Off Topic Posts aka Rabbit Trail Thread - Mostly YEC Geology

I could make a good case that the growth had more to do with the frontier effect, the lack of a developed and entrenched bureaucracy, and plentiful energy supplies.Those conditions are rapidly changing, and the growth is diminishing.Hmmmmm.

Your interpretation, when it is contradicted by scientific findings, is not evidence.(See signature lines.)

Sorry to disillusion you, but creation "science" is the exact opposite of real science.Real science follows evidence, creation "science," by necessity, must ignore huge amounts of evidence--scientific evidence is contradictory and must be ignored so belief can be maintained.Real science explains evidence by creating and testing theories, creation "science" ignores or misrepresents evidence, or manufactures false "evidence," in order to conform to dogma, scripture, revelation, tribal myths, etc. Science modifies or discards theories when the evidence dictates, while creation "science" modifies or discards evidence when dogma dictates.As I said, they are the exact opposite.

Sorry, no.When you follow the evidence, the flood and many of the other interpretations derived from the bible are not supported. Otherwise, most scientists would be biblical literalists!This issue was decided a couple of hundred years ago. The bible was found not to be accurate in a number of instances, beginning with the global flood. The early Christian geologists seeking to find evidence of the flood failed to do so and gave up--just about exactly 200 years ago.You can bluster and sputter all you want, but the evidence is clear and it's not as you would have it.

The flood would indeed have to be everywhere but not everywhen! It has to have occurred at some discrete point in time. Didn't it last but a single year?Biblical scholars generally agree on about 4,350 years ago for the date.But at that point in time you are not dealing with geological layers or the geological column, you are dealing with soils, and stratigraphy.That is the province of archaeologists and sedimentologists, not geologists.If there was a global flood some 4,350 years ago you should have evidence in the soils pretty much all around the world, including your back yard.All you have to do is learn something about soils and go out back to do some digging. Or to make matters easier, go over to a local university and look up the archaeologists. They deal with that time period on a regular basis. I've worked with probably over a hundred sites that cross-cut that time period, and I'm sure given a little advanced warning your local archaeologists can show you sites with units into the ground that cross-cut that time period.What you need to find in the soils at that age is evidence of either erosional cutting or large-scale deposition--either can be evidence for a flood. But what we find instead is evidence of continuity of Native American cultures, mtDNA, fauna and flora, and normal sedimentation. The quickest and most telling evidence is the mtDNA--it is the same Native American haplogroups both before and after 4,350 years ago. There is no discontinuity with replacement by a DNA type that could be associated with the Middle East.Overall, the problem you have to face is that in 150 years of excavations in this country (and worldwide) by thousands of archaeologists, the evidence you would need to support your beliefs is not to be found. We have found evidence of floods at the end of the last glacial episode, such as the ones that created the channeled scablands in southern and eastern Washington (and which are some three times older that the purported global flood). But we have not found evidence of a large-scale flood 4,350 years ago.So archaeologists and sedimentologists can find and date floods at the end of the last glacial period, about 15,000 years ago, but can't find evidence of a much larger flood a third of that age? And all the evidence we find shows continuity rather than discontinuity across the 4,350 year boundary?Given the evidence it looks like that a global flood at 4,350 years ago never occurred.Interpret it any way you wish, there is still no evidence of a global flood at that time period.

I see just the opposite--you guys will assert anything as long as it seems to support the flood, no matter how much your assertions are contradicted by evidence.For example, this entire thread.The flood is reported to have occurred during historic times, that is, when people were around. Biblical scholars center around a date of 4,350 years ago, but you guys keep dragging geological times into the argument even though all of the available evidence shows that there were no people around back then!But what's a couple of hundred million years here and there, when you're making it all up anyway? Guess that's the difference between creation "science" and real science.

There is a vast difference between the times described in the bible in relation to the flood and geological times. Historical times can refer to the last 6,000 years or so, but geological times are many times older than that, stretching back millions of years. Your whole idea that the Grand Canyon was cut by a global flood during historic times is dragging geological times into the argument. This entire thread centers around that. And it has been pointed out to you by many posters that the timing just does not fit. You can't squeeze tens of millions of years into a single year no matter how much you huff and puff. Geological time is called that because it does take millions of years!There simply is no evidence for people around 100 million or so years ago. Rather, the evidence is totally against that, but you are just ignoring all of that evidence in a desperate search for anything that might bolster your beliefs.If this is the best creationist "scientists" have to offer, no wonder they are not taken seriously.

Ignoring something does not make it go away.But this does illustrate a difference between creationists and scientists, and between irrationality and rationality.

No, let's start here, with a definition of THEORY, as you are as wrong on this as in most other claims you make.

