The Flood As Science

[Jose]

In the Creation in the Classroom thread, we recognized that an important issue is to assess whether it is possible to present Creationism as science. We began such a discussion in the Global Flood thread, since the Flood figures into much of the Creationist interpretation of the data that are otherwise used to support evolution. Here, I've tried to tie our discussion together, and present the issues at the beginning of a thread where they will be easier to find and refer to.

The approach is to treat the Flood Model scientifically. It is the Creationist explanation for observations we make today. This makes it, in some sense, a Creationist hypothesis. To treat this hypothesis scientifically, we will apply standard scientific reasoning. First, what is the hypothesis? We will state our understanding clearly. Second, what predictions are made by this hypothesis? We will develop a set of predictions. Third, what tests or new observations can we envision that would assess the accuracy of these predictions? It is my hope that the Creationists among us will investigate these observations and report what they find.

For the non-Creationists, let me say that it is moot what the pre-flood conditions were, and whether the laws of physics were the same then as now. The model builds in the idea that things were, in fact, different. Since this is the model, we must take it at face value as part of the model. However, after the flood, it is said that the laws of physics were stabilized in the state that we can now measure. Thus, our predictions really must address the consequences of the flood, not the conditions prior to it.

The hypothesis, as presented here, derives from conversation primarily with otseng who first suggested working from Walt Brown's hydroplate idea. If it differs from your favorite scenario, it would be good to see what the differences are.

Note that a scientific treatment is to test the hypothesis. It is not adequate to look at existing structures in the world and say 'yeah, that can be explained by this hypothesis,' because this approach misses the fact that other hypotheses may also explain it. The key is to assess whether the clear predictions of our hypothesis are met.

HYPOTHESIS

1. Water welled up from the earth's interior, providing sufficient water to rain like mad and eventually to cover the earth's surface. Living things like Noah were protected from the physical effects that would occur today by supernatural means, or by virtue of the laws of physics being different pre-Flood.

2. The water was ejected through cracks in the earth's crust, with such force as to deform the layer below (in an upward direction) into a series of ocean ridges.

3. The upheaval created vast quantities of sediment, which settled out to form the geological strata that we now observe.

4. Vegetation was all covered by sediments, and subsequently converted to coal and oil. 'Stirring' of the Flood water resulted in non-uniform deposition of different species, and non-uniform sizes and locations of coal and oil deposits.

5. Plants and animals were covered by sediments, and subsequently fossilized.

6. Different kinds of rocks ended up in different strata due to differential rates of sedimentation, and to continued ejection of stuff from the underground chamber.

7. Continued ejection of stuff resulted in some interference with the ordered sedimentation ('stirring'), so that the some kinds of rock may be found in more than one stratum.

8. Different kinds of fossils ended up in different strata due to differential rates of sinking; i.e. the model called 'hydrogical sorting of ecological niches.' Again, there may have been some interference by continued ejection of stuff.

9. The flood covered 100% of the earth's surface, including the mountains, and receded only after complete destruction of all living things that were not on the ark (or could swim, or otherwise survive such a catastrophe).

10. After formation of the sediments, the crust slid downhill from the ocean ridges, causing compaction and stress, and eventually the uplift of the major mountain ranges that now exist.

11. Large canyons, such as the Grand Canyon, were carved by the rapid retreat of the flood waters from the mountains, while the sediments were still soft enough to erode quickly.

Fine. Here's a hypothesis. If it explains the way the world is now, its predictions should all be met. These are the ones we have previously agreed upon, with some clarification based on our prior discussions:

PREDICTIONS

1. Except in those areas that were rapidly eroded when the water went away (to wherever it went), surface rocks should be no older than the flood itself.

2. Basement rocks, that existed prior to the flood, should be older than the sedimentary layers deposited by the flood, but should be no older than their date of creation.

3. Basement rocks, that existed prior to the flood, should show no evidence of different strata.

4. Except for those areas that were rapidly eroded, and except for the vicinity of the ocean ridges, all of the earth's surface should be covered with sediments from the flood. This should be especially true in low-lying areas, where sediments would be more likely to accumulate without danger of being washed to a lower level.

5. The rock strata should vary in a consistent pattern, with more rapidly-sedimenting material at the bottom of the geological column, and more slowly-sedimenting material at the top. The few instances of repeating series of rock types would be dependent on the frequency with which 'burps' (if you will) of the ejection of water from the earth's interior caused stirring, or interference with sedimentation.

6. Fossils should show a consistent pattern in the geological column: heaviest on the bottom, lightest on the top (or some such thing). That is: similar kinds of fossils should not be found in widely separated strata. Again, this would be dependent on the frequency with which ejection of water stirred things up.

