Schweitzer Does It Again....

[wombatty 0]

Oceanic floor spreading and the recorded palaeomagnetism clearly shows long periods of sustained magnetism and reversals. Based on current day spreading rates these represent long (millions of years) periods. No doubt you will say that the rates were faster in the past to account for this, but please just think through the consequences of this. If you only have 6,000 years or so to fit in all of the observed plate movements then they would have occurred 1000's of times faster than the typical cm or so a year today. Where is the evidence from the historical record? 2,000 years ago the land masses would have been SIGNIFICANTLY closer together than today. And just when do you suppose that the spreading rates changed? 100AD, 1,066AD last century?

31794[/snapback]

Again, I refer you to Baumgardner's Catastrophic Plate Tectonics. He proposes that this rapid continental drift was part and parcel of the Flood. Now you will protest that such rates of drift are catastophic; but that is not a problem as the Flood was a cataclysmic disaster of unparalleled scale.

Baumgardner proposes that the drift rate was vastly accelerated by the process of ‘runaway subduction’ (a consequence of heat & material properties). A result of this process would likely be a large mass (or masses) of continental crust – which is ‘colder’ than the material in the mantel, being deposited far down in the mantel. It appears that there is evidence for this: the ‘Beijing anomaly’. Emil Silvestru explains:

 

The concentric-sphere structure emerged from seismic data and the properties of minerals (from the rocks, meteorites and lab experiments). It is believed that the material comprising each of the inner spheres also has different chemical compositions. The basic conditions of pressure, temperature and viscosity at various depths have thus been estimated which has permitted certain predictions regarding behaviour and dynamics. But none of those predictions made any references to anything like the Beijing Anomaly (BA). This much water at such a depth was unimaginable! There is one exception though, namely a prediction coming from a creationist model of the internal dynamics of the earth and the way it explains how plate tectonics started. The model was created by Dr John Baumgardner, then of the Los Alamos National Laboratory.

 

The Catastrophic Plate Tectonics (CPT) model also provides a good creationist model for Noah’s Flood. According to it, when the first segments of the crust (seafloor) started sinking into the earth’s interior, they were moving meters per second rather than millimetres per year (the pace at which plates move today). At that speed, the sinking plates could have reached the bottom of the mantle (2,900 km below surface) in 15 days.

 

If tectonic plates were subducted at such a speed (‘runaway subduction’), sediments on the seafloor and massive amounts of water would have been dragged down with them. Once they reached the areas of high pressure and temperature inside the mantle, that water and the waterlogged sediments would have changed into very active chemical solutions and gases (sometimes referred to as volatiles) which, being significantly lighter, would tend to rise towards the surface. It is interesting that recent experiments have revealed that, when submitted to pressures and temperatures similar to those in the mantle, calcite (CaCO3 ), in the presence of iron, turns into methane gas. In light of this, a large and spectacular array of other similar chemical changes would be possible when vast volumes of seafloor rapidly sank into the mantle. At the slow pace subduction unfolds today, the seafloor melts as it descends and the volatiles separate early on, much closer to the surface. Consequently they will have different chemical characteristics and most of them reach the surface instead of remaining inside the mantle.

 

Runaway subduction may well be responsible for the water in the Beijing anomaly. But even larger volumes of mineral-laden fluids (hydrothermal fluids) could have reached the upper mantle and the crust. Wherever they would have filtered through unbound sediments (and Noah’s Flood surely produced tremendous amounts of them) the dissolved minerals would precipitate, cementing the unbound sediments into hard rock. About 90% of all sedimentary rocks are considered to be ‘terrigenous’ i.e. made of fragments of previous rocks eroded away from the continents and bound together by chemical cements. The source of these chemical cements (their sheer volume is immense!) has long been a conundrum. Not anymore.

 

The sediments deposited during Noah’s Flood contained massive vegetal debris and innumerable carcasses. The same hydrothermal fluids could have rapidly fossilized them (replacing the organic matter with mineral matter to varying degrees). Thus the whole of the known fossil record could have been formed in a short time. Such deep hydrothermal solutions are not known to be present on the surface now (all existing ones originated by infiltration of water from the surface to a depth no greater than a few kilometres), which would explain why widespread fossilization is not being witnessed today. The vast majority of the known fossils are the result of a unique geological processâ€â€ÂNoah’s Floodâ€â€Âwhich the newly discovered Beijing anomaly seems to confirm.

 

 

Mantle density structure of the eastern (top) and western (bottom) hemispheres derived from seismic tomography. Blue represents low temperature rock and red high temperature rock. Bright green contours represent present-day subduction areas.

