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]

A couple of related discussions have occurred.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... &start=290
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 9&start=40

Those are the threads.

Since there seems to be quite an interest on this, how about this? After we finish this thread on the flood, we can debate about the Earth at the center of the Universe (both observable and nonobservable).

[micatala]

A couple of related discussions have occurred.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... &start=290
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 9&start=40

Those are the threads.

Since there seems to be quite an interest on this, how about this? After we finish this thread on the flood, we can debate about the Earth at the center of the Universe (both observable and nonobservable).

Well, I think I passed on that topic the first time, but I'll at least think about it.

[nygreenguy]

A couple of related discussions have occurred.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... &start=290
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 9&start=40

Those are the threads.

Since there seems to be quite an interest on this, how about this? After we finish this thread on the flood, we can debate about the Earth at the center of the Universe (both observable and nonobservable).

Well, I think I passed on that topic the first time, but I'll at least think about it.

come on now, you REALLY think this will ever end!

[otseng]

I found another image of a snowpit. Notice the light differences on all three walls.

http://www.waisdivide.unh.edu/Gallery/I ... GE_ID=1078

I also note that in this picture we still see light layers and darker layers on all the walls. In the firstpicture you provided you could see multiple layers but of similar colors. Especially if and when the layers get compressed, the differences would be enhanced.

As I've cited, an "annual layer" is 1 cm thick. Refering to the original photo below with the scale on the right, we would be viewing over 150 years of snow deposits.



We have yet to even demonstrate how to even visually arrive at a date. Yes, you have mentioned that scientists have been studying ice layer formation over 50 years ago, but when we look at the data from actual ice core sites, there are a wide array of interpretations on what exactly is an annual layer. Granted we are not professionals, but there should at least exist some objective standard of how an annual layer is visually determined. Several proposals have been offered. Is it one dark/light band? Is it several dark/light bands?

1) Despite numerous cross checking methods and ongoing current observations, scientists cannot even count the layers they have seen forming accurately.

If they can count it, then it should be explainable in clear terms to us laymen. There should be no ambiguity and have a clear definition.

That, although ice core dating works for recent years, something changed at some point in the past that altered how the layers were formed and have led us to interpret as annual layers which are actually subannual.

For one thing, we are not able to establish how to visually determine an annual layer.

Also as one gets further deeper, visual and isotope dating becomes more difficult. Isotopes diffuses over time. Layers become more indistinguishable. If we see such thin layers in the Antarctic in the first 2 meters, then how thin would be the layers hundreds, thousands of meters deep?

I also note that otseng's own ball park figure based on sheet thickness gave an estimate of 44,000 years.

It was a ballpark figure based on numerous assumptions and to give the high end value of the age of the ice cap. I'm not offering my ballpark estimate as a firm date as to the age of the ice cap, rather simply an estimate based on several assumptions.

Would otseng agree that ice core data indicates with a high probability that no global flood occurred in the last 40,000 years?

I will agree that the age of the ice cap is a limiting factor to the dating of the flood. As to my 40,000 year estimate, I'm not offering that as an exact date for the flood.

[otseng]

come on now, you REALLY think this will ever end!

The longest thread on the forum is 2121 posts long. So, we're only one third of that thread.

When I run out of arguments for the flood, I promise I'll end my contribution to this thread. Or if anyone wants to end it early, all someone has to do is say "Uncle! I believe in the Flood!"

[micatala]

I found another image of a snowpit. Notice the light differences on all three walls.

http://www.waisdivide.unh.edu/Gallery/I ... GE_ID=1078

I also note that in this picture we still see light layers and darker layers on all the walls. In the firstpicture you provided you could see multiple layers but of similar colors. Especially if and when the layers get compressed, the differences would be enhanced.

As I've cited, an "annual layer" is 1 cm thick. Refering to the original photo below with the scale on the right, we would be viewing over 150 years of snow deposits.

Just to clarify slightly, the quote is that the annual layers are "about" 1 cm thick.

We have yet to even demonstrate how to even visually arrive at a date. Yes, you have mentioned that scientists have been studying ice layer formation over 50 years ago, but when we look at the data from actual ice core sites, there are a wide array of interpretations on what exactly is an annual layer. Granted we are not professionals, but there should at least exist some objective standard of how an annual layer is visually determined. Several proposals have been offered. Is it one dark/light band? Is it several dark/light bands?

First, let's be clear where an ambiguity lies. I am not an expert and so am not going to pretend to be. If I have been ambiguous in my statements, or if my statements disagree with grumpy's or nygreenguy's or scotracer's, this confusion should not be attributed to the experts.

