Flood Geology

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Justin Mooney on October 15, 2010 at 1:14pm

Regarding the question of what carnivores ate immediately after the flood, I would like to point out a couple of other possibilities.

John Woodmorappe spends two chapters in the book Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study, on what kind of food sources would be available after the flood. He talks about different ways that carrion could be preserved for many months by flood conditions, particularly animals that had been buried in flood sediments and then fortuitously re-exhumed in the later stages of the flood. He cites many animals that typically hunt live meat that will nevertheless eat carrion when they have to.

Also, animals that survived in the flood waters or on floating mats of vegetation, like fish, amphibians, earthworms, insects, etc. could have been a significant food source. Earthworms are eaten by many kinds of animals. Fish trying to survive in vanishing residual pools left behind by the flood would be a convenient food source too. Again, Woodmorappe notes that a lot of carnivorous animals that don't eat fish normally will nevertheless take advantage of fish trying to survive in a shrinking pool of water. He also cites examples of animals surviving solely on fish even when they wouldn't normally include fish in their diet at all.

Also, rodents have incredible population growth rates, and could have quickly become a significant food source for carnivores. Insects and worms that survived the flood would have provided plenty of food for rodents, encouraging the a fast growth in rodent population.

After the flood, insects, worms, fish, and eventually rodents would have been a much more plentiful food source for carnivores and would allow other animals that take a longer time to multiply a chance to get a foothold in the post flood world.

Finally, a lot of animals did go extinct in the post flood era, so it is possible that some animals were killed off early on by predators while they existed in very small populations.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stefan Morin on October 15, 2010 at 2:25pm

John Woodmorappe! I could not think of his name for the life of me when I was writing this. Thanks for your input, Justin.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stefan Morin on October 16, 2010 at 10:46am

All the same, my opinion is based upon millions of hours of research, thousands of studies, by thousands of competent scientists. Yours is based on a bronze-age collection of fireside stories.

Very subtle question-begging epithet fallacy there, Paul. You're implying that, because evolution must be true, all the “competent” scientists believe in evolution, therefore anyone that does not must be incompetent.

Yours is based on a bronze-age collection of fireside stories.

If something was true 2000+ years ago, it's still going to be true today. The truth of an idea is not determined by how young or old it is, and your attempt to attack the Bible by using insults is a poor argument.

No, actually I'm referring to the concept that there was an earth with land and water, and suddenly -- according to "catastrophic plate tectonics" -- enough water appeared out of nowhere to cover the entire planet.

This is a straw-man argument. No creationist claims that the water “appeared out of nowhere.”

From where? Do you have a "theory" for where all that water came from? Doesn't matter what the topography was at the time, there wasn't enough water on the surface of the earth to cover all land. Then -- magic! -- there was!

The Bible suggests that much of the water came from the “fountains of the deep.” The theory is, a great volume of water was released from underground during the flood which covered the Earth as it was. As a result of the catastrophic plate movement, new mountains were raised up and oceans basins lowered, causing the water to eventually recede from about 25% of the Earth's surface (given that today about ¾ of the Earth is covered by water).

So... there was a certain amount of water on the earth, and then it was flooded with an immense amount more... and when all the land stopped shifting (or did it shift after the flood?!), we ended up with... once again, a certain amount of water on the earth?

Yeah, pretty much.

How so? After all that upheaval -- continents moving hundreds, even thousands of miles, billions of tons of soil being transported... and yet, the grass seed remained in place? The flood carved the Grand Canyon, but it left the grass seed on the surface in place?!

No, Paul, the grass seed was not left in place. More than likely, there was a lot of vegetation that floated on the surface preserving seeds and probably a lot of insect life. You can read a little on this yourself here, but the objections you present are really no problem.

That whole scenario presents another problem: After all that physical disruption, how did that bird find even a single tree standing?!

Again you are begging the question.

So humans went in all directions, but kangaroos only went to Australia? Penguins only went to Antarctica? What stopped the roos from going to North America? Why are there no penguins in Greenland? They could have gone there just as easily, right? And survived just as well, right? It's all much better explained by the standard model.

Paul, why wouldn't the animals disperse in different directions? Keep in mind that there were only 2 or 7 of each kind of animal on the ark. Also, penguins aren't limited to Antarctica. Penguins inhabit every continent (though are all found, to my knowledge, in the southern hemisphere)!

I've never heard anyone suggest that there were land bridges to Australia. From Asia to North America, sure. That's one. But you're actually suggesting that there was a land bridge to Australia? Do you have anything to support that?! The standard model answers the question perfectly. Yours does not.

While many people I've read are skeptical of a land bridge extending all the way to Australia, many agree that Asia was much closer to Australia by way of land than it is now. Different people give different numbers for the distance one would have to cross water to get there, but no one would have to swim thousands of miles. Maybe they hitched a ride with humans. Maybe they floated across, we can't really say for sure because we weren't there. You can read some other ideas here.

If the breakup happened after the flood, that would be like a mile a year that land masses were moving across the surface of the earth. You see how much havoc is caused today by land masses moving just a few inches a year. Can you imagine the amount of disruption if they had moved miles?!

As I've said before, I don't agree with the idea of a post-flood breakup of the continents. I don't agree for the exact same reasons you list.

