Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
74 online now:
jar, kjsimons, PaulK, vimesey (4 members, 70 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,122 Year: 4,234/6,534 Month: 448/900 Week: 154/150 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood?
RAZD
Member (Idle past 637 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 1 of 519 (467868)
05-25-2008 4:41 AM


There are fossil marine deposits on virtually every mountain, including Mt Everest.

These fossil deposits are all of mature marine life, clams many years old, etcetera. If they are evidence of a world wide flood then:

(1) the flood was much longer in duration than is the published conjecture, or

(2) the marine environment was unusually productive, in which case we come to the problem of trilobites ... and all other extinct marine fauna and flora from the Precambrian through the marine dinosaurs ... not surviving the flood.

Thus you have a logical contradiction.

Evidence of multiple layers of mature marine environments on mountains is rather evidence of long ages -- ages to form mature marine environments, ages to cover them, ages for the other mature marine environments to form, and ages for the sedimentary basin to be pushed up into mountains by tectonic activity.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-15-2008 5:43 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 132 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-18-2008 4:36 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 191 by RAZD, posted 05-30-2017 9:10 AM RAZD has seen this message
 Message 330 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-07-2017 10:27 PM RAZD has seen this message

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 637 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 3 of 519 (467947)
05-25-2008 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
05-25-2008 8:43 AM


Thanks, it seems we have a new crop of creationists, hopefully one will advance some explanation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 05-25-2008 8:43 AM Admin has taken no action

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 637 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 6 of 519 (469498)
06-05-2008 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by deerbreh
06-05-2008 3:09 PM


It;s only a matter of time ...
There he goes again - refuting the YEC "Sea Shells on mountain tops!" meme with the inconvenient observation that the shells are also found in sediment layers WITHIN the mountain. Drat that Percy fellow.

Yes, and when you combine the observation of layers on top of layers on top of layers with the observation that each layer contains fossils of sea shells with 20 to 30 years of annual growth patterns, you quickly add up to hundreds of years of marine deposits in each of these locations.

Conclusion: the evidence cannot be due to water covering these locations for only a few hundred days, and therefor it is de facto NOT evidence of any Noachin like flood event, but of something that occurred on a geological time scale.

Enjoy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by deerbreh, posted 06-05-2008 3:09 PM deerbreh has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 519 by Juvenissun, posted 08-01-2020 7:58 AM RAZD has taken no action

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 637 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 7 of 519 (469549)
06-05-2008 11:44 PM


Bump for David101
David101:

The question is why are there fossils of 20 and 30 year old seashells on mountain tops ... and how this can be evidence for a flood of only a couple hundred days.

Add to that, the fact that clams and the like live as a free swimming larval stage for a year or so before growing a shell.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by deerbreh, posted 06-06-2008 9:13 AM RAZD has seen this message

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 637 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 13 of 519 (469939)
06-08-2008 5:29 PM


So, can we get back to the shell game?
The topic is seashells, on mountains, being evidence of a flood.

thanks.


Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by BeagleBob, posted 06-08-2008 8:32 PM RAZD has seen this message

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 637 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 16 of 519 (470156)
06-09-2008 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by deerbreh
06-09-2008 5:13 PM


Re: So, can we get back to the shell game?
The topic is explaining why or why not sea shells on mountain tops are evidence for a global flood.

Actually it is about how logically silly the argument for a global flood based on shell fossils on mountain tops is, based on the evidence of the shells alone. We don't need plate tectonics to show that the argument is worthless from shells alone.

Leonardo DaVinci figured it out, and he didn't need plate tectonics.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/vinci.html

Thanks.

Edited by RAZD, : .

Edited by Admin, : Make link active.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by deerbreh, posted 06-09-2008 5:13 PM deerbreh has taken no action

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 637 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 20 of 519 (471055)
06-14-2008 4:30 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Jason777
06-14-2008 12:17 AM


How long under water is the issue here.
Hello Jason777

seashells on mountains are evidence that those mountains were under the sea.The only differece between uniformatairians and creationist is how long it took for those mountains to go from the bottom of the ocean to 32,000 ft. above sea level.

