How Did Noah’s Flood Deposit the Iridium Layer?
May 29th, 2007 by Dan KlarmannI’ve been spending (wa-ay too much) time today reading various news reports about the new Answers In Genesis Museum. In the blog responses to some of these reports I see mostly relief that someone has finally created this museum to tell the truth about Young Earth Creationism. As opposed to all those partisan Atheistic evolutionists who have infiltrated all the sciences. Did you know that the current estimate of the age of the Earth is an evolutionist assumption, not the continuously refined end result result of centuries of study in geology, astronomy, selenology, isotopes, meteorology, archeology, and (more recently) genetics?
They quote the AIG website as a prime source for rebuttals to thousand-time-tested scientific “theories”, and treat such a reputable source as Gospel.
They cite the mythical Colorado study that showed that a single flood could have deposited all the different, clearly defined, interlaced geologic layers. I say mythical because I have never found any source for this presumed experiment. No write-up. No description of the procedure. Nothing. If anyone can cite the actual study, the people involved, and the peer group that verified it, please educate me.
Anyway, my question to them is: Even if we assume this unlikely proof that multiple layers, repeatedly alternating between heavy and light materials, could have been deposited by a single flood event, what about the Iridium layer?
It is called the Iridium Layer because it is unusually rich in iridium, a very heavy element that is common in meteorites but rare in the crust of the Earth. This narrow band of sediment is found everywhere on Earth at the boundary between the Cretaceous and Triassic formations. This is pretty high up on the column of layers for such a heavy element. Every dating method (dozens of independent technologies) shows that this layer was deposited worldwide, simultaneously at a time between 60,000,000 and 70,000,000 years ago. But that’s not the point, here.
My point is, if all these layers were put down by a flood event, how could such a unique and narrow band exist? It falls between two other layers that are common types among the strata. A band like this does not show up in any of the other juxtapositions of these 2 types of layers, also presumably precipitated from the same flood. Just once, and made of material not usually found in erosion sediment.
Sure, if “a magic man done it” is your answer, that can’t be argued scientifically. But the new museum claims to use the process of science to prove its case. No observers who have seen the museum so far have noted any evidence of the scientific process there. Just scientific nomenclature and truly expert and convincing displays of conclusions drawn from … the Bible.
Aside: Observers have noted that, unlike all other museums outside of D.C, the guards at the AIG museum on opening weekend were armed and had bomb-sniffing attack dogs. It’s as though the fundamentalists were afraid that rationalists would use fundamentalist tactics (like clinic bombings) on this new type of religious venue. AIG has petitioned the county to give their security force complete police authority.
May 29th, 2007 at 10:10 am
Not only atheists find evolution to be the best explanation of human development.
May 29th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
“Partisan atheistic evolutionists” is the Creationists take on all scientists in any field, if the conclusions from their experiments or explorations align with those of the huge body of evolutionary theory. In a nutshell, those who think that observation and testing yield better results than pure faith.
You can leave human evolution out of it, for all I care. If they accept that the basic principles on which modern medicine and biology are based are valid, I’ll allow them to hold as an article of faith that our one species was been uniquely and spontaneously generated.
One puzzlement: Both genders of all the other thousands of animal species were created with one godly gesture. Then it took two separate documented acts of creation to make each gender of our own species.
If God had intended Adam to procreate, he wouldn’t have had to separately create Eve at Adam’s request. If God had intended Adam to be alone, he wouldn’t have been created with the necessary equipment to multiply. Pick one.
May 29th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
My daughter’s class is doing a unit on geology now. It’s being taught by the grandmother of one of the kids, who is a retired geologist. She seems to be doing an excellent job of getting the kids interested and they’re really learning. Anyway, I felt obliged to tell her that some people think the Earth is only 6000 years old. She gave me the funniest look and said “How could all that happen in 6000 years!”
May 29th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
The bomb-sniffing dogs really puts it over the top. Those AIG folks were delusional before they opened their museum, now they’re paranoid, too. I guess it stems from their belief that evolutionists are all evil pagans who want to eat children, marry farm animals, and practice human sacrifice…all before blowing up a crazy creationism museum.
