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?

[otseng]

Can you point me to this? I do dendrochronology and Im curious to what you have to say. (hey, this is 50 pages long, you cant expect me to search through all of them!)

Since you do dendrochronology, I get the opportunity to ask something I've wondered about. How far can we go back to get an unbroken history through dendrochronology?

[otseng]

Without putting words in otseng's mouth, he said that we find no tree rings in petrified wood older than roughly 6,000-10,000 years ago.

Let me make another comment regarding this. I do not recall that I have claimed an exact timeframe when the flood occurred in this thread. So, my claim would be somewhere on the order of tens of thousands of years. Could be less than 10,000 years ago on the low end. But it could not be more than 100,000 years ago on the high end.

[otseng]

Why do you specify igneous rock layers? Shouldn't all rock layers regardless of composition be like this?

Because igneous rocks are the ones we can date via radiometric dating. Sedimentary layers are not typically amenable to this as they do not necessarily contain radioactive material, which can come from magma. We can date sedimentary layers approximately by, for example, dating any igneous layers that are above and below them.

I was trying to find examples of igneous layers between sedimentary layers, but couldn't find much. Which leads me to believe that this is quite rare. If this is the case, then how do we know that ages of sedimentary layers without igneous stratas?

As for dating igneous rock, I gave an example that the rocks at Mt St Helens was dated to be hundreds of thousands of years old. The reply back was this article. And in that article it states:

Obviously, if Austin wanted a sample that only represented the material that solidified during the 1986 eruption, he would have had to remove ALL of the plagioclase and other phenocrysts from the glass component. Even when phenocrysts (as in Austin's Figure 4) and xenocrysts can be seen with an optical microscope, they can be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to effectively separate from the glass. I've attempted to separate very fined-grained minerals from glass in coal ashes by using magnetic separation and hydrofluoric and other acids. It's not easy.

If the author is to charge that having a good sample is difficult, then I will use the same charge and say that SG geologists as well can have impure samples, which leads to erroneous datings.

[micatala]

Why do you specify igneous rock layers? Shouldn't all rock layers regardless of composition be like this?

Because igneous rocks are the ones we can date via radiometric dating. Sedimentary layers are not typically amenable to this as they do not necessarily contain radioactive material, which can come from magma. We can date sedimentary layers approximately by, for example, dating any igneous layers that are above and below them.

I was trying to find examples of igneous layers between sedimentary layers, but couldn't find much. Which leads me to believe that this is quite rare. If this is the case, then how do we know that ages of sedimentary layers without igneous stratas?

As for dating igneous rock, I gave an example that the rocks at Mt St Helens was dated to be hundreds of thousands of years old. The reply back was this article. And in that article it states:

Obviously, if Austin wanted a sample that only represented the material that solidified during the 1986 eruption, he would have had to remove ALL of the plagioclase and other phenocrysts from the glass component. Even when phenocrysts (as in Austin's Figure 4) and xenocrysts can be seen with an optical microscope, they can be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to effectively separate from the glass. I've attempted to separate very fined-grained minerals from glass in coal ashes by using magnetic separation and hydrofluoric and other acids. It's not easy.

If the author is to charge that having a good sample is difficult, then I will use the same charge and say that SG geologists as well can have impure samples, which leads to erroneous datings.

To address the second statement first, it is fallacious to say that because one person was unable to create a pure sample that all others must have the same problem.

Secondly, there are more difficulties with Austin's work than just this one point.

See http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/mt ... ite_kh.htm.

In particular, the lab to which the samples were sent specifically noted up front that their techniques could not be applied to rocks known to be under 2 millions years old.

Thus, what Austin reminds me of a joke some Artificial Intelligence guys played on a computerized medical diagnosis program. They sent in a description saying the patient was 12 years old, had brownish spots all over, was sluggish, and a few other symptoms. The computer said the patient had measles.

The AI guys neglected to tell the computer the patient was an automobile.



Be that as it may, I will see if I can find some examples of multiple layers of igneous rock in the same area. As I recall, there are some places in Africa where this has happened.




For another discusion of Austin's work, see
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4146

[otseng]

Obviously, if Austin wanted a sample that only represented the material that solidified during the 1986 eruption, he would have had to remove ALL of the plagioclase and other phenocrysts from the glass component. Even when phenocrysts (as in Austin's Figure 4) and xenocrysts can be seen with an optical microscope, they can be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to effectively separate from the glass. I've attempted to separate very fined-grained minerals from glass in coal ashes by using magnetic separation and hydrofluoric and other acids. It's not easy.

If the author is to charge that having a good sample is difficult, then I will use the same charge and say that SG geologists as well can have impure samples, which leads to erroneous datings.

To address the second statement first, it is fallacious to say that because one person was unable to create a pure sample that all others must have the same problem.

Well, it would then as well be fallacious to say that since the author finds it difficult to separate the minerals, then Austin as well would. However, the point was that even the author says it "can be extremely difficult, if not impossible." And it reveals that the process is subject to human error, not matter how careful one can be.

