Jump to content


Photo

Young Earth Age Correlations


  • Please log in to reply
162 replies to this topic

#101 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 13 May 2011 - 02:57 PM

Folded Strata Is Evidence Of A Young Geologic Column


Folded strata can only happen two ways:

1) Hard rock that has compressed, which will show signs that it has heated and cracked and/or metamorphism.

2) Soft strata that is bent while it is pliable.


Posted Image

Posted Image


Only the YEC model predicts pliable strata folded shortly after the flood before it hardened. There are many events that have occurred (long after the flood) that has folded hardened strata, but if the YEC model is correct, then we should find widespread strata in lower levels of the geologic column that is folded without showing any evidence of cracking or heat deformation.


Rock Layers Folded, Not Fractured




Enjoy.

#102 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 14 May 2011 - 04:39 AM

Accelerated Nuclear Decay Is Evidence Of A Young Earth
Accelerated decay is in direct opposition to the main assumption of radiometric dating within the evolutionary scientific establishment which is that the radioactive decay rates are constant with time. If the decay rate has varied significantly over time then any date based on radioactive decay within the evolutionary context is worthless.

A scientific research group called RATE ( Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth ) was formed by the Institute for Creation Research and the Creation Research Society to study this issue from a creationist perspective. They have determined that the most likely times for accelerated decay were the first 2.5 days of the creation week, and during the flood and shortly thereafter.
Evidence
If radioactive decay has been going on for millions and billions of years, there has been insufficient argon diffusion and insufficient lead diffusion, there is insufficient Helium in the air, and too much Helium in rocks.

Recent experiments commissioned by the RATE group indicate that "1.5 billion years" worth of nuclear decay have taken place, but in one or more short periods 4000 - 8000 years ago. This would shrink the alleged 4.5 billion year radioisotope age of the earth to only a few thousand years.

This was done by extracting hard, dense, microscopic crystals called zircons. Much of the uranium and thorium in the earth's continental crust is in zircons and it is often embedded in flakes of biotite; a black mica. Helium is made by the decay of uranium to lead; as a uranium atom decays, it emits eight alpha particles (helium nuclei) per atom. These helium nuclei quickly gather two electrons from the crystal and thus become complete helium atoms.

Los Alamos measurements of uranium, thorium, and lead showed "1.5 billion" years worth of nuclear decay at today's rates. After calculating how much helium had been deposited by decay, they then measured how much helium was still in the zircons. It turned out that up to 58% of the helium had not diffused out of the zircons; the percentages decreased with depth and temperature. At the time that the RATE group began its work, the diffusion rates had not been measured for the zircons and biotite. On the basis of the helium found in zircons, Dr. Russell Humphreys calculated the diffusion rates for both the Creation and the Uniformitarian models. He found that the diffusion rates for the two models differ by a factor of 100,000.

When the diffusion rates in zircons were measured, they matched the Creation model but were found to be totally incompatible with the Uniformitarian model. These results, along with the helium actually observed in zircons, show that diffusion has been occurring for 6000 ± 2000 years. These rates are about 250,000 times too high for the Uniformitarian model. This demonstrates that the observed decay of uranium cannot have taken 1.5 billion years.

http://creationwiki....celerated_decay
Experiments
Billion-fold acceleration of radioactivity demonstrated in laboratory
Experimental demonstration of the actual existence of bb decay, however, did not occur until the 1990s. 163Dy, a stable nuclide under normal-Earth conditions, was found to decay to 163Ho, with t½ = 47 days, under the bare-nucleus conditions of the completely ionized state. More recently, bb decay has been experimentally demonstrated in the rhenium-osmium (187Re-187Os) system. (The Re-Os method is one of the isotopic ‘clocks’ used by uniformitarian geologists to supposedly date rocks.) The experiment involved the circulation of fully-ionized 187Re in a storage ring. The 187Re ions were found to decay to a measurable extent in only several hours, amounting to a half-life of only 33 years. This represents a staggering billion-fold increase over the conventional half-life, which is 42 Ga! (Ga = giga-annum = a billion (109) years).

http://www.answersin...cceleration.asp
Piezonuclear neutrons from fracturing of inert solids

F. Cardone, A. Carpinteri, G. Lacidogna
(Submitted on 18 Mar 2009)

Abstract: Neutron emission measurements by means of helium-3 neutron detectors were performed on solid test specimens during crushing failure. The materials used were marble and granite, selected in that they present a different behaviour in compression failure (i.e., a different brittleness index) and a different iron content. All the test specimens were of the same size and shape. Neutron emissions from the granite test specimens were found to be of about one order of magnitude higher than the natural background level at the time of failure.
Speeding-up Thorium decay

