A Deluge of Evidence for the Flood?

[LittlePig]

And I can't think of any reason you would make the comment you made if you weren't suggesting that the find favored your view of a worldwide flood.

Umm, because simply it's a better explanation? And the fact that it's more consistent with the Flood Model doesn't hurt either.

Except, of course, it isn't consistent with a 'Flood Model', since it isn't mixed in with any animals that we know are modern.

Before the rabbits multiply beyond control, I'll just leave my proposal as a rapid burial. Nothing more than that. For this thread, it can just be a giant mud slide.

Since it's still spring time, let's let the rabbits multiply.

Questions for Debate:

1) Does a Global Flood Model provide the best explanation for our current fossil record, geologic formations, and biodiversity?

2) What real science is used in Global Flood Models?

3) What predictions does a Global Flood Model make?

4) Have Global Flood Models ever been subjected to a formal peer review process?

[Goat]

But the very BASIS of your argument is grounded in misunderstanding of science!

If I've presented any evidence or argument that are faulty, you are free to present your counter-evidence or counter-argument. But to simply say I "misunderstand science" has no debate value.

I believe micatala did quite the adequate job of showing how your analsyis of the ice cores is faulty.

However, the thread is 'lets try to refute the evidence against a global flood', but rather is a a 'deluge of evidence for the Flood'.

Where is the evidence for a flood?

[otseng]

I believe micatala did quite the adequate job of showing how your analsyis of the ice cores is faulty.

I had not actually given ice cores much thought before this thread. But now after debating it, I see it even less of a problem for the FM than before.

However, the thread is 'lets try to refute the evidence against a global flood', but rather is a a 'deluge of evidence for the Flood'.

Where is the evidence for a flood?

I agree in principle with what you're saying. But, it was not me that brought up ice cores. Since it was brought up as a counterargument, we had to delve into that. However, we can move on to other areas if interest in ice cores has waned.

[Goat]

I believe micatala did quite the adequate job of showing how your analsyis of the ice cores is faulty.

I had not actually given ice cores much thought before this thread. But now after debating it, I see it even less of a problem for the FM than before.

I would like you actually respond to any of micata's information about it, because you seem to be unable to respond to his points. There is also the method of the radiometric dating of the oxygen in the core samples. From the information that
Micatla has shown, it is even more of a problem than I had thought.

However, the thread is 'lets try to refute the evidence against a global flood', but rather is a a 'deluge of evidence for the Flood'.

Where is the evidence for a flood?

I agree in principle with what you're saying. But, it was not me that brought up ice cores. Since it was brought up as a counterargument, we had to delve into that. However, we can move on to other areas if interest in ice cores has waned.

Ok.. How do you counter the fact that one of the methods of cross checking is the radiometric dating of the oxygen in the layer, and that for the older layers, this cross checks very accurately?

A view on how the dating words above and beyond mere visual checking can be found http://www.asa3.org/ASA/RESOURCES/WIENS.html#page.%2016

This organisation of scientists who are Christian shows it

Mind you, the data is a bit obsolete, because the age has been extended backwards by another 400,000 years, but it explains the methology

Ice Cores. One of the best ways to measure farther back in time than tree rings is by using the seasonal variations in polar ice from Greenland and Antarctica. There are a number of differences between snow layers made in winter and those made in spring, summer, and fall. These seasonal layers can be counted just like tree rings. The seasonal differences consist of a) visual differences caused by increased bubbles and larger crystal size from summer ice compared to winter ice, b) dust layers deposited each summer, c) nitric acid concentrations, measured by electrical conductivity of the ice, d) chemistry of contaminants in the ice, and e) seasonal variations in the relative amounts of heavy hydrogen (deuterium) and heavy oxygen (oxygen-18) in the ice. These isotope ratios are sensitive to the temperature at the time they fell as snow from the clouds. The heavy isotope is lower in abundance during the colder winter snows than it is in snow falling in spring and summer. So the yearly layers of ice can be tracked by each of these five different indicators, similar to growth rings on trees. The different types of layers are summarized in Table III.