Not really. The difference between the non-uniformitarians and creationists also differ on how long it took ... in fact there is only one small group of people that think it was due to a single short event. Leonardo da Vinci figured it out that there could be no single event that could explain the layer after layer after layer of marine fossils.

"Uniformitarianism" isn't needed to look at the evidence with clear eyes and an open mind.

The difference between the evidence based researcher and the gullible creationist is actually in how long - how many humdreds and hundreds of years - each of the many many sedimentary layers that have marine fossils were under water.

The fossil layers each contain mature organism shells, shells where the organism lived for 20 to 30 years in a stable environment, types of organisms that are fragile, yet reached maturity, types of organisms that spend months in a free-swimming larval stage before becoming attached to the bottom surface, and which have then grown to maturity before dying, before being buried by more layers of organisms that go through the same whole process again, and again, and again.

If I've got only four layers, each containing fossils that lived for 25 years, one does not need to be a rocket scientist to see that we are dealing with an area that was under water for at least 100 years. If I've got a hundred such layers, then I do not need to be a "uniformitarian" to come to the conclusion that we are dealing with an area that was underwater for 2,500 years.

That is the kind of thing that this evidence shows, and not a simple event whose time span is measured in days.

So the question is, how do you explain the evidence -- the evidence of long periods underwater -- with creationism?

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Jason777, posted 06-14-2008 12:17 AM Jason777 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Jason777, posted 07-21-2008 10:22 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 637 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 22 of 519 (471254)
06-15-2008 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Hyroglyphx
06-15-2008 5:43 PM


Re: Geologic column
Hey Nem,

If there is evidence for a geologic column, which represents epochs of earth's erosion, then there is reason to assume that there were no mountains before, and they later rose from subduction, still leaving the trilobites in the same strata that is now a mountain.

You are mixing "geological column" with "plate tectonics" when they aren't necessarily linked, but reading through the misunderstanding we can still get to this point.

If not, then one would have to consider how trilobite are hundreds of miles from the nearest ocean, in a land-locked environment, such as Tibet or Afghanistan.

True, but one would also have to consider that this same evidence shows hundreds of years duration that the various layers were underwater, and that where non-marine layers divide marine layers, one would have to consider various mechanisms that could account for multiple occurances as well.

If you use a flood hypothesis for causing this evidence, then you have to consider that this means (A) multiple floods and (B) each flood lasting hundreds of years.

I am not aware of any means by which this is evidence for a "noachian flood" of only a few hundred days, tops, are you?

Don't you have to conclude that this is evidence of something that is demonstrably NOT a "noachian flood" because it does not match the storyline at all, yes?

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-15-2008 5:43 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-15-2008 8:56 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 637 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 24 of 519 (471312)
06-15-2008 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Hyroglyphx
06-15-2008 8:56 PM


Re: Geologic column
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you are saying that if a Noachian flood did in fact occur in the manner the bible states, for a relatively short amount of time, there should not be as much marine diversity as there is found on the mountains? Am I getting that right?

Correct.

*side note* I heard that the cancer is in remission. That is wonderful news! May it stay in remission for the rest of your natural life.

Thanks. Although I won't rule out unnatural life either ... ;)

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-15-2008 8:56 PM Hyroglyphx has taken no action

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 637 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 33 of 519 (477500)
08-03-2008 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Jason777
07-21-2008 10:22 PM


Re: How long under water is the issue here.
Hey Jason777, sorry to take so long getting back.

Do you know what species of seashells were talking about?There are literally thousands,filterfeeders and photosynthetic,saltwater,freshwater,and brackish.

No I don't know all the species involved, what I do know is that they were marine (saltwater), that there was a variety, that the whole ecology was buried with the shellfish and that it was a mature marine ecology. One of the categories of shellfish included is Brachiopods: they look like clams but are different. One difference is that some grow a stalk that they are attached to the bottom by, and that often this stalk is also preserved intact. Brachiopods are found on Everest among other mountains, generally always in same geological layers on each mountain.

We know they vary in age because of the shell size and the formation of annual layers as the shells grow.

