:::::::::: Ok. Please name and cite these scientists that support Baumgardner's work, because so far, after some digging around, I myself cannot find any. It could be that I'm looking in the wrong places.
:::::::::: As for my second sentence, which you seem to find so offensive, I stand by it. Rapid subduction does go against a large number of sciences. We are talking about continents splitting apart in a very short amount of time - I think that you mentioned a year in one of your posts above. ''Italic text''A year.''Italic text'' That is a very small amount of time given the fact that at the moment I think that fingernails grow faster than some some continents are moving. As for vulcanology - which I note that you have not adressed in your post above - I will state this again: BaumGardner's theory does NOT explain the existence of the Pacific hotspot and the chain of evidence in the form of islands, atolls and seamounts that it has left. These could only have formed over millions of years - not a year. It's just not possible. Before you ask about how I know this, my speciality as an amateur geologist is vulcanology (partly because my wife was brought up near Mount Hood in Oregon) which fascinates me. Palaeontology - flood geology essentially demands that all that we know about palaeolithic and neolithic culture is flat-out wrong. All of this comes under geology.
::::::::::: I am not saying that only the mainstream can be correct. I am saying that logic dictates that if something is correct then the evidence to prove that it is correct correlates with other evidence. The mainstream does not connect with flood geology. There is no other evidence, anywhere, that links with it to provide a coherent whole. The dating process for gauging the ages of deposits, fossils and rocks has stood the test of time. It works. Flood geology does not provide links to the mainstream, it stands totally outside it and also does not provide any evidence. It therefore does not fit in.::::::::::: I fail to see your last point. The age of the sea bed varies from place to place. We know its age based on the amount of sedimentation and the existence of the magnetic stipes that show magnetic field reversals. The closer you get to the mid-Atlantic ridge, the younger the rocks. The further away the older. That is not my idea - that is the evidence. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 19:05, 15 January 2008 (EST)::::::::::: How much effort should I spend explaining an idea to you that you criticise before understanding it? Shouldn't you have the responsibility of finding out about the idea first? Nevertheless, I'll try to briefly answer your points, but after that you really should spend some time and effort yourself acquainting yourself with the view you so readily criticise—from the people who believe it, not their opponents, by the way. An excellent resource is [http://www.creationontheweb.com here].::::::::::: The scientists (yes, scientists) who support Baumgardner are other young-Earth creation scientists.::::::::::: The problem with your second sentence was the comprehensiveness of it: "everything ... have (sic) to be massively wrong". This is you speaking from your ignorance. Flood geology accepts much of what geology, vulcanology, plate tectonics, hydrogeology, and palaeontology has taught us. Sure, it doesn't accept ''everything'' that experts in those fields believe, but it accepts a fair bit. In fact, some (if not all) of those fields were started by creationists!::::::::::: "''That is a very small amount of time given the fact that at the moment I think that fingernails grow faster than some some continents are moving''": But what does ''present'' rates have to do with it? See, this is one of the differences. Hutton introduced the principle that the Earth has been shaped by processes we see happening ''today'' ("uniformitarianism"). In doing so, he declared the previous view, catastrophism, to be wrong. This was an axiom, not a deduction from the evidence. Since then, geologists have been forced to return somewhat to catastrophism. Most haven't returned to the point of accepting a world-wide flood, but the point is that what you believe about much of geology depends on your starting position, such as uniformitarianism or catastrophism. Uniformitarianism would say that you use present-day movements to explain the positions of continents. Flood geology (a form of catastrophism) would say that you ''don't'' use present-day movements to explain them. But both positions are starting premises, or assumptions, not facts. You are arguing that Flood Geology, based on a presumption of catastrophism, is wrong because it doesn't fit with ''your'' presumption of uniformitarianism. That's not to say that either view is equally valid. Certainly one can test both views to see which is more consistent with the evidence, but that's what needs to be done: comparing the views to the evidence, not to a particular starting presumption.::::::::::: No, I didn't directly address the vulcanology point, but then you haven't actually explained how it doesn't fit, simply declaring it to be so. As for the timescale, more on that below.::::::::::: "''I am saying that logic dictates that if something is correct then the evidence to prove that it is correct correlates with other evidence. The mainstream does not connect with flood geology.''": So what are you comparing it to? evidence, or mainstream views? The point is that you seem to be saying that mainstream views are the same thing as the evidence. That's a non-sequitur. Sure, compare his views to the evidence, but not to whether it fits with mainstream views.::::::::::: "''There is no other evidence, anywhere, that links with it to provide a coherent whole.''": Incorrect. What you mean is that there is no other evidence ''that you know of'', but as you have already shown that you don't have much of a clue about the creation model, that's not saying much.::::::::::: "''The dating process for gauging the ages of deposits, fossils and rocks has stood the test of time. It works.''": No it hadn't and no it doesn't. The radiodating methods are based on unprovable assumptions, cannot be calibrated against artifacts of known age (for the most part) and have often been shown to be incorrect and/or inconsistent.::::::::::: As far as the age of the seabed is concerned, you are again judging Flood geology by how well it fits with uniformitarianism. The amount of sediment is quite consistent with a short time frame if you accept a global flood. Such a flood would obviously deposit large amounts of sediment in a short time. I'd agree that the rocks closer to the mid-Atlantic ridge are younger than those further away, but the question is how much younger. I'd say months younger, not hundreds of thousands of years. You haven't offered any evidence of your claim. That is, you mentioned magnetic stripes showing reversals, but didn't explain how this shows the ages you claim. Were you aware (I'm sure that you are not) that a creationary scientist made a prediction on the basis of the creation model (yes, the creationary model has predictive value) that we would find fossil evidence of magnetic reversals with a timescale in the order of days or weeks? And did you know that non-creationary geologists subsequently found fossil evidence of magnetic reversals with a timescale of weeks?::::::::::: Okay, that wasn't so brief, but how about you spend some effort studying the creation model before attempting to refute it any further? Good idea?::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:02, 15 January 2008 (EST)I'm not sure what to say about this, although I do know what it's like to start typing what you think is a short answer and then it turns out to be a long one! I have looked again at a few creationist websites, like Answers In Genesis, in an effort to understand such thinking. I do not think that it's possible for us to come to an understanding on this, as I find these sites to be... well, unscientific. I know, I know, you find their answers compelling. I do not. Radiometic dating. I have never seen any doubts about this. The few problems that I have seen have been in the order of a few years here and there. But as this is seen as a reliable form of dating by the vast majority of authorities, such as the Benfield Hazard Research Centre (which I have regular access to), please tell me why it is seen as being suspect by creationists. Vulcanology. Apologies for not explaining this further, as this is a passion of mine. The chain of seamounts that stretch backwards from Hawaii are significant because of the length of time that it takes to build a sea volcano. If you look at Hawaii itself and its size then you begin to see the size of the problem. Hawaii - as measured from the sea floor to the tip of its volcanic peaks, is the highest mountain on earth. It's bigger than Everest (or, if there are any K2 fans lurking here, K2). The problem with undersea volcanoes is that they take time to build - magma that erupts underwater tends to form what is called pillow lava. It oozes out, it flows downhill and it builds up, layer on layer. The Hawaiian hotspot tends to be, well, highly runny, so it builds shield volcanoes - as they resemble old-fashioned shields laid flat on the ground. The Hawaiian hotspot is currently driving not just the current ongoing eruption on Kiluaea, but is also building the next island in the chain, whose name escapes me for the moment. It hasn't reached the surface of the sea yet, but it's there and will poke its snout about the surface