[pdw709 1]

Really? Humphreys prediction here related specifically to magnetic reversal rates and he nailed it (just as he has with his predictions of planetary magnetic field values). Further, your assertion that  'a prediction or test must be able to account for ALL of the obersved data and not just a cherry picked sub set' disqualifies the evolutionary timescale as they did not predict rapid reversals and were very surprised by the evidence.

 

It seems a habit among evolutionary believers that they demand of creationists what they will not demand of their own: that they explain everything right now. Troublesome data and unexplained phenomena 'falsify' creationism whereas they are simply 'research opportunities' for evolutionists.

 

Even when creationists do solid science with successful predictions, they are dismissed.

31795[/snapback]

To be fair, the reason why there was no prediction for rapid reversals was because they did'nt need to be predicted as the only explanation required was to account for the "slow" reversals of of the rock record. It's only the recent evidence that suggests they may be rapid. But even then we do not know the long term evidence - maybe they fluctuate widely during a longer reversal process. But to be honest I'm not really willing to say anymore on this unless I can read the Coe & Prévot papers myself.

[pdw709 1]

Again, I refer you to Baumgardner's Catastrophic Plate Tectonics. He proposes that this rapid continental drift was part and parcel of the Flood. Now you will protest that such rates of drift are catastophic; but that is not a problem as the Flood was a cataclysmic disaster of unparalleled scale.

Baumgardner proposes that the drift rate was vastly accelerated by the process of ‘runaway subduction’ (a consequence of heat & material properties). A result of this process would likely be a large mass (or masses) of continental crust – which is ‘colder’ than the material in the mantel, being deposited far down in the mantel. It appears that there is evidence for this: the ‘Beijing anomaly’. Emil Silvestru explains:

31806[/snapback]

Unfortunately Baumgardner's "Runaway Subduction" model does work without miracles, as Baumgardner himself admitted (Baumgardner 1990a, 1990b). Problems with this model include:

 

The thermal diffusivity of the earth would have to increase ten thousandfold to get the subduction rates proposed, and something would have to cause the advance and retreat of the magma bubble (Matsumura 1997). Miracles would also have been necessary to cool the new ocean floor and to raise sedimentary mountains in months rather than in the millions of years it would ordinarily take.

 

The miraculously lowered viscosity would likely also lower frictional heating, removing the heat source that the model needs to accelerate the subduction (Matsumura 1997).

 

A series of events such as the magma bubble Baumgardner described would create "an enormous volcanic province in a single region. So, where is it?" (Geissman, quoted in Matsumura 1997, 30). The incredible amount of subduction proposed would also have produced much more vulcanism around plate boundaries than we see (Matsumura 1997).

 

Baumgardner estimated a release of 1028 joules from the subduction process. This is more than enough to boil off all the oceans. In addition, Baumgardner postulated that the mantle was much hotter before the Flood (giving it less viscosity); that heat would have to go somewhere, too.

 

Baumgardner's own modeling shows that during the Flood, currents would be faster over continents than over ocean basins (Baumgardner and Barnette 1994), so sediments should, on the whole, be removed from continents and deposited in ocean basins. Yet sediments on the ocean basin average 0.6 km thick, while on continents (including continental shelves), they average 2.6 km thick (Poldervaart 1955).

 

Cenozoic sediments are post-Flood according to this model. Yet fossils from Cenozoic sediments alone show a sixty-five-million-year record of evolution, including a great deal of the diversification of mammals and angiosperms (Carroll 1997, chaps. 5-6, 13).

 

Terra, the computer program that Baumgardner created, is a useful computer program for modeling convection, but the program adds no credibility. Unreal assumptions of runaway subduction will produce unreal conclusions.

 

[Adam Nagy 49]

If people think it is worth while, I'll split this topic off into a thread that deals specifically with geology.

 

The oldest islands have been sub aerially exposed for a longer time and have therefore been subject to more erosion.

31794[/snapback]

Oh come on! Take a look at a satellite view of Hawaii. First the erosion is wildly unique from island to island. Your ideas would predict some semblance of consistency. There is none.

 

Take a look at these four images:

 

Image 1:

 

Image 2:

 

Image 3:

 

Image 4:

 

I'm going to reference these in the next couple of posts.

[Adam Nagy 49]

Image 1 with a little bit of imagination could almost resemble what you're talking about... almost. However, as you zoom out you see some disturbing problems with this sliding plate idea purely from your own uniformitarian assumpitions. Image 2 shows a huge problem with your idea as the under water mountains go from large (circled red) to small (circled purple) in the direction that your conjecture says they should be the other way around. Why is this?