We also know that there is more than one layer, that layer covers layer covers layer.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Jason777, posted 07-21-2008 10:22 PM Jason777 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Jason777, posted 08-04-2008 5:31 PM RAZD has seen this message

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 637 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 37 of 519 (482072)
09-14-2008 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Architect-426
09-14-2008 1:14 PM


Re: How long under water is the issue here.
Welcome to the fray, ARCHITECT-426

... as well as Roman bricks, pieces of pottery etc. Proof that the earth "regurgitates" itself via volcanism.

Actually these instances prove nothing other than that Romans used marine shells in bricks, pieces of pottery, etc.

You can also find them along slopes in volcanic tuff, ...

Do you know what "tuff" is?

quote:
American Heritage Dictionary
tuff
n. A rock composed of compacted volcanic ash varying in size from fine sand to coarse gravel. Also called tufa.

So existing marine deposits in existing sedimentary layers on an existing mountain can be mixed with volcanic ash when the volcano explodes, projecting rocks and ash onto the country side.

In southern Italy you can find marine shells inside volcanic craters.

Which are exposed layers inside or have fallen from the exposed surfaces afterward?

You do understand, don't you, that shells can be melted in furnaces as part of standard manufacturing processes for making lime, and so they would not survive as shells when mixed with volcanic lava. Romans used lime to build their roads.

Perhaps a link would be best to provide some evidence that what you are interpreting actually represents the facts would be in order.

Remember, the earth was not only flooded, but utterly destroyed (read Gen. ch. 6 KJV). And the mass part of the destruction was clearly through volcanic activity on a massive, massive scale.

This is a science thread, not a fantasy thread, and as such you would need to provide evidence of actual physical objective reality, not biblical references, to show that such things actually occurred.

Remember, too, that the issue here is that the marine shells are MUCH TOO OLD to be deposited during a biblical flood, and thus they are not evidence for such an event occurred.

Enjoy.

ps - as you are new here, some posting tips:

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window.

For other formating tips see Posting Tips


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Architect-426, posted 09-14-2008 1:14 PM Architect-426 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Architect-426, posted 09-14-2008 9:55 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 637 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 45 of 519 (482314)
09-15-2008 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Architect-426
09-14-2008 9:55 PM


Re: How long under water is the issue here.
Thanks ARCHITECT-426,

Alright, maybe I misunderstood. I thought this whole website is devoted to Creation that is Scripturally based, vs. Evolution based on Darwinism.

The forum is divided into three basic categories, one that has science threads, where evidence is required to substantiate an argument, one that has "faith and belief" threads, where the bible citations are given weight and the need to provide evidence is relaxed, and one that is for general purpose (coffee house) discusions and free-for all slugfests.

If we are talking about the flood of Noah here, and the question regarding marine fossils scattered on mountains and all over creation, then it does apply.

But we limit the discussion to those arguments that can be substantiated by actual factual objective evidence, and require that the substantiation evidence be included in the debate.

The destruction of Troy was considered a myth until an archeologist following clues in the myth uncovered a buried city. Finding the historic Troy does not, of course, mean that the heros and gods of the Greek myth are factual, just that Troy did exist and was destroyed and the ground salted.

This is the kind of approach here: looking for the factual evidence that may, or may not, be buried in the story of Noah.

The question posed by this thread, the topic, the theme, of discussion is what is posted in message 1 of the thread (and it is generally a good idea to read the first message on any thread you think about posting on to see what the theme is):

quote:
There are fossil marine deposits on virtually every mountain, including Mt Everest.

These fossil deposits are all of mature marine life, clams many years old, etcetera. If they are evidence of a world wide flood then:

(1) the flood was much longer in duration than is the published conjecture, or

(2) the marine environment was unusually productive, in which case we come to the problem of trilobites ... and all other extinct marine fauna and flora from the Precambrian through the marine dinosaurs ... not surviving the flood.

Thus you have a logical contradiction.

Evidence of multiple layers of mature marine environments on mountains is rather evidence of long ages -- ages to form mature marine environments, ages to cover them, ages for the other mature marine environments to form, and ages for the sedimentary basin to be pushed up into mountains by tectonic activity.


