Age of mankind, dating, and the flood

According to physicists the dating techniques are perfectly good, an assertion which they base on completely different laws of nature from those governing evolution. "Admire the sound of a vast audience applauding each independently and yet all in perfect unison." --- Me.

However he likely does believe that the sun and moon are only 6000 years old given that those things were created just a few days before Adam.Still fairly silly.

It's even more than that. According to the published research, all those different types of physicists, all those different types of chemists, cosmologists, mineralogists, crystallographers, geochemists, geochronologists, sedimentologists, other geologists etc., find the dating techniques of 'rocks' are very reliable.It's called conscilience. Then those life science scientists also provide evidence for very similar answers.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

You can't just submerge plants in water for extended amounts of time and expect that they're going to be okay. Yes, plants like water, but as any experienced gardener will tell you, it is possible to kill them by overwatering. Quite possible.Floods - even normal, regular, non-global floods - can be devastating to plant life.University of Wisconsin SystemYou also have to take into account that light can only penetrate so far underwater - most light can't get more than about 200 meters through water, and that's assuming that it's clear, which it probably wouldn't be in the flood. So most of the plants on the planet wouldn't be getting any sunlight for the better part of the year.So, we take into the account extreme flooding conditions, the lack of sunlight...oh, and lest we forget, the extreme crushing pressure from being covered by miles of water. I would say...yes, Noah should have walked out to a barren wasteland.You don't find any plants at the bottom of the ocean. There's a reason for that.

Welcome to the fray Ed67, So you're a "gap" creationist. Interesting.Still doesn't help you with 14C dating methods that extend back to ~40,000 years and validated by annual layer counting methods, tree rings and lake varves. See Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 for details and further discussion. Dating techniques come from a number of different disciplines and they corroborate each other with surprising accuracy.Tree rings along go back 12,000 years. See Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 for details and further discussion.What we see in the fossil record is explained by the Theory of Evolution -- that is one of the things that theories do, explain objective evidence. Another is make predictions, such as where and what age rocks an intermediate form between fish and tetrapod would be found -- see Tiktaalik. An intermediate shows traits that are between ancestral populations (fish in this case) and descendant populations (tetrapods in this case).Evolution predicts intermediate species, intermediate species have been found in many lineages.The objective evidence tests and validates the Theory of Evolution as the best available explanation of all the evidence. Where did you get the idea that "the FLOOD" actually occurred? Do you have any evidence for it?

More like a floodscape. We see them all the time - after every flood.You can do the experiment yourself: Build a dike around your lawn and keep it flooded with water for a year. You'll see what Noah saw when he stepped out of the ark.

Look at what happens to the vegetation everytime a reservoir is filled. Trees die even when their branches aren't covered.

As long as you are not dating human artifacts and fossils, where is the conflict? He says that he believes the earth is billions of years old? So why does he care about how old rocks and trees are?

You don't even really have to do that. If you have a lawn, you probably have one or two spots on it that pool up with whatever whenever it rains - I know my lawn does. There's a particular spot that always gets flooded after any significant rain. Nothing really grows in it. Occasionally a few blades of grass might start to pop up, but then it just gets flood again.

Can anyone with knowledge of the subject help me to refute the claims of this article? (i don't mean by questioning the validity of the source, i mean with science)http://www.maltanow.com.mt/?p=2927It makes extraordinary claims about the age of mankind and about archaeological finds embedded in coal.

First go to TalkOrigins Pratt list: An Index to Creationist Claimsthen search the topics, for instance

quote:

---

CC100: Human fossils are out of place.

​

CC101. Human footprints have been found with dinosaur tracks at Paluxy.
CC102. Sandal footprints have been found associated with trilobites.
CC110. Moab man was found in Cretaceous sandstone.
CC111. Malachite man was found in Cretaceous sandstone.
CC112. Castenedolo, Olmo, and Calaveras skulls were found in Pliocene strata.
CC120. Baugh found a fossilized finger from the Cretaceous.
CC130. A petrified hammer was found in Cretaceous rocks.
CC131. An iron pot was found encased in Carboniferous coal.

---

Seems there are lots of such "finds" in creation-world ...CC130: Petrified hammer?

quote:

---

Claim CC130:
An iron hammer with wooden handle was found embedded in rock in Cretaceous sediments (or Ordovician, by some accounts) near London, Texas. The enclosing rock contains Lower Cretaceous fossils.
Source:
Patton, Don, n.d. Fossilized hammer. http://www.bible.ca/tracks/fossilized-hammer.htm
Response:

​

1. The hammer is encrusted with calcium carbonate, which can happen quickly. The fossils are in nearby rocks, not part of the material encrusting the hammer. There is no evidence that the hammer is more than a few decades old.

​

Links:
Kuban, Glen J. 1997. The London hammer: An alleged out-of-place artifact. http://paleo.cc/paluxy/hammer.htm

​

Matson, Dave E. 1994. How good are those young-earth arguments? How Good are those Young-Earth Arguments: Geologic Column
Further Reading:
Cole, John R. 1985. If I had a hammer. Creation/Evolution 5(1): 46-47.

---

Other items in the article are of similar vein: hoaxes perpetuated on the gullible by shysters. See Scientific vs Creationist Frauds and Hoaxes for more.Meanwhile we can also look at the evidence for age of the earth via annual counting systems (tree rings etc) in Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1. The evidence that the earth is old is very extensive, comes from a variety of scientific disciplines and the results are consilient with each other.Enjoy.

At the heart of all of these kinds of claims is the assumption that coal or other deposits cannot form around an artifact in a short time. Just how plausible is that assumption? If you are reading an anecdote, no matter how truthful the teller, is there enough detail to tell the difference between an ancient lump of coal or an artifact with some sedimentary (from coal) encrustation or other formation of material around it?The article you link to concludes that there is no explanation and that all of the evidence is hushed up. Does the article provide any support for such a conclusion? Or are you supposed to already know that evolution is perpetrated by liars from the Pits of Hell (tm).

Or is the handle partly charred ... it wouldn't be the first time creationists have mixed up charcoal with coal.Enjoy

Concerning Carl Baugh's hammer, refutation would be easy if Carl would allow the wood in the handle to be radiocarbon dated by independent researchers. He won't, but even within Baugh's closed world there's evidence he's wrong. In 1997 Baugh supporter David Lines' website reported that radiocarbon dating results showed the hammer's handle to range from 0 to 700 years old, far younger than the flood and consistent with exactly what it looks like, a hammer from the 18th or 19th century. See The London Hammer: An Alleged Out-of-Place Artifact.--Percy

- Not all humans died during the flood.
- The flood did not cover all land, mostly the coastal areas were the first civilizations were created.
- Although scientists invent fictional scenarios, historical data from previous civilizations put the flood around 10-13,000 years ago.