 

Zoom out even further and the problem amplifies itself even more on Image 3. Please tell us if the areas circled in red and purple on Image 3 are the same ridge or separate ridges? If they are the same what force made the plate turn 60° or so? If they are separate, where is the subduction zone where these plates are colliding, like along the continental shelves of Alaska or South America?

 

Last but certainly not least. In Image 4 I circled the Hawaiian Islands in red for orientation purposes. If the plate is supposedly moving at a steady rate north/north west why is there a trench along South America just like along Russia and Alaska's coast line?

 

I want to include one more exhibit in the next post...

[Adam Nagy 49]

I have asked this question before and never received a response and I believe this is more vital than any concept involved in what formed and is forming chains of volcanic islands. Please watch the following demonstration and maybe you'll pick up right away what my point of contention is:

 

dcGbckg2Ojo

 

Conventional geology wants us to believe that the plate is moving over a stationary hot spot. Why is this the favorable conclusion? Looking at the short video I made above. Would you believe me if I said that it was an optical illusion and what you are really seeing is the solid glass moving over a stationary bubble?

 

If that's ridiculous on a demonstratable scale test, what scientific phenomena tells us that it's more scientifically accurate to assume that solid interlocked plates are moving over bubbles of molten rock rather then bubbles of molten rock moving under solid plates like my demonstration above?

 

I think this also demonstrates the level of indoctrination, without critical thinking skills, disseminated in colleges today.

[CTD 1]

This is not evidence. Any prediction would also have to account for the other observed palaemagentic changes in the rock record (i.e. the ones that have lasted considerably longer). A prediction or test must be able to account for ALL of the obersved data and not just a cherry picked sub set.

Really? Humphreys prediction here related specifically to magnetic reversal rates and he nailed it (just as he has with his predictions of planetary magnetic field values). Further, your assertion that 'a prediction or test must be able to account for ALL of the obersved data and not just a cherry picked sub set' disqualifies the evolutionary timescale as they did not predict rapid reversals and were very surprised by the evidence.

 

It seems a habit among evolutionary believers that they demand of creationists what they will not demand of their own: that they explain everything right now. Troublesome data and unexplained phenomena 'falsify' creationism whereas they are simply 'research opportunities' for evolutionists.

 

Even when creationists do solid science with successful predictions, they are dismissed.

31795[/snapback]

I wouldn't sweat it one bit. He's obviously just flinging anything that comes to mind and remotely resembles an objection. Somewhat sad, yes, but very funny. One must look at the funny or it's just too depressing around here.

 

Sloppy terminology, too. An hypothesis is the basis of predictions.

 

Keith C was just questioning the relationship between predictions and science. Guess it's gonna be the new trend...

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/in...dpost&pid=31814

[wombatty 0]

I wouldn't sweat it one bit. He's obviously just flinging anything that comes to mind and remotely resembles an objection. Somewhat sad, yes, but very funny. One must look at the funny or it's just too depressing around here.

 

Sloppy terminology, too. An hypothesis is the basis of predictions.

 

Keith C was just questioning the relationship between predictions and science. Guess it's gonna be the new trend...

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/in...dpost&pid=31814

31823[/snapback]

Funny you should mention this. In a 1993 Creation Magazine interview with Humphreys, we find this:

 

Well, a good scientific theory is one which makes predictions, and it was exciting to hear about several models of yours, based on creation, which generated successful predictions.

 

One model was based on 2 Peter 3:5, which talks about how God made the earth, and I applied that. I took that as a clue, and had an idea about how God might have started out the earth’s magnetic field. And then I found that worked fairly well and it gave the right strength for the earth’s magnetic field.

So I then asked myself, ‘Perhaps God used the same method to make the other bodies in the solar system, the sun and the moon and the planets?’ So I calculated the fields of all the planets that we had already explored up to that time, which was 1984, and the theory gave right values for those planets also.

I published these results in a Creation Research Society Quarterly article in December, 1984, and in that article I said that a good test of my theory would be to check out what the strength of the fields of the planets Uranus and Neptune were relative to my theory. For Uranus, the evolutionary predictions were generally about 100,000 times less than my published predictions, so I thought it was a good test.

 

So, what was the result when Voyager finally made the measurements?

 

The result was smack in the middle of my prediction, and 100,000 times greater than the evolutionary predictions. So the creation model was the clear winner in that case.

 

And for Neptune as well.

 

Yes, that’s right.

 

Did you get any comments from evolutionists about these fulfilled predictions?