Simply put: the marine life on mountains is too old, too completely developed into several different complete ecologies, and piled in too many layers to be explained by a single short duration submersion.

Leonardo daVince figured out that the pattern of the fossil record did not meet the criteria of a biblical flood:

quote:
In Leonardo's day there were several hypotheses of how it was that shells and other living creatures were found in rocks on the tops of mountans. Some believed the shells to have been carried there by the Biblical Flood; others thought that these shells had grown in the rocks. Leonardo had no patience with either hypothesis, and refuted both using his careful observations. Concerning the second hypothesis, he wrote that "such an opinion cannot exist in a brain of much reason; because here are the years of their growth, numbered on their shells, and there are large and small ones to be seen which could not have grown without food, and could not have fed without motion -- and here they could not move." There was every sign that these shells had once been living organisms. What about the Great Flood mentioned in the Bible? Leonardo doubted the existence of a single worldwide flood, noting that there would have been no place for the water to go when it receded. He also noted that "if the shells had been carried by the muddy deluge they would have been mixed up, and separated from each other amidst the mud, and not in regular steps and layers -- as we see them now in our time." He noted that rain falling on mountains rushed downhill, not uphill, and suggested that any Great Flood would have carried fossils away from the land, not towards it. He described sessile fossils such as oysters and corals, and considered it impossible that one flood could have carried them 300 miles inland, or that they could have crawled 300 miles in the forty days and nights of the Biblical flood.

Perhaps you can check out the sites where he investigated this matter when you return: it would be pretty cool to walk in his footsteps for a bit eh?

Once we dismiss a flood as the source of marine fossils on mountaintops, we then have the question of how they got there, a question that applies equally for creationist and scientist.

If you are going to debate the great flood, you have to grasp the entire event and the purpose. I am supporting the flood with real science AND Scripture, is that not what I am supposed to do here?

Apply the "Troy" model: let you scripture\myth inform your conjectures, but then find the evidence and test the conclusions against the objective facts of reality. Troy was not found by wishful thinking and making up fantasies.

For instance, you said "Remember, the earth was not only flooded, but utterly destroyed (read Gen. ch. 6 KJV)" - so what is your evidence of this destruction? How can we test for that condition?

The problem I have is that geology and archeology and paleontology and astronomy all have evidence showing a continuous existence of the earth for some 4.55 billion years, and of life on this planet for some 3.5 billion years, with overlapping evidence that does not have any time gaps.

These fossils are found inside the craters, Somma, Visuvio, Monte Nuovo etc. The bricks are also found in the craters and tuff. I will be there again next month so if I have time I will verify for myself and let you know.

This still strikes me as post hoc ergo propter hoc false logic in attributing their existence to being buried deep in the earth, which is your implication yes?

There are various types of volcanic eruptions, not just a "lava flow". Depending on the depth of the eruption, type of explosion (stromboli, gaseous, phreatic etc.) the result will be various types of ejections which in turn later crystallize into various types or rock. Volcanos even eject mud and water. Moreover, volcanic dikes spread out from volcanos, and deep down into the earth thus drawing up the local rock and eventually ejecting it out of the vent. So it is not out of the question, that these marine shells or fossils, were mixed in with other rocks and eventually were erupted, in tact. The earth, thru volcanism, becomes very plastic.

Deep down in the earth the temperature and pressure transform rocks (see metamorphic rock), and thus the marine fossils would be completely altered of not destroyed, and I take if from your argument that this is not the case.

One of the reasons that the scientific age for life on earth is limited to 3.5 billion years is that this is the oldest sedimentary rock known. There are several outcrops of rock that are older, however they are all metamorphic rocks - rocks that have been altered by the temperature and pressure in the earth to the point where evidence of biological life is destroyed.

But let's stop for a moment.

Your argument regarding evidence in volcanoes is completely off topic for this thread, but is interesting to pursue: why not start a new thread on the topic, and focus it on the ability of volcanoes to "regurgitate" the earth:

Go to Forum Proposed New Topics to post new topics.