Page 17

Ice cores are obtained by drilling very deep holes in the ice caps on Greenland and Antarctica with specialized drilling rigs. As the rigs drill down, the drill bits cut around a portion of the ice, capturing a long undisturbed "core" in the process. These cores are carefully brought back to the surface in sections, where they are catalogued, and taken to research laboratories under refrigeration. A very large amount of work has been done on several deep ice cores up to 9,000 feet in depth. Several hundred thousand measurements are sometimes made for a single technique on a single ice core.

A continuous count of layers exists back as far as 160,000 years. In addition to yearly layering, individual strong events (such as large-scale volcanic eruptions) can be observed and correlated between ice cores. A number of historical eruptions as far back as Vesuvius nearly 2,000 years ago serve as benchmarks with which to determine the accuracy of the yearly layers as far down as around 500 meters. As one goes further down in the ice core, the ice becomes more compacted than near the surface, and individual yearly layers are slightly more difficult to observe. For this reason, there is some uncertainty as one goes back towards 100,000 years. Ages of 40,000 years or less are estimated to be off by 2% at most. Ages of 60,000 years may be off by up to 10%, and the uncertainty rises to 20% for ages of 110,000 years based on direct counting of layers (D. Meese et al., J. Geophys. Res. 102, 26,411, 1997). Recently, absolute ages have been determined to 75,000 years for at least one location using cosmogenic radionuclides chlorine-36 and beryllium-10 (G. Wagner et al., Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 193, 515, 2001). These agree with the ice flow models and the yearly layer counts. Note that there is no indication anywhere that these ice caps were ever covered by a large body of water, as some people with young-Earth views would expect.

Table III. Polar ice core layers, counting back yearly layers, consist of the following:

Visual Layers


Summer ice has more bubbles and larger crystal sizes


Observed to 60,000 years ago

Dust Layers


Measured by laser light scattering; most dust is deposited during spring and summer


Observed to 160,000 years ago

Layering of Elec-trical Conductivity


Nitric acid from the stratosphere is deposited in the springtime, and causes a yearly layer in electrical conductivity measurement


Observed through 60,000 years ago

Contaminant Chemistry Layers


Soot from summer forest fires, chemistry of dust, occasional volcanic ash


Observed through 2,000 years; some older eruptions noted

Hydrogen and Oxygen Isotope Layering


Indicates temperature of precipitation. Heavy isotopes (oxygen-18 and deuterium) are depleted more in winter.


Yearly layers observed through 1,100 years; Trends observed much farther back in time

[micatala]

I believe micatala did quite the adequate job of showing how your analsyis of the ice cores is faulty.

I had not actually given ice cores much thought before this thread. But now after debating it, I see it even less of a problem for the FM than before.

However, the thread is 'lets try to refute the evidence against a global flood', but rather is a a 'deluge of evidence for the Flood'.

Where is the evidence for a flood?

I agree in principle with what you're saying. But, it was not me that brought up ice cores. Since it was brought up as a counterargument, we had to delve into that. However, we can move on to other areas if interest in ice cores has waned.

Just for the record, I believe it was me who brought up ice cores.

I have to say, I find it astonishing that, after the last number of pages, you find ice cores less of a problem than before. I understand you may not have had time to investigate all of the information provided, but I certainly have found even more reason to dismiss the flood than I did before. It had previously been my impression that ice cores could put the date of the flood back about to at least 120,000 years. This date is not only very safe, but we can actually reasonably put it to over half a million years ago based on the oldest cores.



However, I will suggest we leave the ice cores behind and go back to the grand canyon at this point.





Now, previously otseng had held that the strength of the FM was that it could predict globally how the sedimentary layers looked. otseng had also previously claimed that all the layers above the oldest basalt layers were as a result of the flood.


Going back to page 58, we have this portion of Post #572 by otseng. (We started debating ice cores around page 60)

Here's another image that gives a better perspective:


http://www.jamesgunderson.com/roadtrip2/default2.asp

This diagram shows that a huge section of layers were formed first. Then folding. Then fault and erosion. There is little evidence of folding while all the layers were formed. And there is little evidence of erosion between the layers while all the layers were formed.