In a previous link you posted, there seems to be a fairly unambiguous criteria offered.

Three deep core sections show distinct annual bands produced by the deposition of dust during the dry season (dry season dust layers are represented by triangles). While annual bands provide accurate relative dating (the age of each ice band is known to be a year apart from directly adjacent bands), paleoclimatologists also search for absolute dates within a core chronology. Electrical conductivity measurements (ECM), particle concentrations, and the ratio of heavy to light oxygen molecules are other seasonally-variable core parameters that can be used along with visual stratigraphy in dating ice cores.

All the direct quotes that I can recall from scientists have side light ice is from the winter, dark is from the summer. If there were any confusion among scientists, they could double check this through O16/O18 isotope testing or, as in this case, look for the inclusion of dust.

1) Despite numerous cross checking methods and ongoing current observations, scientists cannot even count the layers they have seen forming accurately.

If they can count it, then it should be explainable in clear terms to us laymen. There should be no ambiguity and have a clear definition.

Here is the larger context from the post of mine quoted. #691

In order for ice core dating to be drastically wrong, it seems to me you need to prove or assume one or more of the following:

1) Despite numerous cross checking methods and ongoing current observations, scientists cannot even count the layers they have seen forming accurately.

2) That, although ice core dating works for recent years, something changed at some point in the past that altered how the layers were formed and have led us to interpret as annual layers which are actually subannual. Whatever this "something" is does not seem to change the appearance or chemistry of the layers beyond what scientists have accounted.

Again, I might have been ambiguous, mostly because I am typically cautious not to overstate my case. I am not sure where any of the experts quoted have been ambiguous, but if this is the case, I'll ask otseng to correct me.


Now, if otseng is expecting those of us on the forum to be able to determine the annual layers from his images from WAIS, then I will insist on a couple of things.

The first is a confirmation of where these are from and that the 1 cm figure cited from the wikipedia article applies to the specific sites where the photos are from.

More importantly, if we ARE talking about 1 cm layers, then the resolution on these photos does not seem to me to be sufficient. I tried zooming in on the most recently included photo. As I did, I could see places where more layers were discernible. However, I also experienced some blurring.

The picture in the link I cited includes a pretty non-ambuguous set of layers, but the layers are also thicker than those at the WAIS site.

I also tried zooming in on the originally posted photo from http://lima.nasa.gov/antarctica/. Once again, zooming revealed additional layers, but also blurring. My hypothesis is that we are seeing both annual layers that are very thin and longer climactic variations. I very cold winter could produce an exceptionally light band, and a warm summer an exceptionally dark. A warm period could result in the summer and winter layers being relatively darker.



I guess I'll ask you to clarify what you are expecting. I am willing to make an attempt to do what the experts do, but I also want it understood that my being unable to do this should not be taken to imply that the experts do not know how to determine annual layers.

I do not accept, for example, the assertion made in the next quote that the experts are not able to use visual stratigraphy to determine annual layers where that is appropriate.

For one thing, we are not able to establish how to visually determine an annual layer.

Also as one gets further deeper, visual and isotope dating becomes more difficult. Isotopes diffuses over time. Layers become more indistinguishable. If we see such thin layers in the Antarctic in the first 2 meters, then how thin would be the layers hundreds, thousands of meters deep?

First, I will point out that we have noted the average for the continent is 5 cm per year and for the Vostok area, 2.5 cm per year. So, layer thickness will vary from location to location.

As far as how far down we go before the layers become too thin to distinguish, I beleive one of the links you cited on WAIS noted they could go back 40,000 years. In other areas it might be more or less.

I also note that otseng's own ball park figure based on sheet thickness gave an estimate of 44,000 years.

It was a ballpark figure based on numerous assumptions and to give the high end value of the age of the ice cap. I'm not offering my ballpark estimate as a firm date as to the age of the ice cap, rather simply an estimate based on several assumptions.

Understood. Averages can only be used in this way, unless we can verify the average DOES hold over the long term. I allow that my estimate of 132,000 years is not to be taken as conclusive. I would not say it is either "high end" or "low end" just an esimate that would hold if the assumptions were correct concerning the average of 2.5 cm over the long term.

Would otseng agree that ice core data indicates with a high probability that no global flood occurred in the last 40,000 years?

I will agree that the age of the ice cap is a limiting factor to the dating of the flood. As to my 40,000 year estimate, I'm not offering that as an exact date for the flood.

Understood.

[Scotracer]

otseng, when you were calculating your approximation for the ice sheet, I challenged it:

Show me somewhere where uniformitarianism says the climate must remain constant? The principal of uniformity NEVER says everything remains constant. Its utterly offensive to me as a scientist for you to make such blatant false accusations.