of the sea in a few hundred years. Now if you look at a map of the Hawaiian Islands, then you'll see that they tend to diminish in size as you go look at them from southeast to north west. This is because as each island moves away from the hotspot, driven by plate tectonics, then two things start to impact it. It can no longer be added to with fresh lava, so it starts to erode. And it starts to sink slightly, as the sheer pressure of rock drags it down. The older the island, the more eroded and the more low-lying it is, until in the end you have atolls, like Midway, where the coral starts to grow on the lip of the submerged rim of the old, long-dead volcano. Beyond that you have seamounts, great volcanic fingers of rock, the remnants of volcanoes in the chain that have long since vanished under the waves. Everyone of these volcanoes, active, dormant and long-extinct, takes time to build. Kilauea has been erupting since 1983, and it's still going. My point here is that rapid subduction fails to explain these seamounts and fails to explain Hawaii. If the flood took a year, or months, then this would simply not have been enough time to build these volcanoes. The ocean floor would have been moving too fast over the seamount to form more than lava domes or very small hills - not a chain of mountains that, if you drained the water in the Pacific away, would be the highest in the world. And let's not forget that these volcanoes start to form at the bottom of the ocean, under a vast amount of pressure - they cannot grow quickly. Oh and by the way, why do you dismiss all mainstream evidence? I think this was supposed to be a shortish response - obviously not! [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 19:52, 18 January 2008 (EST) : Why (in what way) do you find the articles on creationist web-sites to be unscientific? Admittedly many of the articles are written as layman articles, not scientific papers, but apart from that...?: If you've never seen doubts about radiometric dating, it makes me wonder just how much you have looked at creationist web-sites. There's plenty there. YECs of course have a problem with it because it contradicts the biblical account, but they have also produced a fair bit of argument and evidence to show that it has problems. Most scientists only see radiometric dating as reliable when it gives them dates that they concur with. Have a look at the history of dating [[Mungo Man]] for an example where there were not happy with the dates. (What that article doesn't highlight is that one team went back and redated the fossil because they didn't agree with the date that the other team got.) There's also this comment from an archaeologist (quoted from [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5026/ here]):{{QuoteBox|If a C14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely ‘out of date’, we just drop it.}}: Okay, I understand your vulcanology argument much better now, but it seems to rely very much on the rates that things have been observed happening. Specifically, you have eruptions occurring every ''x'' years (or decades) adding ''y'' amount of material. Couldn't you imagine a scenario where the eruptions were much larger and more frequent building the islands in a shorter time? And it doesn't all have to be in the year of the flood. As you say, it is still going on, so we have 4,500 years to work with, not just one year. I don't know enough about it to give more of an answer to that, but I've seen many other examples of processes that supposedly took a long amount of time being shown to not need that time. Sedimentary layers were supposed to form at the rate of one a year, and in places there are hundreds of thousands of such layers, meaning that they must have taken hundreds of thousands of years to form. Yet the explosion of Mt. St. Helens saw hundreds of layers deposited ''in one day'', blowing that theory out of the water.: I don't reject all mainstream evidence. Creationists simply have a different ''explanation'' for the evidence than evolutionists have. It's all the same evidence.: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:09, 18 January 2008 (EST) ::I'm afraid that vulcanology doesn't work that way. The problem we're dealing with here is one that it is very hard for people to grasp - the sheer scale of geological time. Humans, by the scale of our paltry lifetimes, tend to think that 10 years or 50 years or 100 years are quite long periods of time. Volcanoes - and the world that powers them - tend to think in terms of thousands of years. There is no potential scenario that I can think of that can take into account the seamount-island chain in terms of YEC thinking. The powerhouse for a volcano is its magma chamber. The bigger it is, the larger the eruption, or at least the larger the potential eruption. To erupt the amount of material that makes up the Pacific seamount-atoll-island chain is vast. That either requires a vast magma chamber - bigger than anything that has ever been discovered so far, or a long-period series of eruptions. Let's look at the large magma chamber option. The problem here is that once a magma chamber empties due to a huge eruption, it then leaves a hole, into which the surrounding rock collapses, forming a void, or to give it it's right name, a caldera. The largest of these have been named supervolcanoes, and there are three of these in the US - Yellowstone, Long Valley and Valdez. ::But the Pacific hotspot has left a series of islands, not caldera, so this points to a more gradual series of building events, not a catastrophic series of limited eruptions. The creation of an island like Hawaii - the ones that preceded it - is not easy. Underwater volcanoes exist under conditions of extreme pressure. Don't forget that Hawaii is bigger than Everest. That's a huge amount of material, and requires thousands of years of eruptions - and that's just at the end of the current chain. There are hundreds of other volcanic edifices in Hawaii's wake, making the path of the hotspot. For each one to reach the surface requires again a huge amount of material. And even then, reaching the surface is just the start of the battle to build an island. When a vent approaches the surface of the sea then it can start oparting under conditions of low water pressure - and thus blowing material to the surface. Magma tends to fragment at this point as it cools, forming ashes or scoiria - small fragments. Unfortunately this stuff can be washed away by the sea very easily - look up what happened to the early versions of the isle of Surtsey off Iceland, or a seamount that broached the surface off the coast of Sicily in 1831, and which was promptly claimed by the UK, France, Italy, and Spain, before it was eroded back under the sea in 1832 when the eruption stopped. You need lots of liquid lava to cement everything in place, and again this takes time. Hawaii has made it, obviously. Again, this took time.::As for your comment about sedimentary layers, I'm afraid that claiming that the 1980 Mount St Helens eruption blows the length of time out of the water is a bit premature. Every eruption of a volcano results in the venting of ash - which is finely pulverised magma. Every eruption is from magma that tends to be slightly different from the last. We can tell this by the chemical composition of the ash. Examining the layers around Mount St Helens show lots and lots of layers - but all are from the same magma source, created at the same time, and with the same chemical signature. Worse still, these layers tend to be from events like pyroclastic flows, which are very common to volcanoes. Pompeii and Herculaneum were hit by these things, with the latter also being hit by lahars, or hot mud flows. Again, these can occur again and again in one eruption event.::By the way I have a question - why is it that the northern and southern hemispheres are scarred by valleys that were scarred by glaciers and not water?::Another short post! You're right, these things can just suck you in. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 18:31, 21 January 2008 (EST)::: I don't know much about vulcanology, so can't respond too specifically, but just looking at your argument, much of it amounts to "it would take an awful lot of material, and that would take a lot of time". You back up your "awful lot of material" claim fairly well, and I accept that, but the "lot of time" argument is then simply tacked on at the end as self-evident. And you start off by presuming your point of view, that there is such a thing as vast amounts of geological time.::: Flood geology has the oceans deepening near the end of the Flood. Perhaps the Hawaiian volcanoes started erupting before the ocean was as deep as now and therefore under less pressure? You say that you can't imagine a scenario, but perhaps that's because you can't look at it from a young-Earth perspective, being largely ignorant of that.::: I've heard similar post-hoc explanations of the Mt. St. Helens layers before, but the point is that prior to Mt. St. Helens, mainstream geologists didn't recognise that such multiple layers can form quickly, and this evidence was a surprise to them. And the point of that is that I've ''often'' (this was but one example) seen evidence of things that supposedly take a long time can occur over a much shorter time.::: Why is it that there are valleys that were scarred by glaciers and not water? Because there was lots of ice! Your point?::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:04, 22 January 2008 (EST) :::: My apologies, I must stop