Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8951 total)
459 online now:
DrJones*, Faith, PaulK, RAZD, Tangle, Taq, vimesey (7 members, 452 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,697 Year: 21,733/19,786 Month: 296/1,834 Week: 296/315 Day: 52/77 Hour: 1/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood?
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20323
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 46 of 518 (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 not yet responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 47 of 518 (482318)
09-15-2008 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Jason777
09-15-2008 3:53 PM


Advice for you Jason
Others have gone to considerable trouble to show you a tiny part of the evidence for an old earth.

It is now up to you to actually deal with that evidence. If you dance around and avoid it you will not be allowed to bring up any mention of a young earth again. If you want to suggest a young earth you have to deal with evidence presented to you that it is not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Jason777, posted 09-15-2008 3:53 PM Jason777 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Jason777, posted 09-17-2008 7:58 PM AdminNosy has responded

  
Jason777
Member (Idle past 3205 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 48 of 518 (482753)
09-17-2008 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by AdminNosy
09-15-2008 8:21 PM


Re: Advice for you Jason
Sorry about that.As i've told others earlier this is the Geology and the great flood forum and not the place to argue over old earth dating methods that thousands of people have refuted millions of times.

The relavence to the actual thread is their are only a couple of thousand years of actual clam growth on the himalayas and how that can be used in the biblical flood model.

You can reference the dates and dating forums for further information.

Thanks.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by AdminNosy, posted 09-15-2008 8:21 PM AdminNosy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Coragyps, posted 09-17-2008 8:27 PM Jason777 has not yet responded
 Message 50 by AdminNosy, posted 09-17-2008 9:05 PM Jason777 has responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5410
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 49 of 518 (482757)
09-17-2008 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Jason777
09-17-2008 7:58 PM


Re: Advice for you Jason
The relavence to the actual thread is their are only a couple of thousand years of actual clam growth on the himalayas

And let's ignore the facts about those fossils - that they've been metamorphosed parway to marble by being heated to several hundred degrees while under a few thousands of atmospheres of pressure - miles below the surface. And then exhumed by plate motion and erosion. Erosion of miles of hard rock. All after your Fludde.


"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Jason777, posted 09-17-2008 7:58 PM Jason777 has not yet responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 50 of 518 (482762)
09-17-2008 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Jason777
09-17-2008 7:58 PM


Staying on Topic
Sorry about that.As i've told others earlier this is the Geology and the great flood forum and not the place to argue over old earth dating methods that thousands of people have refuted millions of times.

Thank you. The way it works here is if you have an important point you take it to an existing appropriate thread or you propose a new one.

Since dating is crucial to a lot of other things it is indeed important.

You might start by reading this thread:
Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III)

If you think they are refuted then that is the thread you should show it in. Note, you have to answer all the correlations. You have to explain why so many independent lines of evidence agree so well.

If you can do that you will be the first. The first, not just here, but anywhere. The probable reason that YECers stay away from that thread is that there isn't anywhere on the web they can find answers. The problems for you raised there by RAZD are simply ignored by the YECy web sites.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Jason777, posted 09-17-2008 7:58 PM Jason777 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Jason777, posted 09-18-2008 12:13 AM AdminNosy has not yet responded

  
Jason777
Member (Idle past 3205 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 51 of 518 (482782)
09-18-2008 12:07 AM


Catastrophic evidence in the tapeats sandstone
www.grisda.org/origins/05039.htm - 26k

Percy,
Here is a link to see some of the granite boulders,etc.

Thanks

{Off-topic material hidden - Adminnemooseus}

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic material hidden (try 2).


  
Jason777
Member (Idle past 3205 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 52 of 518 (482784)
09-18-2008 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by AdminNosy
09-17-2008 9:05 PM


Re: Staying on Topic
Thanks.

I never did get my PHD in nuclear physics so i usualy just quote from sources who are qualified to do so.But since you offered it as an impossible challenge i might just take you up on it.(hahaha).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by AdminNosy, posted 09-17-2008 9:05 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

  
Architect-426
Member (Idle past 2957 days)
Posts: 76
From: NC, USA
Joined: 07-16-2008


Message 53 of 518 (483494)
09-22-2008 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by RAZD
09-15-2008 7:51 PM


Re: How long under water is the issue here.
Hi Razd, I only have a few moments to spare so I will have to keep my responses brief for now.