Then we can return to discussing the fact that marine fossils do not, of themselves, argue for a flood event such as portrayed in the Noah story without completely altering the story itself.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Architect-426, posted 09-14-2008 9:55 PM Architect-426 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Architect-426, posted 09-22-2008 6:50 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 637 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 46 of 519 (482316)
09-15-2008 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Jason777
09-15-2008 3:53 PM


Old corals and going off topic
Hey Jason777, nice to see you back again.

msg 40 writes:

One of the reasons i believe in the flood is the accuracy in which we can date layers by the known growth rates of corals.Stoney corals grow very slowly in my reef tank(hahaha)but on average and in the wild we can expect ~3 inches per year.

And given the fact that the oldest living reef is only ~4400 years old it's kind of like a no-brainer as to why.There are a few assumptions that go with dating fossil marine layers,but nowhere near as many as there is with radiometric dating etc.


Corals are very limited in the height at which they can grow,but when you look at formations like the tapeats sandstone,which was assumed to be an ancient ocean floor, ...

Yes, and some coral have been found growing in much deeper water than they though possible, but the real question is how can we measure the age of corals that are no longer living - fossil corals from ancient seas - and how can we validate that age by alternative evidence that conforms with it?

This is what I found when I was looking into ways of correlating different pieces of information on the age of the earth:

quote:

Age Correlations and An Old Earth (ver 2 no 1)
Talking Coral Heads

Now we are going to introduce a twist. We've mentioned coral with previous dating mechanisms and we've now been through thorium dating, a common method for dating coral heads. Coral heads put down growth layers just like trees and other organic systems.

http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap15/coral.html (1)

quote:
Some species of corals have stony skeletons, consisting almost entirely of calcium carbonate (CaCO3), and the term coral is often applied to the skeletons themselves.... There are three kinds of this skeletal material, i.e. plate-like, branching, and 'massive' The last is rounded and bulky and proves to be useful for estimating past sea-surface temperatures (SST) in tropical regions.

X-ray examination reveals that massive coral has layers of different density, due to seasonal variations, like the annual rings of tree trunks. Counting of the density layers in large colonies of coral provides annual dating of the layers for several hundreds of years. Massive coral cores of the Porites type on Australia's Great Barrier Reef (GBR) have been dated back to 1479 AD.


So where's the twist? What else can coral tell us that these other systems and mechanisms can't? Those dates are pretty insignificant compared to the other data, right? The twist comes from ancient corals. Sure, one can assemble all the coral cores and align them by seasonal variations and piece together a database similar to the tree ring data bases we started with, but as it sits now there are not enough cores to assemble without significant gaps in between (I fully expect a complete database to be assembled over time).

For now we can assemble the bits and pieces, placing the ancient cores by dates derived from radiometric testing (thorium-230 is used for some), and while we can derive similar dates from two or more tests, this is hardly enough to impress people who still have some doubts about radiometric dating methods. Is there something else that will give us an independent confirmation?

The answer is yes, and it comes from the astrophysics of the earth-moon system.

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~springport/geology/coral_growth.html (2)

quote:
The other approach, radically different, involves the astronomical record. Astronomers seem to be generally agreed that while the period of the Earth's revolution around the Sun has been constant, its period of rotation on its polar axis, at present 24 h, has not been constant throughout Earth's history, and that there has been a deceleration attributable to the dissipation of rotational energy by tidal forces on the surface and in the interior, a slow-down of about 2 sec per 100,000 years according to the most recent estimates. It thus appears that the length of the day has been increasing throughout geological time and that the number of days in the year has been decreasing. At, the beginning of the Cambrian the length of the day would have been 21 h ...

The best of the limited fossil material I have examined so far is from the MiddleDevonian ... Diurnal and annual growth-rates vary in the same individual, adding to the complexity, but in every instance there are more than 365 growth -lines per annum. usually about 400, ranging between extremes of 385 and 410. It is probably too much, considering the crudity of these data, to expect a narrower range of values for the number of days in a year in the Middle Devonian; many more measurements will be necessary to refine them.