tacking thoughts onto the end of long posts without explaining them. My point was, how does flood geology explain the highly distinctive U-shaped valleys that are present in the northern and southern hemispheres, which are the clear result of long-term glaciation? When a valley full of water freezes, it doesn't really scar the sides that much. When a valley is filled with a glacier that's something very different - and the results, in terms of the shape of the valley afterwards, are also very different. How does flood geology address the existence of glaciers?:::: I still don't understand why there is this reluctance to accept the principle of vast amounts of time when it comes to erosion and other issues. I have looked into the creationist arguments against radiometric dating, and I find them deeply problematic. Gentry's arguments have been refuted by Wakefield. There is also a YEC argument about what is called the 'helium problem'. These too have been refuted (B.C Shizgal & G.C. Arkos, 1996). Can I also add that radiometric dating has evolved steadily over the years, becoming far more refined and accurate as time goes by. :::: Your comment on the depths of the ocean increasing at the end of the flood really confused me. How is that possible? Ocean depths tend to increase the further away you get from mid-ocean ridges, as gravity drags things down as a result of pressure - which is the result of time again!. As for the seafloor magnetic stripes, yes some of these are quite short, but others are very wide. The Earth's magnetic field is hard to understand. :::: I think that we are going to have to agree to disagree, because to me YEC geology makes no sense when I look at the evidence that I have seen. I stand by the mainstream view. Sorry. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 19:17, 23 January 2008 (EST)::::: Flood geology explains the glacial valleys as being the result of glaciers! The difference, to a fair extent, would be simply the timescale. As I indicated above, many people have been led to believe that certain things ''require'' vast amounts of time, but in many cases, it has been shown that the required time is much less. Glacier movement rates are high enough to account for the lower ends of glaciers being at the upper ends within the last few thousand years, I believe. Furthermore, creationists say that only the biblical flood account can adequately explain the (one) ice age. Lower temperatures world-wide would not produce the ice sheets of the ice age, as there would be reduced evaporation and thus reduced precipitation. Higher temperatures world-wide would increase evaporation and precipitation, but it would be too warm for the ice sheets to develop. However, a cool Earth with warm oceans following the flood would have high evaporation and therefore precipitation, but ice sheets would form on the cooler land masses.::::: You say that gravity drags things down as a result of pressure, and that this takes time, but of course it depends both on time ''and the rate'' of drag. In many such cases creationists will agree with non-creationists (or the other way around) on ''what'' happened, but not on ''how fast'' it happened.::::: I suggest that YEC geology makes no sense to you because you simply have very little idea of it. If you are interested in learning more, I suggest that you read some of the geology papers published in the [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2011/ ''Journal of Creation'']. You could also check out [http://www.biblicalgeology.net/ this]. But of course you would need to read more than just a paper or two to get a good understanding.::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:01, 23 January 2008 (EST)::::::No, I do have a very clear idea of what YEC geology is like, because I have actually done some research on it. Thanks for your comments, which have helped me to take a good hard look at it, and pointed me to some interesting aspects of it that I hadn't seen before. It still makes no logical sense in terms of science. I apologise for these comments, but this is what I feel about this.::::::Everything that I have read, seen and understood so far leads me to believe that flood geology seems to be deeply flawed and based upon one main premise - YEC geology believes in an early creation and the flood. And that's it. ::::::But every other piece of evidence that contradicts this worldview, this conception, is immediately dismissed by YEC believers. Geology points to a world that is billions of years older? No, there has to be a mistake with radiometric dating. Plate tectonics points to billions of years of continental drift? No, it can all be explained with rapid subduction, with anomalies like the Pacific Hotspot, the fact that such rapid subduction would have - by Baumgardners own admission - have boiled the oceans being explained away at some future time. ::::::Erosion? The Flood. Sedimentation? The flood. The discovery of fossils? Animals that didn't make it onto the ark.::::::It's like... YEC people start off with a fixed idea and then they either ignore those facts that contradict their own ideas, or they try to bend those facts to fit their own world view. That's not science. It's manipulating reality to fit their own view. I stand by the mainstream not out of rigidity, not out of fixation, but because it fits the facts. Like I said, let's agree to disagree. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 18:54, 24 January 2008 (EST)::::::: You clearly didn't have good idea of YEC views to start with, and although it's just as clear that you have expanded your knowledge of that considerably, I find it too hard to believe that in this short time you've really got a good understanding of it.::::::: I don't know what you mean by "every other" piece of evidence contradicting this worldview (other than ''what'', specifically?), but there are many bits of evidence that are more consistent with the creationary worldview than the evolutionary worldview, and your simplistic and dismissive attitude does you no credit. For example, creationists do not just dismiss radiometric dating by "there has to be a mistake"; they actually do scientific research to test their ideas, and produce much evidence in support of their claims.::::::: Creationists willingly acknowledge that their views are based on the Bible, but also point out that atheists base their views on their belief in no god, and that is their starting assumption. So if creation is not science for that reason, then neither is evolution.::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:06, 25 January 2008 (EST) ::::The age of the Erath has been very well documented. According to the United States Geological Survey: "Ancient rocks exceeding 3.5 billion years in age are found on all of Earth's continents. The oldest rocks on Earth found so far are the Acasta Gneisses in northwestern Canada near Great Slave Lake (4.03 Ga) and the Isua Supracrustal rocks in West Greenland (3.7 to 3.8 Ga), but well-studied rocks nearly as old are also found in the Minnesota River Valley and northern Michigan (3.5-3.7 billion years), in Swaziland (3.4-3.5 billion years), and in Western Australia (3.4-3.6 billion years)." Different studies have yielded consistent dates. But I have not seen any scientific evidence from any creationist source that addresses these dates. Instead they state that the Earth's age is measured in thousands of years, not in billions of years. As I said above, the most notable argument criticising radiometric data was used by Gentry - whose criticisms were addressed by Wakefield. And you seem to make a key logical fallacy. Creation contradicts science. Evolution fits in with science. Equating one with the other doesn't work. My mother for example believes in God, but also believes in evolution - and she studied biology in Nottingham University. ::::You mention that observed geological processes might differ from past ones. Again, that doesn't fit in with what we know. How does flood geology fit with the effects of glaciation? How can the glaciers of the last ice age form under the flood geology model? We're talking about sheets of ice that were kilometers thick, creeping down over the hemispheres. These scarred the landscapes - hell, Scandinavia is still rebounding upwards thousands of years after the last ice age, because the ice sheet pressed down on the area for so long. Scotland's Highlands are barren because of the amount of soil that was stripped off them and taken south.::::How does flood geology address the iridium found at the K-T Boundary? Or the mass extinction of the ammonites? Or the dates we get from analysing - by multiple independent sources - the different rock layers? Come to that, how does flood geology explain the fact that if rapid subduction did take place, this would also mean that there would be a corresponding massive uptick in earthquakes and volcanic activity? Mount Ararat is a volcano by the way. If the Ark landed there it would have contained a lot of dead people and animals quite rapidly. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 08:49, 29 January 2008 (EST) ::::: There is a logical circularity, and hidden assumptions, in using the earth to date the earth. But you omit them. [[Radiometric dating]] depends on assuming that decay rates have always been constant. But plainly that is false.