F. Cardone, R. Mignani, A. Petrucci
(Submitted on 26 Oct 2007)

Abstract: We show that cavitation of a solution of thorium-228 in water induces its transformation at a rate 10000 times faster than the natural radioactive decay would do. This result agrees with the alteration of the secular equilibrium of thorium-234 obtained by a Russian team via explosion of titanium foils in water and solutions. These evidences further support some preliminary clues for the possibility of piezonuclear reactions (namely nuclear reactions induced by pressure waves) obtained in the last ten years.
Theory
A Mechanism for Accelerated Radioactive Decay

CRSQ Vol 7 No1 (pp3 - 9) June 2000
Abstract: Kaluza-Klein theory, originally proposed in 1921 to 1926, has been described as a miraculous synthesis of Einstein’s gravitation theory with Maxwell’s equations of electricity and magnetism. In an approach which anticipated modern string theory, Kaluza and Klein added a fifth dimension of space to the three familiar spatial dimensions and one time dimension. The extension of Einstein’s theory to this fifth dimension then led naturally to Maxwell’s equations. The theory also naturally leads to a relation between the constant G of Newton’s law of gravitation and the fine structure constant a = e2/hc. This relation depends on the circumference of the compactified fifth dimension, so that variation in this circumference over the history of the universe could be viewed as variation in physical constants, such as the fine structure constant. If, during early creation week, say before the creation of man, such variations were to occur, they could lead to accelerated nuclear decay, thus adjusting isotopic abundances, without giving humans an unacceptable dose of radiation.
http://http://www.go...1_icz8Q&cad=rja
Accelerated nuclear decay was predicted by creationists well before laboratory experiments verified it. It is clear that radiometric dating is meaningless and that high parent to daughter ratios is actually evidence of a young earth.
Enjoy.

View Post

Jason,
You and I know we have presented these things on here before. The problem is that the evos will go to somewhere like talkorigins, to get a "rebuttal." The rebuttals sometimes present strawmen arguments by giving false information. One that I can think of is that the helium diffusion research did not take depth and temp into consideration. Nothing could be further from the truth.

First of all, the RATE team does not do the actual lab work, they send it to labs, who do the calculations because they're getting paid to do it. And second, AiG has the charts with details of depth and corresponding helium quantities.

Helium is a nobel gas and rarely bonds with anything. It is the second "lightest" element in atomic weight and should have diffused from the rocks over the aledged millions of years. Another fact is the crystals are mictact (damaged) by their own radiation, and thereby open. So it would b even less hinderance for the helium to diffuse out of the rocks.

The research done by the RATE team looks solid and honest to me, not because I am rooting for them, but because I like honesty, and I see it in the research.

#103 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 14 May 2011 - 04:56 AM

Folded Strata Is Evidence Of A Young Geologic Column
Folded strata can only happen two ways:

1) Hard rock that that is compressed and heated and cracked.

2) Soft strata that is bent while it is pliable.
Posted Image

Posted Image
Only the YEC model predicts pliable strata folded shortly after the flood before it hardened. There are many events that have occurred (long after the flood) that has folded hardened strata, but if the YEC model is correct, then we should find widespread strata in lower levels of the geologic column that is folded without showing any evidence of cracking or heat deformation.
Rock Layers Folded, Not Fractured
Enjoy.

View Post

The pad answer is heat and pressure Jason. I know that this happens in some cases, but there should be evidence of heat by signs diagenesis and metamorphasis in these stata. of

The limestone in Missouri and Arkansas is not marble (a diagenetic result of limestone), yet it contains folds. I have seen it with my eyes. The fact that it was deposited in water, and that the folds match through many strata are an indication that ALL the layers were soft when the earth moved to fold it.

#104 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 15 May 2011 - 11:38 AM

By definition fluids do not pass through impermeable rock. Do you have a reference on where this claim about escaping gas and other claims are made? These claims do not jive at all with what I have found in the geologic basins in which I have worked.

Oil and gas sometimes flows easily though reservoir rock, but sometimes this flow is very slight and restricted. Sometimes the permeability is too low to allow anything but slight flow. That is a problem we face daily in the development and production of hydrocarbons.

How was a calculation done for escaping gas? How much had to escape to limit geologic time as noted here?

It is possible for oil and gas to escape or seep into oceans, but how can one come up with a calculation of all oil in place seeping out if 20,000 years is allowed? One would need to know how much oil is in place and how much is seeping. Neither is easily estimated. However, we do know that seeps are realtively rare. How many oil slicks of any note have been recorded in the Gulf of Mexico? The current BP well causing so much trouble was estimated by the company at about 5,000 barrels a day, yet they recently started recovering 10,000 bbls/day as only a portion of the total.