[T]he standard model has a perfectly good explanation: The mountains were once sea bottom, and millions of years of tectonic shift pushed what was once sea bed up to the height of Everest. You guys, though, can't seem to make up your minds.

I can agree with the model you presented except for the time-line. Paul, just because there are competing models doesn't mean that they are both wrong. If this were the case, you'd have to throw out pretty much all scientific models! Not all scientists agree that dark matter exists, or that any one model of string theory is the right one or not. Competition of ideas is what science is (supposed to be) all about!

No, actually it assumes that some organisms are more complex than others. They have more DNA, they can swim, or walk, or fly, as opposed to simply floating with the ocean current. They can actively hunt, as opposed to simply filtering the water that passes by. They can see light and react to it or move toward it for warmth. And so on. The idea that some organisms are more advanced, evolutionarily speaking -- than others, is pretty danged well established.

Sure, some creatures are more complex than others, but you're trying to take it to the next step and say that because we find more basic forms lower in the ground than more complex forms that the complex forms evolved from the simpler forms. Again, this can't be evidence for evolution because it must first assume that evolution is true, which you state for yourself in your last sentence.

Yeah. Those "problems".

All of these “problems” have answers, Paul. You may not like the answers because they don't support your worldview, but that doesn't mean they aren't true.

And you're right, I don't understand "flood geology".

Then perhaps you should research a little bit of what you're trying to argue against. To quote you:

“I think it's important to know about other religions. Especially if you're going to try to convince people that yours is the right one.”

I don't understand what was going on when Alice went down the rabbit hole either.

You remind me of a good friend of mine. He's an atheist, and we've debated several times. He always like to throw in “I don't believe in the tooth fairy, either.” It added nothing to our discussions, and your similar comments add nothing to ours.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Brian Guiley on October 16, 2010 at 12:07pm

Paul said: "Yes, fine, I know that Justin. But that wasn't an "argument", merely a statement of opinion. All the same, my opinion is based upon millions of hours of research, thousands of studies, by thousands of competent scientists. Yours is based on a bronze-age collection of fireside stories."

Paul, you've used this phrase any number of times, and we've presented evidence for the validity and accuracy of the Bible. If you wish to reference specific research, studies, or scientists, please do so, but please refrain from this appeal to authority in the future. I could as easily claim "Yours is based on the opinions of men which change regularly built over the past 200 years or so, whereas mine is based on the testimony of many authors edited and inspired by an all powerful, all knowing being that was there and knew what happened and or caused it to happen. This body of testimony is further corroborated by thousands upon thousands of jews and believers throughout history as it pertains to matters both practical and spiritual. It has been and remains unchallenged for over 4000 years." - if you wish me to accept your appeal, then you must also accept mine. Rather, let us stick to specific references and logical arguments.

Paul said: "You present "evidence" of sediments spread out over large areas, ravines that were carved in a few days that "prove" that the Grand Freakin' Canyon "could have been" carved in a few days. All of which are perfectly explainable -- and explained -- by standard geologic science."

Actually, there are many things that are not explained by "standard geologic science" - such as the lack of erosion between layers, the presence of carbon 14 in layers thought to be many millions of years old, the presence of material in fossils that should have deteriorated long before reaching our present age, under evolutionary time scales. So far as the Grand Canyon, it is well accepted in the scientific community that there were massive lakes and just as massive drainage of those lakes at the end of our most recent ice age. Check out lake Missoula or lake Bonneville. The breaking of these dams would have multiplied the scale of the "small examples" like Mount Saint Helens to a level where they could have carved the Grand Canyon quite easily.

Paul said: "No, actually I'm referring to the concept that there was an earth with land and water, and suddenly -- according to "catastrophic plate tectonics" -- enough water appeared out of nowhere to cover the entire planet. From where? Do you have a "theory" for where all that water came from? Doesn't matter what the topography was at the time, there wasn't enough water on the surface of the earth to cover all land. Then -- magic! -- there was!"

Actually, for one who reads AIG every day, you seem remarkably ignorant of the information presented there. The present amount of water on the earth is enough to cover the land to a depth of several miles, if the land were all flat, the only reason it doesn't is the topography. The mountains we have are and were formed by plate tectonics, the collision of one with another or separation of one from the other, we merely accelerate the time line for it. Catastrophic plate tectonics does not call for any added water than was already built into the sytem, but it did free much of the water that we don't see (underground - lava itself has as part of it a liquid component, depending upon the composition - as well even today we have reservoirs of water under the surface of the ground.) Also, with the rapid movement of the tectonic plates and associated increase in temperature of the mantle, the ocean basins themselves would rise. It's all laid out in the model, a worthy read, which I have only partially done, but if you take the time you will see that it does not add any water to the system. As an aside, from a secular catastrophic point of view, the recent movie "2012" had solar radiation heating the mantle and creating a global flood. So it's alright for secularists to speculate on such things, but it just couldn't have happened as the Bible said, cause that would mean the Bible actually would have to be taken seriously.

Paul said: "So T-Rex et al ate only grass until... when? If so, then he becomes part of my next question:"

Originally all creatures were herbivorous, though their diets could include fruit, bark, even stalks and trees. Many animals that we consider carnivorous today can survive on herbivorous diets when necessary.