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:03, 29 January 2008 (EST) :::::: The argument from radiometric dates is flawed for another reason. It assumes that the methodology of radiometric dating is sound. And it is anything but sound. It assumes that the earth is already old, and is therefore circular in its reasoning. It also assumes that the starting composition of rocks is establishable, and that has already been falsified.:::::: Austin and colleagues, in 1996, submitted samples of dacite from the [[Mount St. Helens]] lava dome to Geochron Laboratories, Inc. for dating. Now bear in mind that Mount St. Helens had erupted a scant ten years earlier. Geochron gave back five different dates for those rocks--dates that varied above and beyond the rated tolerances for those dates--dates that varied from half a million years to two million eight hundred thousand years.:::::: If a hospital laboratory had made a mistake like that, it would be shut down for its pains. As it is, Geochron later abandoned the [[potassium]]-[[argon]] dating method that had produced the wildly preposterous dates.:::::: Dr. Austin published his findings in the ''Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal''. But more than that, he and about a dozen of his colleagues formed Project RATE--for '''R'''adioisotopes and the '''A'''ge of '''T'''he '''E'''arth. Those men have developed findings that ought to shock everyone who reads them--findings that destroy all of the uniformitarian assumptions about how old we think rocks are.:::::: And--funny that someone here should cite the US Geological Survey. By their own admission, the "youngest" rock ever dates had an apparent age of 700,000 years. ''They couldn't reliably date the eruption of [[Mount Vesuvius]] and the destruction of [[Pompeii]]'' did we not have the diary of [[Pliny the Younger]] to work with.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 09:27, 29 January 2008 (EST) ::::::: [[Circular reasoning]], like that used on the [[radiometric dating]], does fool a lot of people. I honestly think some have trouble seeing the defect in [[circular reasoning]]. Of course, others see the flaw but persist anyway, knowing that others will be fooled by it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:03, 29 January 2008 (EST) ::::::: For more on [[radiometric dating]], see that article. Changed rates of decay are only one of the problems.::::::: There's been plenty of examples produced to show that radiometric dating is inconsistent or plain wrong. So even if you show that it often ''is'' consistent, the fact that it's often ''not'' consistent shows that it is not reliable.::::::: "''But I have not seen any scientific evidence from any creationist source that addresses these dates. Instead they state that the Earth's age is measured in thousands of years, not in billions of years.''": I'm not sure off the top of my head if creationists have addressed ''the particular dates you quote'', but they have done more than "state" the age of the Earth; they have ''addressed'' the issue of dating generally.::::::: "''And you seem to make a key logical fallacy.''": Where?::::::: "''Creation contradicts science. Evolution fits in with science.''": Because you say so? Bals assertion does not make it so, and clearly creationists disagree with those assertions.::::::: "''Equating one with the other doesn't work. My mother for example believes in God, but also believes in evolution - and she studied biology in Nottingham University.''": How much did she study the Bible? Evolution ''does not'' fit with the Bible. You can invent any "god" you want, but evolution does not fit with the God of the Bible. For example, the Bible says that God created everything ''in six days'': That is simply contrary to evolution. Both cannot be true.:::::::"''You mention that observed geological processes might differ from past ones. Again, that doesn't fit in with what we know.''": Er, yes it does. There are no observed geological processes producing sedimentary or lava fields hundreds and thousands of square kilometres in extent.:::::::"''How can the glaciers of the last ice age form under the flood geology model?''": I've already answered that earlier in this page.::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:57, 29 January 2008 (EST) PJR - you state <i>"...the Bible says that God created everything ''in six days'': That is simply contrary to evolution. Both cannot be true."</i> Indeed so - both cannot be true. But attempting to fit the evidence to the theory that the Earth was created in six days is clearly an exercise in [[circular reasoning]] - 'The Earth took six days to form (or 6000 years), therefore we must develop theories to explain that theory'. Look at the two arguments. One approach attempts to explain how everything came about, fitting the theories to a specific (and minority) interpretation of a particular book. The other approach continuously re-evaluates its estimates over hundreds of years, and new evidence changes the results. There was no book that said that the Earth was created 6 billion years ago. Were scientists to tell us tomorrow that the Earth is in fact ten billion years old, or two billion years old, no-one would be be much surprised. Yet no matter what evidence is presented to holders of the Creationist viewpoint, the age of the Earth remains the same. Doesn't that strike you as odd? Doesn't that strike you as the ultimate example of [[circular reasoning]]?. [[User:Reasonableperson|Reasonableperson]] 23:12, 29 January 2008 (EST) :That is not circular reasoning. Circular reasoning would go like this::# The Bible says that the world is 6,000 years old.:# The evidence (e.g. rock layers) is explained ''on that basis''.:# The explanation is offered as proof that the Bible is correct.: Just the first two points by themselves (i.e. your 'The Earth took six days to form (or 6000 years), therefore we must develop theories to explain that theory') is not circular reasoning, and there's nothing wrong with the first two points. It's only when you go to the third point that you have a circle, and that's where the argument becomes invalid.: But creationists don't do that. They do argue that the evidence ''fits better'' with a 6,000-year model, but they don't offer the explanation as proof of the presumption.: Evolutionists, on the other hand, ''do'' use this circular reasoning::# The biblical history is wrong, so there was no global flood, for example.:# Dating methods are developed ''on this basis'' (e.g. assuming no global flood).:# The dates derived by this method are used as proof that there was no global flood (e.g. civilisations are older than the supposed date of the Flood).: "''One approach attempts to explain how everything came about, fitting the theories to a specific (and minority) interpretation of a particular book.''": This is (a) misleading, and (b) misrepresenting what creationists claim. It's misleading because the "interpretation" is (i) the way it's been understood by almost every reader until prior to about 200 years ago (and many readers within the last 200 years), and (ii) the way that the experts in Hebrew and the Old Testament say that it was meant to be understood. It's misrepresenting what creationists claim because they claim it to be not just "a particular book", but the infallible revelation of the omniscient God. So what is wrong with trying to see how the evidence fits with what is (supposed to be) ''accurate history''? Answer: There's nothing wrong with that. The only valid question is whether or not it ''is'' accurate history, but you're not (directly) questioning that. Rather, you're trying to avoid that question by questioning the veracity of the source.: "''The other approach continuously re-evaluates its estimates over hundreds of years, and new evidence changes the results.''": Which might tend to suggest that they really can't be certain they've yet got it right, which means that they can't be certain that the biblical account is wrong.: "''Were scientists to tell us tomorrow that the Earth is in fact ten billion years old, or two billion years old, no-one would be be much surprised.''": Er, I think a lot of people would be surprised, actually.: "''There was no book that said that the Earth was created 6 billion years ago.''": Being pedantic, and ignoring that the age is actually believed to be 4.5 billion years, lots of books ''do'' say that. But your point is that the age is not an underlying presumption. True, but instead there is the underlying presumption ''that the cause was naturalistic'', rather than it being created. That makes the secular view no better than the biblical view.: "''Yet no matter what evidence is presented to holders of the Creationist viewpoint, the age of the Earth remains the same.''": You say that as though there is something wrong with that. But if they are correct, ''there is nothing wrong with that''! So your argument is circular, because ''it presumes what you are trying to prove'': that the Bible and therefore the creationists are wrong.: "''... no matter what evidence is presented ...''": The problem is not the evidence, but the explanation of the evidence. A rock is evidence. The isotope ratios are evidence. A date is not evidence, but part of the explanation of the evidence.: "''Doesn't that strike you as odd? Doesn't that strike you as the ultimate example of circular reasoning?''": No, because you have not demonstrated a circle.: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:23, 30 January 2008 (EST) Philip I believe your example is a bit misleading. For example: Evolutionists, on the other hand, ''do'' use this circular reasoning::# The biblical history is wrong, so there was no global flood, for example.:# Dating methods are developed ''on