Secondly, there are more difficulties with Austin's work than just this one point.

See http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/mt ... ite_kh.htm.

In particular, the lab to which the samples were sent specifically noted up front that their techniques could not be applied to rocks known to be under 2 millions years old.

Yes, Scotracer referenced that earlier.

Here was my reply:

Well, since the Geochron labs now no longer does K-Ar dating, I cannot confirm that "We cannot analyze samples expected to be younger than 2 M.Y" was on their website.

And the charge that "very tiny amounts of argon contaminants from previous analyses may remain within the equipment, which precludes accurate dates for very young samples", I think would be highly speculative.

He also charges Austin with a failure to properly identify the phenocrysts. But, Henke even states "For even the best mineralogists and petrologists, xenocrysts may be difficult to distinguish from phenocrysts." This would place a significant human source of error into any K-Ar dating.

[Goat]

Why do you specify igneous rock layers? Shouldn't all rock layers regardless of composition be like this?

Because igneous rocks are the ones we can date via radiometric dating. Sedimentary layers are not typically amenable to this as they do not necessarily contain radioactive material, which can come from magma. We can date sedimentary layers approximately by, for example, dating any igneous layers that are above and below them.

I was trying to find examples of igneous layers between sedimentary layers, but couldn't find much. Which leads me to believe that this is quite rare. If this is the case, then how do we know that ages of sedimentary layers without igneous stratas?

As for dating igneous rock, I gave an example that the rocks at Mt St Helens was dated to be hundreds of thousands of years old. The reply back was this article. And in that article it states:

Obviously, if Austin wanted a sample that only represented the material that solidified during the 1986 eruption, he would have had to remove ALL of the plagioclase and other phenocrysts from the glass component. Even when phenocrysts (as in Austin's Figure 4) and xenocrysts can be seen with an optical microscope, they can be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to effectively separate from the glass. I've attempted to separate very fined-grained minerals from glass in coal ashes by using magnetic separation and hydrofluoric and other acids. It's not easy.

If the author is to charge that having a good sample is difficult, then I will use the same charge and say that SG geologists as well can have impure samples, which leads to erroneous datings.

Do you know the factors that make a GOOD sample from a bad sample? There is a claim made. Evidence and factors are presented before the testing of the mount saint hellens samples that are precise and specific, such as the fact the temperture of the rock did not reach a critical point, and therefore there were parts of older rock mixed in. This was pointed out BEFORE the testing happened, yet Austin dishonestly had it tested anyway.

It's not enough to say 'You too'. You have to provide reasons and data. Reasons and data were pointed out for the inaccuracy of Austin's samples ahead of time.

[otseng]

I promised that we'd discuss ice cores/layers, so let's start chasing that rabbit also.

1) No salt on ice caps over Greenland and elsewhere. otseng has explained this by saying the ice caps formed after the flood. This does not work, since we can date, in a number of different ways, the layers in the ice caps. The data falsifies a flood within roughly the last 100,000 years.

Yes, I would claim that ice caps formed after the flood. Since 100,000 years still falls within the extreme end of where I would date the flood, that by itself does not pose a problem.

I do not totally discount the value of ice core analysis, but there are several assumptions that it rests on. Generally, it assumes that layers are formed annually. But, snowstorms can also occur and deposit layers of snow. It also assumes that it never melts. If it does, it would skew the data. Dating techniques also rely on the underlying model. Also layer counting and isotope dating have a greater margin of error the deeper one goes.

[Goat]

I promised that we'd discuss ice cores/layers, so let's start chasing that rabbit also.

1) No salt on ice caps over Greenland and elsewhere. otseng has explained this by saying the ice caps formed after the flood. This does not work, since we can date, in a number of different ways, the layers in the ice caps. The data falsifies a flood within roughly the last 100,000 years.

Yes, I would claim that ice caps formed after the flood. Since 100,000 years still falls within the extreme end of where I would date the flood, that by itself does not pose a problem.

I do not totally discount the value of ice core analysis, but there are several assumptions that it rests on. Generally, it assumes that layers are formed annually. But, snowstorms can also occur and deposit layers of snow. It also assumes that it never melts. If it does, it would skew the data. Dating techniques also rely on the underlying model. Also layer counting and isotope dating have a greater margin of error the deeper one goes.

Of course, in the antarctic, a 500,000 year old ice core has been extracted. This
far exceeds the 100,000 year limit you gave on the global flood. Iceland has some ice cores that go back to almost 125,000 years.. so that to exceeds your claims.

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/mar2002 ... -14-04.asp

[micatala]

Obviously, if Austin wanted a sample that only represented the material that solidified during the 1986 eruption, he would have had to remove ALL of the plagioclase and other phenocrysts from the glass component. Even when phenocrysts (as in Austin's Figure 4) and xenocrysts can be seen with an optical microscope, they can be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to effectively separate from the glass. I've attempted to separate very fined-grained minerals from glass in coal ashes by using magnetic separation and hydrofluoric and other acids. It's not easy.

