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]

The concept a flood displaced the rock does not fit the data. A flood is a choatic event, and the magnetic reversal is too regular.

Here is highly simplified view of stripes on the ocean floor:


http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/stripes.html

However, in reality, it looks more like this:


http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/magnetic.html

Though there are recognizable stripes, they are not regular stripes like a pinstripe suit, but more like irregular zebra stripes.

It would also appear that each stripe was not uniformly created if it wa
s by seafloor spreading. Why would they not be straighter lines, rather than such irregular lines?

The diagram also shows transform faults. And the faults have an effect on the magnetic stripes. Since faults is a result of displacement of rocks, it would follow that magnetic stripes is also affected by rock displacement.

Unfortunately, the diagram does not show what the magnetic variations are, but add the assumption that plate tectonics is true and makes the jump at how old the stripes are.

Here is a chart showing the entire world, but using the same assumptions:

http://www.newgeology.us./presentation25.html

This chart show that there is a correlation between the ridges and magnetic anomolies. One feature is that the magnetic anomolies (as well as the ridge) have a staircase pattern. How can spreading seafloors produce this pattern? Shouldn't it rather be smooth and continuous, rather than staircase?

In the FM, the ridges were created while the water rushed out from the cracks and the crust exerted a pressure beneath it. These two forces causes the ridges. These same forces caused all the rock displacement to form the faults. The displacement of the magnetized rocks now is seen in the magnetic anomolies.

Magnetic anomolies also vary with depth. If seafloor spreading is true, one would assume the magnetic orientation to be similar regardless of the depth.


http://www.newgeology.us./presentation25.html

Why do you assume that the formation along a 3000 mile long ridge is at the same speed in every place?

I would say.. this magnetic formations disprove the FM, since it can be seen what is forming the sea floor is magma, not water.

[otseng]

"However, it should be noted that the North American Plate, for instance, is nowhere being subducted, yet it is in motion. Likewise the African, Eurasian and Antarctic Plates."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics

"A remarkable feature of the North American Plate is that it is nowhere being subducted, yet it is measureably in motion, thus posing a problem for those who argue that subduction is the primary driving force for plate motion in plate tectonics."
http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia ... ican-Plate

Not 100% true

What is driving plate tectonics is another issue. My point is to simply show that the North American plate is not subducting anywhere. This is a major problem for plate tectonic theory. How can the North American plate have moved if subduction does not occur?

Now, a plate that IS being subducted is the atlantic plate.. which boarders the north america plate.. and the movement is east ward to that.

Evidence please.

Also, a bit you didn't bother to post from the wiki article is how xonvention currents might be driving it

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 05675.html

The articles notes that there is no consensus on what is driving plate tectonics and understates it as "Since the discovery of plate tectonics, the relative importance of driving forces of plate motion has been debated."

"The scientific community has developed in two different directions, with half thinking that mantle convection drives the plates and the other half thinking that gravitational forces such as subduction drive the plates and that mantle convection doesn't have any role,"
http://news.stanford.edu/pr/01/tectonic110.html

I also maintain that solid rock does not convect. Convection normally applies to liquid and gases, not solids. Saying that a solid rock convects like a liquid adds to the ad-hoc explanations in SG.

[micatala]

joeyknuccione wrote: Do you really wish to use this argument? [Were the animals so dumb that that all ran into the water or mud and died?] Tar pits are a good indicator that animals can be trapped in various mud/tar "lakes".

Do you really want to use a "bait and switch" mechanism for your rebuttal? "Tar pits" are not the same as mud and lakes. To my knowledge, the Morrison has no such tar pits. In addition, your argument is damaged by the size difference between the Morrison's 1.5M km and the world's largest known tar pit in Trinidad of 0.4 km.

joeyknuccione wrote: ...you clearly don't understand them. Radiocarbon dating is only one method of dating, and is not used for dating extremely old objects.

Please see the following Wikipedia information for various other dating methods:
Potassium-argon dating
Argon-argon dating
Uranium-lead dating

The integrity of these long-age isotopes and arguments for old-age using distant starlight could fall apart if the "big bang" theory is incorrect. I suspect that it is: BB Top 30 Problems

I find it interesting that Meta Research, who hosts the site including your problems with the Problems with the BB page, also has a wonderful slide show done by the founder Dr. Thomas Van Flandern on Artificial Structures on Mars.

http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20sys ... efault.htm


Wikipedia has a short article on Dr. Van Flandern.