I notice they didn’t locate their museum anywhere near a university. Too afraid of the competition, perhaps?
May 29th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
If you loved the Creation Museum, I have another great museum of pseudo-science for you:
http://www.mysteryspot.com/index.shtml
May 29th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
The question I’ve always had for creationists is how they explain the fossil record. A flood will deposit objects in strata according to their size and density: small, dense objects will sink to the bottom, while large, less-dense objects will land on top. You can see this for yourself by putting rocks and sand into a bucket, adding water, and shaking: the sand will fill the bottom of the bucket and the rocks will eventually “float” to the top. This is why, every spring, farmers find boulders in their fields: as the ground is disturbed by freeze/thaw cycles during the winter, the boulders gradually “float” to the surface.
With the above in mind, we would expect a global flood to deposit animal carcasses according to their size and density: small, dense animals would be found at the bottom of sedimentary rock strata, while large, less-dense animals would be found at the top. For a given species, baby animals, being smaller, would be at the bottom, while adults, being larger, would be at the top. Animals of similar size and density would be found together, regardless of their species.
In sum, a global flood would produce an easily recognized fossil record in which fossils of small, dense animals would be at the bottom, while fossils of large, less-dense animals would be at the top. For a given species, juveniles would be at the bottom, while adults would be at the top. Species that exhibit sexual dimorphism (e.g., adult females that are much smaller than adult males) would be sorted by gender.
To my knowledge, such a fossil record exists nowhere on our planet. Fossils are not stratified by size or density, but rather by the complexity of their body structures: simpler organisms are found at the bottom, while more complex organisms are found at the top — suggesting a gradual evolution of species from simple to complex. Likewise, adults and juveniles, males and females, and even eggs, of a given species are found together, with no indication of sorting based on size or density. Fossils of small animals are routinely found above fossils of large animals.
In sum, the fossil record contains virtually no evidence that would support the Biblical story of a global flood, but it contains (literally) mountains of evidence consistent with the theory of evolution: a theory which predicts that fossils will be sorted according to the evolving (usually, increasing) complexity of their body structures.
May 29th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
I have developed some theories, albeit unscientific. Unfortunately, they don’t really support the Young Earth Creationism either, so the theories might upset everyone, scientists, creationists, and everyone in between and around.
Basically, the Iridium layer was deposited *PRIOR* to the great flood. As the heavy rains bore down on the continents, the minerals bubbled furiously, and interacted chemically. Gradually, as the ark sailed high and dry, and the heaviest minerals settled to the depths of the oceans. Layer upon layer like which we see in the Grand Canyon, (more evidence of the great flood) we see the beauty of the iridium layer. Some may argue about specific gravities and weights, but these folk have been reading too many books and cannot be trusted.
(Tribute to LJC)
May 30th, 2007 at 7:53 am
Ben: Read a chemistry book, then a geology text.
The iridium layer is high above the rim of the Grand Canyon, showing in the same continuous set of layers up north at Cedar Breaks. (As shown in this poster).
The petroleum industry (supported by the National Geographic Survey) has drilled exploratory holes all over the country. We have good maps of what layers are found at what depth where, even if they are not visible on the surface as in Utah.
Meanwhile, Ben’s contention seems to be that some geological strata were put down by the flood, and others by prior processes.
May 30th, 2007 at 8:34 am
I was hoping you would realize that I was kidding, and get a chuckle out of my theory. I actually got an A in geology 101. Currently working at NGS. (ironic, I know, or maybe iridic is more appropriate)
October 18th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Well, I guess you all think you have figured it out. That doesn’t mean you have proved or disproved anything. Most Christians would be fine with such teachings of evolution and old earth but you do not teach it as a theory witch is all that it is. The idea that the earth is billions of years old is taught as truth, but it is only a theory. I don’t believe we are ever gong to be able to recreate the Creation or Old world theories so why can’t we teach both and let our children figure it out. Especially if the evidence is soooo one sided as some scientists say. Both have good points and should be studied equaly. Lets stop lying to ourselves and realize we are just animals and not gods. We will never no close to everything just a lot of nothing untill we die.