this basis'' (e.g. assuming no global flood).:# The dates derived by this method are used as proof that there was no global flood (e.g. civilizations are older than the supposed date of the Flood).Your first line about the bible, how would a scientist in feudal china (who had not heard of Christianity) make a conclusion that the history of the bible is wrong? This is the difference, to use the scientific method correctly you must eliminate as much of a world view as possible so that predispositions you would assume due to your world view would not have as much of an impact on your studies. That is one reason why it was not until 200 years or so that things began to change in the scientific community, because scientists at that time were using the world view offered to them through their religious upbringing. This of course causes issues when you are collaborating with scientists with different world views hence the reason why science is based on the burden of proof not the lack of. This is where your analogy is misleading, you started by saying that the bible said (the hypothesis) then performed the experiment (Except you commented "on that basis", assuming an insertion of your personal world view) then made your conclusion to support your hypothesis. The scientist does not make the hypothesis of the biblical history is wrong, their hypothesis is based on observation first (I see that the strata here that is 150 feet deep is the same over there at 150 feet deep) then they experiment (I dig somewhere else at 150 feet deep) then they draw their conclusions. Just to explain the differences if they are not so clear, the scientist assumes nothing at first, just observes, then hypothesis, then experiments, then concludes. Your analogy is based on the assumption that the scientist has a predisposition to disprove the bible, which is far from the truth since the scientific method ignores religion. Ignoring religion is not the same as disproving it. The primary difference is that where the bible literalist will try to equate their observations to the bible the scientist trys to equate their hypothesis to their observations. As such the scientist’s observations can not be circular since they begin with nothing but their worldview (which by use of the scientific method is limited) whereas the observations of the bible literalist can be circular since with their base of equating their observations with the bible, they always interpret the data with a biblical view. As such they tend to be circular. For a logical example try this,#Who created the universe?Bible literalist: God, because the bible says god created it.Scientist: We do not know who created it but evidence supports the conjecture of how it developed. Do you see the logic? The literalist, because of the biblical preconceived notion can only apply circular reasoning whereas the scientist can not since they have no preconceived notion. All they can offer is what conjectures they have based on observations.#How did man come to be?Bible literalist: God created man in his image as stated in the bible.Scientist: We conjecture that man evolved through a series of steps to its current form by slight mutation as observed in other life forms as well as supported in the fossil record.Notice how the bible literalist would provide a definitive answer whereas the scientist would not, a conjecture is not an absolute. This again is a prime example as to why the scientist (who uses the scientific method) can not employ circular reasoning since they start with nothing in terms of worldview (as limited by the scientific method) and the bible literalist must equate all observations to the bible.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 16:10, 30 January 2008 (EST):Your point of what a scientist in feudal China would conclude would have some validity if there actually were scientists in feudal China who came to the conclusion that the world was millions of years old. But there weren't, so the example proves nothing. :Much of the rest of your argument presumes that evolutionary scientists are as objective as possible and don't let their ideas intrude into their science, whilst creationary scientists are not so rigorous. But this is merely painting a rosy picture of evolutionary scientists that doesn't match reality.:In reality, evolutionary scientists are every bit as influenced by their worldview as creationary scientists. Evolutionary scientists work on the principle that matter is all there is (i.e materialism). This is not an ''observation'', but an ''assumption''. Take for example this quote from Richard Lewontin:{{QuoteBox|We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. <br /><br />It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.}}:Also, when talking about "the burden of proof", keep in mind that we are not talking about empirical science so much as ''history''. We're not talking about laboratory experiments to see if we can tranform a reptile into a bird, but about whether this event actually happened millions of years ago. Even if we found that we ''could'' transform a reptile into a bird, it does not logically follow that it necessarily happened millions of years ago. That is a fact (or fallacy) of ''history'', not empirical science.:And the views of people such as Gould and Michael Ruse are that evolution was the result of ''rejecting'' the biblical account. It wasn't a dispassionate look at the evidence, but was based on a worldview that was hostile to God. Yes, the ''scientific method'' ignores religion, but the scientists practicing it very often don't.:As I tried to explain, using an argument based on an assumption to claim that the assumption is thereby proved is a circular argument. Simply making an argument within the framework of a particular worldview is not a circular argument. Again, your "who created the universe" argument is a conclusion based on the Bible (or not), but is not a "circular argument"—''there is no circle''!: Your "how did man come to be" example is also fallacious. First, since when is it wrong to be certain of one's conclusions? You seem pretty certain that what you are saying is correct, yet criticise "Bible literalists" (an incorrect term anyway) for being sure of their views! Secondly, almost every scientist will insist that the evolutionary story is definitely correct. They will be prepared to accept that some of the details could be changed, but not the basic premise. (Creationists will also accept that some of the details could be changed.): So in summary, your idealistic word picture of unbiased objective evolutionary scientists vs. biased, unobjective creationists is nothing but a fantasy.: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:25, 31 January 2008 (EST) Philip, my example about feudal Chinese scientists is about world view not if the world was millions or billions of years old. I was showing how the relationship of scientific research is not limited by personal world view. Let’s change my analogy a bit, to show how a preconceived notion can cause a huge difference in conclusions. A geologist walks through the desert and happens upon several pillars with large stones sitting on them tens of feet in the air. Wondering how these stones happen to come to rest upon the pillars the geologist measures the pillars, the base of the stones, looks at how the stones rest upon the pillars and checks the composition of the stones and compares them to the pillars. His research allows him to conjecture that the stones upon the pillars were of the same composition of the pillars and that the stones were actually formed due to the high wind in the desert eroding the pillars and that the stones were not placed upon the pillars at all. Now let us see how this scenario changes when the worldview is changed. A Native American comes across the same formation and wonders about how the stone came to rest upon the pillars. He looks at the pillars and stones and measures them. With the understanding of the Great Spirit he concludes that nothing could have placed the stones upon the pillars so they must have been formed by the Great Spirit upon the pillars. See the difference? Which one is testable?<br>As for my painting a rosy picture here is the difference, scientists in general are under much scrutiny for their work and conclusions. To report false information has drastic affects in the scientific community (such as losing positions, funding is cut from projects and a host of other issues that result from the scientist’s work being false). Evolutionary scientists, geologists, biologists, chemists and the like all fall under this. The exception would be the theologians since their work does not provide a medium to which it can be measured. In the case of creationary scientists it is their worldview that defines them “creationary” is not just a term to describe the science that they are studying it is what they are trying to equate their discoveries with.<br>As for materialism, I would agree that evolutionary scientists and primordial chemists work on the principle that matter is all there is. If they did not then their research would be convoluted with unlimited possibilities preventing them from pinpointing anything. Take for example the differences between astronomy and astrology. Astronomy is based on a materialist view of the universe where astrology is based on a spiritual view, which is considered a science? But that is not what this argument is about; it is about the worldview of a creation scientist vs. the worldview of non-creation scientist.