A 2003 study by the National Research Council and a 2009 report by oil spill expert Dagmar Schmidt Etkin indicate that between 560,000 and 1,400,000 barrels per year (1,534 to 3,835 barrels per day) seep into the Gulf of Mexico from natural sources. Dozens of natural seeps have been identified off the coasts of Louisiana and Texas, some in the region of the Deepwater Horizon site.

These natural seeps are quasi-continuous or chronic inputs that represent a "background" rate of oil input that have been in existence for hundreds or thousands of years. As the term "seep" implies, the rate of release from these sources of oil is much smaller than human spills that often release large, concentrated pulses of oil. One of the largest and most intensively studied seepage areas lies off Coal Oil Point, in Santa Barbara County, California. Individual seeps in this area release an estimated 80 to 100 barrels (3,360 to 4,200 gallons) of oil per day; Deepwater Horizon is releasing 12,000 to 19,000 barrels per day (Figure 1).

The Deepwater Horizon site releases 3 to 12 times the oil per day compared to that released by natural seeps across the entire Gulf of Mexico. By May 30, the Deepwater Horizon site had released between 468,000 and 741,000 barrels of oil, compared to 60,000 to 150,000 barrels from natural seeps across the entire Gulf of Mexico over the same 39 day period.



http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6552


Admittedly, the original source posted was out of date.

"It is estimated that there are about 100 billion tons of offshore oil, and that about 5 million tons of oil seeps into the ocean each year. At this rate, it would take about 20,000 years to deplete that quantity. If oil is 50 million years old, a quantity 2500 times the present reservoirs would have been lost to seepage."

"Based on the above calculated rate of destruction of commercial-size gas fields, the concept is proposed that gas accumulations in the subsurface have only a limited life in terms of geologic time scales. If this is true, known gas fields in older strata like lower Paleozoic reservoirs can be explained only by assumption of a relatively young accumulation age or by the assumption of a much longer duration of the hydrocarbon generation process than currently accepted."—*D. Leythaeuser, *R.G. Schaefer, and *A. Yukler, "Role of Diffusion in Primary Migration of Hydrocarbons," in American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 66(4):408-429 (1982).


Source: Morris, H. M. and G. E. Parker, 1982.


But the new figures aren't doing the OE model any justice, either.

#105 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 05 June 2011 - 02:15 PM

Atmospheric Gases Are Evidence Of A young Earth


The ratios of our atmospheric gases are a nearly perfect match of a young earth and global flood. In the beginning, we would predict mostly oxygen as evidenced by giant insects and other fauna in the geologic column. During and after the flood, mass amounts of CO2 and other gases would be released by volcanism. One of the best evidences is the fact that our atmosphere is now mostly nitrogen. When all the life on the planet died it created a massive amount of ammonia, which in turn, triggered a massive bloom of nitrifying bacteria. First, these bacteria convert ammonia into nitrite, then into nitrate, and finally into nitrogen gas.

These mass nutrient outputs would also cause plankton and algae blooms, which are evidenced by global chalk cliffs.

Evolutionists have no model to explain the ever decreasing O2 levels in our atmosphere and they have left the matter largely ignored yet acknowledged.

All in all, the creation model is nearly a perfect match for atmospheric conditions present and past and is even able to predict the C14/C12 ratios in fossils, coal, and diamonds.




Enjoy.

#106 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 01 July 2011 - 11:28 PM

Geologic Column Is Evidence Of A Young Earth


The fossils in the geologic column are distributed by ecology. One of the falsification test for evolution is to find a Cambrian rabbit. Rabbits have never been known to live in the bottom of the ocean, so I wouldn't consider that a reasonable test for evolution nor do I intend on testing evolution; rather creation.

If a global flood did occur, then we might predict to find Cambrian organisms transported on to the continents and buried on top of Eocene flora and fauna. Not only are such examples known from three locations in Pakistan, but also in three different countries.

http://www.mcremo.com/saltrange.html


Evidence of plants has been found in the Precambrian strata of the Grand Canyon.

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_3/plantfossils.html

Bird tracks have been found in the Permian Hermit Shale(Gilmore 1927) and in the Carboniferous of Nova Scotia (Sternberg 1933).

http://www.grisda.org/origins/09067.htm

More recently, bird tracks have been found in Triassic strata in Argentina.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.arn.org%2Fblogs%2Findex.php%2Fliterature%2F2009%2F06%2F16%2Fdid_birds_fly_in_the_late_triassic&rct=j&q=did%20birds%20fly%20in%20the%20late%20triassic&ei=dGkPTq_zHczpgQfmuNXYDQ&usg=AFQjCNFlPjQf3REucYnkgu8xEEOKq3T58g&cad=rja

And a fossil bird named Protoavis has been found in the Triassic.