August 7th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Several impacts happened at the start of the flood, Several of them went deeper than we can imagine into the crust and even sent momentum and energy into the mantle that began such a cascading series of events that it would make the most serious of long age geologists screaming in disbelief.
August 7th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Karl: How about citing to authority when you make a wild claim?
August 7th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
What kind of an authority would you approve?
Like I’m going to be able to show you in a setting like this that “modern science” solved its problem of cognitive dissonance concerning historical geology by taking a very complex cascading series of events that totally transformed a much different crust and mantle before the flood into the one we have now by chosing to isolate these cascading cataclysmic events into long ages of isolated time. If you know what an Occam’s razor is, this is what was done to the interrelated complexities of the Global Flood. The uniformitarians razor simplified the inter-connectedness by assuming that the events were capable of being isolated across deep time.
After all what’s a few million or even a few billion years between friends.
If God had revealed to Noah all the things that were going on outside of the Ark, Noah wouldn’t have had a clue how to write it down. The view Noah Got from the window was enough to perplex us even to this day.
I’ll start with this.
I believe Impactors slammed into the crust and besides causing their own surface damage they set off cascading events that released vast amounts of water and magma. Some of these cascading events vaporized water and rock that were deep underneath the crust before the flood.
If this sounds crazy, I’ll stop now because you won’t find any of this documentable.
August 7th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Karl: I’m not trying to be disrespectful. Really. How about citing to any respectable experimentally-substantiated authority when you make these sorts of claims? Otherwise, it’s anything goes, and I can base my opinion on the flying spaghetti monster.
http://www.venganza.org/
August 8th, 2008 at 7:54 am
Karl uses big words and mentions
OccamOckham, but doesn’t seem to know what a document trail is, much less how to cite a first source. His earliest reference seems to be, “I believe”.Simply state how a thin worldwide layer of particular chemical and isotopic make-up would precipitate from a single flood, between other layers of lighter density that themselves are between layers of heavier density.
August 8th, 2008 at 8:31 am
The flying spaghetti monster is pure fiction (last I knew).
There is no respectable experimentally-substantiated authority because;
1) Modern science does not agree that the mantle, lithosphere and crust could have been created in a very orderly complex way with a stable design to their interaction and function.
2) Modern science does not know what the crust, lower lithosphere and mantle looked like before the Biblical flood.
3) Modern science does not recognize that the isolation of complex flood events from each other is analytical and proper, but the assigning of deep time to the events is a naturalistic bias.
4) Modern science does not consider that the method by which many long-half life radio-isotopes arrive in the crust are cataclysmic which renders attempts to date a geologic formation not credible.
5) Modern science will not easily consider that any catastrophic cascading events could be credible because it could topple the deep time associated with the geologic column.
August 8th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
The Biblical Flood was pure fiction, last that I knew. OK, Karl, so we’re even. Now let’s look at evidence to determine how old the Earth is. Evidence that correlates to other evidence. Evidence that is measured by machines and doesn’t depend upon the wild spin of biased individuals. How about counting the rings of a VERY OLD TREE?
August 8th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Karl has an awful lot to say about "Modern Science" without revealing any understanding of what is known (well established, proven) about geology, or physics.
The term “geological column” was coined by Young Earth Creationists to imply that the geological strata only manifest in local ways, rather than being the continuous layers that have been so well mapped by many organizations, such as the USGS.
Impactors (as Karl calls them), like the one at Chicxulub 65 million years ago, leave evidence. We can “see” the craters using delicate instruments once craters get too old (well weathered and buried) to see.
“Deep Time” is supported by convergence from many fields of study, and originally had to overcome the natural bias of researchers who all knew that the world was young, until overwhelming evidence forced them to change their minds.
August 8th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
I wonder if there is a Biblical penalty for taking a dead Franciscan monk’s name in vain?(William of Ockham)
August 8th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Occam is an alternate spelling
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam’s_Razor
Empirical science purports to start with a null hypothesis and only admits to relationships that prove statistically viable. Given enough time anything can be proven to be a possibility. It takes a problem solving approach to observation to really detect if there might be connections in real time that one didn’t believe could exist. I don’t mind cognitive dissonance when it comes to what science can’t explain. It’s only human nature to want to take the easy way out. Not looking for relationships is anathema to science.
