Forum Comments

Answers In Genesis: The Grand Canyon, Evidence For The Flood
In Article Discussion
T_aquaticus
Commentator
Commentator
Feb 15, 2018
Kirk Peters, You wrote: "Most often sedimentary deposits that form thick rock layers are claimed to have been deposited over thousand, hundreds of thousands, or maybe even a million years. " Just because some thick layers are said to have formed over millions of years does not mean that all of them were. Just because some layers can form quickly does not mean that they were formed recently. It takes 3 months to build a house, but no one thinks that this is evidence for the Earth being 3 months old. It took decades to build the Pyramids, but no one thinks this is evidence that every house takes decades to build. You wrote: " Local floods my adress such a thing, but we are talking about deposits that do not stop and start locally. Some of the deposits are found over hundreds of miles." There are deposits being made across 70% of the Earth right now, and there is no global flood. Some of these deposits cover large swaths of the globe. For example, the Pacific Ocean. I don't see why deposits covering large swaths of territory indicate a global flood, nor why they would evidence a young Earth. What should we see if there was a recent global flood? First, we would expect to see a massive global flood layer that contained organic material with the same 14C content. Everything that is alive at the same time will be in equilibrium with the 14C content of the atmosphere, so a layer made at the same time should have organic remains that have the same 14C content. Can you point to any such global flood layer? I can't.
0
0
Answers In Genesis: The Grand Canyon, Evidence For The Flood
In Article Discussion
T_aquaticus
Commentator
Commentator
Feb 15, 2018
Kirk Peters, What indicates that there was a sudden change in climate in Alaska and Siberia? There are tons of flowers that grow right on top of permafrost in both Alaska and Siberia. There are also tons of glaciers and different places where mammoths could eat some grass and flowers, wander over, get stuck, and then get buried in ice. Why would there need to be a sudden change in climate? https://www.alaskacenters.gov/explore/attractions/permafrost You write: " Yes, we observe radioactive decay now. We observe parent elements and ratios with daughter elements, but did we observe whether any of the isotope was found in the rock when it was formed. If this occurred our age estimates would be older than the samples really are. " That still doesn't explain the correlations that we have been talking about. Why would a process of trapping daughter element in a new rock produce the correlation between K/Ar dating and the measured movement of the Pacific plate? Why would this process allow three different and independent isotope systems to all agree with one another, each with very different chemical properties, decay rates, and decay processes? Not only that, but you would have to again change the fundamental laws of the universe in order for your objection to be valid. For example, U/Pb dating of zircons works really well because zircons exclude Pb when they form, but include U. This is due to their size and charge. You would have to change the very basic laws of chemistry in order for zircons to include Pb during their formation, and in doing so you would make biology itself impossible. With K/Ar dating, they have already looked at more than 40 known historic eruptions and found a 0.25 million year deviation from known age in the single worst case. In most cases, there was no Ar present in the rock at formation. Why would it be any different in the past? " This is not the only dating study to be done on an historic lava flow. Two extensive studies done more than 25 years ago involved analyzing the isotopic composition of argon in such flows to determine if the source of the argon was atmospheric, as must be assumed in K-Ar dating (Dalrymple 1969, 26 flows; Krummenacher 1970, 19 flows). Both studies detected, in a few of the flows, deviations from atmospheric isotopic composition, most often in the form of excess 40Ar. The majority of flows, however, had no detectable excess 40Ar and thus gave correct ages as expected. Of the handful of flows that did contain excess 40Ar, only a few did so in significant amounts. The 122 BCE flow from Mt Etna, for example, gave an erroneous age of 0.25 0.08 Ma. Note, however, that even an error of 0.25 Ma would be insignificant in a 20 Ma flow with equivalent potassium content. " https://ncse.com/library-resource/radiometric-dating-does-work
0
0
Answers In Genesis: The Grand Canyon, Evidence For The Flood
In Article Discussion
T_aquaticus
Commentator
Commentator
Feb 08, 2018
If the assumptions found in radiometric dating were false then you wouldn't get such strong agreement between completely independent methods. Anyone claiming that radiometric dating doesn't work needs to explain the consilience between independent methods, including non-radiometric methods like plate tectonics. It isn't enough to simply say that there are assumptions. You need to show that the assumptions are wrong. On top of that, we already have evidence that decay rates were the same in the past. The strong and weak nuclear forces, which are fundamental forces found in nature, are what determines decay rates. If these forces were different in the past then we should see it in the stars, but it isn't there. Everywhere we look stars have the same characteristics, the same spectra, the same temperatures, and so forth. We should not see this consistency through space and time if nuclear forces were different in the past. On top of that, we can observe the decay of isotopes in distant supernovae, such as in supernovae 1987a. Using simply trigonometry you measure the distance to SN1987a, and that distance is about 170,000 light years. Scientists were also able to measure the decay rates of different isotopes that were created in the supernova explosion, and those elements have the same decay rates as they do on Earth. Therefore, we know that decay rates were the same 170,000 years ago, and all of the other stellar observations we have back constant laws of nature. http://chem.tufts.edu/science/astronomy/sn1987a.html There are also ways of checking the retention of parent and daughter isotopes. One such method is U/Pb concordia/discordia dating. Since any chemical or physical loss will not favor one isotope of Pb over another there should be equal loss of each isotope of Pb. However, the two radioactive isotopes of U decay at different rates and decay to different isotopes of Pb resulting in an excess of one Pb isotope over another. Therefore, if there was no loss of Pb then the dates given by the two U decay chains should agree. If there was loss then they won't agree. There is also the fact that Ar, Sr, and Pb are quite different from each other and there is no reason why something like loss or gain of daughter produce would cause all three methods to agree with one another on a false date. At the end of the day, the basic laws of the universe would have to have been different in the past for radiometric dating to be wrong. The only reason I can see for creationists to doubt this method is that it gives answers they don't like. When your only solution to this problem is to cast doubt on the consistency of natural laws with no evidence to back it, then you really don't have a valid argument.