 

Yes. Stephen Brush, a fairly well known anti-creationist in the United States, wrote to me after the first prediction came true and I had mentioned this in an ICR Impact article. He said he was basically trying to find some way around the fact that I had made a prediction, and I wrote him a polite letter back and tried to explain things to him. He wrote another letter back and that was the end of the correspondence.

 

But about six months later, an article by him appeared in Science magazine. The gist of it was that ‘Well, predictions are not really a way to do good science’, so he was basically backing down from the classical scientific view that predictions are a good way to validate a theory.

Need I say more? (I tried some time ago to track down the Brush article, but was unsuccessful.)

[wombatty 0]

Unfortunately Baumgardner's "Runaway Subduction" model does work without miracles, as Baumgardner himself admitted (Baumgardner 1990a, 1990b). Problems with this model include:

31810[/snapback]

First, no one - least of all Baumgardner - is pretending to have everything all worked out. His model is a work in progress. You cite some of the difficulties with his theory; fine - I could cite many of geological features that are better explained by his model than by the standard one.

Miracles would also have been necessary to cool the new ocean floor and to raise sedimentary mountains in months rather than in the millions of years it would ordinarily take.

That's what was claimed about geological features like canyons & gorges (see previous posts) and islands like Surtsey - until nature taught us differently. It was also said about mudstone - it took loooong periods of time in calm, serene waters for mud to settle out of water and turn into rock. On that topic go to Creation-Evoltution Headlines and read Mudstones Make Ripples and Geology Sinks in the Mud . Yet again, nature makes fools of those who insist that geology is a 'million/billion year enterprise.'

 

Note also that this is a classic case of begging the question. The timescale is one of the points of contention here it is therefore illegitimate to base an argument on that point.

 

To paraphrase you, 'all this evidence shows is that the mechanism for runaway subduction is not yet well understood.'

 

p.s. Those who believe in abiogenesis have no business protesting miracles.

[jason777 1]

The earthquake that caused the 2004 tsunami in the indian ocean caused plate shifting up to 60 ft. in just the matter of minutes.It raised entire reefs tens of feet out of the ocean.If it was'nt witnessed the uniformitairians would have claimed that much plate movement would have taken many thousands of years.

 

The megathrust earthquake was unusually large in geographical and geological extent. An estimated 1,600 km (994 mi) of faultline slipped (or ruptured) about 15 m (50 ft) along the subduction zone where the India Plate slides (or subducts) under the overriding Burma Plate. The slip did not happen instantaneously but took place in two phases over a period of several minutes:

 

Seismographic and acoustic data indicate that the first phase involved a rupture about 400 km (250 mi) long and 100 km (60 mi) wide, located 30 km (19 mi) beneath the sea bed—the longest rupture ever known to have been caused by an earthquake. The rupture proceeded at a speed of about 2.8 km/s (1.7 mi/s) or 10,000 km/h (6,300 mph), beginning off the coast of Aceh and proceeding north-westerly over a period of about 100 seconds.

A pause of about another 100 seconds took place before the rupture continued northwards towards the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. However, the northern rupture occurred more slowly than in the south, at about 2.1 km/s (1.3 mi/s) or 7,600 km/h (4,700 mph), continuing north for another five minutes to a plate boundary where the fault changes from subduction to strike-slip (the two plates push past one another in opposite directions). This reduced the speed of the water displacement and so reducing the size of the tsunami that hit the northern part of the Indian Ocean.[13]

The India Plate is part of the great Indo-Australian Plate, which underlies the Indian Ocean and Bay of Bengal, and is drifting north-east at an average of 6 cm/year (2 inches per year). The India Plate meets the Burma Plate (which is considered a portion of the great Eurasian Plate) at the Sunda Trench. At this point the India Plate subducts beneath the Burma Plate, which carries the Nicobar Islands, the Andaman Islands, and northern Sumatra. The India Plate sinks deeper and deeper beneath the Burma Plate until the increasing temperature and pressure drive volatiles out of the subducting plate. These volatiles rise into the crust above and exit the Earth's crust through volcanoes in the form of a volcanic arc. The volcanic activity that results as the Indo-Australian Plate subducts the Eurasian Plate has created the Sunda Arc.

