That makes these things very possible- including
300' tall trees found 10,000' down in the Gulf of
Mexico by people drilling for oil."
Having done geology in the Gulf of Mexico, the sounds like an obvious urban legend. I say that because, it is physically impossible from a drill hole to know the height of a tree that was dilled into at a depth of 10,000 feet. At that depth, quite likely, a person wouldn't even know that they have drilled into a tree. The 300-foot tree sounds like the result of somebody's vivid imagination and a good example of why people need to double-check what they either read or are told.
"The fossilized seashells found on the top 3000' of
Mt Everest have one very interesting feature. The
clams were alive when they were buried, as
evidenced that they are CLOSED. I have spent alot
of time in and around water- if a clam is dead-
it's open."
In case of Mt. Everest, the clams and others shells are found solid rock that has been uplifted and deformed by tectonic forces. It has nothing to do with a high water mark of some sort of flood. This was discussed also in "Buz's Seashell Claim" at:
"http://
EvC Forum: Buz's seashell claim -->
EvC Forum: Buz's seashell claim
There are many way conventional ways a layer of rock containing closed clams shells can form besides a Noachian Flood. Any storm or flood can, under the right circumstances dump a layer of mud over the bottom of a lake, bay, or sea and bury live clams. Closed clams, by themselves, mean nothing as far as proving the occurrence of the Noachian Flood.
There is abundant evidence of uplift and deformation of marine sedimentary rocks, which can explain the presence of marine fossils at the top of Mt. Everest. In fact, using GPS and other advanced and accurate surveying technology, geologists had demonstrated that the Himalayas and other mountain ranges are actively uplifting (rising) even as they measure and remeasure parts of the Himalayan Mountains. Some references that discuss this in great detail are:
1. Deformation Kinematics of Tibeatan Plateau
Determine from GPS Observations by Jinwei Ren at:
http://center.shao.ac.cn/APSG/pdfs/Renjinwei.pdf.
2. Jouanne, F., J. L. Mugnier, M. R. Pandey, J. F.
Gamond, P. Le Fort, L. Serrurier, C. Vigny, and J. P.
Avouac (1999) Oblique convergence in the Himalayas of
western Nepal deduced from preliminary results of GPS
measurements. Geophysical Research Letters. vol. 26 ,
no. 13 , p. 1933. - Abstract no. 1999GL900416 at
http://www.agu.org/.../abs/gl/1999GL900416/1999GL900416.html
3. Caijun Xu, Jingnan Liu, Chenghua Song, Weiping Jiang, and Chuang Sh, 2000, GPS measurements of present-day uplift in the Southern Tibet
Earth Planets Space. vol. 52, pp. 735-739.
http://www.terrapub.co.jp/journals/EPS/pdf/5210/52100735.pdf
Some random references about the direct measurement of the tectonic activity that is causing the uplift of the Himalayan Mountains.
Bilham et al.. (1997) GPS measurements of present-day
convergence across the Nepal Himalayas: Nature, v. 386,
pp. 61-64.
Searle, M. P., and P. J. Treloar, (1993) Himalayan
tectonics - an introduction. In Himalayan Tectonics,
P. J. Treloar and M. P. Searle, pp.1-7. Geological
Society of london special Publication no. 74,
Geological society of London, London, England.
Shen, et al (2000) Contemporary crustal deformation in
east Asia constrained by Global Positioning System
measurements, Journal of Geophysical Research. vol. 105,
pp. 5721-5734.
There are numerous web pages that describe in great detail how the Himalayan Mountians were created by the collision of India and Eurasia. Some of them are:
1. The Himalayas: Two continents collide
http://pubs.usgs.gov/publications/text/himalaya.html
2. Himalayan tectonics
404: Earth and Environment
3. Geology of the Himalayan Mountains
http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~wittke/Tibet/Himalaya.html
4. Colisiones continentales y Orogenesis
http://tlacaelel.igeofcu.unam.mx/...D/colision/colision.html
5. PLATE T-48 HIMALAYAN FRONT AND TIBETAN PLATEAU
GES DISC
Then it was stated:
"3000 ft worth of clams buried alive in
sediments then they were lifted up."
Again someone has a very vivid imagination. Mt. Everest isn't composed of 3,000 feet of clams that have been buried alive. There is likely a very thin layer or layers of such clams, but certainly not 3,000 feet of them. This misstatement sounds like a classic case of "Gishing" by the source of this information.