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws.

​

Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]

​

When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.

​

Nowhere in there do you see "wild-ass guess" or anything similar, as your post implies. You seem to think that a theory is just something that anyone makes up on the spur of the moment. That might fit "speculation" but it does not fit the definition of a "theory."A theory is the current best explanation for a given set of facts. It must have been tested against the relevant facts and it must have successfully made predictions. And it must not be contradicted by any significant facts. In other words, it's not a wild-ass guess, but the highest level of documentation available to science. Not even a "law" is higher--theories explain laws!And let's throw a few other terms in just to see if this can help you understand the language of science:

Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices."

​

Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.

​

Proof: A term from logic and mathematics describing an argument from premise to conclusion using strictly logical principles. In mathematics, theorems or propositions are established by logical arguments from a set of axioms, the process of establishing a theorem being called a proof.

​

The colloquial meaning of "proof" causes lots of problems in physics discussion and is best avoided. Since mathematics is such an important part of physics, the mathematician's meaning of proof should be the only one we use. Also, we often ask students in upper level courses to do proofs of certain theorems of mathematical physics, and we are not asking for experimental demonstration!

​

So, in a laboratory report, we should not say "We proved Newton's law" Rather say, "Today we demonstrated (or verified) the validity of Newton's law in the particular case of..." Source

​

Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence). When a scientist speculates he is drawing on experience, patterns and somewhat unrelated things that are known or appear to be likely. This becomes a very informed guess.

​

Conjecture: speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence); guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence; reasoning that involves the formation of conclusions from incomplete evidence.

​

Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information.

​

Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not be able to play"

​

Impression: a vague or subjective idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying."

​

Data: Individual measurements; facts, figures, pieces of information, statistics, either historical or derived by calculation, experimentation, surveys, etc.; evidence from which conclusions can be inferred.

​

Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact.

​

Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source

​

At least make some effort to use these terms correctly. It would really help.

That old quotation applies here: "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."You should have taken this to heart...There are indeed ways of testing theories about the past.Further, you didn't read the definitions I posted and don't even know what a theory is.Willful ignorance is a sad thing to see.

There is an old, old story about a theologian who was asked to reconcile the Doctrine of Divine Mercy with the doctrine of infant damnation. 'The Almighty,' he explained, 'finds it necessary to do things in His official and public capacity which in His private and personal capacity He deplores.

​

Robert A. Heinlein Methuselah's Children

I'm the same way based on decades of study of the past via archaeology.Also, until we can begin to quantify our data to a higher degree (no pun intended--or not much) than we have today, any findings must still be regarded as tentative. Until we are sure, this is not something I'd want to throw several trillion dollars at when we are not just broke, but way deep in the hole.This whole situation is not helped by the likes of a leftie/statist professor who recently suggested making skepticism of AGW a capitol crime and executing influential "deniers." What a joke! I sure wouldn't want the likes of this jerk in charge of anything more critical than a rural outhouse, and even that may be too much.

​

Prof. Richard Parncutt: Death Penalty for Global Warming Deniers? | Tallbloke's Talkshop

​

This is the kind of nonsense one finds with religions dealing with heretics, not science dealing with those who are seeking to clarify the data before committing several trillion dollars on a fix that nobody knows where it will end up.Here is a good blog by Jerry Pournelle on the subject:

​

Global Warming again; Crisis of Self Government; more dragons to slay? – Chaos Manor – Jerry Pournelle

​

(By the way, Pournelle may have had the first blog out there, long before the term was even invented.) Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

The problem YECs face is their model does not work when applied to real world data. This has been pointed out in relation to oil by previous posters.But the evidence has not convinced those, such as yourself, who believe something other than what evidence shows. This leads to all sorts of errors, many borne out of simple wishful thinking and many out of ignorance of the sciences involved. I suspect that the attitude is "Why study that science; I already know it is wrong."It seems that because radiocarbon dating produces answers unacceptable to YECs, efforts are being made to discredit it whenever possible. Many of those efforts make fundamental mistakes. This is something that, unfortunately, you are prone to do as well. Here are two very typical examples I have found in the creationist literature pertaining to radiocarbon dating that seem to apply to this overall topic. --Coal from Russia from the "Pennsylvanian," supposedly 300 million years old, was dated at 1,680 years. (Radiocarbon, vol. 8, 1966).The original article in the journal Radiocarbon includes the following paragraph describing this sample:Mo-334. River Naryn, Kirgizia 1680 170. A.D. 270

Coal from the cultural layer on the left side of the r. Naryn (Kirgizian SSR), 3 km E of the mourh of the r. Alabuga (41 25′ N Lat, 74 40′ E Long). The sample was found at a depth of 7.6 m in the form of scattered coals in a loamy rock in deposits of a 26-m terrace. According to the archaeological estimations the sample dates from the 5 to 7th centuries A.D. The sample was found by K. V. Kurdyumov (Moscow State Univ.) in 1962. Comment: the find serves as a verification of archaeological data on the peopling of the Tien Shan.

