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?

[nygreenguy]

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.

You talk about assumtion, but you are making some of your own. You assume we cant tell non-annual layers. You assume we cant tell when it melts.

Are you so sure we dont already know these things and know how to deal with them?

[micatala]

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.

You talk about assumtion, but you are making some of your own. You assume we cant tell non-annual layers. You assume we cant tell when it melts.

Are you so sure we dont already know these things and know how to deal with them?

Yes, ice core dating assumes annual rings. This is based on, as I understand, observations from the current time and how we see layers forming now. It seems reasonable to assume what occurred in the past is what is occurring now, unless we can identify some reasons why it would not.

Also, ice core dating, like all dating techniques, is measured against other dating techniques where this is possible. So, for example, if ice cores indicate an extremely cold and dry year within the last 10,000 years, we can check this against tree rings and possibly other data to see if it squares.

If we find volcanic ash of a particular chemical composition, we can check the geological record for data confirming or refuting this from the same approximate time. Volcanic ash could also leave residues in more than one ice field that can be used to check.

[micatala]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icecores.html


This link provides some additional background on ice core dating techniques in general, and on the Vostok ice core in particular. In particular

While unable to provide specific dates (within a millenia), the analysis show definate evidence of the the last two ice ages. Using the methods listed above the bottom of the ice-core was laid down 160,000 +- 15,000 years ago. It should be noted that all of the methods listed above were consistent with the above results.

and

From the data gathered from the Vostok ice-core indicates that the minimum age of the earth is 160,000 +- 15,000 years. Furthermore there exists approximately 33% of additional ice below the core sample which would hold a disproportionate number of years due to thinning of the ice layers under the tremendous pressure of the ice above it.

To maintain an age for the earth of 50,000 years, one would need to describe a mechanism that allows more than 2 false ice layers to form per year. It should be noted that one also needs to describe why this mechanism has ceased to function in historic times since the Vostok ice-core demonstrates a number of the historically recorded volcanism at the correct periods of time.

ADDITION: "To the list of things excluded, you can add miles-high tides or floods. (Velikovsky and the Noachian deluge). Such a mass of water would have provided sufficient buoyancy to float the polar caps off their beds. No way to drop them exactly back onto their original location, or to regrow them. (In fact, the Greenland ice cap would not regrow under modern (last 10 ky) climatic conditions.)" --Bob Grumbine rmg3@psuvm.psu.edu

Here is a link on data from Greenland
http://www.carlsberggroup.com/Company/F ... eCore.aspx

Here is another link on Greenland data.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/ ... /document/

[micatala]

In an effort to tie up some loose ends and respond to questions I committed to address, let me go back a couple of pages and address the SG vis-a-vis oil exploration. We do not need to put aside ice cores to address this now, but I wanted to avoid losing track of it and so am just putting it here for future reference.

The SG makes predictions concerning where one is most likely to find oil and natural gas. Energy companies use the SG because its predictions work.

How do they predict this? What are the predictions?

I will see if I can find more on this. It is referred to in my Williston Basin link. As I recall, one way to look for oil or gas is to try and locate areas of impermeable rock (eg. granite or other metamorphic rock) that has been folded in such a way as to form a dome or upside down bowl shape. Oil and gas tend to migrate through permeable rock to the surface, and based on geologic time, most of it has already made it to the surface and dissipated, unless of course it gets trapped by layers and formations it cannot rise through.

From the San Joaquin Geological Society.

This site addresses the question "How to Find Oil?"

It has a number of graphics that provide further examples of the kind of features otseng feels should be "uniformly distributed" in the geological record. See the defintions of Pinchout, Trap, and Unconformities. It seems the sequence of layers forming, faulting/folding/tilting, and more layers forming creates features that allow for the formation of oil and gas deposits. Evidently these features exist and are not overly rare AND oil geologists are able to find them.


Note that the formation of oil deposits requires a "seal" which typically are layers of shale or salt. As noted in my Williston Basin link, both of these types of layers require time to form, and shales require tranquil water. The existence of multiple shale and salt layers, as shown again in this new link, in the same location and with intervening sandstones and other types of sedimentary rocks represent formations that really could not form according to the FM.

[otseng]

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

The article makes the claim, but does not provide reasoning or evidence to back the claim. So, it does not provide much. We can explore though the techniques on dating ice cores that should apply to this location as well as all others.