7. Because we cannot guess how often ejection of water stirred things up, and because it is likely to have been locally variable depending on local conditions, we cannot easily determine the local frequency of such stirring. However, we can predict that, in regions where little stirring occurred, and in regions where frequent stirring occurred, points 5 and 6 should lead to parallel repetitions of both rock types and fossil types in the strata.

8. No footprints of land animals should be found in strata that were eroded by the receding flood waters, since the land animals had been killed before the water receded.

9. Deep canyons that formed as the Flood water drained away from the uplifting mountains should be found primarily near mountains. Similar deep canyons should be rare in low-lying areas.

10. Canyons should follow the 'easiest line of descent' from the mountains, if they were formed by runoff as the mountains drained away. Water usually flows downhill, and is unlikely to flow uphill to carve a canyon through an impediment.

TESTS

Since the easiest way to test predictions is to see if any of them are not met, here are some tips, listed in order of prediction.

1. Are the ages of surface rocks in different locations consistent? Dating techniques have inherent degrees of error, so exact correspondence isn't to be expected. But we would certainly expect dates within, say, a factor of two (or even 10) of each other.

2. Within the error of measurement, is it possible to divide the ages of various rocks into two discrete categories: relatively old (pre-flood) and relatively new (post-flood)? We would not expect extensive variation in ages--more like 6000 years vs 4000 years.

3. Are the oldest rocks we can find uniform in their appearance, or is there evidence of sedimentary strata? Another way to phrase this is: are all sedimentary strata uniformly young, and all homogeneous rocks uniformly old (except, of course, for rocks formed by recent volcanic activity)? The Vishnu Schist in the Grand Canyon is suggested to be pre-Flood rock with no strata; are other Precambrian rocks of this age or older also without parallel strata?

4. Are there locations in the world, especially low-lying areas, with very different kinds of rocks on the surface? A corollary to this is the question: are there locations in the world in which rocks of the same type can be found on the surface in one location, and closely apposed to the basement (pre-flood) rocks in another location?

5. Are there any examples of repeated sedimentation patterns--like hundreds of repeats of alternating limestone and shale in very deep canyons? The number of repeats would indicate the number of 'stirring events' that occurred during the flood; the more sedimentation that has occurred below these strata, the less likely it is that many repeats should be found (as most of the sediment should have sedimented).

6. Are there any instances of similar fossils in widely separated strata? A good example might be bivalves (brachiopods, oysters, etc) of similar sizes. Again, some repeats might be expected if the flood involved a number of 'stirring events,' but toward the top of the geological column, after most sedimentation has occurred, certainly the heaviest fossils should have sedimented. At least, fossils near the bottom should not be at all similar (with respect to their hydrodymanic properties) to fossils at the top (again, bivalves are good examples: brachiopods, oysters, etc).

7. In regions with repeated series of strata, similar repeats of fossils should be found, since the repeats indicate 'stirring' events, which should apply to all of the suspended sediment, including dead animals that can be fossilized.

8. Are there animal footprints in any rock layers that should have formed only during the flood, and cannot have been exposed until after the flood receded?

9. Where do we find deep canyons (or any canyons) that would indicate large amounts of water flowing through them to carve them? Are they all near mountains, which could provide the source of the runoff?

10. Do canyons or current river valleys follow the easiest path of descent from the mountains that they drain?

If we agree with these statements of hypothesis and predictions, we should be able to look into the published literature, or make our own observations, to address the predictions. What do we find?

[jwu]

Jose/jwu - thanks for your replies.

Regarding catastrophic events changing the radionuclides: Could a significant change in the earth's magnetic field, atmospheric pressure, increase/decrease in UV or other extra-terrestrial energy - could any of that effect (significantly) the measuring of radio-isotopes? I've been researching this subject... I can't find anything reliable. Thanks in advance.

If i'm not mistaken extreme pressure (many magnitudes above anything which occurs on or in earth) can increase decay which is caused by neutron capture by something like 1%.
That of course is not nearly enough to get the measured dates close to the ones that would be required for a young earth, and the required pressure would have totally crushed any fossils, so we should not have anything to date in first instance.

There are other problems with accellerated decay. E.g. if all the nuclear activity of 4.5 billion years would have been compressed to like 6000 years, then the result would be the earth turning into a ball of superheated plasma. Keep in mind that the earth's interior is molten because of nuclear decay heat...increasing the rate of nuclear decay by like 1.000.000 times wouldn't be fun for us.

jwu

[Jose]

If i'm not mistaken extreme pressure (many magnitudes above anything which occurs on or in earth) can increase decay which is caused by neutron capture by something like 1%.