If the author is to charge that having a good sample is difficult, then I will use the same charge and say that SG geologists as well can have impure samples, which leads to erroneous datings.

To address the second statement first, it is fallacious to say that because one person was unable to create a pure sample that all others must have the same problem.

Well, it would then as well be fallacious to say that since the author finds it difficult to separate the minerals, then Austin as well would. However, the point was that even the author says it "can be extremely difficult, if not impossible." And it reveals that the process is subject to human error, not matter how careful one can be.

Secondly, there are more difficulties with Austin's work than just this one point.

See http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/mt ... ite_kh.htm.

In particular, the lab to which the samples were sent specifically noted up front that their techniques could not be applied to rocks known to be under 2 millions years old.

Yes, Scotracer referenced that earlier.

Here was my reply:

Well, since the Geochron labs now no longer does K-Ar dating, I cannot confirm that "We cannot analyze samples expected to be younger than 2 M.Y" was on their website.

And the charge that "very tiny amounts of argon contaminants from previous analyses may remain within the equipment, which precludes accurate dates for very young samples", I think would be highly speculative.

He also charges Austin with a failure to properly identify the phenocrysts. But, Henke even states "For even the best mineralogists and petrologists, xenocrysts may be difficult to distinguish from phenocrysts." This would place a significant human source of error into any K-Ar dating.

Here is the summary from the second link in my previous post.

If we allow both sides to have their say, and do not bring a bias preconditioning us to accept whatever one side says and to look only for flaws in the other side, a fair conclusion to make is that both sides make valid points. Austin does indeed identify a real potential weakness in potassium-argon dating. However he is wrong that his phenocrysts constitute a fatal flaw in potassium-argon dating previously unknown to geology. In fact, the implications of phenocrysts were already well understood. Yes they are one of the variables, and yes, in some samples they do push the error bars. However, the errors they introduce are in the range of a standard deviation, they are not nearly adequate to explain errors as gross as three or more orders of magnitude, which would be necessary to explain the discrepancy between the measured age of rocks and the Biblical age of the Earth.

Such variables are also a principal reason that geologists never rely on just one dating method, with no checks or balances. That would be pretty reckless. For most rocks, multiple types of radiometric dating are appropriate; and in practice, multiple samples would always be tested, not just one like Austin used. In combination, these tests give a far more complete and accurate picture of a rock's true age than just a single potassium-argon test could. In addition, stratigraphic and paleomagnetic data can often contribute to the picture as well. From many decades of such experience, geologists have excellent data that guides proper usage of each of these tools, and they don't include gross misuse of potassium-argon dating.

What Austin did was to exploit a known caveat in radiometric dating; dramatically illustrate it with a high-profile test using the public's favorite volcano, Mount St. Helens; and sensationalize the results in a paper that introduces nothing new to geologists, but that impresses laypeople with its detailed scientific language. Occasionally scientists do actually make huge discoveries that everyone else in their field had always missed, but such claims are wrong far more often than they're right; and Dr. Austin and his finding that radiometric dating has always been useless is a perfect example.

Leaving aside the rabbits represented by the sampling, the main problem is that what Austin did is like sending a molecule out to be measured by an approximate yardstick. The reading came back 1/16th of an inch. Compared to the magnitude of a molecule, this is a big error. Compared to the scale on a yard stick it is a small error. Austin concludes from this that we should throw out the yardstick.

Argon has a half life of 1.2 billion years. 2 million years is about 1/6th of a percent of this half life. About the same fraction as 1/16th of an inch to a yard.

The margin of error mentioned by Dunning for Argon dating is in the range of 600,000 years. This is a rather huge fraction of the dates given by Austin, not to mention many thousands of times the actual age of the rocks.


I am sorry. The argument that Austin's analysis implies major problems for radiometric dating in general, or even Argon dating in particular does not hold water




At any rate, I noticed you picked out this one piece from my previous post. Now, I am not saying dating is irrelevant to the discussion of the SG or FM. However, we could consider the features and fossils presented by the Grand Canyon without considering the time scales involved.

In particular, how could a flood create the tilted features at the bottom, with the faults, and then the layers on top, and also have some small interpolations of bowl shaped layers (4a, 4b, 4c).

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.

Again, how could this have occurred during a flood? The faults do not go through the layers numbered 3 or higher. Also, if the 1 and 2 layers were formed during a flood and then also faulted during the flood, how did they not get mixed up? Surely it would take a while for these layers to harden.

If they were not hard when the faulting occurred, the layers would get rather severely disturbed along the fault line. This does not appear to have happened. Thus, it is reasonable to assume they were hardened before cracking and sliding. Then, being hard, they would have had to be tilted and then parts eroded away before the higher layers were laid down. That's a lot to happen during a short flood period.

[nygreenguy]

Since you do dendrochronology, I get the opportunity to ask something I've wondered about. How far can we go back to get an unbroken history through dendrochronology?

I do dendrochronology (and isotope analysis), i dont study it. This means I know the technique and how we do it, but not ALL the science behind it. With that said, I believe the unbroken (why the need for the this?) is just over 10,000 years.