0
0
Answers In Genesis: The Grand Canyon, Evidence For The Flood
In Article Discussion
T_aquaticus
Commentator
Commentator
Feb 08, 2018
Why would a false Rb/Sr isochron also agree with K/Ar and U/Pb dates? Why would K/Ar dates match the speed of tectonic plates as measured by GPS as is the case in the Hawaiian archipelago and Emporer seamounts? These are all completely independent systems, and they give the same dates. If you are claiming that people are reporting false data, then it would be a simple matter of going to the same rocks and measuring the same isotope ratios, but even creationist organizations don't do that because they know the data is correct. It would take a conspiracy of thousands of scientists over a period of decades, including christian scientists, to make this conspiracy work. That just doesn't seem credible. Let's look at a couple of examples. First, we have measurements of rocks at the K/T boundary. I will quote from the website since they explain it much better than I could. " There are several important things to note about these results. First, the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods were defined by geologists in the early 1800s. The boundary between these periods (the K-T boundary) is marked by an abrupt change in fossils found in sedimentary rocks worldwide. Its exact location in the stratigraphic column at any locality has nothing to do with radiometric dating — it is located by careful study of the fossils and the rocks that contain them, and nothing more. Second, the radiometric age measurements, 187 of them, were made on 3 different minerals and on glass by 3 distinctly different dating methods (K-Ar and 40Ar/39Ar are technical variations that use the same parent-daughter decay scheme), each involving different elements with different half-lives. Furthermore, the dating was done in 6 different laboratories and the materials were collected from 5 different locations in the Western Hemisphere. And yet the results are the same within analytical error. If radiometric dating didn’t work then such beautifully consistent results would not be possible. " https://ncse.com/library-resource/radiometric-dating-does-work Next, we have the Hawiian hotspot which created the Hawiian archipelago and the Emporer seamounts. These geologic formations were created by the Pacific plate moving slowly over the hotspot that is currently fueling volcanoes in Hawaii. When you plot the radiometric dates of these formations against their distance to the current hotspot you get this graph: The line of best fits predicts that the speed of the Pacific plate should be 8.6 cm per year. These dates were determined well before scientists were able to measure the movement of these plates. Now they can measure the movement using GPS. Guess what? The measured movement of the Pacific plate is 8.8 cm per year, almost exactly what K/Ar dating predicted. You can find the interactive map for GPS measurements here (Hawaii is in the Philippine seas data source, and click on the option for station labels): https://www.unavco.org/software/visualization/GPS-Velocity-Viewer/GPS-Velocity-Viewer.html If K/Ar dating is that far off, why does it magically agree with GPS measurements in the here and now? Why do we find so many correlations if all of these methods are supposedly wrong?
Content media
0
0
Answers In Genesis: The Grand Canyon, Evidence For The Flood
In Article Discussion
Answers In Genesis: The Grand Canyon, Evidence For The Flood
In Article Discussion
T_aquaticus
Commentator
Commentator
Jan 29, 2018
RE: Channeled Scablands The thing is, those floods did not produce those deposits. They produced the erosion. For Flood geology and YEC, Noah's flood has to produce both. In the Channeled Scablands those are old deposits that lithified over time which allowed them be eroded without slumping. In Flood geology, there isn't any time for these deposits to lithify. They would have been loose mud and would have collapsed. Also, the Channeled Scablands give us a great example of what catastrophic flooding would have done if it were responsible for the Grand Canyon. When you have catastrophic flooding the rivers don't stay in their banks and dig deeper. Instead, they overflow their banks and grow wider, and they will even form parallel rivers which form a system of braided channels. This is what we see with the Channeled Scablands which were produced by the sudden eflux of water out of glacial lakes. We see nothing like this in the Grand Canyon system, as seen here: With the GC, we see a single meandering channel with drainaige patterns running perpindecular to the main stream. This is completely inconsistent with catastrophic erosion from a catastrophic flood. This pattern is consistent with a river that formed on a flat plain and then slowly eroded a canyon as the plain was slowly uplifted. There are also other differences we can get into, such as the U shaped canyons in the Channeled Scablands and the V shaped canyons in the GC. The evidence for quick erosion in the Channeled Scablands simply doesn't exist in the GC.
Content media
0
0
T_aquaticus
Commentator
Appreciated
Influencer
Welcome!
Conversant
+4
More actions