<br>The fact is there are a few scientists that do mix their worldview with their work, which happens to cause the scientific community to correct the work by rebuttal and refuting it. The creation scientist on the other hand fully allow their world view to influence their work, for example the world can not be billions of years old because the bible says so therefore all work that shows otherwise is suspect. The problem with this is that the matter of empirical data. To support much of what is claimed by creation scientists would mean that several basic principles of physics have changed over time, the issue is that these principles are not something that can be tested since most claims are based on one time events and current measurements of these factors show no conclusive change.<br>Your comment about burden of proof, whereas you are correct about talking about history and not empirical science conjectures can be made and supported by evidence to increase the probability of something occurring. For example a forensic scientist is not at the crime when it is committed but through the collection of data and evidence the scientist can offer a conjecture to limit the doubt of how something occurred. Evolutionary biology and paleontology are much like forensic science where it is based on reductionism, reducing the observations to such fine detail that conjectures can be formed. They would not be considered pure sciences (as in chemistry, physics but not biology) for all they can offer are conjectures with reasonable proof. So I do not disagree with you that they study history and therefore are not empirical sciences but I disagree with your assumption of lack of accuracy and precession.<br>I am glad you admit that the scientific method ignores religion, and I will agree that not all scientists do not (Dawkins for example) however that is why in actual research publications you do not find unsubstantiated claims about the scientist’s worldviews, to do so would be publication suicide.<br>I do find it interesting how you mention the views of Gould and Ruse, we saw this year the view of Watson and I must say it really had no affect on my understanding of DNA. This is the misconception, scientists’ personal views are one thing but the scientific community views are another. As for a hostile worldview to God, that is a matter of interpretation. For the most part Gould and Ruse could careless about God. You could consider this hostile but most would consider it apathetic.<br>The circular argument examples I listed above follow the logic of a circular argument. Let us evaluate :For some proposition ''p'',:''p'' implies ''q'':suppose ''p'':therefore, ''q''.For example, here is an attempt to prove the earth is not billions of years old,:Suppose the bible is true:The bible says the world is not millions of years old:Therefore the world is not millions of years old.My example, Who created the universe?:Suppose the bible is true:The bible says that god created the universe:Therefore god created the universe.My other example: How did man come to be?:Suppose the bible is true:The bible says that god created man:Therefore god created man.Starting to see a pattern? The only difference is that the hypothesis and conclusions of creation scientists are based on 'p'' implies ''q'' which is the base for circular reasoning. Scientists do not have this base, they have nothing to equate 'p'' implies ''q'' therefore effectively preventing circular reasoning when the scientific method is used.<br>As for the issue of certainty, scientists can not say they are 100% certain of anything, to do so would imply they know every little detail of the study and therefore have evaluated all possibilities. This is impossibility since our techniques and technologies are always evolving to allow for finer degrees of understanding. For me to state that we are 100% certain of anything would be a lie. Yes, we have a very high degree of certainty that the basic premise of evolution is true; however we can never be 100% certain. My criticism of bible literalists (Darwinist is an incorrect term as well) is that be rejecting any evidence contrary to their belief they are by default implying that their view is 100% certain, that my friend is the difference."So in summary, your idealistic word picture of unbiased objective evolutionary scientists vs. biased, unobjective creationists is nothing but a fantasy." I am sorry but the logic and evidence says it is more truth than fantasy (athough there are exceptions).--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 12:44, 31 January 2008 (EST) : "''my example about feudal Chinese scientists is about world view not if the world was millions or billions of years old. I was showing how the relationship of scientific research is not limited by personal world view''": I understand that, but what if Chinese scientists, not explicitly rejecting the biblical view (because, as you say, they didn't have the Bible) also came up with the idea that the world was only thousands of years old? My point is that the reason that European scientists came up with millions of years was because they rejected the biblical history. Chinese scientists, not rejecting biblical history, would not (in my opinion) come up with millions of years.:"''Let’s change my analogy a bit, [big snip] Which one is testable? ''": Neither. Both are supposed to have happened in the unobserved past. Some details ''are'' testable, but this applies to both. The geologist can test rates of erosion to see if his story is consistent with that, but by the same token the Indian can test his idea that "nothing could have placed the stones upon the pillars" to see if he can, like a good scientist, disprove that statement.:"''...scientists in general are under much scrutiny for their work and conclusions. To report false information has drastic affects...''": In theory, and in practice up to a point. But read [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5613/ this]. Your picture was rosier than reality.:"''...theologians['] ... work does not provide a medium to which it can be measured''": Huh? The Bible is the standard that their work is measured by, so you are wrong.:"''...the case of creationary scientists it is their worldview that defines them ...''": Just as evolutionists are defined by "naturalism". So what's the difference?:"''I would agree that evolutionary scientists and primordial chemists work on the principle that matter is all there is.''": Then you agree that they are rejecting possible explanations ''a priori'', and therefore give up any claim to have considered all possibilities.:"''If they did not then their research would be convoluted with unlimited possibilities preventing them from pinpointing anything.''": Not true. Accepting that there are more possibilities than just the material doesn't mean that ''anything'' is possible. That's a non-sequitur.:"''Astronomy is based on a materialist view of the universe where astrology is based on a spiritual view, which is considered a science?''": Archaeology rejects the view that matter can explain all it's findings and is prepared to invoke the idea of an intelligent creator (for stone tools, etc.). Yet it is still considered a science. The difference is not material vs. spiritual, but evidence vs. no evidence.:"''The fact is there are a few scientists that do mix their worldview with their work...''": No, they all do, to some extent. Part of a scientist's worldview is that he can trust his senses to make observations. All scientists "mix" this part of their worldview with their work, else they would not be scientists. Most also mix in their worldview that matter is all that they have to consider.:"''... which happens to cause the scientific community to correct the work by rebuttal and refuting it.''": Unless they agree with it.:"''The problem with this is that the matter of empirical data.''": That is a problem for both sides when discussing ''history'', which is what microbes-to-man evolution is.:"''To support much of what is claimed by creation scientists would mean that several basic principles of physics have changed over time...''": Oh? The only proposals I can recall that basic principles of physics have changed have been by evolutionary scientists in talking about the first few moments after the Big Bang.:"''...I disagree with your assumption of lack of accuracy and precession.''": As we are talking about accuracy, should I point out that the other word is "precision"? :-) Seriously, I can't remember talking about accuracy and precision, and a search of this page doesn't show those words being used except by you.:"''...in actual research publications you do not find unsubstantiated claims about the scientist’s worldviews...''": Perhaps not, but just because they don't put their worldviews in as part of their argument doesn't mean that it doesn't underpin their thinking and arguments.:"''...scientists’ personal views are one thing but the scientific community views are another...''": That doesn't really make sense. If we are talking about the "scientific community's" ''views'', then we are talking about the ''views'' of the majority of the individual scientists. Sure some views will differ from the majority, but others will ''be'' the "community's" views. :"''For the most part Gould and Ruse could careless about God.''": True, but that is irrelevant to their views about what part religion had to play in the views of others such as Darwin.:Your circular argument description is wrong. The logic you describe is valid logic, not circular reasoning. Here are two example of a logically-valid argument (from [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1860/ here]):::1) All whales have backbones;::2) Moby Dick is a whale;::∴ Moby Dick has a backbone:::1) All dogs are reptiles;::2) All reptiles have scales;::∴ All dogs have scales. : The second one has a false premise, and a false conclusion, but it is still a valid argument. Your examples are all of ''valid'' arguments, but for which you question the premise.:A circular argument, by contrast, is of the form "P is true because Q is true, and Q is true because P is true."