 

As well as the sideways movement between the plates, the sea floor is estimated to have risen by several metres, displacing an estimated 30 km3 (7 cu mi) of water and triggering devastating tsunami waves. The waves did not originate from a point source, as was inaccurately depicted in some illustrations of their paths of travel, but rather radiated outwards along the entire 1,600 km (994 mi) length of the rupture (acting as a line source). This greatly increased the geographical area over which the waves were observed, reaching as far as Mexico, Chile, and the Arctic. The raising of the sea floor significantly reduced the capacity of the Indian Ocean, producing a permanent rise in the global sea level by an estimated 0.1 mm (0.01 cm or 0.0001 m).[14]

[pdw709 1]

The earthquake that caused the 2004 tsunami in the indian ocean caused plate shifting up to 60 ft. in just the matter of minutes.It raised entire reefs tens of feet out of the ocean.If it was'nt witnessed the uniformitairians would have claimed that much plate movement would have taken many thousands of years.

31839[/snapback]

 

No, thats NOT what uniformitairians think. If at plate boundaries the plates moved slowly and consistantly over time there would be NO earthquakes at all! The whole point is that due to the pressues involved the movement is intermitant i.e. the plates are locked together until enough time/pressure is applied to them to overcome the "locking" force at which point they jump. In other words the pressure is released in a number of quick abrupt slips.

 

The reason that the entire plate tectonic theory is accepted today is that it can be observed directly and measured directly (incidently this is usually the argument sighted against evolution!)

[pdw709 1]

Image 1 with a little bit of imagination could almost resemble what you're talking about... almost. However, as you zoom out you see some disturbing problems with this sliding plate idea purely from your own uniformitarian assumpitions. Image 2 shows a huge problem with your idea as the under water mountains go from large (circled red) to small (circled purple) in the direction that your conjecture says they should be the other way around. Why is this?

 

 

Firstly you are making MAJOR assumptions as the size and shape of the original seamounts - that will have a direct impact on the size/shape today.

 

Zoom out even further and the problem amplifies itself even more on Image 3. Please tell us if the areas circled in red and purple on Image 3 are the same ridge or separate ridges? If they are the same what force made the plate turn 60° or so? If they are separate,  where is the subduction zone where these plates are colliding, like along the continental shelves of Alaska or South America?

 

Modern evidence from palaeomagnetic data suggest actually that the plate did not not abruptly change its drift dircetion by 60° at all. It looks like the actual hotspot itself moved.

 

Last but certainly not least. In Image 4 I circled the Hawaiian Islands in red for orientation purposes. If the plate is supposedly moving at a steady rate north/north west why is there a trench along South America just like along Russia and Alaska's coast line?

31815[/snapback]

There are lots of images of the continental plates available such as:

 

There is now problem - all of the interlocking plates have consistant movement relevant to each other.

 

Overall I am massively suprised that you have a problem with plate tectonic theory. The reason that it is universally accepted today is that it can be observed and measured directly (ironic as this is usually the argument sighted against evolution!)

[Ron 10]

The reason that the entire plate tectonic theory is accepted today is that it can be observed directly and measured directly (incidently this is usually the argument sighted against evolution!)

31868[/snapback]

 

It can be measured now, and studied in its current state. But you have no idea as to the uniformity (or lack thereof) of its actions of a thousand years ago (let alone four thousand years ago). So, ANY attempt at explanation for those times are mere speculation.

 

For example: the word "Suggest" gives the connotation of a “Suggestion†not a fact. So when one accuses another of “making MAJOR assumptionsâ€ÂÂ, one must look beyond their own “MAJOR assumptions†to do so.

[pdw709 1]

It can be measured now, and studied in its current state. But you have no idea as to the uniformity (or lack thereof) of its actions of a thousand years ago (let alone four thousand years ago). So, ANY attempt at explanation for those times are mere speculation.

 

For example: the word "Suggest" gives the connotation of a “Suggestion†not a fact. So when one accuses another of “making MAJOR assumptionsâ€ÂÂ, one must look beyond their own “MAJOR assumptions†to do so.

31873[/snapback]

Actually its very well documented. I know that you probably do not believe in Carbon dating so I will leave that dating method alone, but how about Dendrochronology (tree rings)? There are established and rooted timelines that go back 10,000 years or more and the The King Clone creosote bush in the Mojave Desert is 11,700 years old. That however is greater than the age of the earth as you believe it so I will use an example that is far younger and less contentious.

 

There are living trees today that are a few thousand years old. Once you can establish that a tree/forest has stayed within the same palaeoclimatic region for even 1000 years you then have a method to prove that plate movements were slow and relatively consistant over that time. If you invoke rapid plate movements (i.e. runaway subduction) you have to realise that trees and other species would be moved away from their natural habitat and into hotter/colder climates than that they could otherwise survive in.

 

All the evidence from such dating techniques indicates that the trees have lived within a similar climate for thousands of years, and therefore plate movements have been SLOW over this time i.e. at the rate observed today.