Paul said: "How so? After all that upheaval -- continents moving hundreds, even thousands of miles, billions of tons of soil being transported... and yet, the grass seed remained in place? The flood carved the Grand Canyon, but it left the grass seed on the surface in place?!"

and... "That whole scenario presents another problem: After all that physical disruption, how did that bird find even a single tree standing?!"

Well, some seeds were in the topsoil, yes. The seeds were mixed in with everything else. Some were deposited in the rock layers (after all, we find fossilized seeds) - some remained in what would become top soil. Also, you seem to be suffering from a common misconception regarding the flood account, in that you think that it all lasted about 40 days, when in reality it lasted a little over a year. Reference the recent article by AIG http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/08/23/overview-flood-... - a year, much of which was spent in the ark while the land dried up and started sprouting vegetation again.

Also, for the record, the Grand Canyon was not carved by the Global flood, but probably at the end of the Ice Age when the huge inland lakes broke their dams. I think the Grand Canyon itself is theorized to have been carved by Lake Missoula.

Paul said: "So humans went in all directions, but kangaroos only went to Australia? Penguins only went to Antarctica? What stopped the roos from going to North America? Why are there no penguins in Greenland? They could have gone there just as easily, right? And survived just as well, right? It's all much better explained by the standard model."

and... "Wasn't the land already broken up by the flood? So how did they get to Australia and Antarctica? Kangaroos swam across thousands of miles of ocean?"

Actually, no, they would have dispersed everywhere, but found environments where they would survive better. Marsupials can travel more readily, as their young hang out with them in their pouches, which means they could have reached further areas more quickly. However their young can also be very exposed, so they may not survive well in environments with other predators, thus they died out in areas with other competition. In Australia, when the land bridge sunk (by the way, secularists also promote a land bridge for Australia - http://www.andaman.org/BOOK/chapter52/8-Tasmania-ancient/archaeolog...) those predators would no longer have been able to reach the island, thus the marsupials thrived there.

You seem to forget Paul that we do not discount natural selection and competition, and even extinction, but only the evolution of one kind into another kind. All these factors selected certain animals for certain environments in the post flood world. By your "standard model" I could ask much the same questions. Why don't we find penguins in Greenland by your "standard model" as they would survive there just as well.

Paul said: "If the breakup happened after the flood, that would be like a mile a year that land masses were moving across the surface of the earth. You see how much havoc is caused today by land masses moving just a few inches a year. Can you imagine the amount of disruption if they had moved miles?!"

The catastrophic and rapid movement of plates is likely to have occurred only during the flood.

Paul said: "No, actually, it's the creationists who are mixing two models. I've read "scientific papers" that say the mountains were formed by the flood, and there are sea fossils on the tops of mountains because the flood covered the mountains... and I've read other papers -- like your recent reference on AiG -- that say the mountains formed after the flood... perhaps because those particular writers realized that the idea of a flood pushing up mountains the size of Everest is just nonsense. Either way, the standard model has a perfectly good explanation: The mountains were once sea bottom, and millions of years of tectonic shift pushed what was once sea bed up to the height of Everest. You guys, though, can't seem to make up your minds."

There is nothing in these two hypothesis that contradict. Yes, the land that eventually became Everest was under water, and yes Everest was then pushed up by tectonic plates colliding - you just indicate it as millions of years to occur, whereas we have it occuring during and after the flood.

Paul said: "No, actually it assumes that some organisms are more complex than others. They have more DNA, they can swim, or walk, or fly, as opposed to simply floating with the ocean current. They can actively hunt, as opposed to simply filtering the water that passes by. They can see light and react to it or move toward it for warmth. And so on. The idea that some organisms are more advanced, evolutionarily speaking -- than others, is pretty danged well established. That doesn't mean they're more adapted to their environment. A starfish is perfectly adapted to its environment. But no one would argue that it is as "advanced" as, say, a dog."

Well, the determination of "advancement" is pretty much determined by evolutionary presuppositions. Whereas if we take the animals to be able to do what they do do and how well they do what they do, they seem pretty well suited. A butterfly seems pretty advanced, especially as it goes through a metamorphosis. E. Coli seems pretty well suited to its purpose and designed well to accomplish it. Some creatures are more complex, yes, but "advanced" is a judgement applied based upon your own presuppositions.

Paul said: "(And by the way... seems like darned near everybody in the Bible was a shepherd, right? There must have been millions of sheep around, right? So how come we never find any sheep fossils? How come we never find any fossil dogs? Or fossil bunnies? How come pretty much all the fossils we find are of creatures that are extinct?"

Hrm Paul, don't know where you're getting your information, but we do have fossils of lagomorphs (includes rabbits and hares). Also there are fossils of Sheep and dogs, so we do find such creatures in the fossil record.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Justin Poe on October 16, 2010 at 12:33pm

Couple of small things I'd like to point out.

One, for Paul and his continual asking of land bridges, continental movement, ect, you do know that the continents are actually, and the word could be "still", moving to this day, some further away from others and some closer to others, and that is with minimal catastrophes occurring in the ocean sea floor.