I repeat my number 5)
5) Modern science will not easily consider that any catastrophic cascading events could be credible because it could topple the deep time associated with the geologic column.
August 9th, 2008 at 6:10 am
You wanted an answer, here is one potential model which I’m sure you will call a “just so story.”
Noah’s flood could have started with a limited number of smaller bolides than chicxulub. Each of these would have the appearance of causing destruction to local parts of the globe. The areas would appear to be different by how much destruction each bolide did to the regions immediately in the area of the impact zone. These smaller impacts could have released less radioactivity from inside the earth as they weren’t as destructive, but they would appear to be older dated strata. Many of these smaller bolides could have been nearly solid ice that vaporized in the process. Whether or not the bolides were mostly vaporized the areas directly affected by the impact zones would have either been vaporized or burned thoroughly. They would have been depleted of most plant and animal life.
These first impacts released only minor iridium and radioactive elements into their corresponding sedimentary strata. The craters left behind by these bolides would of course be cross dated by the amount of radiation present in the immediate sediments.
It would have only needed a couple of days for a limited number of smaller bolides to cause huge devastation that could produce the older sections of the geologic column. In these local ecological zones, plants and most animals would be mostly burned into carbon soot leaving mostly the calcium carbonates life forms in these fossil records.
After enough time (hours or days) for these limited initial smaller bolides to ravage local regions of the earth. Only one, larger bolide like Chicxulub that caused cascading internal changes to the mantle, lithosphere and crust would be needed to cover the earth with a balnket of iridium and more radioactive materials which would make the dating methods appear to be from younger time frames.
This has no documentation because it doesn’t fit with the philosophy of gradualism and uniformitarianism and especially deep time. If it were proposed by a serious geologist in a university he or she would be in deep do do!
August 9th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Karl appears unaware that iridium has nothing to do with radiation, nor what the iridium content of a sediment indicates about it. The C-T iridium layer was discovered accidentally by geologists trying to measure the relative growth rates of geological sediments by their iridium concentration, because most of the iridium in the crust comes from a measurably steady flow of meteoric dust. Iridium isn’t released in significant quantities from crustal dust, however strong the impact or eruption. It’s as heavy and hard to vaporize as platinum.
He also apparently doesn’t know where isotopes come from, nor how they relate to (relatively) stable elements. Carbon 14 (for example) comes from beta particles (a steady flux of which come from the sun and cosmic rays) converting a stable nitrogen isotope into unstable carbon with a half life that makes it useful for dating things between 200 and about 50,000 years (with the error increasing steadily with age). It is useless for anything older, except to prove that it is at least 50,000.
Nor does he seem to know know what bolides are (small meteorites that are unlikely to reach the ground and leave a crater, much less have any penetration of the crust).
Nor does he conceive of the energy that would be imparted to the atmosphere if enough ice bolides struck to either provide the water for the flood, or to penetrate into the mantle in multiple locations. Noah’s boat would have burst into flames from the heat of the atmosphere, after the oceans finished boiling.
What does the modern geological understanding of events like Krakatoa, the catastrophic flooding of the Black Sea (one of the more likely sources of the Judaic flood story), Thera, Yellowstone, Chicxulub, the Sea of Japan, and the impact that created the moon as a divot have to do with gradualism?
As for Karl’s #5: Deep Time was discovered by astronomy and cosmology, and then extended by geology and later through quantum physics and genetics. Remove the whole science of sedimentation, and we still have all the other indicators of deep time. The oldest rock dates come from careful examination of isotope distributions in each layer found within individual fluorite crystals, that are found in most igneous and many sedimentary rocks. Where they are found in the strata (”the geological column”) is irrelevant to determining their age.
Reporting observations in science is not limited to what was believed, it informs what is to be believed. Any scientist who comes up with evidence that an existing theory is wrong is on a path for a Nobel Prize, not for censorship.