Also, it was stated:
"Bent rock layers found all around the
earth also concur with this POV of
sediment layers being laid down, then
being dramtically heaved shortly there
after/"
Yes, there are deformed strata to found all over the world. If a person looks just at simply relative age, as determined by cros-cutting relationships, it is quite apparent that they were neither derformed at the same time nor, in many case, "bent" soon after deposition. This statement is readily refuted by a careful examination of the published literature.
In addition, it was stated:
"These deposits of chalk are found at
or near breeches like the San Andres Fault.
They even found a teradactyl with a 50'
wing span there, along with a baleen whale."
More badly mangled geology. :-) There isn't any chalk associated with the San Andres fault zone. Here, it sounds like chalk has been confused with diatomite, which is white and earthy, there is lots of in California, and contains fossil whales. However, the diatomite doesn't contain any pterodactyls and pterodactyls aren't found in the same rock layers as fossil whales. [ I am rather baffled about what a "breech" is. The primarly "breeches" that I am familiar with are an article of equestrian clothing as seen at:
Access denied
Of course ther are fishing breeches and so forth. :-) :-) :-) ]
"Besides if we Evolved, how come there are
@ 720 worldwide flood legends all telling
basically the same story?"
The fact of the matter, the flood legends don't all tell the same story as Young Earth creationists falsely insist on claiming. If a person would take the time to look at the stories, instead mindlessly repeating such Young Earth creationist falsehoods, they would find that the details of the individual flood legends differ greatly in the types of flood, number of survivors, types of liquids involved, and many other details. The fact of the matter is that they don't tell "basically the same story." This is discussed in detailed in "Flood Stories from Around the World" by Mark Isaak at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~misaak/floods.htm
(NOTE: Also a person might have fun browsing " An Index to Creationist Claims" at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~misaak/guide/index.html
There. a person will find " CH552. Seashells on mountains are evidence of a flood." at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~misaak/guide/CH/CH552.html )
There is also the golden oldie of misinformation:
"Not to mention sedimentay layers of rock
that run across the continent."
The truth of the matter is there are very few, if any, single layer that actually runs across an entire continent. The layers that have the widest extent are layers that accumulate in large marine basins where uniform conditions of sediment accumulation can occur as seen in modern oceans and seas.
There are also layers such as the St Petersburg Sandstone that appear to be a single layer of rock. However, if some Young Earth creationists would ever take the time get out of their armchairs and into the field, they would quickly find that it is not a "single layer". Instead it is composed of multiple overlapping, onlapping, offlapping, or cut and filled layers of sediments, which only have the superficial appearance of being a single layer when a person doesn't make the effort to look at them in any detail.
"Besides I'm still looking for someone to
explain how the river flowed uphill thousands
of feet to cut through the uplift that forms
the Grand Canyon? ANYBODY????"
The problem is that the river didn't need to flow uphill to create the Grand Canyon. A perfectly good explanation of how the Grand Canyon was formed without a river having to flow uphill is given by:
Harris, David V., 1976. The geologic story of the
National Parks and Monuments. Colorado State
University Foundation Press.
and
Chronic, Halka, 1983. Roadside Geology of
Arizona. Missoula: Mountain Press Publishing.
A person might also want to look at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~misaak/guide/CH/CH581.html
and
Elders, Wilfred A., 1998, Bibliolatry in the
Grand Canyon. Reports of the National
Center for Science Education, vo. 18,
no.4, pp. 8-15.
http://www.ncseweb.org/newsletter.asp?curiss=8
In reference to the statement:
"The misinterpretation of the forming of the
Grand Canyon is probably the greatest Hoax
presented and currently pushed, inspite of
the facts drawn out during and after the
Mt. St. Helens eruption."
In reference to this statement a person should read "CH581.1. Rapid erosion on Mt. St. Helens shows Grand Canyon could form suddenly" at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~misaak/guide/CH/CH581_1.html
In case of the Mt. St. Helens argument, it is the Young Earth creationists, who have exaggerated and misrepresented the facts. Simply, it is impossible to use the effects of erosion on loose volcanic material to model the effects of erosion of lithified sedimentary rocks. The similarities between Mt.St Helens and the Grand Canyon are so superficial, the comparison between the two is nothing more an example of really bad sceintific thinking and logic.
For some more about the Grand Canyon, a person can read:
Account Suspended
It would certainly help Young earth creationists, if they would simply take the time to get their facts straight before they start arguing their position. Nothing destroys the credibility of a person's arguments when he or she uses a bunch misinformation, falsehoods, and errors support his or her position.
Yours,
Bill Birkeland.
[This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 09-25-2003]
™ Version 4.2