Two, you continue to bring up the Alice in Wonderland and rabbit hole analogy. Interesting, I don't believe in the that either, nor do I go to message boards and debate those that do. UFO's for example??? I just don't waste my time debating something I don't believe in. I'll defend my worldview till the day I die if I'm asked about it, such as on a Christian message board but I don't go out seeking those who believe in UFO's to debate them on whether there really are UFO's or not.

Edit my first point: I see you somewhat did talk about this, but Brian responded accordingly. My bad.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stefan Morin on October 16, 2010 at 7:56pm

I'll try to keep this shorter than my average posts thus far, per your request:

Your main objections to the idea of a global flood seem to be:

1) Goes against evolutionary hypotheses.
2)The Bible is unreliable.
3) Lack of physical evidence.

Number one is irrelevant to our discussion as anything creationists present will contradict the theory of evolution. Number two is also irrelevant to our discussion because, to date, you have not presented any sound, logical reason/evidence to suggest that the Bible is unreliable. Objection number one and the fact that it is old seem to be your main points (from our conversations anyway).

So we're left with number three. I doubt we'll get anywhere with physical evidence considering any theory can come up with a "rescuing device," and the evidence must be interpreted through our world views. Regardless, let's start with one piece of evidence and go from there.

From "Can Catastrophic Plate Tectonics Explain Flood Geology?:"

"The same modeling predicts that since runaway subduction of the cold ocean-floor slabs occurred only a few thousand years ago during the Flood, those cold slabs would not have had sufficient time since the catastrophe to be fully “digested” into the surrounding mantle. Evidence for these relatively cold slabs just above the core-mantle boundary, to which they would have sunk, therefore should still be evident today, and it is."

Does the "standard model" predict and/or explain the presence of relatively cold mantle so close to the core-mantle boundary? If the current rate of subduction was steady for millions of years, shouldn't those slabs of ocean floor have reached an equilibrium in temperature?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stefan Morin on October 17, 2010 at 9:24am

Paul Iacono said:
Justin, I have no idea. And I'm betting neither do you. That sounds like one of those "problems" -- like the Distant Light "Problem" -- that no one but creationists thinks is actually a problem.So all I can say is, I don't know, I haven't studied the claim. If you can point me toward secular research where the question has been grappled with, perhaps I'll understand it better. But right now all I have are creationist references, which may be claiming a problem where none actually exists.

Firstly, my name is Stefan. Secondly, if you're not going to do any research on this for yourself, then what's the point?

"1) I don't deny it because it goes against evolutionary hypothesis. I deny it because there is so much physical evidence -- both geological and biological -- that refutes it."

I'm trying to address the physical evidence here, Paul. Either pick a specific claim we can discuss or tell me you don't want to discuss it. If you'd like to discuss some evidence that you believe contradicts a global flood, that's fine, but please respond to my question first.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alexander Martin on October 17, 2010 at 1:50pm

I actually answered this talk origins article in this thread: http://www.creationconversations.com/forum/topics/catastrophic-plat...

But here's my answer again (copy/paste):

"Much geological evidence is incompatible with catastrophic plate tectonics:"

The same thing could be said about plate tectonics as a whole. Much evidence can be found that's incompatible with any theory. That doesn't make it untrue or false. The marks of a good theory is that it can explain the evidence as well as or better than any other theory. Science doesn't deal with "Truth," only perspectives.

"Island chains, such as the Hawaiian islands, indicate that the ocean floor moved slowly over erupting "hot spots." Radiometric dating and relative amounts of erosion both indicate that the older islands are very much older, not close to the same age as catastrophic tectonics would require."

If the only evidence of the Hawaiian islands being old is radiometric dating I would have to say it's not very good evidence. There have been modern day volcanoes that have erupted and the volcanic rock tested at millions of years old. The ocean floor is only supposed to be millions of years old so the data is unreliable as saying Hawaii could not have been produced in the timeframe required by CPT.

"Catastrophic plate tectonics says that all ocean floor should be essentially the same age. But both radiometric dating and amounts of sedimentation indicate that the age changes gradually, from brand new to tens of millions of years old."

As for radiometric dating; you can date the same rock and get as many different dates as you have samples with a wide range of variety in dates. Radiometric dating is not the jugernaught it's made out to be. As for sedimentation; you could expect varying amounts of sediment on the ocean floor after the global flood flood for obvious reasons. Depending on how long after the flood CPT happened there may have still been great amounts of sediment still suspended in the ocean waters. There would be varying amounts of sediment concentrations based on several factors including how long the ocean floor had been present or whether it was new ocean floor exposed by CPT. Other factors to consider would be how close it was to the continents and ocean current at the time of deposition.

"As sea-floor basalt cools, it becomes denser and sinks. The elevation of sea floors is consistent with cooling appropriate for its age, assuming gradual spreading."

Based on what assumptions and what observations? Who's to say there aren't calculations that show the density and coolness of the ocean floor isn't where it would be after 4,ooo years of cooling? Who's to say the cooling of the ocean floor rock isn't exponential and after a number of years the slowed rate of cooling and density isn't too small to measure with the precision needed to differentiate between thousands of years of cooling and millions of years. Without numbers backing up the assertion it is just that; an assertion.

"Guyots are flat-topped underwater mountains. The tops were eroded flat from a long time at the ocean surface, and they sank with the sea floor. Catastrophic tectonics does not allow enough time for the sea mountain to form, erode, and sink."