[Scotracer]

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

The article makes the claim, but does not provide reasoning or evidence to back the claim. So, it does not provide much. We can explore though the techniques on dating ice cores that should apply to this location as well as all others.

This wikipedia page shows the European Project for Ice Coring in Antartica (EPICA) and they have extracted a core that goes back 740,000 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_P ... Antarctica

And here is the published peer-reviewed paper on it (from Nature):

Abstract

The Antarctic Vostok ice core provided compelling evidence of the nature of climate, and of climate feedbacks, over the past 420,000 years. Marine records suggest that the amplitude of climate variability was smaller before that time, but such records are often poorly resolved. Moreover, it is not possible to infer the abundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from marine records. Here we report the recovery of a deep ice core from Dome C, Antarctica, that provides a climate record for the past 740,000 years. For the four most recent glacial cycles, the data agree well with the record from Vostok. The earlier period, between 740,000 and 430,000 years ago, was characterized by less pronounced warmth in interglacial periods in Antarctica, but a higher proportion of each cycle was spent in the warm mode. The transition from glacial to interglacial conditions about 430,000 years ago (Termination V) resembles the transition into the present interglacial period in terms of the magnitude of change in temperatures and greenhouse gases, but there are significant differences in the patterns of change. The interglacial stage following Termination V was exceptionally long--28,000 years compared to, for example, the 12,000 years recorded so far in the present interglacial period. Given the similarities between this earlier warm period and today, our results may imply that without human intervention, a climate similar to the present one would extend well into the future.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1519 ... olding=npg

Here is the actual article:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 02599.html

If you wish to deny the importance of Ice Cores, here's your chance!

[micatala]

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

The article makes the claim, but does not provide reasoning or evidence to back the claim. So, it does not provide much. We can explore though the techniques on dating ice cores that should apply to this location as well as all others.

This wikipedia page shows the European Project for Ice Coring in Antartica (EPICA) and they have extracted a core that goes back 740,000 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_P ... Antarctica

And here is the published peer-reviewed paper on it (from Nature):

Abstract

The Antarctic Vostok ice core provided compelling evidence of the nature of climate, and of climate feedbacks, over the past 420,000 years. Marine records suggest that the amplitude of climate variability was smaller before that time, but such records are often poorly resolved. Moreover, it is not possible to infer the abundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from marine records. Here we report the recovery of a deep ice core from Dome C, Antarctica, that provides a climate record for the past 740,000 years. For the four most recent glacial cycles, the data agree well with the record from Vostok. The earlier period, between 740,000 and 430,000 years ago, was characterized by less pronounced warmth in interglacial periods in Antarctica, but a higher proportion of each cycle was spent in the warm mode. The transition from glacial to interglacial conditions about 430,000 years ago (Termination V) resembles the transition into the present interglacial period in terms of the magnitude of change in temperatures and greenhouse gases, but there are significant differences in the patterns of change. The interglacial stage following Termination V was exceptionally long--28,000 years compared to, for example, the 12,000 years recorded so far in the present interglacial period. Given the similarities between this earlier warm period and today, our results may imply that without human intervention, a climate similar to the present one would extend well into the future.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1519 ... olding=npg

Here is the actual article:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 02599.html

If you wish to deny the importance of Ice Cores, here's your chance!

Thanks scotracer.

Here are a couple of other links of a more general nature. The Nature article seems to assume as given the mechanisms for determining the dates and that they are roughly correct. Given that, I thought that some dicscussion of the general science of dating cores would be helpful. I am not sure these are the best, but I think they at least address some of the concerns otseng and others might have.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Featur ... _IceCores/

Throughout each year, layers of snow fall over the ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica. Each layer of snow is different in chemistry and texture, summer snow differing from winter snow. Summer brings 24 hours of sunlight to the polar regions, and the top layer of the snow changes in texture—not melting exactly, but changing enough to be different from the snow it covers. The season turns cold and dark again, and more snow falls, forming the next layers of snow. Each layer gives scientists a treasure trove of information about the climate each year. Like marine sediment cores, an ice core provides a vertical timeline of past climates stored in ice sheets and mountain glaciers.

