Creation

Want to discuss something else? Anything goes here!

Moderator: Bmat

User avatar
Dark Knight
Artisan Wordsmith
Artisan Wordsmith
Posts: 3220
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 8:49 pm
Location: My Tower
Contact:

Post by Dark Knight »

About a week ago I add to my blog the Plasma model of Creation, this is a new creation model.

http://speculativevision.com/forums/web ... .php?e=496

I was going to say I add it, earlier, but some things came up so to speak

User avatar
Dark Knight
Artisan Wordsmith
Artisan Wordsmith
Posts: 3220
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 8:49 pm
Location: My Tower
Contact:

Post by Dark Knight »

In the recent debate volcanism was mentioned, here is a short bit about it from a creation point of view:
The overview article by meteorologist Mike Oard, ‘The extinction of the Dinosaurs’ (CENTJ 11(2):137–154, 1997; download PDF file) explains many features of dinosaur fossils that are consistent with a flood, and dinosaur tracks consistent with fleeing from encroaching flood waters. Oard points out that iridium enrichment can be caused by massive volcanism, as many evolutionists agree. This would certainly have been a feature of the Flood year, associated with the breaking up of the ‘fountains of the great deep’ (Genesis 7:11). However, Oard agrees that the largest iridium anomalies were caused by meteorites striking during the Flood:

‘Iridium-rich clay falling from the atmosphere would accumulate only during temporary lulls in the Flood.’

This explains the fact that so-called spikes are really composed of multiple spikes or are spread over a wider layer of sediment. John Woodmorappe has pointed out:

‘there are now over 30 iridium “horizons” in the Phanerozoic record. These can be explained by a slowdown in sedimentation rate as iridium rained from the sky (whether from a terrestrial, or an extraterrestrial source). They pose no problem for the Flood at all.’

That is, the iridium layers mark lulls in the sedimentation rate during the Flood, the iridium ‘rain’ itself being more-or-less continuous during the Flood.
From http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... meteor.asp

Go there for PDF

The thing to point out here is that at the time of the great flood, there was not just a flood of a lot of water. People don't always know or realise that also there was the breaking up of the ‘fountains of the great deep’.

Many creations think that this was the time that the large single land mass broke up, and the continents where formed.

User avatar
Boikat
Resident Author
Resident Author
Posts: 5303
Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 7:31 am
Location: Ultima Thule

Post by Boikat »

Unfortunately the pattern of fossils does not match a single event. Fossil species are distributed in an "order" which cannot be accounted for by the single world wide flood theory. If the fossil record was the result of a single event that lasted only about a year, one should be able to find any sort of fossil anywhere in a random distribution throughout the geological deposits. The fossil record is just the tip of the iceberg of problems with a world wide flood, as presented in Genesis.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noa ... #georecord
"I reject your reality, and substitute my own!" Adam Savage, Mythbusters

User avatar
Dark Knight
Artisan Wordsmith
Artisan Wordsmith
Posts: 3220
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 8:49 pm
Location: My Tower
Contact:

Post by Dark Knight »

Boikat wrote:Unfortunately the pattern of fossils does not match a single event. Fossil species are distributed in an "order" which cannot be accounted for by the single world wide flood theory. If the fossil record was the result of a single event that lasted only about a year, one should be able to find any sort of fossil anywhere in a random distribution throughout the geological deposits. The fossil record is just the tip of the iceberg of problems with a world wide flood, as presented in Genesis.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noa ... #georecord
I may not be able to answer that question about the fossils, it does not mean that there is not an answer, However:

Interesting link there, if one looks at the whole page. It is I see titled “Problems with a Global Flood”. No doubt some might do just that, and see as it where the iceberg. However no iceberg of actual problems exist.

Please don’t assume that we have no answers to all those problems. People look at a list like that and may think that there are no answers to any of those problems. Look at all those problems, no way a world wide flood happened, Noah’s ark is some nice story, Well you would be wrong.