I love the metric "a long time." What is a long time? What rates of erosion are used? If a global flood, warming of the oceans, catestrophic breakup of the continents isn't enough to radically alter weather patterns and create much greater rainfall I don't know what would. Depending on environmental conditions erosion can happen at extremely slow rates or extremely fast. Who's to say CPT doesn't allow enough time for the erosion while the ocean floor is hot enough to expose the mountains above sea level? Here's a question to ponder: Given that the earth is supposed to be 4.6 billion years old. Given that the ocean floors are supposed to be tens or hundreds of millions of years old. Given that the oceans existed even longer than the current material we observe there. Given that the continents only move at the rate of centimeters each year. Why would the ocean floor level change instead of maintain a consistent temperature and density and therefore level? Why would the underwater mountains have been above sea level at one time and now exist far below them? Doesn't the existence of these mountains actually fit better in a model of PT that allows the ocean bottoms to be far less dense at one time and quickly cool so that there could be a radical change in floor level?

How about a problem for regular PT? If the ocean floors are continually getting more dense the cooler they get and currently they are just above the continental shelves, wouldn't you expect to see less and less continental area above sea level the further in the past you looked until there were no continents above sea level? And yet, in evolutionary scenarios of the continents, we see approximately the same area of continents throughout their history with only slight variations all the way back before the Precambrian period.

"Runaway subduction does not account for continent-continent collisions, such as between India and the Eurasian plate."

Why not? This is where my technical expertise is lacking. Why couldn't the energy generated by the flood and the momentum of the continental masses combined with the massive amounts of material being subducted by continental movement not account for continent-continent collisions? It makes intuitive sense that they explain it better than regular PT but again, I'm no expert on the matter.

"Catastrophic plate tectonics has no plausible mechanism. In particular, the greatly lowered viscosity of the mantle, the rapid magnetic reversals, and the sudden cooling of the ocean floor afterwards cannot be explained under conventional physics."

Again, I'm lacking in technical expertise but the ignition mechanism could have been a comet of asteroid. According to Baumgardner the runaway subduction process is supported by computer models and physics. I'm unsure what data there is that says the rapid cooling can't be explained by conventional physics but if presented with the mathematics this is where the experts come in with counter mathematics showing it can.

"Conventional plate tectonics accounts for the evidence already and does a much better job of it. It explains innumerable details that catastrophic plate tectonics cannot, such as why there is gold in California, silver in Nevada, salt flats in Utah, and coal in Pennsylvania (McPhee 1998). It requires no extraordinary mechanisms to do so. Catastrophic plate tectonics would be a giant step backwards in the progress of science."

I'm unsure how the details of slow PT would differ in the details of CPT in regards to gold, silver, salt, and coal but I can't envision time being the answer. Coal can be produced quickly given heat and pressure. I'm unfamiliar with the details of gold, silver, and salt deposition but am certain there is an explanation for them in flood geology. The opinion about CPT being a step backwards for scientific progress is just that; an opinion. In fact, it can be argued that if you allow the tollerance of other perspectives in the science community then the problems that face disciplines such as geology could be viewed from different angles and innovative new solutions can be generated from the open-mindedness of such a position. Synergy and greater progress would be generated by such an intellectual environment. There is good evidence of this happening in the business world with the institution of multiculturalism.


Paul Iacono said:

Apologies Stefan, I write so many of these things that sometimes I get confused about whom I am responding to.

That said... Stefan, I already spend way more time that I should just answering all of you. I'm not about to add to that by spending time researching before I answer. This ain't high school, and you're not my professor. I do the best with what's already in my head. If that's not good enough for you, sorry.

I did, however -- just to humor you -- do a quick google survey of the extant literature and could find nothing about the "problem" you state... which leads me to believe, as I wrote earlier, that this is just another along the lines of the "Distant Starlight Problem" that doesn't seem to be a problem to anyone except YECs.

But I found some other information that's pertinent to the discussion. From TalkOrigins:

Much geological evidence is incompatible with catastrophic plate tectonics:

* Island chains, such as the Hawaiian islands, indicate that the ocean floor moved slowly over erupting "hot spots." Radiometric dating and relative amounts of erosion both indicate that the older islands are very much older, not close to the same age as catastrophic tectonics would require.

* Catastrophic plate tectonics says that all ocean floor should be essentially the same age. But both radiometric dating and amounts of sedimentation indicate that the age changes gradually, from brand new to tens of millions of years old.

* As sea-floor basalt cools, it becomes denser and sinks. The elevation of sea floors is consistent with cooling appropriate for its age, assuming gradual spreading.

* Guyots are flat-topped underwater mountains. The tops were eroded flat from a long time at the ocean surface, and they sank with the sea floor. Catastrophic tectonics does not allow enough time for the sea mountain to form, erode, and sink.

* Runaway subduction does not account for continent-continent collisions, such as between India and the Eurasian plate.

Catastrophic plate tectonics has no plausible mechanism. In particular, the greatly lowered viscosity of the mantle, the rapid magnetic reversals, and the sudden cooling of the ocean floor afterwards cannot be explained under conventional physics.