Where did I say that? And where did I say the climate was constant in the past? The only thing I stated was using the assumption of a constant precipitation rate, I derived my values of a ballpark estimate of the age of the Antarctica ice cap.

Your numbers assume no compression of lower layers due to the pressure from above - which is something we see in reality.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 520#263520

Could you please clarify this.

[micatala]

Here is an article on visual stratigraphy from Greenland.

http://www.gfy.ku.dk/~www-glac/ngrip/pa ... fs/206.pdf

It has a 2005 publication date. The article includes quite a number of good graphics, including a sample of 9 fairly long ice core samples from varying depths.

This will take some time to wade through, but does seem very relevant to the discussion. It specifically mentions how deep the visual layers can be discerned.


To paraphrase the hawkers of reading material of various kinds, "if you only read one article on ice cores this week, this is the one!"

[Goat]

Here is an article on visual stratigraphy from Greenland.

http://www.gfy.ku.dk/~www-glac/ngrip/pa ... fs/206.pdf

It has a 2005 publication date. The article includes quite a number of good graphics, including a sample of 9 fairly long ice core samples from varying depths.

This will take some time to wade through, but does seem very relevant to the discussion. It specifically mentions how deep the visual layers can be discerned.


To paraphrase the hawkers of reading material of various kinds, "if you only read one article on ice cores this week, this is the one!"

I would have to say, considering the vast amount of papers that explain how yearly cycles are distingished from the individual snow falls, the attempts to say that ice cores are not valid for a yearly record is shown to be inaccurate.

However, isn't this thread supposed to be about 'evidence for the flood'? So far, this has merely been an attempt to discredit information against the flood (unsuccessfully IMO). Where is the evidence FOR the flood?

In specific, I would like to see evidence of where the 1 billion cubic miles of water that would be needed to flood the world came from, and evidence that shows where it went afterwards. I don't want an explaination of what might have happened, I want actual evidence of it.

I would also like to see how the geological layers could be laid down, and yet canyons that allegedly were formed by the flood cut through those layers in the process of laying them down happened.

[micatala]

Here is an article on visual stratigraphy from Greenland.

http://www.gfy.ku.dk/~www-glac/ngrip/pa ... fs/206.pdf

It has a 2005 publication date. The article includes quite a number of good graphics, including a sample of 9 fairly long ice core samples from varying depths.

This will take some time to wade through, but does seem very relevant to the discussion. It specifically mentions how deep the visual layers can be discerned.


To paraphrase the hawkers of reading material of various kinds, "if you only read one article on ice cores this week, this is the one!"

I would have to say, considering the vast amount of papers that explain how yearly cycles are distingished from the individual snow falls, the attempts to say that ice cores are not valid for a yearly record is shown to be inaccurate.

I agree there are volumes written on glacial science. A lot of this uses information on dating in order to analyze past climate change. We have only barely alluded to the consistency between past climate change as recorded in ice cores and other evidence for these climate changes.

It is also true that we could debate for many more pages and not reach agreement. However, I personally think it is useful to document "in laymen's terms" as best we can the evidence against the flood (or for any other assertions we might want to make).

However, isn't this thread supposed to be about 'evidence for the flood'? So far, this has merely been an attempt to discredit information against the flood (unsuccessfully IMO). Where is the evidence FOR the flood?

True enough. The questions for debate are:

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?

We certainly have no agreement on 1. I have provided I believe ample information to show that the FM does not provide the best explanation for the fossil record, and also to some extent geologic formations. After we set aside ice cores, we might go back to the grand canyon examples provided by otseng and others.

The FM has been largely argued on the basis of Brown's hydroplate theory. There is, in my view, no real science there in that we have no positive evidence cited to support the "chambers of the deep" except one deep pocket of a small amount of water. This pocket certainly does not prove such chambers once existed. There also has been no solid evidence provided that a vapor canopy existed or that water pressure and "lubrication" can help cause techtonic movements.

Some scientific facts have been pointed to in support of the FM. The question is whether these are more supportive of the FM or the SG. Also, this question is probably poorly stated in that a model should take into account all the evidence that exists and is relevant, not isolated chunks. One can make almost any model of anything consistent with at least some of the evidence.


otseng has made a number of predictions based on the FM, and has challenged others to provide predictions of the SG. I will have more to say on this when we talk about the grand canyon as some of the more recent remarks on the grand canyon seem to conflict with previously made statements and predictions regarding the FM, but I don't want to digress off ice cores until we have explored that topic a bit more.


4) I think can be answered no.