It is not my plan to cover all these problems and show how they don’t actually exist. Actually I might not be able to, I might not be able to find the answer, that does not mean that there is not an answer, just that I can’t find it at this time. Besides That would take for ever, but I could give it a go. I could present pages of counter argument that would go on forever.
Even if we can’t answer some of the apparent problems now, we can be confident that there is an answer. We may not find out about the answer on this side of eternity, but that would simply be because we did not have all the information necessary to come to the right conclusion. On the other hand, ongoing research may reveal the answer — and it often has, as we will see.
From http://www.trueorigin.org/walkergeo01.asp

Instead I will put a few answers here and present some links, people can go to the links for more answers.
how coral reefs hundreds of feet thick and miles long were preserved intact with other fossils below them.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noa ... #georecord

The suggest here is that the coral reefs survived the flood. That is not what creationists believe, so why suggest that this is the case? Maybe he does not know that. Creationists believe that these formed after the flood. There is no need for them to survive a flood. That they formed after is the reason that the fossils are below them. Coral reefs do not need millions of years to grow, they could have grown in this time.

Problem:
“Coral reefs need millions of years to grow.”[32] [Actually, what was thought to be ‘coral reef’ turns out to be thick carbonate platforms, most probably deposited during the Flood.[33] The reef is only a very thin layer on top. In other cases, the ‘reef’ did not grow in place from coral but was transported there by water.[34]]
from http://www.trueorigin.org/walkergeo01.asp
How were mountains and valleys formed? Many very tall mountains are composed of sedimentary rocks. (The summit of Everest is composed of deep-marine limestone, with fossils of ocean-bottom dwelling crinoids [Gansser, 1964].) If these were formed during the Flood, how did they reach their present height, and when were the valleys between them eroded away? Keep in mind that many valleys were clearly carved by glacial erosion, which is a slow process.
from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noa ... #georecord
Answer: … Showing they had once been under water, as Genesis says(!). Note also, creationists do not believe that the Flood had to cover the mountaints at their present height; rather, much uplift happened after the flood.
from http://www.trueorigin.org/arkdefen.asp
Isaak: “Keep in mind that many valleys were clearly carved by glacial erosion, which is a slow process.”

Answer: …Which took place during the Ice Age, an aftermath of the Flood — see Mammoth: Riddle of the Ice Age, Creation 22(2):10–15 March–May 2000 . However, many creationists believe the evidence shows there were advancing and retreating stages of a single Ice Age, not many ice ages as evolutionists believe. Also, the polar ice caps most probably formed during this ice age, after the Flood, answering another of Isaak’s questions.
from http://www.trueorigin.org/arkdefen.asp

for more answers follow these links:

Problems with a Global Flood?
(a rebuttal of Mark Isaak’s “Problems with a Global Flood” FAQ in the Talk.Origins Archive)
© 1998 J. Sarfati & Creation Ministries International. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.trueorigin.org/arkdefen.asp

Also cheak out
Geology and the Young Earth
Answering those ‘Bible-believing’ Bibliosceptics
by Tas Walker
http://www.trueorigin.org/walkergeo01.asp

which covers thinks like Varves, Evaporites, Pitch and other things.....

Also check out this link about the problems with trees being older than the flood:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... g_tree.asp

Now to cover the actual question, that was first posted stay watching: Uncoming next:

User avatar
Dark Knight
Artisan Wordsmith
Artisan Wordsmith
Posts: 3220
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 8:49 pm
Location: My Tower
Contact:

Post by Dark Knight »