He seemed to be quite intelligent, but also sadly detached from reality. He evidently passed away earlier this year.

[Grumpy]

otseng

Though there are recognizable stripes, they are not regular stripes like a pinstripe suit, but more like irregular zebra stripes.

Why would you ASSUME that lava eruptions along the ridges would be uniform or even. Nature rarely produces regularity. Different areas of the ridge produce magma at different times and the magnetic field of Earth is also quite irregular...

Unfortunately, the diagram does not show what the magnetic variations are, but add the assumption that plate tectonics is true and makes the jump at how old the stripes are.

Plate tectonics is well supported by the evidence we see, the age of the rock is also well supported. It is no longer speculation or assumption when the evidence leads us to those conclusions. Just because the evidence falsifies the FM is not sufficient cause to reject the evidence to any competent scientist, why is it for you?

This chart show that there is a correlation between the ridges and magnetic anomolies. One feature is that the magnetic anomolies (as well as the ridge) have a staircase pattern. How can spreading seafloors produce this pattern? Shouldn't it rather be smooth and continuous, rather than staircase?

No, it is not to be expected that every point along a fault would spew magma at exactly the same rate or time. And the correlation between the magnetic fields and the ridges is a product of when the magma flowed and was frozen at those particular points along the fault, OF COURSE there will be stair steps as first one area and then another erupted and then froze.

Grumpy

[micatala]

"However, it should be noted that the North American Plate, for instance, is nowhere being subducted, yet it is in motion. Likewise the African, Eurasian and Antarctic Plates."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics

"A remarkable feature of the North American Plate is that it is nowhere being subducted, yet it is measureably in motion, thus posing a problem for those who argue that subduction is the primary driving force for plate motion in plate tectonics."
http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia ... ican-Plate

Not 100% true

What is driving plate tectonics is another issue. My point is to simply show that the North American plate is not subducting anywhere. This is a major problem for plate tectonic theory. How can the North American plate have moved if subduction does not occur?

I fail to see how this is a major problem. I can think of several plausible reasons for no subduction taking place.

The first is that the plate the NA plate is moving into is moving away from it at roughly the same speed.

The second is that the plate is not completely rigid and so might be undergoing some slight bending. If the eastern boundary of the plate is moving, say, 2 cm per year to the west. A few small uplifts of even smaller than 2 cm could absorb this motion without moving the western edge of the plate. The simplest would be to create a very small "tent-shaped" fold somewhere in the middle of the plate running parallel to the eastern edge of the plate. Now, this simple version would not likely be the reality, but a combination of local uplifts which create only small amounts of bending could absorb the motion without catastrophic effects.

We know that there is uplifting going on within the NA plate, for example at Yellowstone National Park.

This uplifting might occur without faulting or slippage, but it also might include some slippage. Perhaps the slippage along the San Andreas is absorbing the motion of the plate?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 40 Post 395

Do you really want to use a "bait and switch" mechanism for your rebuttal? "Tar pits" are not the same as mud and lakes. To my knowledge, the Morrison has no such tar pits. In addition, your argument is damaged by the size difference between the Morrison's 1.5M km and the world's largest known tar pit in Trinidad of 0.4 km.

Do you deny that animals can and do get trapped, and die, in mud or other similar substances?

This is only one of many means by which fossilization starts. I used tar pits as a more extreme example, but the point stands.

The integrity of these long-age isotopes and arguments for old-age using distant starlight could fall apart if the "big bang" theory is incorrect. I suspect that it is: BB Top 30 Problems

However, the experts who study these things are with the Big Bang. I won't engage in debate by link, but if you'd like to point out discrepancies in the BB I'll do my best to support it.

I personally don't claim the Big Bang as an accurate model, but contend it is more evidenced than the flood model.

I find it interesting that your pre-supposition of "extremely old objects" influences your choice of which isotope to trust. At least you have put me at ease with your admission that the outcome of a scientific investigation can be influenced by one's pre-suppositions.