August 9th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
“Karl appears unaware that iridium has nothing to do with radiation, nor what the iridium content of a sediment indicates about it. The C-T iridium layer was discovered accidentally by geologists trying to measure the relative growth rates of geological sediments by their iridium concentration, because most of the iridium in the crust comes from a measurably steady flow of meteoric dust. Iridium isn’t released in significant quantities from crustal dust, however strong the impact or eruption. It’s as heavy and hard to vaporize as platinum.”
Response -
If platinum were struck by an impactor it could easily be vaporized as would iridium. Does anyone have proof there isn’t iridium deep inside the earth? Either way if iridium were present in the meterorite itself that got vaporized, this is what is claimed as the source for the K-T boundary.
Iridium in depositional concentrations is possible from one of two sources, either deep in the earth itself, or from an impact of a meteorite (Alvarez & Asaro, 1990)
Source: Alvarez, W. & Asaro, F., 1990, An extraterrestrial impact, Scientific American, Oct. Issue, 44
“He also apparently doesn’t know where isotopes come from, nor how they relate to (relatively) stable elements. Carbon 14 (for example) comes from beta particles (a steady flux of which come from the sun and cosmic rays) converting a stable nitrogen isotope into unstable carbon with a half life that makes it useful for dating things between 200 and about 50,000 years (with the error increasing steadily with age). It is useless for anything older, except to prove that it is at least 50,000.”
Response: I did said nothing about Carbon-14 specifically. I was referring to the long half-live radioactive nuclides that are claimed as valid to date sediments into the millions of years. If we went to a nuclear test site without knowing what actually happened there we would be puzzled by the fallout evidence. If a double blind study of the fallout materials were done the age would not match what actually happened to produce this record in the sediments. Claiming radio-isotopes can only come from the gradual decay of original rocks samples is a hoot. Carbon-14 is a different story with its own set of assumptions and potential errors. Carbon-14 is more in favor of a young earth because of the places its found when its not suppose to be lthere like dinosaur bones, and daimonds and coal and ….. etcetera.
“Nor does he seem to know know what bolides are (small meteorites that are unlikely to reach the ground and leave a crater, much less have any penetration of the crust).”
Response: From Wikipedia -Bolide
For the missile of the name BOLIDE, see RBS 70.
The word bolide comes from the Greek βολις, (bolis) which can mean a missile or to flash. The IAU has no official definition of bolide and generally considers the term synonymous with fireball. The term is more often used among geologists than astronomers where it means a very large impactor. For example, the USGS uses the term to mean a generic large crater forming projectile “to imply that we do not know the precise nature of the impacting body … whether it is a rocky or metallic asteroid, or an icy comet, for example”.[6] Astronomers tend to use the term to mean an exceptionally bright fireball, particularly one that explodes (sometimes called a detonating fireball).
“Nor does he conceive of the energy that would be imparted to the atmosphere if enough ice bolides struck to either provide the water for the flood, or to penetrate into the mantle in multiple locations. Noah’s boat would have burst into flames from the heat of the atmosphere, after the oceans finished boiling.”
I never said that the ice from the vaporized space materials produced enough water for Noah’s flood. Most of that was already present either in hydrated crystalline structures, or outright as a huge amount of water underground even perhaps under the crust and all through the lithosphere itself.
“What does the modern geological understanding of events like Krakatoa, the catastrophic flooding of the Black Sea (one of the more likely sources of the Judaic flood story), Thera, Yellowstone, Chicxulub, the Sea of Japan, and the impact that created the moon as a divot have to do with gradualism?”
Response: These are steps in the right direction, but they are never thought of as having any chance of being related to one another because of the need to prove that they were related, but then which millions of years would have to be considered as the one to drop from the model?
“As for Karl’s #5: Deep Time was discovered by astronomy and cosmology, and then extended by geology and later through quantum physics and genetics. Remove the whole science of sedimentation, and we still have all the other indicators of deep time. The oldest rock dates come from careful examination of isotope distributions in each layer found within individual fluorite crystals, that are found in most igneous and many sedimentary rocks. Where they are found in the strata (”the geological column”) is irrelevant to determining their age.”