Conventional plate tectonics accounts for the evidence already and does a much better job of it. It explains innumerable details that catastrophic plate tectonics cannot, such as why there is gold in California, silver in Nevada, salt flats in Utah, and coal in Pennsylvania (McPhee 1998). It requires no extraordinary mechanisms to do so. Catastrophic plate tectonics would be a giant step backwards in the progress of science.

Stefan Morin said:

Paul Iacono said:
Justin, I have no idea. And I'm betting neither do you. That sounds like one of those "problems" -- like the Distant Light "Problem" -- that no one but creationists thinks is actually a problem.So all I can say is, I don't know, I haven't studied the claim. If you can point me toward secular research where the question has been grappled with, perhaps I'll understand it better. But right now all I have are creationist references, which may be claiming a problem where none actually exists.

Firstly, my name is Stefan. Secondly, if you're not going to do any research on this for yourself, then what's the point?

"1) I don't deny it because it goes against evolutionary hypothesis. I deny it because there is so much physical evidence -- both geological and biological -- that refutes it."

I'm trying to address the physical evidence here, Paul. Either pick a specific claim we can discuss or tell me you don't want to discuss it. If you'd like to discuss some evidence that you believe contradicts a global flood, that's fine, but please respond to my question first.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stefan Morin on October 17, 2010 at 2:11pm

Paul Iacono said:
That said... Stefan, I already spend way more time that I should just answering all of you. I'm not about to add to that by spending time researching before I answer. This ain't high school, and you're not my professor. I do the best with what's already in my head. If that's not good enough for you, sorry.

I don't want to come across as rude, but I, like you, only do this in what precious free time I have. If you're not going to do at least a modicum of research before replying, there's no point in continuing this discussion. Frankly, what's already in your head isn't good enough. Again, not trying to be rude. I just don't want to waste either of our time.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Justin Mooney on October 17, 2010 at 3:34pm

No problem :)


Stefan Morin said:

John Woodmorappe! I could not think of his name for the life of me when I was writing this. Thanks for your input, Justin.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alexander Martin on October 17, 2010 at 8:37pm

There is no dating method or geochronological clock available that is able to date the earth. The reason for this is that every geochronological clock relies on certain assumptions that are unreasonable to assume which make any dating method suspect when dating events that go outside recorded history. Simply put this means that objectivity can’t be had when trying to date the earth or the geologic column for that matter. For this reason it is reasonable to assume any age for the earth so long as it includes the time recorded by written history. In this argument I wish to show that the majority of the geologic column could have been deposited in a single event and that the radiometric evidence of lava flows that are documented as being dated as older lower in the column and progressively are dated younger the further up you go in the column is not compelling evidence against the majority of the column being deposited together by a single flood. I will do this by first discussing the assumptions that must be unreasonably made to obtain the dates and then by exposing the paradigm paralysis or confirmation bias that has lead to the illusory trend of an apparent older to younger progression of strata.

There are certain assumptions every dating method must make to be able to date something if there were no direct observations of when a thing occurred. Every dating method depends on parent and daughter elements. Take for example an hourglass. When you turn it over the sand in the top chamber represents the parent element and the sand seeping into the bottom chamber represents the daughter element. You can determine how much time has elapsed if you know the rate of sand seeping into the bottom chamber and the amount of sand contained there. In order to reasonably estimate the elapsed time of any other dating system you must make four critical assumptions. The primary assumption of radiometric dating methods is that of a closed system so that neither the parent nor daughter atoms suffer either gain or loss. The hourglass is a good example of this because the sand is encapsulated, however, in nature assuming a closed system is unreasonable (Durrance 1986, p. 287) as every system on earth or in outer space is an open system and there are no true closed systems. The second assumption follows the first as given an open system you must assume that nothing external to the system has changed either the parent or daughter atoms nor any of the intermediate products, some of which are highly-mobile gases. As I will show later in the paper with examples, the majority of dated rocks have been altered in one way or another thus making the dates obtained unreliable. The third assumption is that there were no daughter atoms present in the rock at its formation as the presence of daughter atoms would make the rock already appear to be old at formation. I give an example below where it is known that daughter atoms are present at formation but an assumption is made to calculate the daughter atoms present in order to get a range of dates that is closer to the assumed age of other similar rocks. The fourth and final assumption regards the constant decay rate. If the decay rate is variable then it would be impossible to obtain a date that represented reality. This final assumption I don’t wish to question in this argument. There are other creationists who do primarily so they can defend a very young age for the earth and the flood. Because I am only arguing that the fossil record was deposited by a single event which is not dependant on a particular time and that the age of the earth is irrelevant I will not challenge this assumption for radiometric dating. I maintain that if all three of the other assumptions are not valid then radiometric dating as a whole is unreliable as a dating method.

The argument that there exists an overall older to younger progression of isotopic dates relative to biostratigraphy contains two tacit premises: 1) the trends seen in the literature reflect actual trends in dating results obtained from earth’s lithologies, and 2) assuming the validity of premise (1), radioactive decay is the only manner by which a progression of dates could arise. Premise (2) is egregiously false as it may be simply an artifact of one or more of the following: magma chamber zonation, isotope fractioning, differential argon trapping and/or chance for trapped argon to escape, source-area effects, etc.