Unfortunately the pattern of fossils does not match a single event. Fossil species are distributed in an "order" which cannot be accounted for by the single world wide flood theory. If the fossil record was the result of a single event that lasted only about a year, one should be able to find any sort of fossil anywhere in a random distribution throughout the geological deposits.
Some what of an answer follows where I using bits from the article titled "The fossil record, Becoming more random all the time:" by John Woodmorappe.
Creationists, including myself,1 have provided a variety of alternative explanations for fossil succession. These include such mechanisms as the sorting of organisms during the Flood, differential escape of organisms during the same, ecological zonation of life-forms in the antediluvian world (such that different life-forms in different strata reflect the serial burial of ecological life-zones during the Flood), and TABs (Tectonically-Associated Biological Provinces—wherein different life forms occur in successive horizons of rock as a reflection of successive crustal downwarp of different life-bearing biogeographic communities).
from http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/fossil.asp
Since the early days of the acceptance of the standard geologic column, fossils have been turning up in ‘wrong’ places as more and more fossils have been collected, and this process continues to this very day. And even this does not include the numerous instances where fossils are supposed to be reworked from older strata, often with no independent supporting evidence.
from http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/fossil.asp
So how common are stratigraphic-range extensions? Two recent comprehensive databases of the stratigraphic occurrence of fossils give a clear answer to this question. Maxwell and Benton18 have compared the stratigraphic ranges of all of the fossil vertebrate families (excluding Aves, which have a spotty fossil record) as perceived in 1966–1967, and again in 1987. For 96 families, there was no change in stratigraphic range. Another 87 fossil families went through a decrease in their accepted stratigraphic range. Yet considerably more families (150) underwent an increase in the amount of strata which they overlap. This trend is even more evident in fossil marine families. In just ten years (1982–1992), Sepkoski19 reports that 513 fossil families underwent a decline in their stratigraphic range. A decline in range may mean that the first and/or last occurrence had been misidentified. But whatever the cause, the number of fossil-range declines is dwarfed by the 1026 families that enjoyed an increase in either their first occurrence, or their last occurrence, or both.
from http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/fossil.asp
One of the things Spencer challenged was the use of fossils for the correlation and dating of strata. Specifically, he took issue with the practice of using particular fossils as supposed time-markers for the global correlation of strata, and then not questioning the whole procedure when frequently finding such fossils in the ‘wrong’ strata with further collecting of fossil specimens.21 As we have seen, the finding of fossils in previously-unrecognised stratigraphic horizons has continued unabated to this very day, and dwarfs anything that Spencer could have been familiar with. What would Spencer think were he alive today?

Let us take the aforementioned occurrence of Lystrosaurus to its logical conclusion. Since Lystrosaurus has always been used to correlate rocks into time-equivalent horizons, and to place them all into the Early Triassic, the Permian find of Lystrosaurus should now mean that Permian and Triassic are contemporaneous! An analogous line of reasoning should lead to the position that Cretaceous and Tertiary are now contemporaneous because the Upper Cretaceous genus Parafusus is now known from Early Tertiary rocks.

Of course, the uniformitarians would never follow their own reasoning to its logical conclusion because it would lead to the very reductio ad absurdum discussed in the previous paragraph. At minimum, it would require the uniformitarians to acknowledge the fact that the Permian-Triassic and Cretaceous-Tertiary are now respectively contemporaneous. Such a conclusion, of course, destroys the very foundations of the geologic column, and is unthinkable to standard uniformitarian dogma. In order to paper over this fatal flaw in the geologic column, uniformitarians simply back-pedal, discard Lystrosaurus as well as other once-esteemed index fossils as time-stratigraphic indicators, choose other index fossils as presumed time-indicators, and otherwise act as if nothing has happened in terms of empirical evidence. This enables them to go right on believing in such things as the Permian, Triassic, Cretaceous, and Tertiary periods. Heads I win, tails you lose. Clearly, the evolutionary-uniformitarian geologic column has become protected from falsification. To the uniformitarian, no possible fossil discovery would ever count as evidence that would invalidate the sacrosanct geologic column. It is thus clear that use of index fossils and assemblages of such fossils for correlation of strata is an exercise in special pleading.
from http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/fossil.asp

full article at:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/fossil.asp

Therefore I question this order which you speak off.
Last edited by Dark Knight on Sat Feb 16, 2008 8:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Boikat
Resident Author
Resident Author
Posts: 5303
Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 7:31 am
Location: Ultima Thule

Post by Boikat »

We can cut and paste links and text from Talk Origins and AiG and "True Origins" until we end up recycling links and text.

So, a question: Should scientists amend or discard a theory if evidence warrants it?
"I reject your reality, and substitute my own!" Adam Savage, Mythbusters

User avatar
Dark Knight
Artisan Wordsmith
Artisan Wordsmith
Posts: 3220
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 8:49 pm
Location: My Tower
Contact:

Post by Dark Knight »

Boikat wrote:We can cut and paste links and text from Talk Origins and AiG and "True Origins" until we end up recycling links and text.