What we have here is no more than shorthand or sloppy translation from the Russian! The coal is nothing more than charcoal from an archaeological deposit. This sample is even included in the section of the report dealing with archaeological samples, and the paragraph discusses archaeological data.The odd use of terms is shown clearly in another radiocarbon date, Mo-353, reported on page 315 of the same article. It reads Charcoal from cultural deposits of a fisher site. The coal was coll. from subturfic humified loamBut the term coal in place of charcoal was enough to fool Ken Ham, as well as dozens of subsequent creationists who apparently were salivating to find 300 million year old coal radiocarbon dated to recent times, and who repeated Ham’s false claim without bothering to check its accuracy.The interesting question is where Ken Ham managed to find Pennsylvanian in that short paragraph, and where he dug up the date of 300 million years.In any event, this false information is very common on creationist websites, and people such as yourself will find it and believe that this is correct. (It should be noted that a couple of creationist websites have pointed out the errors in this claim.) --Natural gas from Alabama and Mississippi (Cretaceous and Eocene, respectively) should have been 50 million to 135 million years old, yet C14 gave dates of 30,000 to 34,000 years, respectively. (Radiocarbon, vol. 8, 1966. This claim appears to have been originally made by Ken Ham, Andrew Snelling, and Carl Weiland in The Answers Book, published by Master Books, El Cajon, CA, 1992 (page 73).The original article in the journal Radiocarbon includes the following paragraphs describing these two samples:

I-1149. Sealy Springs well, Alabama >34,000

​

From Sealy Springs Well, Cottonwood, Houston County, Alabama. Well yielding salt water and natural gas, probably from Upper Cretaceous Eutaw sandstone. Comment (D.R.B.): sample submitted as control. Infinite age as expected.

​

I-1150. Maxie Gas Field, Mississippi >30,000

​

From Lower and Upper Cretaceous, and Eocene formations in Maxie Gas Field, Forrest County, Mississippi. Comment (D.R.B.): control sample yielding infitite age as expected.

Note the little > symbols in front of the dates? This means greater than and denotes that the measured ages reflect the limits of the instrumentation rather than an actual age. Note the "Infinite age as expected" comment? In other words, the creationists either goofed and missed the > symbols, or hoped that nobody would check up on their research.Rather than serving as an example of the inaccuracy of radiocarbon dating, this refuted creationist claim serves as another example of the inaccuracy of creationist research.========This is the kind of information you are getting from YEC websites. It is a mix of lies, distortions, cherry picking, and just plain mistakes.That is why those of us who know something about various branches of science check out any claims made by creationists and YECs. They are typically found to be full of errors. And science hates errors!Have you ever asked yourself why so much evidence refutes what you and other creationists are claiming?

No, the overall question is whether the YEC model of Earth's age is supported by the evidence.The geologists here are pointing out where you are wrong applying the YEC model to geological phenomena, including oil.I looked at two examples of creationist "research" supporting their creationist/YEC model and showed how they were in error. In these two instances the errors came from 1) believing the bible is correct and science is wrong, which led to 2) sloppy and uninformed research, and 3) failure of virtually all creationist websites to critique their claims--they just copy things that sound good from site to site.This is your evidence! This is the support you have for your YEC model.The relevance of the AGE is the key. Science has produced evidence, while creationist websites have produced errors, lies, misrepresentations, and just plain dumb mistakes. It seems that as long as the claims agree with their beliefs, no research or critique is needed.This is amazingly parallel to the claims you have been making on this thread.So yes, it is relevant: the creationist/YEC model is contradicted by real world evidence.

You buy into the creationist/YEC model, you are bound to defend it.You can't compartmentalize things: science works as a whole, and facts that contradict parts of science have to be accommodated. Science must change when it is contradicted by reliable facts.You should emulate this. You are trying to argue one very narrow point, and are being shown to be wrong on that point. Your problem is that your whole model can be shown to be in error.You might desire to compartmentalize your discussion, but that does not require me to ignore all the many other places where the creationist/YEC model is clearly in error.And it would be nice if you could address some of my points. Otherwise, they might be taken by lurkers and those who are undecided as being accurate.Or perhaps you could just admit that you have no evidence to support those points, and that you are relying on belief alone. That would, of course, require that you stop trying to twist and misrepresent scientific evidence, as you have been doing on this thread, but we could live with that...