*************************

However, in the case of the FM, it is able to make a generalized prediction without even knowing about the particular location. On this basis, the FM prediction is more powerful.

I responded a bit later as follows, again as part of the longer Post #577

You keep pointing to this expectation that the SG should include the possibility that there are layers formed, then folds in these layers, then layers on top of these. We agree.

Not only a possibility, but this should be the norm and not the exception.

Again, I see absolutely no reason to jump to the conclusion that what you are looking for should be "the norm and not the exception." You are making a huge assumption about what the SG should lead to, not taking into account the length of time required for formations, how often and where techtonic forces create folding and faultings, etc.

I had also pointed out the following:

Note that in the "Grand Staircase" picture you provided, there are two smaller regions of layers that have faulted and slid past each other towards the bottom right where the canyon is. The rightmost of these two is labelled 1 and 2 in the more zoomed in graphic. Then we have layers on top of these.

As for the Grand Canyon Supergroup, I admit that I do not have a final answer for this.

otseng alluded to Walter Brown's explanation for this, and then said:

I deviate from this and think that the supergroup existed preflood. Faulting of the supergroup resulted from tectonic activity when the crust got split. Layering then occurred on top of the faulted pre-existing sedimentary Precambrian rocks.

One reason I believe the supergroup existed preflood is that there are no multicellular fossils found in the supergroup. If it got formed during the flood, there should exist fossils just like the rest of the sedimentary stratas.

I would point out two things.

One is that we now have layers not being layed down during the flood, counter to otseng's previous statement.


Second and more importantly, we have an example which destroys one of otseng's central claims concerning the strength of the FM. otseng has consistently criticized the SG for not being able to make global predictions without alluding to the particular circumstances present in an area. He has consistently touted the FM's ability to do just this.

And yet, when we look at the evidence, the FM now has to create some kind of ad hoc explanation for this particular situation. It seems that the FM is, contrary to claims, really no better than the SG regarding the FM's central claim to superiority over the SG.




I also note that otseng refers to the fossil record here. We are told there are not microfossils in these tilted layers and so this leads otseng to believe these layers were laid down before the flood. Now, how these layers got to be how they are due to a flood raises huge questions. I will leave those for a subsequent post.

In another subsequent post, we will get back to the fossil record in this record. I have already posted some information on this previously, showing how the record is not consistent with the FM. I will have more to say about this as well soon.

[Grumpy]

micatala

You seem to be doing a very good job refuting the FM. I do not have the patience, nor can I contain my temper long enough to go through the myriad hoops. Osteng is a very accomplished debater, too bad he is so stubborn in recognizing when his cause has been lost. Your supurb documentation and argument on the ice cores alone falsifys the FM(at least for the last half million years), the information on the Grand Canyon has already forced him to back and fill. Carry on, I will follow with interest and comment as I feel necessary.

Grumpy

[otseng]

Ok.. How do you counter the fact that one of the methods of cross checking is the radiometric dating of the oxygen in the layer, and that for the older layers, this cross checks very accurately?

I thought you wanted to move on to other issues besides discussing ice cores more. If you really want to continue discussing ice cores, I'm willing to answer this.

[otseng]

I have to say, I find it astonishing that, after the last number of pages, you find ice cores less of a problem than before. I understand you may not have had time to investigate all of the information provided, but I certainly have found even more reason to dismiss the flood than I did before. It had previously been my impression that ice cores could put the date of the flood back about to at least 120,000 years. This date is not only very safe, but we can actually reasonably put it to over half a million years ago based on the oldest cores.

Why do I say it is less of a problem? There are a myriad of assumptions that ice core dating is based on. And having looked at the evidence, it does not support the assumptions.

However, I will suggest we leave the ice cores behind and go back to the grand canyon at this point.

We can do that.

