So what about SILT and dating????

The question is not whether his arguments made sense but whether he got his facts right. From the looks of it he's simply repeating YEC claims - and in the case of the silt I doubt that he even managed to do that accurately.

quote:

---

It is believed by many creationists that if the flood were reality that the makeup of the atmosphere and topography of the planet would be substantially different than post flood. Thus it would seem that evidence as to the chemistry of the atmosphere would be unknown.

---

Buz, just think about what you are saying. You think that some creationists believe that the pre-flood atmosphere had a different composition. And from that you jump - somehow - to the conclusion that we can't know anything about the atmosphere before then.It should be pretty obvious that speculations about speculations do not dictate what evidence is or is not available. What you need to do is to look up what the creationists actually say. Then look up the relevant evidence. Then use both together to make a scientific case. Or at the least provide a decent argument from what creationists actually do say instead of jumping to a conclusion which doesn't even follow from your vague idea of what you think they say.In fact I think you will find that the usual creationist argument concerning the atmosphere is that pressure from the "vapour canopy" increased the pressure and the actual composition is much the same as it is in our time (as we would expect, given that the Bible offers no hint that pre-Flood life was significantly different from modern life - something that would make little sense in, say, a hydrogen-fluorine atmosphere).And if anyone is feeling a hint of deja vu here, it's because you tried to attack radiometric dating with very similar argument. And it turned out that you didn't have a clue what you were talking about. All you could do was insist that the science that you hadn't bothered to investigate had to agree with you - when in fact the relevant science indicated that you were talking complete nonsense. And that was not qualified as "musings".

quote:

---

1) I don't understand how anyone can conclude that life was uniform pre-flood to what is post flood as per the Biblical record. Surely you are aware that as per the Biblical record, men lived as long as 9+ centuries and that after the flood that life quickly digressed from 6 to 9 hundred years down to 300, then 200 and by the time of Moses, down to under 200 and that larger animals such as mamoths and dinos lived on the earth? If that be the case, then there had to be factors which would affect dating methology.

---

It's really, really simple. The fact is that aside from the dubious claims of long lifespans (which tell us nothing about the atmosphere even if true, and continue into post-Flood times anyway) there is NO difference. We have ravens and doves and whales. We have trees and grain. We have rivers and mists. In short there is absolutely nothing to suggest any significant difference in the atmosphere.

quote:

---

2) The unique Buz hypothesis is in some respects, more compatible with the mainline science view than that of most fundi creationists.

---

Even if that were true, it is hardly relevant because we are talking about what those "fundi creationists" say". Or rather your vague- and likely incorrect - idea of what they say (amazingly you can't even be bothered to find THAT out)

quote:

---

3) Science could only speculate on the properties of a pre-Biblical flood atmosphere and chemical makeup of earth's surface, etc, since the data would not be uniform to the the view which science has studied.

---

How exactly does that work ? Is the air trapped in the icecaps going to magically change in composition so that it looks like the current atmosphere ? A different atmosphere wouldn't change the laws of chemistry so we can look at the rocks - and less directly we can look at fossils - and see what they tell us. (We can tell, for instance that carbonate shells were viable - which limits how acidic the seas could be and that tells us about the atmosphere). Even in the most extreme YEC scenarios many fossils are of pre-flood life.Let us be clear. You DON'T know what creationists propose. You DON'T know if the proposed atmospheres would leave evidence or not. That sort of musing doesn't seem like something that is really worth posting here. If you followed it up and found a serious proposal that would be both undetectable and make some sort of relevant difference to the pre-Flood world then that might be worth discussing. But a wild guess about the significance of ideas you can't even be bothered to look up ? What's the point of that ?