Given the way I phrased my response, I think you have a legitimate point. As I'm not so knowledgeable about dating methods, I ask the observer to accept my retraction for all previous claims in that regard.

You then built your argument as if you had three methods of independent corroboration in your corner, when in fact you have only one since all three are inextricably linked: long-age isotopes.

Mine was not a conscious effort to distort or deceive, and I ask the observer again to disregard any radiometric dating claims I've made up to this time. I reserve my right to return to the issue, but realize the damage to my credibility.

I listed five other dating methods that allude to young ages: (river erosion rates, advancing deserts, mtDNA using known mother-child mutation rates, comet longevity, world-population growth rates). To that list, I could have added numerous cosmological evidences that allude to a young age for the universe: spiraled distant galaxies, central stars near black holes, and complete absence of supposed helium/hydrogen "primordial stars".

Light travelling from distant stars indicates ages well beyond what you seem to be positing.

(The similarities between Darwinian and cosmologic evolution is uncanny.)

Ain't they? This is not a refutation of either.

So the question is, which dating method do you prefer? Those which support an old Earth or a young Earth? Undoubtedly your choice will be influenced by those persons who you trust most. Perhaps you can think back to when you were a child and remember which persons were most kind to you. Who encouraged you with smiles and who made you unhappy with frowns?

I don't think you want to consider my history in regards to how religious folks promote their belief. You will not win on that score.

How should one be persuaded if not all experts are in agreement? And what are your criteria for an expert? One who agrees with you or one who agrees with the consensus? If achievement and recognition are the criteria, then you should feel at home with these: Pioneers of Science, Modern Pioneers

I'm sticking with the evidence, and counter evidence in regards the Flood model, and a "young earth".

In regards your link to scientists who believe in Special Creation, I point out the lack of any verifiable evidence in this regard. I also point out the years in which these folks lived, and died.

[otseng]

I really find it hard to believe the levels of the denial of reality reached on this thread.

The ocean floor beyond the continental shelves have no evidence of rock stratas.

Simply pure ignorance, nothing else can explain such patently false statements.

Instead of constantly making such accusations of "denial of reality" and "ignorance", what constitutes a valid counterargument is evidence and logic. So, please present those instead.

Beyond the continental shelves, there is a relatively little sediments and certainly none of the sequence of sedimentary stratas like we see on land. Instead, most of the deep ocean floor is basalt.

Here is a chart of the ocean sediments:

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/sedthick/sedthick.html

"most of the ocean floor is basalt"
http://jersey.uoregon.edu/~mstrick/AskG ... rry27.html

"Basalt is a hard, black extrusive igneous rock. It is the most common type of rock in the Earth's crust and it makes up most of the ocean floor."
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/ ... l&edu=high

"Earth's ocean floor is virtually entirely made of basalt."
http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/basalt

No, there have been no dinosaur fossils found above the KT layer, man and dinosaur did not occupy the Earth at the same time.

There have been dinosaur fossils found above the KT layer.

"A very small number of dinosaur fossils have been found above the K"T boundary, but they have been explained as reworked,"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur_extinction

"Dinosaur fossils are present in the Paleocene Ojo Alamo Sandstone and Animas Formation in the San Juan Basin, New Mexico, and Colorado. Evidence for the Paleocene age of the Ojo Alamo Sandstone includes palynologic and paleomagnetic data."
http://www.palaeo-electronica.org/2009_1/149/index.html

"The Paleocene epoch immediately followed the mass extinction event at the end of the Cretaceous, known as the K-T boundary (Cretaceous - Tertiary), which marks the demise of the dinosaurs (except their descendants, modern birds) and much other fauna and flora."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene

To look more objectively at the organization of fossils, we would need a chart of all the fossils found at a particular point on the Earth. This type of data would allow us to look at the raw data and interpret it for ourselves.

Gee...why didn't scientists think to do that. Oh wait, they did. It's called the sciences of Paleontology and Geology.

So, it should be easy to produce such a chart then. Please provide one for us to discuss.

But you've made it plain that you reject their findings, not based on the evidence(though you try so desperately to justify it that way), but based on your religious beliefs(however much you deny it).

Where have I based any of my arguments on the Bible? And if you disagree with any of my evidence, you should produce counterevidence, not continual accusations.