Again, I see absolutely no reason to jump to the conclusion that what you are looking for should be "the norm and not the exception." You are making a huge assumption about what the SG should lead to, not taking into account the length of time required for formations, how often and where techtonic forces create folding and faultings, etc.

Yes, I have offered my prediction for what SG should make. I realize that you all do not accept my prediction. But I have not seen a counter prediction. Or if it was presented, I missed it.

One is that we now have layers not being layed down during the flood, counter to otseng's previous statement.

I do not believe I've claimed that all the layers were formed by the flood.

I have stated "In the Flood Model, practically all the stratas were formed within a short period (on the order of months)."
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 090#241090

And yet, when we look at the evidence, the FM now has to create some kind of ad hoc explanation for this particular situation. It seems that the FM is, contrary to claims, really no better than the SG regarding the FM's central claim to superiority over the SG.

Again, I do admit that I do not have a final answer for this. But, I don't necessarily see it as ad hoc, since if the supergroup were not formed by the flood, then the FM does not need to explain how it formed.

One reason I am hesitant in my explanation for the supergroup/unconformity is that I'm challenging Brown's explanation. But, I believe the evidence shows that the supergroup was not formed during the flood.

One reason for this is the lack of buried animals and plants in the supergroup. Also on Brown's website, he has an image of "quartzite block was transported in a sliding sedimentary slurry above the Cambrian-Precambrian interface".


http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... tion7.html

The quartzite block was must've been solid rock when it was transported. There could not have been enough time for the supergroup if it was formed during the flood to lithify and become solid rock before the above layers were deposited.

Also, how can this image be explained by SG? How could layers have formed around a block of rock?

We are told there are not microfossils in these tilted layers and so this leads otseng to believe these layers were laid down before the flood.

For clarification, I said "no multicellular fossils" not no "microfossils".

[nygreenguy]

Why do I say it is less of a problem? There are a myriad of assumptions that ice core dating is based on. And having looked at the evidence, it does not support the assumptions.

We have corrected you on this a great many times. There us a myriad of EVIDENCE which supports our claims. You claim to have looked at the evidence, but as stated before, you lack the knowledge to interpret it. And yes, it has been tried.

Yes, I have offered my prediction for what SG should make. I realize that you all do not accept my prediction. But I have not seen a counter prediction. Or if it was presented, I missed it.

So now your a geologist and are qualified to make predictions?

The quartzite block was must've been solid rock when it was transported. There could not have been enough time for the supergroup if it was formed during the flood to lithify and become solid rock before the above layers were deposited.

Also, how can this image be explained by SG? How could layers have formed around a block of rock?

Is the image even credible? The image comes from a organization know for lying and distorting and is authored by an engineer, and not a geologist.

[micatala]

I have to say, I find it astonishing that, after the last number of pages, you find ice cores less of a problem than before. I understand you may not have had time to investigate all of the information provided, but I certainly have found even more reason to dismiss the flood than I did before. It had previously been my impression that ice cores could put the date of the flood back about to at least 120,000 years. This date is not only very safe, but we can actually reasonably put it to over half a million years ago based on the oldest cores.

Why do I say it is less of a problem? There are a myriad of assumptions that ice core dating is based on. And having looked at the evidence, it does not support the assumptions.

As I have pointed out, the assumptions have been checked using ongoing observations and that each dating method has been checked against multiple other dating methods.

If you do not believe this evidence is sufficient to support the assumptions, to me this indicates you have an extremely, extremely skeptical nature. This if fine.

However, I will then expect the SAME level of skepticism directed at evidence for the flood.

So far, this has not been in evidence. So far, we have had essentially no evidence at all to support many of the FM assumptions, including that the "chambers of the deep" ever existed, or that the proposed mechanism for creating continental plate movement works. We have no evidence a vapor canopy ever existed. We do have evidence (from ice cores predominantly!!!) that climate was different in the past than today, but no evidence a vapor canopy existed or was necessary to produce these climactic changes.

When you measure the evidence supporting the validity of the assumptions for ice core dating against the evidence for the assumptions of the FM there is no comparison who wins.