 

Do I assume that you believe Dendrochronology tobe false?

 

Well how about Varve dating, or perhaps Ice Cores or Lichenometry? All of these are simple techniques that all support each others timelines (as well as carbon dating...)

[Adam Nagy 49]

Modern evidence from palaeomagnetic data suggest actually that the plate did not not abruptly change its drift dircetion by 60° at all. It looks like the actual hotspot itself moved.

31870[/snapback]

Huh? Go figure...

[Adam Nagy 49]

I know that you probably do not believe in Carbon dating so I will leave that dating method alone...

31900[/snapback]

How much do you trust the results of carbon dating?

 

http://creation.com/diamonds-a-creationists-best-friend

 

Oh... only when it agrees with your evossumptions, right?

[scott 3]

Well the problem with Ice core sample dating, is that it's extremely lame and inaccurate. Therefore it should be discredited... ESPECIALLY after all the evidence shown against it. Like the WW2 fighter planes that were buried with ICE, that evolutionist would merely assume was billions of years old by counting the rings.

 

Now Carbon dating is completely inaccurate, and the followers of it... usually are atheist/evolutionist and therefore believe in magic.

[Ron 10]

Actually its very well documented.

31900[/snapback]

Sure pdw… It is well documented that “It can be measured now, and studied in its current state. But you have no idea as to the uniformity (or lack thereof) of its actions of a thousand years ago (let alone four thousand years ago). So, ANY attempt at explanation for those times are mere speculation.â€ÂÂ

 

But if you want to believe in supposition based faith stances, that’s up to you. Though I doubt you’ll admit to such. I would wonder though, do you really believe in the uniformitarian faith that it would take to make your models work?

 

And you don’t have to “leave that dating method aloneâ€ÂÂ, you can bring it up all you want. You can’t prove uniformitarian ideals in it any more than you can in tree rings, or Varve dating. Of course “Some secular geologists believe that varves may actually be diurnal, reflecting tides instead of seasonal causes. If this is so, formations like the Elatina Formation in South Australia(which is about 250 meters thick) could be accounted for in a mere 60 years.†- Williams & Schmidt p. 21-25 and Horgan p. 11

 

And as far as Ice dating, I’m sure that there are some vintage WWII bombers that will throw your ideals out of whack as well.

[Ron 10]

Well the problem with Ice core sample dating, is that it's extremely lame and inaccurate.  Therefore it should be discredited... ESPECIALLY after all the evidence shown against it.  Like the WW2 fighter planes that were buried with ICE, that evolutionist would merely assume was billions of years old by counting the rings.

31910[/snapback]

You don't say

[pdw709 1]

Why all the hostility? I purposely did not use Carbon dating because I knew that in your eyes it would be contentious, so I offered up alternative techniques. Yet people have gone out of there way to again poor scorn on the Carbon method.

 

Do you have any real answers to the question I posed about tree rings? Do you not belive that they can be counted as an annual growth measurement? Do you not believe that we can count trees of ages 1000+ years? Do you not agree that lots of trees have a quite "narrrow" climatic growing region? Do you not accept that trees growing on a continental plate undergoing "runaway subduction" would necessarily have to move tens's of thousands of miles during a lifetime along with the plate they growing on?

 

To answer some of the other responses:

 

And you don’t have to “leave that dating method aloneâ€ÂÂ, you can bring it up all you want. You can’t prove uniformitarian ideals in it any more than you can in tree rings, or Varve dating. Of course “Some secular geologists believe that varves may actually be diurnal, reflecting tides instead of seasonal causes. If this is so, formations like the Elatina Formation in South Australia(which is about 250 meters thick) could be accounted for in a mere 60 years.†- Williams & Schmidt p. 21-25 and Horgan p. 11

 

 

The seasonal nature of varves is sometimes indicated by the systematic variation of pollen from seasonal plants (Morton 2002; citing Flint 1971, 400).

 

There is at least one formation that contains twenty million varves. That represents more than 50,000 years even if you assume varves were formed at a rate of one per day. And the fineness of the silt precludes the possibility that they could have formed that rapidly.

 

The 45,000-year varve record of Lake Suigetsu is consistent with other dating techniques, such as carbon-14 dating and the tree ring record (Kitagawa and van der Plicht 1998).

 

Non-annual fine-grained layers are recognizably different from varves. Layers that form rapidly tend to be much more irregular, reflecting the changes in the weather conditions that cause them (Morton 1998). Annual varves are observed forming today. They produce uniform layers seen also in the geologic record.