I hadn't heard that. But, as you say, it's not relevant to earthly processes.

The argument against your argument that vastly increased decay rates would be needed to make the earth look 6000 years old is quite simple. Since we don't know of any way to change decay rates on earth, then the only way for increased decay rates would be by divine intervention. Since we have to invoke devine intervention to change the decay rates, we might as well invoke devine intervention to change the energy released by radioactive decay. Of course, if we must invoke devine intervention, then we're back to the original problem: natural processes just don't give us ages consistent with a young earth.

I think this is why our initial hypothesis considers whether the laws of physics were the same before the flood as now. If people were supposed to live hundreds of years, then, something was different. But, after the flood, the laws of physics are supposed to have been set up the way they are now. Maybe, we could use this logic to say that maybe, perhaps, the measured ages of pre-flood basement rocks might be off, but post-flood sedimentary rocks should have ages that are no more than the date of the flood.

Indeed, dating mechanisms are really important. It is, perhaps, a good idea to bring in other dating methods--or at least, other methods of measuring pre-historic time. Dendrochronology ( tree rings) can get us back 9000 years or so. Ice cores from Greenland and the Antarctic can get us back 160,000 years. These dates are nowhere near the ages of, say, Cambrian strata, but they are certainly beyond Oct 26, 4004 BC. These are different lines of evidence, independent from one another, that push back the possible date of the Flood beyond 6000 years ago.

[seventil]

Indeed, dating mechanisms are really important. It is, perhaps, a good idea to bring in other dating methods--or at least, other methods of measuring pre-historic time. Dendrochronology ( tree rings) can get us back 9000 years or so. Ice cores from Greenland and the Antarctic can get us back 160,000 years. These dates are nowhere near the ages of, say, Cambrian strata, but they are certainly beyond Oct 26, 4004 BC. These are different lines of evidence, independent from one another, that push back the possible date of the Flood beyond 6000 years ago.

Well said, Jose. I have a few questions about dating techniques for you, or anyone else that can answer:

Regarding dendrochronology: Doesn't the bristlecone chronologies rely on carbon dating to get their age? They are not living specimens (unless I understood wrong) - but basically fossilized remains that are analyzed for climate data for certain years. I don't disagree with the data analysis a bit (it's quite cool in fact) - but I had thought that the oldest tree-ring data was from about 4500ish years ago (the Methuselah tree) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/methuselah/

Regarding radioisotope dating: what about daughter material being added in the lava when the rocks are formed? With an assumption of a worlwide Flood - violent upheavals an catastrophic events beyond imaging almost - could daughter elements or other impurities be added into a majority of the strata to give them a false age?

Thanks again!

[otseng]

Indeed, dating mechanisms are really important. It is, perhaps, a good idea to bring in other dating methods--or at least, other methods of measuring pre-historic time. Dendrochronology ( tree rings) can get us back 9000 years or so. Ice cores from Greenland and the Antarctic can get us back 160,000 years. These dates are nowhere near the ages of, say, Cambrian strata, but they are certainly beyond Oct 26, 4004 BC. These are different lines of evidence, independent from one another, that push back the possible date of the Flood beyond 6000 years ago.

I think it would be hard to pinpoint any exact dates using any dating method. But, we can achieve ballpark figures. I think generally the issue is, are we talking about a scale of millions of years or thousands of years for the age of the earth. And, what if the flood was not 6000 years ago, but perhaps 60,000 years ago? I do not think it would make much of a difference. But, if we say it was 60,000,000 years ago, then it would not make any sense.

One question about the dating techniques you mentioned above is why are they in the thousands of years instead of the millions of years?

Also, another dating technique I introduced was the use of the population growth equation to guess the start date of the human population. This also produces numbers in the thousands of years range.

[jwu]

@seventil:
Dendrochronology works completely independent from radiologic dating. Of course, it occasionally happens that a year creates two rings, or none at all, but these effects balance out a bit. Regarding the reconstruction of sequences beyond the age of the oldest living trees, this can be done by finding matching patterns in the tree rings of fossilized trees which were found nearby - after all, depending on the climate of each year the rings will be thicker or smaller, this leaves a quite distinctive signature. The fossil tree rings can be overlapped with these, and this way a way longer timescale can be achieved, up to more than 10.000 years.
The radiometrically determined age of the respective tree rings then reliably happens to correlate very well with the ring count, and the variations are used calibrate the dating in case of C14.
Other methods are calibration by river varves. These once again correlate nicely.