"The most remarkable thing about Protoavis is that, although it predates Archaeopteryx by 75 million years, it is considerably more advanced than Archaeopteryx...Protoavis is more closely related to modern birds than is Archaeopteryx." —Sankar Chatterjee

"Its temporal configuration is modified in avian fashion, with the development of streptostylic quadrate and upper jaw mobility. Its braincase is highly inflated, and the orbits are frontally placed. It has heterocoelous (saddle-shaped) centra in the neck, as do modern birds. Protoavis has a much more efficient and advanced wing structure than does Archaeopteryx. It has a birdlike coracoid and furcula and a keeled sternum for flapping flight. The hand bones show quill nodes for the attachment of primary feathers. The pelvis shows fusion of the ilium and ischium for strength and rigidity, whereas the hindlimbs are reoriented to shift the functional joint from hip to knee." -Sankar Chatterjee


Live birth appears suddenly in the fossil record before many closely related species are laying eggs.

Materpiscis attenboroughi


What we find in the rocks is not only a contradiction of the assumptions of evolution, but a clear prediction of a global flood.


Posted Image


Permian placoderm found above a triceratops

Posted Image

The Empire Mountains of southern Arizona have Cretaceous rock capped by Permian limestone. The contact zone, between the layers of rock, undulates like the meshing of a gear. If the geologic sequences of this formation were really the result of an overthrust, how did such meshwork avoid getting planed off? There is no other erosive evidence either such as scraping, gouging, or linear striations at the contact zones.

This dilemma is easily explained and predicted by marine organisms being transported onto the continents and covering terrestrial organisms during the flood.

#107 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 02 July 2011 - 04:36 PM

Living Fossils Are Evidence Of Creation

The predictions of evolution and creation are completely opposite. Creation predicts that all of the major taxonomic groups were created and have changed little since. Evolution predicts slow gradual change over many millions of years. Not only has the prediction of creation been confirmed, but evolutionists have had to completely revise their hypothesis in light of the evidence.

"Many species remain virtually unchanged for millions of years, then suddenly disappear to be replaced by a quite different, but related, form. Moreover, most major groups of animals appear abruptly in the fossil record, fully formed, and with no fossils yet discovered that form a transition from their parent group. Thus, it has seldom been possible to piece together ancestor-dependent sequences from the fossil record that show gradual, smooth transitions between species."
(Hickman, C.P. [Professor Emeritus of Biology at Washington and Lee University in Lexington], L.S. Roberts [Professor Emeritus of Biology at Texas Tech University], and F.M. Hickman. 1988. Integrated Principles of Zoology. Times Mirror/Moseby College Publishing, St. Louis, MO. 939 pp.; (pg. 866))


"...we have proffered a collective tacit acceptance of the story of gradual adaptive change, a story that strengthened and became even more entrenched as the synthesis took hold. We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports that interpretation, all the while really knowing that it does not."(Eldredge, Niles [Chairman and Curator of Invertebrates, American Museum of Natural History], "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1985, p44)


"As is well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record."(Tom Kemp, Oxford University)

"The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps; the fossils are missing in all the important places."(Francis Hitching, archaeologist).

"Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution directly. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I wish only to point out that it was never `seen' in the rocks.
"Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the process we profess to study."
(Gould, Stephen Jay [Professor of Zoology and Geology, Harvard University, USA], "Evolution's erratic pace," Natural History, Vol. 86, No. 5, pp.12-16, May 1977)

The huge gap between different kinds of organisms is so great that evolutionists can't even imagine a transition between them.

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."(Stephen J. Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), 'Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?' Paleobiology, vol 6(1), January 1980, pg 127)


Cambrian jellyfish compared to it's modern descendant

Posted Image

Sea Lillies

Posted Image

Precambrian Sea Pen

Posted Image


Living Fossils



"In most people's minds, fossils and Evolution go hand in hand. In reality, fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation. If Evolution were true, we should find literally millions of fossils that show how one kind of life slowly and gradually changed to another kind of life. But missing links are the trade secret, in a sense, of paleontology. The point is, the links are still missing. What we really find are gaps that sharpen up the boundaries between kinds. It's those gaps which provide us with the evidence of Creation of separate kinds. As a matter of fact, there are gaps between each of the major kinds of plants and animals. Transition forms are missing by the millions. What we do find are separate and complex kinds, pointing to Creation."(Dr Gary Parker Biologist/paleontologist and former ardent Evolutionist.)




Enjoy.

#108 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 11 July 2011 - 03:43 PM

Geologic Column Is Evidence Of A Young Earth


The fossils in the geologic column are distributed by ecology. One of the falsification test for evolution is to find a Cambrian rabbit. Rabbits have never been known to live in the bottom of the ocean, so I wouldn't consider that a reasonable test for evolution nor do I intend on testing evolution; rather creation.

