Jump to content


Photo

Schweitzer Does It Again....


  • Please log in to reply
126 replies to this topic

#121 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 11 June 2009 - 02:29 AM

Why all the hostility?

View Post


;) That was a nice little dance step

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

#122 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 June 2009 - 03:06 AM

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.answersin.../greenriver.asp - 30k -

#123 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 11 June 2009 - 04:57 AM

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.

View Post

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).

View Post

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/...F12-03Seely.pdf

#124 pdw709

pdw709

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 11 June 2009 - 05:45 AM

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/...F12-03Seely.pdf

View Post


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.

Posted Image

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

#125 pdw709

pdw709

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 11 June 2009 - 05:57 AM

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.

#126 wombatty

wombatty

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Location:Warsaw, Indiana
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Warsaw, Indiana

Posted 13 June 2009 - 04:43 PM

Here are a couple of articles that deal with the dendochronology of Bristlecone pines:

John Woodmorappe's 2003 paper Field studies in the ancient bristlecone pine forest:

The bristlecone pine is an atypical tree, the remains of which have been pieced together to form tree-ring chronologies that exceed biblical limits.  Distinctive features of this tree include the stripbark mode of growth and the great longevity of certain trees.  The crossmatching of tree-ring sequences, upon which these chronologies rest, appears to be generally valid.  Not enough is known about multiple rings per year, in this tree, for immediate consideration.  An alternative model, proposed by the author, posits that successive disturbances are responsible for once having caused simultaneously living trees to crossmatch in an age-staggered manner.  This allows the chronologies to be considerably shortened. The stony terrain must have facilitated the progression of growth disturbances, notably earth-surface movements affecting the shallow-rooted bristlecone pines.  Interestingly, remains of trees inferred to be exceptionally old (e.g. 8,000 years) do not consistently appear older than the remains of much younger trees (e.g. 4,000 years). This, at the very least, is consistent with the premise that the generally accepted difference in age is fictitious.


In 2006, Evidence for multiple ring growth per year in Bristlecone Pines by Mark Matthews was published in Journal of Creation:

The great ages claimed for certain individual Bristlecone Pine trees (Pinus longaeva) and the Bristlecone Pine master-chronology, conflict with biblical earth history. The ages, however, are based on the assumption that the trees grew no more than one ring per year. Creationists have proposed that these supposed old Bristlecone Pines (BCPs), including the ones that make up the master-chronology, have grown more than one ring per year. If these trees did grow more than one ring per year, the conflict between the ages of these trees and the biblical record is resolved. This paper compiles and examines some of the evidence for multiple ring growth per year in Bristlecone Pine, including observations which don’t make sense under the assumption that all these rings are annual, but are compatible with the creationist hypothesis. Evidence claimed to support the annularity of these rings is rebutted. In addition, a hypothesis is put forward that multiple ring growth per year (known as ‘multiplicity’) may benefit these trees under certain environmental conditions, and a hypothesis is offered to explain the observation that all BCPs with thousands of rings exhibit a strip growth habit. In conclusion I suggest ways that creationists can collect more decisive substantiation of multiplicity in BCPs.


I'm not claiming that creationists have this 'all sewn up', but it is not the 'slam dunk' evolutionists would have us believe that it is. We were told the same thing about mudstone (see previous post) and, once again, empirical evidence is forcing them to revise their ideas.

#127 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 14 June 2009 - 05:49 PM


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

View Post

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.

View Post

Now you omit to answer my question.

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/...F12-03Seely.pdf

View Post

Naturally I can't speak for others; but for myself, I know how I'm scoring that one.

Ready for the funny part? It's back up now. I was thinking they'd withdrawn it, as so often happens, but the link's working fine now. "Ultimate Proof that Noah’s Flood Was Not Global" :rolleyes: Someone has a pretty low idea of 'ultimate', and I can't say much for their idea of 'proof' either. Anyhow, folks can see for themselves how fine a job of "discrediting" has been done.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users