A good example of this can actually be seen with the asteroid that was used to date the earth as a whole. The meteorite has been named “Allende” and it was dated radiometrically using Pb-206/U-238, Pb-207/U-235, Pb-207/Pb-206, Pb-208/Th-232, Sr-87/Sr-86, and other methods whose results were deemed too unreliable and so were not reported. The U-Th-Pb suite of tests resulted in a scatter of dates ranging from 3.91 Ga to 16.49 Ga with 13 out of 18 “ages” being impossibly high even when the assumed amount of daughter isotopes are subtracted out. Interestingly enough 16.49 Ga is pretty close to how old many cosmologists believe the big bang initiated. Now the presence of daughter isotopes contradicts the third assumption that’s required when using dating methods but if they had not assumed daughter isotopes in the beginning all the ages obtained from meteorites would be far too old for the assumed age of the earth. They derived the quantity of daughter isotopes from the assumption that the meteorite “Canon Diablo” has an equal ratio of radiogenic to non-radiogenic lead although the individual atoms are identical and cannot be differentiated by simple inspection. How they determined an equal ratio is anyone’s guess. The Rb-Sr techniques yielded ages from .7 Ga to 4.84 Ga. Thus the reported variance of radiometric dates is between .7 Ga to 16.49 Ga, a spread of 15.79 billion years and yet 4.6 Ga was settled on as the age of the Earth. The explanations for the varied results include anomalous concentrations in the original solar nebula, removal or enrichment of certain isotopes by later disturbance events, movement of mobile elements Rb and Pb from the matrix into the inclusions, large variations of isotope ratios in the individual inclusions, ratios affected by impact on earth, and original isolation from the solar nebula (Tatsumoto et al., 1976). This proves premise (2) is patently false.

Premise (1) turns out to be false as well and exposes the paradigm paralysis or confirmation bias that has lead to the illusory trend of an apparent older to younger progression of strata. The younging-up trend is hardly surprising given the assumption that sedimentary layers represented ages of sedimentary rates and that older sediments are deposited below younger sediments and that stratigraphy was used to provide a check upon which radiometric results could be tested against (Burchfield 1975, p.205). This check on radiometric dates has made the whole system unfalsifiable as dates are selectively published and deviant results are discarded giving the appearance of an older-to-younger strategraphic progression. This younging-up trend then is little more than a self-fulfilling confirmation bias.

There is no tight consensus of results when it comes to radiometric dating (Waterhouse 1979, p. 499) and in fact broad deviations with considerable scatter in dates are the norm (Paul 1980, p. 184). Discrepant isotope dating results are not rare at all but rather a usual phenomenon that surprises nobody (Skobelin et al. 1990, p. 25). This leads to a majority of dates that have to be rejected for being too young or too old for the expected date of the rocks (Dickin 1988, p. 111). This commits the fallacy of crediting the dating methods and blaming nature for the large number of discrepant dates. This, of course, contradicts the second assumption necessary to use dating methods.

The various ages of the geologic column were all worked out based on inferring sedimentary rates long before radiometric dating was discovered and the dates have changed little since its use (Armstrong 1991, p. 5). The age of the Cambrian when the first multi-cellular life appeared was determined in the 19th Century (Schuchert 1931, p. 21). Sedimentation, however, is not a good method to estimate the age of the geologic column because of the large variance in rates (Sadler and Strauss 1990) and therefore has little value when dating even short segments of the geologic column (Gale et al. 1980, p. 13; Tucker and McKerrow 1995, p. 369). So to assume that the age of the Cambrian/Pre-Cambrian boundary in 1893 is 600 Ma begs the question of the age and history of life as the timescale for evolution must first be accepted before sedimentation can be used as “evidence.” Isotopic dates have always been “checked” for “correctness” against the already “established” dates assigned to the column (Schuchert, 1931; Burchfield, 1975 p. 205; Harper, 1973; and Zeuner, 1950, pp. 338-339). This inherently assumes the first three assumptions are false.

Sometimes this “tracking” effect is exposed when the opinion changes about an already radiometrically dated rock formation and it is determined later by “consensus” to actually be a rock from another “time period.” Another “age” is then assigned through further radiometric dating to give the date an aura of “respectability.” For example, Holmes in 1960 had established the boundary for the Cambrian-Precambrian boundary as being 600 Ma based on his U-Pb dating of the Crocker Well mineral deposit in Australia. This dating had been considered of great importance in establishing evidence for the long assigned age of the Cambrian-Precambrian boundary. However is was later determined in 1984, over twenty years later, that he misunderstood the actual stratigraphic relationships of nearby Adelaidean tillite and the deposit was redated using the U-Pb method at it’s presently-accepted 1.7 Ga date (Ludwig and Cooper 1984, pp. 299-300); a difference of over a billion years nearly tripling its previously accepted radiometric date. What’s curious is that, although his estimate of the base of the Cambrian was based on quite invalid stratigraphic assumptions, it has proved to remain the established date of the boundary. Other examples of changing the already established radiometric dates of formations include the contact between a granophyre and the host Lower Cambrian sediments (Cowie and Harland 1989, p. 194) and clusters of internally-concordant but contradictory U-Pb dates within a Cambrian shale (Landing et al. 1998).