I find that to be disingenuous , at best. It certainly has nothing to do with the reality we find when we actually look at the evidence scientifically instead of through the filter of our preconcieved beliefs.

Then please present your scientific evidence.

Is your religion so fragile that it's adherrants must deny reality to maintain it's viability?

This would be an ad hominem fallacy.

Having actually read Origin of Species, it explains very little. If there is another book that anyone has read that details it better than Darwin, please let me know about it.

So your knowledge of the facts of evolution is based on a 150 year old book???

Not entirely, but the book is referred to by so many people arguing for evolution that I took the time to read and study it. Rarely are any of the books listed below referred to by evolution debaters. Yet, time and again people mention Origin of Species. Why do they then continually point back to a 150 year old book?

Carl Sagan (1977). The Dragons of Eden.

Donald Prothero (2007). Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters.

Niles Eldredge (2001). The Triumph of Evolution: and the Failure of Creationism.

Richard Dawkins (1996). Climbing Mount Improbable

Sean B. Carroll (2006). The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution.

If there is enough interest from others, I'm open to debating any of these books in the future.

[Alan Clarke]

No, the evidence for the reversal of the magnetic field is written plainly in the volcanic rocks. No extrapolation needed.

Even if a reversing magnetic field exists, youll have to make assumptions (or extrapolations) in order to utilize the information for the purpose of estimating the Earths age. The Earths historical magnetic field declension rate, period, and intensity all must be assumed (or extrapolated) before making an interpretation. For example, how do you know the field hasnt followed this pattern:



Before I ever saw the above illustration, I reasoned that if there was a declining field, it would probably look similar to that of an automobile ignition coil. The ignition coil has a solid iron core as does the Earth:



The Earth may have started with an initial magnetic field like that present on an ignition coils secondary winding when voltage on the primary winding is removed. As the field collapses, the moving magnetic lines actually induce a current as they cross the windings. Thus, the magnetic field is actually sustained for a period of time (3ms for the ignition coil). The Earth is much larger so it would maintain a field for a longer period of time without a need for a power source (i.e. a hypothesized dynamo generator). In the analogy, what would have been the initial power source for the Earth? Physicist Dr. Russell Humphreys got the idea when he read II Peter 3:5. Before discarding his approach, consider that Humphreys theory successfully predicted the magnetic fields of both Uranus and Neptune before they were measured by the Voyager II space probe. Not only that, but it properly predicts the fields of the Sun, Moon, Mars, Venus, Jupiter, Jupiters moons, and Saturn.

Secondly, on both illustrations, note the high-frequency oscillations at the bottom of the curves. This could account for magnetic field reversals in the volcanic rocks (if they exist) and especially the fast field reversal discovered in 1988 on Steens Mountain, OR. Humphreys theory works beautifully with a 6000-year-old Earth. Needless to say, a 4.5B year-old Earth would have lost its field long ago unless of course there is a mechanism to sustain such a field. Does anyone know how successful the uniformitarian dynamo theory has been in predicting planetary magnetic fields?

[Grumpy]

otseng

Beyond the continental shelves, there is a relatively little sediments and certainly none of the sequence of sedimentary stratas like we see on land. Instead, most of the deep ocean floor is basalt.

"The data values are in meters and represent the depth to acoustic basement. It should be noted that acoustic basement may not actually represent the base of the sediments. These data are intended to provide a minimum value for the thickness of the sediment in a particular geographic region. "

Your own source shows that there is upward of 500 METERS of sedimentary rock well past the continental shelfs, it only tapers off to nothing well away from the continental shelves.

The distribution of sediments in the oceans is controlled by five primary factors:

1.Age of the underlying crust

2.Tectonic history of the ocean crust

3.Structural trends in basement

4.Nature and location of sediment source, and

5.Nature of the sedimentary processes delivering sediments to depocenters

There have been dinosaur fossils found above the KT layer.

No, there are not any valid dinosaur fossils that have ever been dug out of rock younger than the KT boundary. From your own source...

"Excluding a few controversial claims, it is agreed that all non-avian dinosaurs went extinct at the K-T boundary."

You do realize we are talking about things which happened 65 million years ago, don't you. That, in itself, falsifies your speculation that all layers were layed down by world wide flood in historical times.