So, a question: Should scientists amend or discard a theory if evidence warrants it?
Yes I think.

User avatar
Boikat
Resident Author
Resident Author
Posts: 5303
Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 7:31 am
Location: Ultima Thule

Post by Boikat »

What would you think of a scientific research organization that required it's research staff to sign an oath stating that the findings of their research will support the central theory that the research organization was focused on, and further, any data or conclusion drawn from their research must be in error or faulty if it contradicts their central theory, and is routinely ignored or discarded? Would you consider the researchers of such an organization to be true scientists, and would you trust the validity of their findings?
"I reject your reality, and substitute my own!" Adam Savage, Mythbusters

User avatar
Dark Knight
Artisan Wordsmith
Artisan Wordsmith
Posts: 3220
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 8:49 pm
Location: My Tower
Contact:

Post by Dark Knight »

Boikat I think you are trying to catch me out, you can tell me if I am wrong.

Boikat if you have a point please make it.

User avatar
Boikat
Resident Author
Resident Author
Posts: 5303
Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 7:31 am
Location: Ultima Thule

Post by Boikat »

Catch you out? Not as such. I can only make my point if I understand where you are coming from, which is why I ask the previous question. I wouldn't want to proceed under a false assumption. Humor me.
"I reject your reality, and substitute my own!" Adam Savage, Mythbusters

User avatar
Dark Knight
Artisan Wordsmith
Artisan Wordsmith
Posts: 3220
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 8:49 pm
Location: My Tower
Contact:

Post by Dark Knight »

Well it has given me something to think about.

here goes:
Boikat wrote:What would you think of a scientific research organization that required it's research staff to sign an oath stating that the findings of their research will support the central theory that the research organization was focused on, and further, any data or conclusion drawn from their research must be in error or faulty if it contradicts their central theory, and is routinely ignored or discarded?
No data or conclusion should be ignored or discarded. No findings should be automatically classified as faulty or in error.
Would you consider the researchers of such an organization to be true scientists, and would you trust the validity of their findings?


I would probably not trust their findings. Would I consider them to be true scientists, well maybe not.

User avatar
Boikat
Resident Author
Resident Author
Posts: 5303
Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 7:31 am
Location: Ultima Thule

Post by Boikat »

The reason I ask is because many, if not all, of the so called "Creation" research organizations, such as AiG, CRS, and so on, require their research staff to subscribe to such "Statements of Belief".

AiG: http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith

CRS: http://www.creationresearch.org/stmnt_of_belief.htm

ICR: https://www.icr.org/index.php?module=re ... rch_tenets

RTB: http://www.reasons.org/about/sof.shtml?main

AiG recently introduced their own version of a "scientific journal".

http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/ ... uthors.pdf

It's guidelines echo their statement of belief, and is found on page 9:
VIII. Paper Review Process
The following criteria will be used in judging papers:

Is the paper’s topic important to the development of the Creation and Flood model?

Does the paper’s topic provide an original contribution to the Creation and Flood model?

Is this paper formulated within a young-earth, young-universe framework?

If the paper discusses claimed evidence for an old earth and/or universe, does this paper offer a very constructively positive criticism and provide a possible young-earth, young-universe alternative?

If the paper is polemical in nature, does it deal with a topic rarely discussed within the origins debate?

Does this paper provide evidence of faithfulness to the grammatical-historical/normative interpretation of Scripture?

Remark: The editor-in-chief will not be afraid to reject a paper if it does not properly satisfy the above criteria or it conflicts with the best interests of AiG as judged by its biblical stand and goals outlined in its statement of faith.
Note that all of the above organizations require an a-priori belief in the historical interpretation of the Bible as unquestionable fact. As such, their methodology and stated goals are the antithesis of actual scientific research.

There is a specific methodology to science, and one of the cornerstones of that methodology is the need to say "Oops!" if the theory is truly found to be faulty.
"I reject your reality, and substitute my own!" Adam Savage, Mythbusters

Post Reply