A few more data may be mentioned: Lophophllidium from the Pennsylvanian (Conemaugh) of western Pennsylvania gave 390 lines per annum, and Caninia from the Pennsylvanian of Texas, 385. These results imply that the number of days a year has decreased with the passage of time since the Devonian, as postulated by astronomers.


I also found this graphic on this website although it was not used in the article:


Click to enlarge

Original at http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~springport/geology/fig1wells.jpg (3)

This shows the smooth change in the length of days with time. The calculations based on just the astrophysics gives a 400 day/year figure for the Devonian and a 390 day/year figure for the Pennsylvanian, so there is very close accord between the predicted number of days, the measured number of days and the measured age of the fossil corals. These corals will be useful in anchoring the database of annual layers as it builds up a picture of climate change with age and extending, eventually, back into the Devonian period (360 to 408.5 million years ago).

The age of the earth >400,000,000 years based on this data.

At this point we have moved from hard evidence of actual years into other evidence, waiting for the hard evidence to fill in the gaps. This data correlates between astro-physics, biology and radioactivity. Any alternative explanation of any part of this data must also explain this three-way correlation.

Enjoy.



References:

  1. Geerts, B. and Linacre, E. "Estimating past sea-surface temperatures from corals" University of Wyoming Dept. of Atmospheric Science. Nov 1997. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap15/coral.html
  2. Wells, John W. "Coral Growth and Geochronometry" Nature 197, 948 - 950 (09 March 1963); doi:10.1038/197948a0. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from Coral Growth
  3. Wells, John W. - source of picture not known, found on website accessed 10 Jan 2007 from http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~springport/geology/fig1wells.jpg

What you have is a couple of fossil corals that date to 400 million years ago by radiometric dating, that are similar to ones alive today, that grow daily growth rings as well as annual growth rings.

Counting those daily growth rings for a whole year they end up with years that have too many days for growing on earth today.

Then we see that astronomy scientists have figured out the orbits and revolutions of the earth in the past, and that when you compare those projected numbers of days for the same time as the radiometric dates, you get the same number of days per year as were counted in the corals.

Thus two entirely different and completely independent methods of arriving at the ages of multiple samples a biological life all correlate to an astounding degree, and this evidence shows that the corals lived 400 million years ago, that life on earth is at least that old.

Again, however, this is off-topic for this discussion, so any replies should be directed to the Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) thread.

Now we return to Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood? and the fact that these deposits are not evidence of a biblical flood.

Enjoy.

Edited by Admin, : Shorten long link.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Jason777, posted 09-15-2008 3:53 PM Jason777 has taken no action

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 637 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 55 of 519 (483525)
09-22-2008 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Architect-426
09-22-2008 6:50 PM


flood == volcanic destruction?
Thanks ARCHITECT-426

I like this idea, could be fun and interesting. I spend most of my time in southern Tuscany, but its not too far from where Leonardo lived. I'll get one of my sons to work on tracking down his footsteps.

Take pictures.

I won't go into the "chapter and verse" that support this but will say the flood was a huge "dynamic" occurrence in which everything was destroyed (at least all terrestrial life), and this account is not only in the book of Genesis. The destruction was through various forms of volcanism that I mentioned earlier, and was not just a "rain event" that most people associate the great flood as being.

What I have read (though I am by no means any kind of authority) just uses the word "destroy" and leaves how much what to interpretation. I certainly do NOT see references to earthquakes and volcanoes, just rain and lots of water.

So yes, I need the "chapter and verse" to show that you are not inventing something that is not there. You need to show the verse in the greek myth that tells you where troy is located. Then we can look for troy to see if there is evidence for it.

Very heavy rain is a result of large phreatomagamatic eruptions, by the way.

Any evidence of this from known eruptions of this type? It seems that rainstorms preceded the eruptions of Mt St Helens, not the other way around.