Remember the thread is partly about which model better explains what we see. If we do not expect the same level of evidence for the different models, if we give the assumptions and speculations upon which the FM is based a free pass or an easy pass, and yet skip over or downplay evidence for the SG, then we are going to get an extremely skewed view regarding which model is better.

However, I will suggest we leave the ice cores behind and go back to the grand canyon at this point.

We can do that.

Sounds good. I will simply note at this point that my view is ice cores show with fairly high probability that no global flood has occurred in the last half million years and that they show with near certainty no flood within the last 120,000 years. I understand you disagree and for now let's just agree to disagree on that point. I accept that if we could prove the dating to your satisfaction, you would accept no flood occurred within the period that the ice sheets have formed.

Again, I see absolutely no reason to jump to the conclusion that what you are looking for should be "the norm and not the exception." You are making a huge assumption about what the SG should lead to, not taking into account the length of time required for formations, how often and where techtonic forces create folding and faultings, etc.

Yes, I have offered my prediction for what SG should make. I realize that you all do not accept my prediction. But I have not seen a counter prediction. Or if it was presented, I missed it.

The problem is we have offered a variety of predictions but they have not met your arbitrary standard of being "global predictions" but rather, have been predictions concerning what we would find under particular conditions. It has been pointed out repeatedly that your standard is not necessary, and not the kind of prediction that is typically made.

For example, one might ask for a theory of physics and astronomy which makes some sort of global prediction that the universe is uniform in some sense. However, what we see in the universe varies depending on how much mass is in a particular region and the nature of that mass.

One is that we now have layers not being layed down during the flood, counter to otseng's previous statement.

I do not believe I've claimed that all the layers were formed by the flood.

I have stated "In the Flood Model, practically all the stratas were formed within a short period (on the order of months)."
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 090#241090

I'll accept that I misremembered your statement.

And yet, when we look at the evidence, the FM now has to create some kind of ad hoc explanation for this particular situation. It seems that the FM is, contrary to claims, really no better than the SG regarding the FM's central claim to superiority over the SG.

Again, I do admit that I do not have a final answer for this. But, I don't necessarily see it as ad hoc, since if the supergroup were not formed by the flood, then the FM does not need to explain how it formed.

But then you need to explain how the techtonic movements that created the supergroup occurred without the mechanism you proposed as part of the FM.

The SG explains the entire geological record. The FM does not get a pass on this. THus, the FM must also explain how phenomenon that took place before and after the flood came to be what they are.

One reason for this is the lack of buried animals and plants in the supergroup. Also on Brown's website, he has an image of "quartzite block was transported in a sliding sedimentary slurry above the Cambrian-Precambrian interface".


http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... tion7.html

The quartzite block was must've been solid rock when it was transported. There could not have been enough time for the supergroup if it was formed during the flood to lithify and become solid rock before the above layers were deposited.

Also, how can this image be explained by SG? How could layers have formed around a block of rock?

Good question. I'll see what I can come up with.

We are told there are not microfossils in these tilted layers and so this leads otseng to believe these layers were laid down before the flood.

For clarification, I said "no multicellular fossils" not no "microfossils".

Understood.

[Grumpy]

otseng

Why do I say it is less of a problem? There are a myriad of assumptions that ice core dating is based on. And having looked at the evidence, it does not support the assumptions.

False.

Yes, I have offered my prediction for what SG should make. I realize that you all do not accept my prediction. But I have not seen a counter prediction. Or if it was presented, I missed it.

We've gone through your dishonesty in making such statements more than once. I'm tired of such blatant untruths and so will not bother to go through the arguments again. You should retract and appologize for making this totally false statement yet again.

I do not believe I've claimed that all the layers were formed by the flood.

I have stated "In the Flood Model, practically all the stratas were formed within a short period (on the order of months)."

There is little difference between all and practically all, in any case we have shown sufficient evidence to falsify both statements. The layers contain entirely different fossils with perfect sorting by the times they existed. The FM can not possibly explain the facts. The FM is therefore false.

Grumpy