The seasonal snow layers are easiest to see in snow pits, writes Alley, the Evan Pugh Professor in the Environment Institute and Department of Geosciences at Pennsylvania State University. To see the layers, scientists dig two pits separated by a thin wall of snow. One pit is covered, and the other is left open to sunlight. By standing in the covered pit, scientists can study the annual snow layers in the snow wall as the sunlight filters through the other side. “I have stood in snow pits with dozens of people—drillers, journalists, and others—and so far, every visitor has been impressed. The snow is blue, something like the blue seen by deep sea divers, an indescribable, almost achingly beautiful blue,� writes Alley. “The next thing most people notice is the layering.�

***********

Scientists can confirm these chemistry-based temperature measurements by observing the temperature of the ice sheet directly. The ice sheet’s thickness makes its temperature much more resistant to change than the six inches of snow that might fall on your driveway during a winter snowstorm. As Alley explained to the Earth Observatory, the ice sheet can be compared to a frozen roast that is put directly into the oven. The outside heats up quickly, but the center remains cold, close to the temperature of the freezer, for a long time. Similarly, the ice sheet has warmed somewhat since the Ice Age, but not completely. The top has warmed as global temperatures have warmed, while the bottom has been warmed by heat flow from deep inside the Earth. But in the middle of an ice sheet, the ice remains close to the Ice Age temperatures at which it formed. “Because we understand how heat moves in ice, [and] we know how cold the ice is today, we can calculate how cold the ice was during the Ice Age,� says Alley.

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

Finally, anything that settles on the ice tends to remain fixed in the layer it landed on. Of particular interest are wind-blown dust and volcanic ash. As with dust found in sea sediments, dust in ice can be analyzed chemically to find out where it came from. The amount and location of dust tells scientists about wind patterns and strength at the time the particles were deposited. Volcanic ash can also indicate wind patterns. Additionally, volcanoes pump sulfates into the atmosphere, and these tiny particles also end up in the ice cores. This evidence is important because volcanic activity can contribute to climate change, and the ash layers can often be dated to help calibrate the timeline in the layers of ice.

Here is another link on science in the Antartic

http://www2.umaine.edu/USITASE/science/ ... /impl.html

It includes links to
http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Glossary/Glac ... ework.html

THis is another pile of links. I'll see if I can wade through some of this to get to the most relevant information.

For starters, here is an article on Ice Age Floods
http://www.nps.gov/iceagefloods/

This last notes that glacial Lake Missoula was created by an ice dam which repeatedly failed over thousands of years, creating several catastrophic flood events over a 2500 year period during the last ice age.

[otseng]

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.

However, one problem with this is that it must first preassume how old it is before measuring it. One must assume that it is around a yard long before one measures it with a yardstick. But, I agree that it requires other independent dating techniques to confirm dates.

At any rate, I noticed you picked out this one piece from my previous post.

Yes, I realize I still need to address the other points in the post. It's one of the problems of chasing multiple rabbits. Especially since I'm the only one chasing them and there are multiple people releasing them.

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.

Walt Brown (originator of the hydroplate theory) says:

In the Grand Canyon, the Cambrian-Precambrian interface is an almost flat, horizontal surface exposed for 66 miles above the Colorado River. Layers above the Cambrian-Precambrian interface are generally horizontal, but layers below are tipped at large angles, and their tipped edges are beveled off horizontally. Evidently, as slippage began during the compression event, layers below the slippage plane continued to compress to the point where they buckled. The sliding sedimentary block above the slippage plane beveled off the still soft layers that were being increasingly tipped by horizontal compression below the slippage plane.

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

This seems to imply that the layers in the Precambrian supergroup were formed during the flood. And that the unconformity is a result of slippage at the Cambrian-Precambrian line.

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.

also have some small interpolations of bowl shaped layers (4a, 4b, 4c).

4c - Surprise Canyon Formation
4a - Temple Butte Limestone

I do not think those formations simply exist as dome shaped pits. Here is another diagram of those layers:
Temple Butte, Redwall, and Surprise Canyon

[otseng]

With that said, I believe the unbroken (why the need for the this?) is just over 10,000 years.

That is what I've read too. I find this interesting. Why should it be limited to around 10,000 years? If trees fossilize, shouldn't there exist a record to go back much farther than that?

[otseng]

You talk about assumtion, but you are making some of your own. You assume we cant tell non-annual layers. You assume we cant tell when it melts.

From what I can tell, it is assumed that layers are formed annually. I don't see anywhere that they even try to distinguish if layers are subannual.

As the ice forms from the incremental buildup of annual layers of snow, lower layers are older than upper, and an ice core contains ice formed over a range of years. (emphasis mine)

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