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?

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.

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?

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

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.

They would certainly die, but may not be completely destroyed. What we mainly see are trace fossils i.e. the shape or imprints. It is possible that they can be ejected from an eruption fairly intact. A volcano in Peru sucked up a lake, erupted the water and left a town littered with dead fish. (Gieke, A Textbook of Geology) Also, there is an abundance of life very deep. Some of the trilobites are blind, so they could have certainly been living in deep, subterraneal seas or bodies of water that were ejected onto the surface in huge eruptions. They would then harden along with other ejecta into rocks, and the rocks then layer as they dry (stratification phenomena).

You also hit a key term "metamorphic", the earth during this event metamorphed. It was completely and forever changed, this is also in Scripture, and supported by science. During the event land was destroyed, mountains rose, valleys sank, etc. My favorite science is dynamic geology (the study of volcanism and earthquakes).

The problem I have is that geology and archeology and paleontology and astronomy all have evidence....

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

I will have to go back to your initial topic quote sometime later.

Ciao for now.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by RAZD, posted 09-15-2008 7:51 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Coragyps, posted 09-22-2008 7:45 PM Architect-426 has responded
 Message 55 by RAZD, posted 09-22-2008 10:53 PM Architect-426 has responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5410
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 54 of 518 (483502)
09-22-2008 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Architect-426
09-22-2008 6:50 PM


Re: How long under water is the issue here.
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!

Well, no. Kelvin came up with ages from 20 million to 100 million years for the earth - a tenth of a billion at most. And the factor he left out - because it wasn't discovered until he was an old man - was radioactivity and the heat it generates. And all the water on earth isn't enough to change the heat balance much - it makes up perhaps 0.025% of the total mass.

And a year's worth of getting wet won't metamorphose rocks like the ones on Everest. A few million years at several hundrer degrees C with a great deal of pressure is what you're looking for.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Architect-426, posted 09-29-2008 5:46 PM Coragyps has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20323
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 55 of 518 (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 responded

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

  
Architect-426
Member (Idle past 2957 days)
Posts: 76
From: NC, USA
Joined: 07-16-2008


Message 56 of 518 (484583)
09-29-2008 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Coragyps
09-22-2008 7:45 PM


Re: How long under water is the issue here.
Hi Coragyps,

I stand corrected, my source states he came up with 98 million years, so he was one of the first to come up with "multi-million" years. Sorry about that.

The amount of water "estimated" is grossly underestimated. The continents are saturated with water, not to mention deep subterranean water. During the deepest exploration drilling to date, to much of their surprise scientists found water 6 miles deep. The earths mantle could very well be full of super-heated/super-critical water, which brings up another interesting fact....The formation of magma requires water as a flux, further proof of abyssal water.

Absolutely the Himalayas and other mountains are formed via tremendous pressure (vertical) and temperature. Volcanism can raise mountains quickly and have all the ingredients of temperature, pressure, explosive dynamics, etc.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Coragyps, posted 09-22-2008 7:45 PM Coragyps has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by JonF, posted 09-29-2008 6:22 PM Architect-426 has responded
 Message 65 by Coragyps, posted 09-29-2008 9:37 PM Architect-426 has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5596
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 57 of 518 (484585)
09-29-2008 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Architect-426
09-29-2008 5:46 PM


Re: How long under water is the issue here.
I stand corrected, my source states he came up with 98 million years, so he was one of the first to come up with "multi-million" years. Sorry about that.

He was far from the first. Benoit de Maillet estimated greater than 2 billion years in 1748, and many other investigors independently came up with widely varying estimates before radioactivity was discovered. Pre-1900 Non-Religious Estimates of the Age of the Earth.

The amount of water "estimated" is grossly underestimated. The continents are saturated with water, not to mention deep subterranean water. During the deepest exploration drilling to date, to much of their surprise scientists found water 6 miles deep. The earths mantle could very well be full of super-heated/super-critical water, which brings up another interesting fact....The formation of magma requires water as a flux, further proof of abyssal water.

It's not water in a form available for flooding.