If a global flood did occur, then we might predict to find Cambrian organisms transported on to the continents and buried on top of Eocene flora and fauna. Not only are such examples known from three locations in Pakistan, but also in three different countries.

http://www.mcremo.com/saltrange.html

Jason,
Picked up a nice fossil guide, which shows the fossils and also the different type formations they are found in. It's so ironic. There are tons of marine fossils in comparison to dinos and other land vertebrates! But yet they are found on land. They tell us the story of marginal regressing and transgressing sea sedimentation. But the Bible told us about a continuous transgression and regression in Genesis.


Evidence of plants has been found in the Precambrian strata of the Grand Canyon.

http://www.creationr...antfossils.html

Just doing some perusing. According to this paper, there is kerogen in this shale, which is a precursor to coal! This stuff is made from decayed woody material. And it's precambrian, in the proterozoic! That contains the archaen period, which is when the very first bacterial life was supposed to have formed and when there was supposedly no oxygen atmosphere. Order in the fossil record??? Yeah, if you believe that it was all here from the beginning, it makes perfect sense.

#109 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 24 July 2011 - 04:34 PM

Exponential Decline Is Evidence Of A Young Earth

The OE model of plate tectonics estimates that the continent of Pangea split apart 180 million years ago at a rate of ~2.5 cm/yr. The problem is that the continents would be completely leveled by erosion in less than 15 million years and the shape of the continents have barely changed in 180 million years.

Pangea Animation

Is there a better model that takes into account all of the data and makes better predictions? Yes.

Tectonic activity is empirically known from the geologic record to be thousands of times greater in the past than present rates.


Posted Image


Posted Image


If the tectonic rates were thousands of times faster in the recent past, then we can explain why the shape of the continents have changed little since they broke apart.


Steve Austin-Geology And The Global Flood




Enjoy.

#110 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 24 July 2011 - 07:55 PM

Empirical Erosion Rates Are Evidence Of A Young Earth

The known rates of erosion would level the continents in less than 15 million years. This leaves little doubt that the continents must be much younger than uniformitairians suggest.


http://www.evolution...findpost&p=6914

Popular belief is that the Rocky Mountain region began its most recent uplift, via tectonic forces, some 70 million years ago, with an additional uplift some 25 million years ago that raised the Rockies up an another 1,500 to 2,000 meters. Yet, despite being exposed to erosion forces for some 70 million years the Rocky Mountains are still covered by deep layers of sedimentary rock. One might very reasonably wonder how much vertical erosion should be expected in such an uplifted region over the course of 70 million years?

Well, before the Glen Canyon Dam was built, the average sediment transport rate through the Grand Canyon was measured to be around 500,000 tons per day.68,79 With a weight of 140 pounds per cubic foot (lbs/CuFt) for sandstone, this erosion rate works out to be around 7.1 million cubic feet of erosion per day for the Colorado River Basin. Since the Colorado River is supposed to have carved out the Grand Canyon in around 5.5 million years, how much sediment would have been removed from the surrounding Colorado River Basin in this time? Well, if we multiply the current daily erosion rate by 365 days we get about 2.6 billion cubic feet of erosion per year. Multiplying this number by 5.5 million years (the supposed age of the Grand Canyon) gives us around 14,000 trillion cubic feet of sediment removal from the Colorado Basin in this amount of time. Since the Colorado River drains an area of about 200,000 square miles in size (~27.8 million square feet = 1 square mile), an average of over 2,500 vertical feet (~800 meters) of sediment would have been removed, at the current rate of erosion, in just 5.5 million years. This is about 15cm/kyr of vertical erosion.



Enjoy.

#111 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 24 July 2011 - 09:51 PM

Coral Growth Rates Are Evidence Of A Young Earth

The Great Barrier Reef may be the largest reef in the world, but it's not the deepest. Enewetak Atoll in the Western Pacific have gone through 1405 m of apparent reef material before reaching a basalt rock base (Ladd and Schlanger 1960). We will investigate if the known rates can add up to a biblical timeline and if coral growth rates have been faster in the past.

Rates of coral and coral reef growth have been studied by a number of investigators. Chave, Smith and Roy (1972) have analyzed some of the findings of other investigators and suggest net rates of growth of 0.8 to 26 mm/year. The net growth rate of a reef is the combination of total carbonate production less carbonate losses by biological, chemical and physical factors. Odum and Odum (1955) suggest a growth rate of 80 mm/year. Smith and Kinsey (1976), using an analysis of the CO2 system in seawater, suggest growth of 2-5 mm/year. Adey (1978) feels that this figure is too low for Atlantic reefs that must grow 2-3 times faster.
The figures given above contrast sharply with some figures based on actual soundings of reefs. Sewell (1935) reported 280 mm/year in the Andaman Islands in the Bay of Bengal, and Verstelle (1932) reported a maximum rate of growth of 414 mm/year in the Celebes. This latter figure would allow for the development of the 1405 m of the Enewetak reef in less than 3400 years.