I could find you some graphs which demonstrate the correlation of C14 dating with several other totally independent methods if you're interested.




Contamination of samples can be detected with isochron dating. It basically works by dating multiple samples and by dating the fossil/strata based on more than one isotope. If contamination occured, then, in order to go unnoticed, it would have to happen in a way that both isotopes are affected in the same degree. If this is combined with multiple samples, and the measurements agree with each other, then this is extremely unlikely to have happened by contamination, as a very specific and unlikely pattern of contamination would be required to have happened.

The whole process is a bit more complicated than i described above, and there are other methods to detect contamination such as concordia/discordia which are not described anywhere on the net as far as i know. However, this talkorigins article explains isochron datin in detail:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochro ... l#isochron

It's a good read, and it provides direct examples of how contaminated samples are distinguished from uncontaminated ones.

@otseng:
Dendrochronology is unlikely to produce very long timescales simply because we require a complete lineage. The longer the timescale is supposed to be, the higher the chance that we don't find fossils which cover the whole timescale. As soon as we don't have a complete lineage, there is hardly any use for such a sequence for the purpose of this debate anymore.
Of course, if we find a 2000 years tree ring record in a region of which we have a 5000 years one, and that 2000 years one cannot be matched, then one could assume that it has to be older than that, but it cannot be used for C14 calibration then anymore as the absolute age is not know...except by C14 dating, but that of course would be circular reasoning.

Ice cores only go up in the hundreds of thousands, because the ice moves. It does so slowly, but eventually even the ice at the south pole will have moved to the coast and the break off and melt. Therefore we cannot achieve dates which are older than it takes the ice to get from anywhere to the coast
As far as i know an ice core sequence found in antarctica is about 422.000 annual layers long.

Exponential population growth functions don't prove anything. They are not used by any biologist to predict population growth (instead logistical functions are being used), and they are sensitive enough to even minor adjustments to the values that you can use them to get almost any result which you desire. Besides that we lack reliable data about the world population in the past and the influence of improved nutrition and medical care to make any reliable extrapolations.
Besides that, your initial calculation of what is a realistic growth rate includes the post-1900 population boom, which is based on things that simply weren't the case eariler. This alone puts your numbers off quite a bit.

In other words, today's population does not directly disprove a flood from a population growth point of view. But lack of falsification does not equal proof.


jwu

[Jose]

Hmmm...it's really hard for me to add anything to what jwu has already posted. Well said!

[otseng]

Dendrochronology is unlikely to produce very long timescales simply because we require a complete lineage.

So, I guess we can say then that dendrochronology has no value for dating things beyond the thousands of years.

As far as i know an ice core sequence found in antarctica is about 422.000 annual layers long.

Could you supply any references to this?

They are not used by any biologist to predict population growth (instead logistical functions are being used), and they are sensitive enough to even minor adjustments to the values that you can use them to get almost any result which you desire.

For use in human population estimate calculations, is there a better equation to use?

I would disagree that almost any result can be achieved. Even when considering multiple sets of data, the numbers are far below the millions of years.

I would agree that there are many things that are not taken into account by the calculations. The equation is purely an estimate to determine a ballpark range. However, it cannot simply be discounted because it does not take into account all possible factors.

[jwu]

These are the graphs that i had promised, in advance:

The correlation between river varves in lake suigetsu, Japan (dots) and lake Gosciaz, Poland (circles).

This demonstrates that the "counted age" of those annual river varves correlates very well with the C14 age which was established for each varve.
We're dealing with two totally independend lakes here, on opposite sides of the world.


This is another correlation, based on Japanese river varves (dots) and uranium-thorium dated coral fossils (circles). Again, the coral dates correlate very well with the river varve and C14 dates.


PS:

So, I guess we can say then that dendrochronology has no value for dating things beyond the thousands of years.

For the purpose of this debate i'll agree on that, as a discussion about it wouldn't get us far. Thereare complete tree ring records up to more than 10.000 years though.

Could you supply any references to this?

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/ ... ostok.html

For use in human population estimate calculations, is there a better equation to use?

Yes, logistical growth. It accounts for limited resources:
actual growth=(1+r)N[(K-N)/K].

r= rate of growth with no limiting factors
N=current population
K=capacity of the environment

I would disagree that almost any result can be achieved. Even when considering multiple sets of data, the numbers are far below the millions of years.

I would agree that there are many things that are not taken into account by the calculations. The equation is purely an estimate to determine a ballpark range. However, it cannot simply be discounted because it does not take into account all possible factors.