Absolutely the Himalayas and other mountains are formed via tremendous pressure (vertical) and temperature. Volcanism can raise mountains quickly and have all the ingredients of temperature, pressure, explosive dynamics, etc.

Vulcanism can raise mountains relatively quickly. The vast majority of mountains, including the Himalayas, are not volcanic and bear many marks of having taken millions of years to form.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Architect-426, posted 09-29-2008 5:46 PM Architect-426 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Architect-426, posted 10-08-2008 12:41 AM JonF has not yet responded

  
Architect-426
Member (Idle past 2957 days)
Posts: 76
From: NC, USA
Joined: 07-16-2008


Message 58 of 518 (484588)
09-29-2008 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by RAZD
09-22-2008 10:53 PM


Re: flood == volcanic destruction? <---Big Time Super-Mega!!!
Hi Razd,

Yes, I will take some photos if I have time to journey on some of his paths (I'll take photos anyhow). By the way, this summer my clan dug up quite a few fossils at my cousins ranch in Texas. Mainly shells, ammonites, and various pieces that appear to be bones. I will be glad to take photos of those and post them if they may be of interest.

Back on the subject of destruction....

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". 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.

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

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.....

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 produce calculations that the Empire State Building can turn a backflip......but you and I know the reality of that happening.

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 - Yes, good 'ol politics, especially university politics will affect the work of scientists. Gotta keep the funding for the research...

THE MORTGAGE - If you don't think this has anything to do with scientific results think again. If you are a geologists wanting to advance your career and pay the mortgage, you will play the "old earth" game to make your peers look good and to solidify what you have been taught. If you don't, your job might be in jeopardy and the mortgage might not get paid.....its a game of "lets make each other look good here".....

THE BIG SHIP - What the??? The big "geology ship" has been launched and its TOO BIG and the earth is TOO OLD to turn around! Yes, it would be a HUGE embarrassment to the profession if they admitted the results were off. "We have told too many people, written too many books, articles, museums etc, etc.....lets just keep feeding the public with the million-billion scenario and they won't be able to refute it..."

LIABILITY - Now when was the last time you heard of a geologist sitting in a court room getting sued over stating the earth, and its formations are millions-billions of years old? A geologists can say "the Rockies are 70 millions years old" and to everyone else they say "man thats old" and life goes on. You have to admit it sounds cool to say something is millions of years old. Now if you are an Engineer, Architect, Doctor, and you make a mistake, and peoples lives are at risk, believe me you will end up facing the bench. So what we put on paper better darn well work, no guessing or "fudging it".

All right enough for now. I'm sure this post will heat things up a bit.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by RAZD, posted 09-22-2008 10:53 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Coyote, posted 09-29-2008 8:19 PM Architect-426 has responded
 Message 69 by RAZD, posted 09-29-2008 11:46 PM Architect-426 has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 441 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 59 of 518 (484594)
09-29-2008 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Architect-426
09-29-2008 7:00 PM


Re: flood == volcanic destruction? <---Big Time Super-Mega!!!
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.....

Don't forget, this all happened about 4,350 years ago, not in geological time millions of years ago.

You are dealing with sediments (soils) at that age, not rocks. You don't care a whit what trilobites, mountains, or marine deposits did or didn't do. At this very recent age you must look to archaeologists and sedimentologists, not geologists, for your evidence.

I know of no archaeological evidence for a worldwide flood, let alone the kinds of other catastrophies you describe at 4,350 years ago.

Besides, you would think that the Egyptians and other early civilizations would have noticed. They weren't wiped out, nor did they report being flooded out and destroyed.

Face it, the idea of a global flood 4,350 years ago is a religious belief, one that is contradicted by the overwhelming evidence of science.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by IchiBan, posted 09-29-2008 8:28 PM Coyote has responded
 Message 96 by Architect-426, posted 10-15-2008 6:34 PM Coyote has responded

  
IchiBan
Member (Idle past 3272 days)
Posts: 88
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 60 of 518 (484595)
09-29-2008 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Coyote
09-29-2008 8:19 PM


Re: flood == volcanic destruction? <---Big Time Super-Mega!!!
Why are you stuck on a date of 4,350 years ago?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Coyote, posted 09-29-2008 8:19 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Coyote, posted 09-29-2008 9:01 PM IchiBan has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019