The fastest growth rate reported for any coral is the staghorn species Acropora cervicornis. Lewis et al. (1968) found in Jamaica a maximum rate of 264 mm/year. Shinn (1976) studied the growth of this species following destruction in a hurricane near Florida. He estimated linear growth rates of 100 mm/year. He also found that because of the branching habit (several new branches added to a single previous one) much more than the linear growth of a single branch is involved in establishing a dense stand of this coral. Under these branching growth conditions, carbonate production would be more geometric than linear and could contribute further to the carbonate mass of the reef. Gladfelter, Monahan and Gladfelter (1978) report rates of 99 mm/year for Acropora palmata in the Virgin Islands.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CEIQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.grisda.org%2Forigins%2F06088.htm&rct=j&q=coral%20reef%20growth%20rate&ei=--8sTvXJF4mctwe17NnXAg&usg=AFQjCNG8y7898Zzjvfo8OzntwyoKf7gNsw&cad=rja

Many acropora and montipora species are known to grow 30cm (nearly 12 inches a year).

http://www.tidelineusa.com/t-EcoFacts.aspx

(1405m = 4609.580' and if we multiply 12" x 5,000 years = 5,000')

The empirical rates are a nearly perfect match for the depth of Enewetak Atoll.

The ever increasing amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has been slowing down coral growth rates Link. So, there is good evidence that past rates were much faster after the flood, which would make Enewetak reef no older than the flood.





Enjoy.

#112 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 28 August 2011 - 06:33 PM

Deleterious Mutations Are Evidence Of A Young Origin Of Species

S@xual reproduction begins with genetic recombination. According to the law of heredity, there is a 50% chance of gaining either parents traits during this process. For example, the mother has a bad mutation that causes tooth loss at an early age and the father has a bad mutation that causes baldness. The offspring will not only inherent one of those mutations, but may likely accumulate a new mutation during genetic recombination. The rate of deleterious mutations has been determined to be an incredible one per gamete (Crow and Simmons 1983; Bell 1988; Kondrashov 1988; Charlesworth et al. 1990; Houle et al. 1992) Link. (Nachmann and Crowell, 2000) favoring at least 3 or more.Link


This effect is known as Muller's Ratchet and is irreversible. At the known rates, it would make any known species extinct well before the time needed by evolution.

Posted Image

Mendelian Inheritance in Man,
Reported Genetic Disorders 1966 to 1999. The number
of medically reported genetic disorders in 1966 was
1,487. The number reported by 1999 was 11,099. A
curve of best fit has an R2 of 0.995. These data are evidence
of devolution.


http://www.csulb.edu...DF/evoletha.pdf


The ages of the patriarchs given in the bible follow a biological decay curve predicted by genetic entropy. If the bible wasn't accurate, then it's hard to explain the ages given following this biological decay curve by chance alone.

Posted Image


Enjoy.

#113 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,332 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Pretending he used to be a science teacher
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 28 August 2011 - 07:21 PM

Deleterious Mutations Are Evidence Of A Young Origin Of Species

S@xual reproduction begins with genetic recombination. According to the law of heredity, there is a 50% chance of gaining either parents traits during this process. For example, the mother has a bad mutation that causes tooth loss at an early age and the father has a bad mutation that causes baldness. The offspring will not only inherent one of those mutations, but may likely accumulate a new mutation during genetic recombination. The rate of deleterious mutations has been determined to be an incredible one per gamete (Crow and Simmons 1983; Bell 1988; Kondrashov 1988; Charlesworth et al. 1990; Houle et al. 1992).

http://www.google.co...6QJ2Tcw&cad=rja

This effect is known as Muller's Ratchet and is irreversible. At the known rates, it would make any known species extinct well before the time needed by evolution.


Enjoy.


Hmm, a la John C. Sanford in Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome.

Well, they wouldn't listen to Mendel so why would they listen to one who converted from their own? I maintain that the majority of them simply don't care about the truth in such matters. ;)

#114 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 28 August 2011 - 09:53 PM

Hmm, a la John C. Sanford in Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome.

Well, they wouldn't listen to Mendel so why would they listen to one who converted from their own? I maintain that the majority of them simply don't care about the truth in such matters. ;)


Here is a link to a thread about his book.

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=17872



Enjoy.