I could have presented the different igneous layers in the Grand Canyon, which is the largest vertical column of sedimentary layers in the world, and shown the wide range of discrepant dates obtained by different radiometric methods to expose further the confirmation bias that has resulted in an illusory trend of an apparent older to younger progression of strata but to have done so would have taken even more time and made this already long post even longer. It would have just been redundant, however, and I believe I have made my point with the examples I have given. There is no objective trend present in igneous rocks that progresses from older to younger as you ascend the strategraphic column. This perception is due to the confirmation bias of a paradigm, which is known as paradigm paralysis, which starts with a conclusion and looks for evidence to confirm that conclusion. Radiometric dating is unreliable as a geochronological clock to date the earth and the strategraphic record as are all geochronological clocks. They all are unreliable primarily for being dependant on the four assumptions mentioned earlier. This is why I won’t give a scientific age that I believe for the earth. In truth I believe it is not possible to objectively know something like that. I look forward to any attempts to counter this argument but hope many of you will see from this argument the amazing abilities of a paradigm to interpret evidence it seeks out to support its views of reality. In turn I hope this will lead you to be more tolerant to the alternate interpretations of other scientific paradigms like abrupt complexity.

Armstrong, R.L. 1991. A brief history of geochronometry and radiogenic isotopic studies (pp. 1-26) in Heaman and Ludden, eds., op. cit.

Burchfield, J.D. 1975. Lord Kelvin and the Age of the Earth. New York: Science History Publications, 260 p.

Clauer, N. 1982. The rubidium-strontium method applied to sediments: certitudes and uncertainties (pp. 245-276), in Odin, ed., op. cit.

Cowie, J.W., and W.B. Harland. 1989. Chronometry (pp. 186-198), in J.W. Cowie, and M.D. Brasier, eds., The Precambrian-Cambrian Boundary. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 213 p.

Dickin, A.P. 1988. The North Atlantic Tertiary Province (pp. 111-149), in J.D. MacDougall, ed., Continental Flood Basalts, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 341 p.

Durrance, E.M. 1986. Radioactivity in Geology. Chister, England: Ellis Horwood Ltd., 441 p.

Gale, N.H., R.D. Beckinsale, and A.J. Wadge. 1980. Discussion of a paper by McKerrow, Lambert and Chamberlain on the Ordovician, Silurian, and Devonian time scales. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 51:9-17.

Harper, C.T., ed. 1973. Geochronology. Benchmark Papers in Geology. Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania: Dowden, Hutchinson, and Ross, Inc., 469 p.

Landing, E., et al. 1998. Duration of early Cambrian: U-Pb ages of volcanic ashes from Avalon and Gondwana. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 35:329-338.

Ludwig, K.R., and J.A. Cooper. 1984. “Geochronology of the Precambrian granites and associated U-Ti-Th mineralization, northern Olary province, South Australia.” Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology 86:298-308.

Paul, C. 1980. The Natural History of Fossils, New York: Holmes and Meier Pub. Co.

Sadler, P.M., and D.J. Strauss. 1990. Estimation of completeness of stratigraphical sections using empirical data and theoretical models. Journal of the Geological Society of London 147:471-485.

Schuchert, C. 1931. Geochronology. Bulletin of the National Research Council 80:10-64.

Skobelin, E.A., I.P Sharapov, and A.F. Bugayov. 1990. Deliberations of state and ways of Perestroika in geology (pp. 17-37), in Barto-Kyriakidis, A., op. cit.

Tatsumoto, M., Unrch, D., and Desborough, G., “U-Th-Pb and Rb-Sr Systemetics of Allende and U-Th-Pb Systematics of Orgueil,” Geochemica et Cosmochimica Acta, Vol. 40, 1976, pp. 616-634.

Tucker, R.D., and W.S. McKerrow. 1995 Early Paleozoic chronology: a review in light of new U-Pb zircon ages from Newfoundland and Britain. Cambrian Journal of Earth Sciences 32:368-379.

Waterhouse, J.B. 1979. “Chronologic, ecologic, and evolutionary significance of the phylum Brachiopoda,” in E.G. Kauffman, and J.E. Hazel, eds., Concepts and Methods of Biostrategraphy. Pennsylvania: Dowden, Hutchinson, and Ross.

Zeuner, F.E. 1950. Dating the Past. London: Methuen and Co., 474 p., plates.


Paul Iacono said:

Ok, sorry, but I refuse to spend my Sunday evening writing another term paper. So I'm only going to address the "Radiometric Dating" question, since that seems to be the basis for much of your dismay. The rest we can take up in smaller bites.

First, the creationist claim that radiometric dates are inconsistent rests on a relatively few examples. Creationists ignore the vast majority of radiometric dates showing consistent results (Harland, W. B., R. L. Armstrong, A. V. Cox, L. E. Craig, A. G. Smith, and D. G. Smith, 1990. A Geologic Time Scale 1989. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ).

More specifically, the Hawaiian archipelago was formed by the Pacific ocean plate moving over a hot spot at a slow but observable rate. (Observable! We can observe it today!) Radiometric dates of the islands are consistent with the order and rate of their being positioned over the hot spot (Rubin, Ken, 2001. The formation of the Hawaiian Islands. http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/HCV/haw_formation.html).

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Prometheus Wins on October 18, 2010 at 10:35am

Alex, do you know if there are any meta-analyses published on the subject on radiometric dating?

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page