[http://www.christianlogic.com/articles/short_list_of_fallacies.htm]. To provide an example:::Creation is not science, therefore creationists are not true scientists, therefore no true scientist supports creation, therefore creation is not science. See how the conclusion was the starting premise? This is a circular argument, because the conclusion assumes itself as the premise.:But your examples are not following this form. :"''My criticism of bible literalists ... is that be rejecting any evidence contrary to their belief ...''": This is a straw-man argument. Creationists have ''different explanations'' for the evidence; they don't ''reject'' the evidence.:"''[by] rejecting any evidence contrary to their belief they are by default implying that their view is 100% certain''": Apart from the straw-man I've just mentioned, this is false. Rejecting an explanation does not mean that they are 100% certain that they are correct, and in any case the same argument can be used of evolutionists: By rejecting the creationary explanation "they are by default implying that their view is 100% certain":"''...that my friend is the difference...''": But there is no difference!:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:16, 6 February 2008 (EST) ::I finally succumbed to one of the bugs that has been going around my wife's school a week ago, so I have been unable to respond to this until now. Apologies. I would like to suggest that schools install sheepdips by the main entrance to make the little buggers more hygenic.:: Anyway - TerryH, your comments made me groan a great deal. The supposed problems with the age of the old lava dome at Mt St Helens is a very old chestnut that was exploded years ago. Let's start off with basic vulcanology - it is a massive mistake to think that dating a volcanic eruption depends on analysing the lava, as there are some problems with that. For one thing - what on earth makes you think that the lava that is erupting is formed then and there? Mt St Helens is erupting right now, it has been for the past 4 years. So far all its doing is pushing up lava that is identical to the lava of the 1980-1986 eruption. It's basically clearing its throat, before fresher lava comes up (sorry for the metaphor, but it works). That lava was not formed in 1980. It's been down there for a while. That's the way that it works - magma collects in the main magma chamber as it seeps up from far below. Mt St Helens is a part of the Cascades subduction zone - the magma there is the light, relatively frothy rock that was scraped off the ocean crust as it descended below the North American Plate a very long time ago - as much as 500,000 to 1 million years ago. It rose into the magma chamber, pooled there, and was finally erupted. Saying that lava seems to be old for an eruption that happened 20 years ago is merely pointing out the way that vulcanology works - you're actually underlining the fact that this is an old world and that volcanic eruptions are, chemically speaking, not instant events! So thanks, TerryH, you just proved my point! ::As for the so-called problems with the K-AR method, there aren't any. Asking anyone to use the K-AR method to get the age of the 1980-86 eruption is like using Big Ben to measure how tall an ant is. The half-life of potassium-40 is rather long - 1,250 million years. Plus a few thousand years are not enough time for 40Ar to accumulate in a sample at high enough concentrations to be detected and assessed. As a result, the K-Ar method cannot be used to date samples that are much younger than 6,000 years old.::As I said, this old chestnut has long been exploded. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 18:10, 6 February 2008 (EST):::Now let me get this straight: you're only ''now'' saying that the lava that appears at an eruption should still contain a great deal of daughter nuclide? That doesn't make a bit of sense to me. I think you're misrepresenting the science here, and I demand that you produce a citation that the rest of us can check out for a comment that I consider outrageous.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 19:01, 6 February 2008 (EST) ::: One of the main problems with Darkmind1970's post is that he's essentially explaining why radiometric dates can be wrong (because the rock material is older than when it was laid down), which is really a tacit admission, that you can't rely on radiometric dates, just as the creationists have been claiming for years! A second problem is that he essentially claims that you need to know how old an object is before you can use a dating method to see how old it is! Kinda defeats the purpose, I would think! Third, he fails to adequately explain ''why'' K-Ar dating cannot be used on young objects. If a few thousand years is insufficient to accumulate enough argon to detect, how come they detected it and were therefore able to supply a date? Surely his logic means that anything younger than 6,000 years would give an age of zero? But it didn't! His argument is self-defeating. If you date a sample at 2,800,000 years (which TerryH quoted above), according to Darkmind1970, it could be (a) 2,800,000 years old (i.e. the method works when used correctly), or (b) younger than 6,000 years (i.e. the method didn't work because it wasn't used correctly). So how do you decide which it is? If he is correct, then ''such dating methods cannot be used to demonstrate that items are more than 6,000 years old''! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:33, 6 February 2008 (EST) ::::Actually I'm saying nothing of the kind. What I am saying is that K-AR dating of relatively recent events will give you somewhat fuzzy data because it's hard to be date something that's a few tens of years old when the half-life of potassium-40 is 1,250 million years. There are other forms of radiometric dating that will give better result, by using elements that have a far shorter half-life. Using K-AR dating on relatively recent material is like using a 12-inch ruler to measure the length of a bacterium.::::TerryH - please read up on some basic vulcanology, as what I said was not outrageous. I may not have phrased it very well, as I was exhausted when I wrote it, but it's still true. You want a citation - here's one. http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/mt_st_helens_dacite_kh.htm [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 08:44, 7 February 2008 (EST)::::: "''Actually I'm saying nothing of the kind.''": Despite your protestation, you've done nothing to show how anything I've said is wrong.::::: "''Using K-AR dating on relatively recent material is like using a 12-inch ruler to measure the length of a bacterium.''": I understand that, but I don't think ''you'' do. If you do use a 12-inch ruler to measure the length of a bacterium, what measurement will you get? Answer: you'd get somewhere between 0" and 0.1" (assuming the ruler was marked in tenths of an inch). For measuring a bacterium, that would be nowhere near precise enough. Correct so far? But the measurement, although nowhere near precise enough, would be essentially ''correct'', i.e. a bacterium ''is'' between 0" and 0.1" long. Am I still correct so far? To put it another way, if you do use a 12-inch ruler, you are not going read from the ruler that the bacterium is three inches long, are you? But that is the analogous situation with the dating we are talking about. We've measured the bacterium as being three inches long! Creationists say "that shows that the ruler is not reliable". You say, "the ruler should not be used to measure bacteria". Now perhaps the ruler ''should not'' be used to measure bacteria, but that hardly explains the discrepancy whereby the ruler showed the bacterium to be three inches long. Despite the inapplicability of using the ruler, it still shows that the ruler does not provide accurate (correct) measurements.:::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:54, 7 February 2008 (EST) Neither you ([[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]]) nor Dr. Henke understand the issue. And Dr. Henke's excuses are the lamest I have ever seen. "The mass spec was dirty." That's practically an admission that Geochron's quality control stinks! No wonder they don't do [[Potassium|K]]-[[Argon|Ar]] dating anymore--maybe they ''did'' lose accreditation, as any hospital laboratory would have lost its accreditation had they made a comparable error. Dr. Henke makes several other logical errors that are more debilitating:{{Cquote|In contrast to Austin ''et al.'''s juvenile attacks on K-Ar dating, geochronologists confirm the reality of radiometric dates by using multiple methods...and/or comparing their results with fossil, paleomagnetic or astronomical data.