 

Well the problem with Ice core sample dating, is that it's extremely lame and inaccurate. Therefore it should be discredited... ESPECIALLY after all the evidence shown against it. Like the WW2 fighter planes that were buried with ICE, that evolutionist would merely assume was billions of years old by counting the rings.

 

Well thats clearly not true. Ice cores can only provide dates as far back as a few hundred thousand years. The thing is that all of these techniques form a coherent framework, as events clearly seen within Varves can be accurately correlated to seasons deduced from tree rings etc i.e. they all match, agree and support each other.

 

As to Varve accuracy:

 

Layer [from Greenland] counts are reproducible between different workers and for one worker at different times, with 1% error over century-length times in the Holocene. Reproducibility is typically 5% in Wisconsinan ice-age ice and decreases with increasing age and depth. Alley, R. B., et al. (1997), Visual-stratigraphic dating of the GISP2 ice core: Basis, reproducibility, and application, J. Geophys. Res., 102(C12), 26,367–26,381.

 

The WW2 fighter plane/ice is also easily discredited:

 

Ice layers are counted by different methods (mainly, visible layers of hoar frost, visible dust layers, and layers of differing electrical conductivity) which have nothing to do with thickness. These methods corroborate each other and match with other independently determined dates (Seely 2003).

 

The airplanes landed near the shore of Greenland, where snow accumulation is rapid, at about 2 m per year. Allowing for some compaction due to the weight of the snow, that accounts for the depth of snow under which they are buried. The planes are also on an active glacier and have moved about 2 km since landing. Ice core dating takes place on stable ice fields, not active glaciers. The interior of Greenland, where ice cores were taken, receives much less snow. In Antarctica, where ice cores dating back more than 100,000 years have been collected, the rate of snow accumulation is much less still.

 

A report of "many hundreds" of layers in the ice above the Lost Squadron may also be explained by the airplanes' location on Greenland. That location is relatively warm because it is low and more southerly; its surface gets repeatedly melted during the summer, creating multiple melt layers per year. At the site of the GISP2 ice core, melting occurs only about once every couple centuries. Melt layers are easily distinguished in ice cores. The more than 100,000 layers in ice cores are definitely not melt layers (Seely 2003).

 

Now Carbon dating is completely inaccurate, and the followers of it... usually are atheist/evolutionist and therefore believe in magic.

 

You do know that the more you say something, it does'nt actually make it true?

[Ron 10]

Why all the hostility?

31942[/snapback]

That was a nice little dance step

 

You do know that the more you say something, it does'nt actually make it true?

[jason777 1]

Hi pdw709,

 

The seasonal nature of varves is sometimes indicated by the systematic variation of pollen from seasonal plants (Morton 2002; citing Flint 1971, 400).

 

There is at least one formation that contains twenty million varves. That represents more than 50,000 years even if you assume varves were formed at a rate of one per day. And the fineness of the silt precludes the possibility that they could have formed that rapidly.

 

The 45,000-year varve record of Lake Suigetsu is consistent with other dating techniques, such as carbon-14 dating and the tree ring record (Kitagawa and van der Plicht 1998).

 

Non-annual fine-grained layers are recognizably different from varves. Layers that form rapidly tend to be much more irregular, reflecting the changes in the weather conditions that cause them (Morton 1998). Annual varves are observed forming today. They produce uniform layers seen also in the geologic record.

Scientists have tested fossilization on lake bottoms by placing dead fish in cages and they have completely deteriorated in only 6 1/2 days.The only way to account for fully articulated bird and fish fossils is by rapid deposition.Volcanic ash layers should have the exact same number of layers between them if it were in fact annual layers and they do not.

 

‘. . . fossil catfish are distributed in the Green River basin over an area of 16,000 km2 . . . The catfish range in length from 11 to 24 cm, with a mean of 18 cm. Preservation is excellent. In some specimens, even the skin and other soft parts, including the adipose fin, are well preserved.

Another evolutionist stated:

 

‘During the early to mid-1970s enormous concentrations of Presbyornis [an extinct shorebird] have been discovered in the Green River Formation.

This should tell us that the Green River Formation is no ordinary lake deposit! Modern-day lakes do not provide the conditions needed for the preservation of abundant fossil fish and birds.

 

Experiments by scientists from the Chicago Natural History Museum have shown that fish carcasses lowered on to the muddy bottom of a marsh decay quite rapidly, even in oxygen-poor conditions. In these experiments, fish were placed in wire cages to protect them from scavengers, yet after only six-and-a-half days all the flesh had decayed and even the bones had become disconnected.