#115 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 10 September 2011 - 01:44 AM

The entire point of the video was to show that the assumptions on which the "mathematical numbers" are based in the model proposed are not sound at all. It was pointed out that under optimal conditions coccoliths would accumulate on the sea floor at a maximum rate of 2mm / year and that at this rate forming the white cliffs of dover to 100 meters thick would take 50,000 years. But the AIG article referrenced made the claim that more rapid rates could be accomplished due to flood conditions, with raised turbulence and fresh water mixing. Yet coccoliths need straight saline waters to survive and do not fare well as waters are more turbulent as it blocks the sunlight they need for photosyntesis.

He did indeed scoff at flood geology, and for good reasons.

#116 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 10 September 2011 - 06:32 AM

The entire point of the video was to show that the assumptions on which the "mathematical numbers" are based in the model proposed are not sound at all. It was pointed out that under optimal conditions coccoliths would accumulate on the sea floor at a maximum rate of 2mm / year and that at this rate forming the white cliffs of dover to 100 meters thick would take 50,000 years. But the AIG article referrenced made the claim that more rapid rates could be accomplished due to flood conditions, with raised turbulence and fresh water mixing. Yet coccoliths need straight saline waters to survive and do not fare well as waters are more turbulent as it blocks the sunlight they need for photosyntesis.

He did indeed scoff at flood geology, and for good reasons.

Geode,
Snelling, a 1982 PhD in Geology, acknowledges the challenges to chalk in a flood model. http://www.answersin.../tj/v8/n1/chalk

However, just as in any science, no hypothesis, even actualist hypothesis, can dogmatically trump, especially if there are other unconsidered factors. I believe this is the case for the present OE belief on chalk formation.


These general calculations given by the unformists are not species/meterologically/topographically specific. They are based on calculations done in the Pacific, where present day chalk is being formed. Check this paper http://aslo.org/lo/t...ssue_2/0234.pdf as it gives insight into present observations of "bioluminescent bays" which contain blooms that are probably due to "phototaxis" (atrraction to light technically, but it is attraction to salinity as in the case of oyster bay brackish waters) mechanisms AFTER the organisms have grown. In other words, one could call it a planktonic swarm.

In tropical latitudes, as the result of a
fortuitous combination of topographic and
meteorologic conditions, certain “bioluminescent”
bays exhibit persistent high concentrations
of essentially a single species of
bioluminescent dinoflagellate. In Fire Lake
1 Contribution No. 589 from the McCollum-
Pratt Institute and Department of Biology and No.
144 from the Chesapeake Bay Institute, The Johns
Hopkins University. This work was supported by
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Contract AT
(30-l ) 3480 and by Office of Naval Research
Contract ....

and in those that we have observed ( Oyster
Bay, Falmouth, Jamaica, West Indies; Bahia
Monsio Jose and Bahia Fosforesccnte,
near La Parguera, and Puerto Mosquito,
Vieques Island, the latter three in Puerto
Rico), the organism solely responsible for
the observed bioluminescence is Pyroclinium
bahamense Plate.


The bottom line is that the uniformists have just as many assumptions as the creationists, so they have no room to scoff. There are a great many things they have no way of knowing about the past. I would rather rely on the Word of God than the oversights and misguided inferences of man.

#117 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 11 September 2011 - 06:21 AM

Jason/Geode,
I have read the paper more thorougly that I referred to in my previous post. I wanted to leave an exerpt. The observations of Oyster Bay, Jamaica, were made over a year. It is graphed extensively by times, locations, salinity, water temperature measurements, wind and water movement. One thing I learned is that fresh water and salt water have a dynamic mixing procedure called "salt fingering" (not in the paper, but the same principle is implied by "curtains of dynoflagellates" in the bay). Apparently, they are attracted by gradients of salinity, water temperature, en vivo, and nitrogen, and phosperous levels by their own making. Please note there are high concentrations of nitogen and phosphorous in the bay areas where the P. bahamense are, inferrring (I would) that the levels are produced by the organisms themselves. At any rate, here is an excerpt...