}}First of all, if several clocks just happen to agree on a value, that doesn't make the value correct; it could simply mean that the clocksetters colluded on the same erroneous consensus or that they all consulted the same erroneous clock. And in fact, multiple methods ''have'' proved less than consistent. See Snelling, Andrew, "[http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/imp/imp-376.pdf Radioisotope Dating of Grand Canyon Rocks: Another Devastating Failure for Long-Age Geology]," ''Institute for Creation Research'', Impact Article 376. That last article is part of a body of research designed to investigate the basis for old "apparent ages"--and the inconsistency of radiocarbon and radiomineral dates obtained from specimens collected at the same site. Can you name ''any'' radiomineral dating method that would be ''at all'' suitable for showing that any given mineral is young? What is the youngest rock that anyone has ever dated? I'll answer that question for you: that "youngest rock" has an apparent age of 700,000 years. ''You couldn't even reliably date the eruption of Mount Vesuvius'' did you not have [[Pliny the Younger]]'s diary of the destruction and evacuation of [[Pompeii]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 09:23, 7 February 2008 (EST) :Actually we can very easily date the eruption of AD79 without Pliny. We've got all the evidence from Pompeii and Herculaneum. Which can be very precisely dated by the coins, pottery, etc. Context. And please keep it civil. You may not agree with what I have to say, but shouting about citations and not knowing what I'm talking about is hardly reasoned discourse. Look at Henke's other arguments if you find his talk of a dirty mass spec laughable. It doesn't change the fact that dating lava is interesting because it contains old and new elements. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 11:50, 7 February 2008 (EST) ::And where are the coins, pots, and so on that can tell us that any rock is seven hundred thousand to two million to four point three billion years old? And your premises about the dating of old lava are irrelevant, because GeoChron never said a peep about that until Austin published his rather embarrassing findings--embarrassing, that is, for them.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 13:14, 7 February 2008 (EST) == Three questions: == # in regard to sedimentary rock: the Genesis account suggests that the Earth was flooded for about a year. The section "Pure Sedimentary Layers" of this article suggests that the St. Peter Sandstone, found across the US, was laid down during this flood. It is unlikely that, when the flood waters receded, a layer of rock several meters thick was left behind that had not been there before; is it proposed that 75-80% of the Earth's surface was simultaneously covered in meters of silt, which rapidly became rock? Bearing in mind that the Pyramids, as well as many other ancient structures, used sedimentary rocks in their construction, the lithification would have had to have been extraordinarily fast.#In regard to the suggested dating of 2350 BC: I understand that the Flood Geology model rejects the use of radiometric dating. I will not argue this, as I do not feel qualified to discuss the technology. I do wonder, however: what is the Creationist view on dendrochronology, the study of tree rings? Bristlecone pine trees in the US have been shown to have started growing in 2800 BC, and older trees found in the same region date back to 6500 BC. Oak trees in Germany have been dated back even farther. It would seem certain that no tree could survive being under kilometers of water for a full year, yet these trees evidently survived.#The New World and the Far East: There were native people in the New World after the flood. Did they survive the flood? Were they travellers from the Middle East, as the Mormons claim? Conversely, civilization in China is certainly old, and while precise dates may be debated, predates the postulated timing of the Flood. Chinese history does not describe a catastrophic flood that wiped out the nation's population, and does not describe its repopulation afterward.Please understand that I am not trying to tear down Flood Geology; rather, I feel that everyone is entitled to their own views on the history of our planet. Like any theory, Flood Geology must adapt to fix flaws in its postulates; if these questions can be answered, it would improve the theory and make it more robust. --[[User:TommyAtkins|TommyAtkins]] 10:05, 1 June 2009 (EDT) :Actually there is a flood story in China remarkably similar to the Genesis account. The view on tree ring dating is that it should be used carefully. In good years, more than one ring can form, and also some of the pre-flood dates are actually obtained by methods other than a sample from the living tree itself. Not sure about your rock question. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 10:36, 1 June 2009 (EDT)::* If the Chinese flood story to which you refer is the one found in the ''Hihking'', mentioned on [[Great Flood]], the problem is that the only references to this supposed "Chinese classic" are from sites discussing the Flood; a Google search for 'hihking china -hiking' (because there are many pages about hiking in China) has only 131 results, while a search for "I Ching" or "The Art of War" returns millions of hits. More notably, other Chinese sources, such as the ''Classic of History'' or the ''Records of the Grand Historian''--which covers the period around and immediately after the suggested date for the flood--make no mention of such an event. While it is in no way an unbiased source, [http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG202_2.html TalkOrigins claims] that the ''Hihking'' cannot be traced back any further than the 1930's, while other Chinese tales of floods bear little similarity to the Genesis account.::* Tree ring dating should certainly be used carefully, just like any other method of dating. No-one claims that they can pin a certain event to 2478 BC based on tree ring dating, just as it is impossible to claim to know the exact second that, say, the Titanic struck the iceberg. It is possible, however, to gain a fairly accurate picture. Although extra or missing rings would introduce some error to any measurement, it must be unlikely that the error should be so great that a population of trees dated back to 8000 BC, or even to 4500 BC, as in the case of the Bristlecone pine, is actually more recent than 2300 BC. Also, it appears that this method is only reinforced by other methods, such as radiometric dating; it does not depend upon them to be useful. If a living tree has, say, 4500 rings, and the oldest 500 match up with rings on another, nearby, dead tree that goes back 4000 rings further, it can be assumed that trees in that region have been growing uninterrupted for 8000 rings. Since double or missing rings are caused by climatic variation, which can be verified through any number of other methods, it should not be the case that these scientists have made an error of 50% or more despite all efforts to avoid it:::* On the matter of dendrochronology and other methods being used in circular logic: [http://www.wsl.ch/staff/felix.kaiser/PDFs/Friedrich_Dendro_RC04%20.pdf this source], as well as others online, show that carbon dating and other methods are calibrated off of tree-ring records, and that the trees' ages are not based off of other methods. The fact that carbon-dated results match with tree-ring dating is not a fundamental pillar of dendrochronology, only an additional support.:::--[[User:TommyAtkins|TommyAtkins]] 12:14, 1 June 2009 (EDT) ::::It looks like you actually know alot about this. The Chinese flood story was discovered in the 1930s but there's no reason to beleive it was completely made up. It may have been embellished, but China, just like virtually every ancient culture, has a tradition of a catastropic flood. To say that sites discussing the flood discuss the flood story does not prove anything. Also, study of ancient Chinese writing from the Shang dynasty's oracle bones shows similarity between Chinese writing and the Genesis account. See http://creation.com/chinese-characters-and-genesis. (I can quote CMI if you can quote talk.origins. ::::I did not say that tree ring dating or radiometric dating are circular logic. No tree has ever been dated much past the estimated Flood year using core samples from the living tree alone. See http://creation.com/living-tree-8000-years-older-than-christ. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 23:29, 1 June 2009 (EDT) == Solution vs Suspension == OK, a small experiment. Put a handful of sand into a jar of water and give it a shake. Does the sand dissolve? No, of course not. Sand isn't soluble in water. It can be SUSPENDED in water, but not dissolved. --[[User:AriannaK|AriannaK]] 18:47, 14 February 2012 (EST):James Wilson, please stop reverting my edits. We both know that sand doesn't dissolve in water, so why do you keep putting this back in the article? --[[User:AriannaK|AriannaK]] 18:59, 14 February 2012 (EST)::Please provide a cite from a reliable source.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 19:01, 14 February 2012 (EST):::Sure. While I'm finding one you can give me a cite to say that sand ''does'' dissolve in water. --[[User:AriannaK|AriannaK]] 19:03, 14 February 2012 (EST)::::Here you go: [http://pearsonkt.com/summaryStreetOT/texts/Sci-National-Grade-4/iText/products/0-328-34278-5/unitc/ch11/331.html] Sand does not dissolve in water. --[[User:AriannaK|AriannaK]] 19:05, 14 February 2012 (EST):::::Fair enough. Insert it in the article if you will. Our homeschool readers will surely be able to appreciate it.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 19:25, 14 February 2012 (EST)