 

The Presbyornis fossils are even more problematic. Birds have hollow bones that tend not to preserve well in the fossil record. How were these bird bones protected from scavenging and decay for thousands of years until a sufficient number of the fine annual layers had built up to bury them? ‘Enormous concentrations’ of bird bones are a clear indication that something is seriously wrong with the idea of slow accumulation. Instead, such fossils support the notion of rapid burial.

 

Creationist suspicions about the validity of the varve interpretation were confirmed in a study by two geologists published in 1988.Near Kemmerer in Wyoming the Green River Formation contains two volcanic ash (tuff) layers, each about two to three centimetres thick.

 

A volcanic ash layer is an example of what geologists call an ‘event horizon’, because it is laid down essentially instantaneously by a single event, in this case a volcanic eruption. The two ash layers are separated by between 8.3 and 22.6 centimetres of shale layers.

 

If the standard interpretation is correct, then the number of shale layers between the ash layers should be the same throughout the Green River basin, since the number of years between the two eruptions would be the same.

 

However, the geologists found that the number of shale layers between the ash beds varied from 1160 to 1568, with the number of layers increasing by up to 35% from the basin centre to the basin margin! The investigators concluded that this was inconsistent with the idea of seasonal ‘varve’ deposition in a stagnant lake.

 

So how were the great thicknesses of finely laminated shale in the Green River Formation laid down? Creationist geologists need to investigate the issue more closely, but there seems to be great potential for developing a catastrophic model for the origin of these sediments. There is a large body of experimental and observational data that shows that varve-like sediments can build up very rapidly under catastrophic conditions.For instance, in 1960 Hurricane Donna struck the coast of southern Florida and deposited a blanket of thinly-laminated lime-mud six inches thick.15 Another example comes from a Swiss lake, in which up to five pairs of layers were found to build up in a single year, deposited by rapid underflows of turbid water.

 

Given the right conditions, thinly-laminated muddy sediments can and do form by rapid sedimentation. Contrary to claims by old-earth proponents, long periods of time are not demanded.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v.../greenriver.asp - 30k -

[CTD 1]

Why all the hostility? I purposely did not use Carbon dating because I knew that in your eyes it would be contentious, so I offered up alternative techniques. Yet people have gone out of there way to again poor scorn on the Carbon method.

31942[/snapback]

You also omit to mention the extensive reliance of the "tree ring data" upon carbon dates. Not sure how to score that one.

 

The WW2 fighter plane/ice is also easily discredited:

 

Ice layers are counted by different methods (mainly, visible layers of hoar frost, visible dust layers, and layers of differing electrical conductivity) which have nothing to do with thickness. These methods corroborate each other and match with other independently determined dates (Seely 2003).

31942[/snapback]

The following link used to lead to a Seely pdf on the topic. It isn't working for me at the moment. I don't recall whether or not it was dated 2003. Do you have access to the piece yourself, or are you taking another party's word that "The WW2 fighter plane/ice is also easily discredited"?

 

http://www.asa3.org/aSA/PSCF/2003/PSCF12-03Seely.pdf

[pdw709 1]

You also omit to mention the extensive reliance of the "tree ring data" upon carbon dates. Not sure how to score that one.

 

http://www.asa3.org/aSA/PSCF/2003/PSCF12-03Seely.pdf

31960[/snapback]

No I did'nt. In fact its the other way around. Tree ring timeline can but accurately put together from several tree of different ages.

 

 

These timelines have ben used to accuratrly calibrate/support Carbon dating results. Dendrochronology has been around for hundreds of years, long before Carbon14 dating.

[pdw709 1]

Creationist suspicions about the validity of the varve interpretation were confirmed in a study by two geologists published in 1988.Near Kemmerer in Wyoming the Green River Formation contains two volcanic ash (tuff) layers, each about two to three centimetres thick.

 

A volcanic ash layer is an example of what geologists call an ‘event horizon’, because it is laid down essentially instantaneously by a single event, in this case a volcanic eruption. The two ash layers are separated by between 8.3 and 22.6 centimetres of shale layers.

 

If the standard interpretation is correct, then the number of shale layers between the ash layers should be the same throughout the Green River basin, since the number of years between the two eruptions would be the same.

 

 

Not quite. I think that you are confusing Chronostratigraphic and Lithostratigraphic correlations. If the basin is large, one would not nessearily expect to find same sedimenation rates/deposits accross the entire basin. The volcanic ash layer represents a chronostratigraphic timeline and records the same moment in time. If the bed between two such Ash events were different thicknesses or had more layers it would simply represent different local depositional environments.

 

Chronostratigraphic and Lithostratigraphic correlations can and do often cross, particularly when unconformities are present.