We all have the same problem, so I could not agree more! For now lets just consider the geological veiwpoint. In order to fully understand the geologic time-clock, you must go to the beginnings. It started with classifying fossils, in layers, and went from there. Lord Kelvin first came up with the multi-billion year idea through calculating the cooling of the earth, but his calculations left out a huge factor, water! (don't get me wrong, he was absolutely brilliant). Then here comes c14, radiometric, argon-argon, etc. In a nutshell, the geologic time-clock was built upon because it was "accepted" and not often challenged until fairly recently.

And tested and tested to make sure the dating systems worked. These dating systems showed that Lord Kelvin was wrong for instance. He left out a huge factor, radioactivity. We also have evidence from uranium halos that show constant decay over hundreds of millions of years ... and from stars showing modern decay rates and isotopes 170,000 light years away.

... but I do concur with this statement, from a "old earth" geologist......

"There are many situations where radiometric dating is not possible, or where a dating attempt will be fraught with difficulty. This is the inevitable nature of rocks that have experienced millions of years of history: not all of them will preserve their age of origin intact, not every rock will have appropriate chemistry and mineralogy, no sample is perfect, and there is no dating method that can effectively date rocks of any age or rock type."

Well quotes have never proven to be facts, however I will note a couple of things:

It is possible to have uncertain dates, but the existence of these does not change the evidence of certain dates.

It is possible to have some things like fresh magma, date young ... in an old earth.

It is not possible to have some things date old in a young earth.

There is a LOT of evidence for an old earth, and a LOT of it correlates and confirms dates by several different independent methods.

It is not enough to have evidence FOR a concept if there is ANY evidence that contradicts it: you have to explain all the evidence.

I won't go into the problems with the methods above, (maybe another topic), ...

You could always try your hand at Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) (no creationist has explained the correlations yet) or look at Correlation Among Various Radiometric Ages, particularly Message 57. I don't think we need another thread, eh? There are several people here capable of questioning any answers answering any questions you have.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Architect-426, posted 09-22-2008 6:50 PM Architect-426 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Architect-426, posted 09-29-2008 7:00 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 637 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 69 of 519 (484614)
09-29-2008 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Architect-426
09-29-2008 7:00 PM


Re: flood == volcanic destruction? <---Big Time Super-Mega!!!
Thanks ARCHITECT-426,

Go back to Genesis chapter 6. It says that "all flesh" will be destroyed "with the earth", including the "creeping things" (insects). Now we all know that insects can certainly survive in/on water, could hold onto debris, etc. In order to "wipe out" all living things "with the earth", volcanism would certainly do the "trick".

Ah. So it is your interpretation that volcanism was used even though the bible does not explicitly so state.

Of course along with flood waters, earthquakes, etc. to complete the destruction and ultimately transform the face of the earth. This also has profound spiritual meaning in which I will not go into here.

Again, I see no mention of earthquakes, nor of transformation, just flood water.

The personal accounts of the event are horrific to say the least.

And interestingly, none of these kind of accounts are recorded in the flood story, as far as I can remember: please cite your chapter and verse for that evidence.

Volcanism is highly complex and extremely powerful, and the main ingredient is WATER. In a phreatic type of eruption, steam is ejected thus causing heavy torrential downpours. Study the events that took place during the eruption of Krakatoa.... Ships encountered heavy rain (ash as well) along with hurricane force winds, tsunamis (felt all the way in Africa). Also note LAND WAS LOST....quickly.

That happens when you have an explosion.

http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/Krakatau.html

quote:
THE CATACLYSMIC EVENTS OF AUGUST 26-27
... This frightening display of volcanic power would culminate in a series of at least four stupendous eruptions that began at 5:30 a.m., climaxing in a colossal blast that literally blew Krakatau apart. ...
ENORMOUS SEA WAVES
... Eyewitness accounts of the massive waves came from passengers of the Loudon, ...
PYROCLASTIC AIRFALL AND DEVASTING PYROCLASTIC FLOWS
... Over the ensuing months, storms ...
... On August 27, the Louden (see above) was located ~65 km north-northeast of Krakatau when it was struck by severe winds and tephra, and the W.H. Besse was located at ~80 km east-northeast of Krakatau when it was hit by hurricane-force winds, heavy tephra, and the strong smell of sulfur. At these greater distances, the pyroclastic flows were at lower temperatures so that the ships and crew survived. ...
ATMOSPHERIC EFFECTS
... Tephra from the eruption fell as far as 2,500 km downwind in the days following the eruption. However, the finest fragments were propelled high into the stratosphere, spreading outward as a broad cloud across the entire equatorial belt in only two weeks. These particles would remain suspended in the atmosphere for years, propogating farther to the north and south before finally dissipating. ...