As the warm
surface lenses of saline water, formed in the
northeast portion of the bay and stabilized
by vertical and lateral density discontinuities,
sweep slowly across the wind-protected
surface of the eastern shallows, P.
bahamense from lower layers migrates
into the warm zones at the surface and is
carried by them, forming the reddish brown
zones of high concentration of up to
10,000,000 cells/liter.
Ryther (1955) h as, we believe, correctly
assessed a universal factor in the appearance
of red water in coastal waters. The
important parameters are absence of wind
and conditions of high insolation, The absolute
temperature does not appear to be
a determining factor. An example of bloom
occurrence at lower temperatures can be
found in Holmes, Williams, and Eppley
( 1967). Ryther suggested either active motility
or passive flotation as possible mechanisms
for accumulation at the sea surface,
with either prevailing onshore winds, convergences
produced by density discontinuities,
or convection cells as a means of further
concentration. Our observations, in
which we have been able to observe repeatedly
the development of red water, are
compatible with active motility as opposed
to passive flotation as the mechanism for
this accumulation. In the laboratory, by
irradiation of captured bay samples from
below, we have observed positive downward
phototaxis, indicating the absence of
appreciable light-induced flotation. WC observed
the development of blooms only in
areas that had temporary stable vertical
density distributions, as in the eastern
shallows.
While our observations that positive phototaxis
is the explanation for the development
of temporary blooms in Oyster Bay
are compatible with the conclusions of previous
authors, the significance of this behavior
of P. bahamense in the maintenance
of this organism in Oyster Bay is unusual.
The quantities of total nitrogen and phosphorus
in natural Oyster Bay waters are
primarily due to the presence of mean concentrations
of 100,000 P. bahamense per
liter. Comparison of columns 4 and 5 of
Table 2 shows that total nitrogen and total
phosphorus concentrations are 7-11 times
greater than can bc produced by a simple
mixture of coastal water with Martha Brae
River water.


The point I want to make is the mean level in the bay is 100,000 cells per litre, but spikes in gradient curtains of 10,000,000 per litre.

The conclusion of the paper is that the concentrations are caused by dinoflagellate motility to optimum gradients. In other words, they swarm to the best environment.

What can we infer from this research? We don't know what kind of conditions were there in the past in England (Dover). But we do know that planktonic blooms can be caused by mechanisms of motility to optimum conditions, not necessarily a reproduction/death cycle as in other lower concentration areas, as assumed by the uniformists. This is obvious by their method of measurement, which is in reality comparing apples to oranges. This type of sedimentation measurement in no way negates the possibility of the flood producing optimum salinity/temperature/nutrient gradients for the plankton to swarm to over a period of time, into a unique topographic and oceanic environment.

#118 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 11 September 2011 - 12:25 PM

The entire point of the video was to show that the assumptions on which the "mathematical numbers" are based in the model proposed are not sound at all. It was pointed out that under optimal conditions coccoliths would accumulate on the sea floor at a maximum rate of 2mm / year and that at this rate forming the white cliffs of dover to 100 meters thick would take 50,000 years. But the AIG article referrenced made the claim that more rapid rates could be accomplished due to flood conditions, with raised turbulence and fresh water mixing. Yet coccoliths need straight saline waters to survive and do not fare well as waters are more turbulent as it blocks the sunlight they need for photosyntesis.

He did indeed scoff at flood geology, and for good reasons.


If you would have payed attention to a previous post, then you would have noticed that the current rate of aragonite deposition is thousands of times faster than coccoliths, which makes almost pure chalk impossible without a catastrophic origin.


You also overlook the fact that all or most of the salt in the oceans was dissolved out of the rocks that were redeposited during the flood. If anything, the growth rate of coccoliths slowed down after they had to adapt to a higher salt level afterwards.

Do marine organisms have a fresh or brackish origin? Lake Baikal in Russia has many fish, crustaceans, and sponges that are normally only found in salt water. Of special interest is the fact that the transition from salt to freshwater didn't include any evolutionary changes. :huh:

In the freshwater lake, amphipods grow to the size of mice.

Posted Image


Apparently, they were better designed for lower salinity than the current ocean levels.


Lake Baikal Sponges.

Posted Image



Enjoy.

#119 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 11 September 2011 - 05:29 PM

If you would have payed attention to a previous post, then you would have noticed that the current rate of aragonite deposition is thousands of times faster than coccoliths, which makes almost pure chalk impossible without a catastrophic origin.

Jason,

This has always been one the most common sense questions--why the purity? I mean did someone have a filter that only allowed plankton (and what they covered). After 50,000 years like Geode says, why is there such purity? Where are the depositions of sand, and mud that various storms would have brought in over the many episodes of sedimentation. I mean you have to have water current or wind to push sediment. Why is it all so relatively homogeneous compared to the surrounding geology? Here is a map of the North Downs which the chalk is a part of... what caused the defined boundaries--why was it deposited purely over tens of thousands of years in well defined areas?

Hello! is anyone thinking here?

Posted Image
Geology of the South East, Chalk is light green

It appears to me that that the formifera/plankton conglomerated by some means in the same time period. The deposition seems to be episodic rather than spread out over time, as the chalk is 3 to 400 meters deep in the SAME AREA. I don't think people think !!!!!!

#120 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 11 September 2011 - 09:12 PM

Another thing that prevents common sense is assuming that all the chalk is biogenic just because it contains coccoliths. It was likely part of a homogeneous mixture that was segregated during redeposition.

It's almost as bad as thinking that rocks are the remains of dead dinosaurs because the rocks contain dinosaur fossils. <_<


Enjoy.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users