Quote:
To look more objectively at the organization of fossils, we would need a chart of all the fossils found at a particular point on the Earth. This type of data would allow us to look at the raw data and interpret it for ourselves.

Gee...why didn't scientists think to do that. Oh wait, they did. It's called the sciences of Paleontology and Geology.

So, it should be easy to produce such a chart then. Please provide one for us to discuss.

Sure, there are several places on Earth that have complete geological columns, pick one...

The Ghadames Basin in Libya
The Beni Mellal Basin in Morrocco
The Tunisian Basin in Tunisia
The Oman Interior Basin in Oman
The Western Desert Basin in Egypt
The Adana Basin in Turkey
The Iskenderun Basin in Turkey
The Moesian Platform in Bulgaria
The Carpathian Basin in Poland
The Baltic Basin in the USSR
The Yeniseiy-Khatanga Basin in the USSR
The Farah Basin in Afghanistan
The Helmand Basin in Afghanistan
The Yazd-Kerman-Tabas Basin in Iran
The Manhai-Subei Basin in China
The Jiuxi Basin China
The Tung t'in - Yuan Shui Basin China
The Tarim Basin China
The Szechwan Basin China
The Yukon-Porcupine Province Alaska
The Williston Basin in North Dakota
The Tampico Embayment Mexico
The Bogata Basin Colombia
The Bonaparte Basin, Australia
The Beaufort Sea Basin/McKenzie River Delta

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/#conclusion

I invite anyone who is really interested in the real geological column and the rediculousness of assertions that it is the result of a single flood event to read the excellent article by Glenn Morton to be found here...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/

Where have I based any of my arguments on the Bible?

Much as you try to avoid it, the source for the flood myth IS the Bible, there certainly is no evidence of a worldwide flood to be found in nature.

Is your religion so fragile that it's adherrants must deny reality to maintain it's viability?

This would be an ad hominem fallacy.

It is the history of religion denying, persecuting and attempting to stamp out scientific thought. Ask Bruno, or Galileo. Witness the attempts to restrict the teaching of evolution or get religious beliefs taught as science. It's a legitimate question as to what motivates these unreasonable behaviors.

Yet, time and again people mention Origin of Species.

Yeah, just as we constantly refer to Einsteins papers on Special and General Relativity. They(Einstein and Darwin) were geniouses and their works were turning points in our understanding of the Universe that still hold up today. But we have come a long way in physics and biology since then.

If there is enough interest from others, I'm open to debating any of these books in the future.

I would be satisfied if you would just read them for the science and knowledge of reality they contain. There is no debate in the scientific comunity about the reality of evolution, though there still remains much to learn. Going back to the days when reality was defined by men in robes is not an option.

Grumpy

[Grumpy]

Alan Clarke

Even if a reversing magnetic field exists, youll have to make assumptions (or extrapolations) in order to utilize the information for the purpose of estimating the Earths age.

No one is estimating the age of the Earth based on the reversals of magnetic field of the Earth. Those reversal are preserved in the rocks for anyone to see if they only will look, no assumptions or extrapolations needed.

Needless to say, a 4.5B year-old Earth would have lost its field long ago unless of course there is a mechanism to sustain such a field.

"It was actually once believed that the dipole, which comprises much of the Earth's magnetic field and is misaligned along the rotation axis by 11.3 degrees, was caused by permanent magnetization of the materials in the earth. This means that dynamo theory was originally used to explain the sun's magnetic field in its relationship with that of the Earth. However, this theory, which was initially proposed by Joseph Larmor in 1919,[2] has been modified due to extensive studies of magnetic secular variation, paleomagnetism (including polarity reversals), seismology, and the solar system's abundance of elements. Also, the application of the theories of Carl Friedrich Gauss to magnetic observations showed that Earth's magnetic field had an internal, rather than external, origin.

In the case of the Earth, the magnetic field is induced and constantly maintained by the convection of liquid iron in the outer core. A requirement for the induction of field is a rotating fluid. Rotation in the outer core is supplied by the Coriolis effect caused by the rotation of the Earth. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamo_theory

The Earth is 4.5 billion years old, as is our sun and the rest of our solar system. To deny this fact is to deny reality.

Grumpy