Curiously, no mention of rain during any of the blasts or by the survivors of the tsunamis. Strong winds and sulfur smells yes, rain no.

quote:
How is it possible for pyroclastic flows to travel such great distances? Pyroclastic flows are hot mixtures of solid particles and expanding volcanic gases. While advancing over water, the base of the flow will conert the water to steam. The rapid expansion of water to vapor greatly enhances flow fluidization and inhibits the deposition of particles, particularly the low-density pumiceous particles, thus allowing the flow to travel tens of kilometers over flat oceanic waters. This mobility was first recognized during the 1902 eruption of a pyroclastic flow from Mt. Pelée, which destroyed the coastal city of St. Pierre, only to continue across open waters to overturn and burn ships anchored several kilometers offshore.

Strangely the source of the water here is the existing ocean, not the volcano.

Now take this event, say times 1,000, and apply it in dozens of regions all over the globe. You get massive rain, massive tsunamis, massive loss of land, massive fissure type eruptions, massive mountains, massive quakes, earth debris mixed with super-heated water and hard shelled aquatic "critters" turning into layers of rock and fossils, etc.....

Give each of your 1000 krakatoas an 80 km radius and you cover 1000 x pi(80)^2 = 20,106,193 sq km

Surface of the earth = 510,072,000 sq km or 25.4 times as much area, and even at 65 km the forces of destruction from the volcano were survivable.

And the only land "destroyed" was the immediate island: the adjoining islands are still there, nor was there a noticable rise in the average level of the sea, so it looks like you would need a LOT more krakatoas than just a 1000. They would have to be so close together that a little rain would NOT be what people were talking about when they reminisced about their survival.

There is also no evidence from Krakatoa OR Mt St Helens of shells being tossed out onto land (bringing us back circuitously to the original topic thesis of shells on mountain tops and explanations for them being there).

Regarding your comments on the age of the earth/rocks (thanks by the way for the link to the other thread, it looks like you guys have that one well covered)... for me the "show stopper" is simply the beginning assumptions that are made of "known conditions" prior to the "eruption" of the rock and that their "clocks" are reset to zero. This is the "foundation" if you will of radiometric dating. So if the foundation is flawed, the results will therefore be riddled with flaws. Someone can show me detailed calculations all day long, but I will say "back to the drawing board folks". Someone can probably prod

Sorry, I don't need to show you calculations, just correlations: if you can't explain all the evidence and why it correlates then you cannot explain how the earth could be young.

see Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III), starting with baby steps: counting tree rings and correlating them with climate. I'll be glad to talk about any "show stoppers" you think you see there (not on this thread).

The other factors probably no one is considering (maybe this should be moved to the other thread) may not be as "scientific" but certainly have profound effects on science;
POLITICS
THE MORTGAGE
THE BIG SHIP
LIABILITY

Ah yes, the old world wide conspiracy theory. The all scientists are frauds theory. The no honest scientist theory.

Yes, a new thread could be interesting: why do so many people go to a conspiracy theory FIRST when something doesn't fit their world view? JFK, 9/11/CIA, the 2000/2004 vote, the "vast right wing conspiracy", the "left-wing media" conspiracy, and the YEC perennial favorite, the science conspiracy.

Of course the other alternative is the reality that the earth IS in FACT old.

So we still have not explained how floods, even with volcanoes, produce the quantity of marine fossils found on the mountaintops, NOR the fact that they are found in layer after layer after layer of undisturbed mature marine ecological systems, complete with delicate structures.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Architect-426, posted 09-29-2008 7:00 PM Architect-426 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Architect-426, posted 10-15-2008 5:53 PM RAZD has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022