Ok, let's take a closer look at your calculation:
All the time you included the post 1900 population boom, caused by better nutrition and medical care in your calculation of the growth factor. This alone is totally fatal for your argumentation, as such an extrapolation obviously is invalid:

N(t)=6.40E+09, N(0)=2.52E+09, end date=2000, start date=1950, t=50, r=0.018672553 --> Flood date=912 BC
N(t)=6.40E+09, N(0)=1.66E+09, end date=2000, start date=1900, t=100, r=0.013518929 --> Flood date=1260 BC
N(t)=6.40E+09, N(0)=1.27E+09, end date=2000, start date=1850, t=150, r=0.010808172 --> Flood date=1576 BC
N(t)=6.40E+09, N(0)=7.95E+08, end date=2000, start date=1750, t=250, r=0.008342845 --> Flood date=2041 BC
N(t)=6.40E+09, N(0)=5.00E+08, end date=2000, start date=1650, t=350, r=0.007284129 --> Flood date=2338 BC
N(t)=6.40E+09, N(0)=4.50E+08, end date=2000, start date=1200, t=800, r=0.003318507 --> Flood date=5133 BC

As one can see, the figure which fits the conventional flood date best is the one which is based on the growth from 1750 to 2000. This however includes the boom after 1900, which is very visible in the chart on this website:
http://www.prb.org/Content/NavigationMe ... Growth.htm

It shouldn't be included at all.

Let's do the calculations a slightly different way:
The world population of the year 1500 has been estimated to about 450 million, and 700 million in 1750. This reflects the growth rate prior to improved medical care and nutrition.

It's a 55% growth over the course of 250 years. It equals a population growth rate of 0.177% p.a. This would result in 700 million people in 1750ADif the flood happened in 8500BC
If we use 275 million people in 1000 and 700 million in 1750 as the basis, then we get a growth rate of no more than 0.125%, which results in 700 million people in 1750 if the flood had happened 13.000BC
If we go back up to 1AD with 200 million people, then the population is almost stable with 0.072% growth. Flood date: 23.500BC.
If we use the 1AD to 1000AD population growth rate (200 million to 275 million), then we get 53.500BC as the date of the flood.

You see, one can get whatever result one wants. Depending on what data is chosen to determine the average growth rate the results vary wildly.

jwu

[Jose]

So, I guess we can say then that dendrochronology has no value for dating things beyond the thousands of years.

As jwu said, essentially so. I'll add the comment that dendrochronology, just like the river varves, provides an independent method for checking the accuracy of C-14 dating. Since radiometric dating is usually what is challenged by creationists, it's very important to be able to show that independent methods reach the same conclusions. That is, radiometric dating can be verified by independent means.

I would disagree that almost any result can be achieved. Even when considering multiple sets of data, the numbers are far below the millions of years.

I would agree that there are many things that are not taken into account by the calculations. The equation is purely an estimate to determine a ballpark range. However, it cannot simply be discounted because it does not take into account all possible factors.

It looks like the results that one gets depend on the assumptions used to set up the equation. I infer from jwu's examples that there are too many variables that we cannot easily take into account--like variation in mortality rates. Certainly, we can't use recent numbers for the input, since we've changed the ground-rules with medical and technological advances. For that matter, we've probably been changing the ground rules since day one--hunter/gatherer societies probably have different growth rates than agricultural societies. The latter can build established settlements, which can become cities (more people), which can be devastated by plagues (way fewer people). There are a lot of unknowns.

Indeed, the numbers are not in the millions of years. But then, fossil and archeological data indicate that they should not be in the millions of years, in any event. H. sapiens is currently thought to have arrived on the scene only about 200,000 years ago. H. ergaster and H. erectus preceeded us, but since they are different species from us, they are not relevant to the calculation. That is, the calculation will give us some number, in the ballpark of some thousands of years plus or minus some thousands of years, which would be consistent with either the evolutionary model or the biblical model--we've only been here some few thousands of years.

[jwu]

Indeed, the numbers are not in the millions of years. But then, fossil and archeological data indicate that they should not be in the millions of years, in any event. H. sapiens is currently thought to have arrived on the scene only about 200,000 years ago. H. ergaster and H. erectus preceeded us, but since they are different species from us, they are not relevant to the calculation. That is, the calculation will give us some number, in the ballpark of some thousands of years plus or minus some thousands of years, which would be consistent with either the evolutionary model or the biblical model--we've only been here some few thousands of years.

In addition to this, the climate change after the toba eruption 75.000 years ago is hypothesized to have decimated the human population to a few thousand individuals - it had to start over again. If i recall correctly this bottleneck situation is also supported by genetics (mitochondrial DNA).

jwu