Response: The need to appeal to out sources means the proof is not sufficiently present in the evidence one claims is overwhelming.
August 10th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Karl got me on Bolides. I sometimes forget that the same word often means different things in different fields of study. I was raised by an astrophysicist, so I assumed the definition of bolide used by physicists, astronomers, cosmologists, and meteorologists, but was caught unaware that government geologists use an opposite interpretation in regard to size and penetration.
Does anyone know what this means?
It was in response to my pointing out that the conclusion (theory, fact) of a multi-billion year old planet is fully supported by many diverse disciplines, and that eliminating one of those fields of study from the list still does not alter the conclusion.
How does the spacing in time between the lunar separation event, Chicxulub, and Thera affect the technology used to date any of them? These events are dated using a variety of methods. Some are distinctly older than others.
Since much of Karl’s geology seems to be from sources like Tas Walker or Kent Hovind, I assumed that he was of the water came to Earth to cause the flood school. Apparently he is of the water magically appeared from unlikely subterranean chemical processes and vanished afterwards school. Water flows downhill, but only until a certain pressure is reached. Water does not flow downhill in hot rock. Once in the crust, it stays in (or on) the crust. Where did it go?
I brought up Carbon-14 as an example of an isotope everyone has heard of. Pick your isotope of choice, and I’ll use it. There would be no mystery about dating an atomic explosion. The isotope signature of fission reactions, and of fission-fusion-fission reactions are well understood. That’s how they found (and dated) reactors like Oklo.
Coal contains many radioactive isotopes, some of which produce some traces carbon-14. The same goes for many fossil bed environments. It is still at too low a level to be mistaken for more recent than the maximum age error spread.
Dating involves comparing many different isotope chains, as well as understanding what the sources of each parent isotope were.
The methods of dating the Chicxulub crater are independent of the iridium layer. Because the crater dated close to the date derived everywhere in the world for this layer, it is assumed (theory) that this particular impact caused that particular layer.
August 10th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
I am finding this discussion interesting, not because I am interested at all in the minutiae of what is being discussed, but the sheer volume. It seems to me that Karl is not just cutting and pasting stuff he finds on other websites, but has attempted to process this information with the tools he has.
It reminds me of a recent episode of “This American Life” - A Little Bit of a Knowledge - here’s the link: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1251 .
It also brings up another important point that often gets lost in the religion vs. atheism wars: the religious are often portrayed as enemies of reason and science.
But I think that a significant chunk of the religious - the rank and file of the religious right - do not see it that way at all. They concede that science is a reliable way to find the truth. The amount of time and trouble they take to “prove” creationism is evidence of that. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, our system of cultural transmission is such that the basic tools and habits of mind necessary for scientific inquiry are not being communicated. I really don’t think it has to be that way. (Note to Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers: you’re not helping.)
I’d be willing to bet that many religious believers read more, and are better able to reason and articulate about things that don’t require advanced science or math knowledge, than others of similar socioeconomic class. I’m willing to make this bet because I think most believers consume far less popular entertainment than non-believers. I think for the average US citizen, uh, I mean consumer, this debate would evoke a “Yeah, whatever, now please be quiet, I’m trying to watch ‘Dancing with the Stars’.” Yet Karl is full of passionate intensity. Unfortunately, his last response here, implying that confirmation of a theory from disparate fields of inquiry amounts to disconfirmation, reveals deep confusion about how science works.
BTW, I don’t want to assume that Karl is motivated by religious adherence - he hasn’t said anything to that effect. I am assuming though, that at least some of his arguments are used by Young Earth Creationists.
August 11th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
The previous commenter may be near-sighted about Dawkins and PZ (and Harris). In reality, we ALL need to be more accepting of others’ viewpoints, even the seemingly hell-bound.
“For sure, atheists for a long time have been unfairly stereotyped in the mainstream media and in popular culture. But we also have a lot of lousy self-proclaimed spokespeople who do damage to our public image. They’re usually angry, grumpy, uncharismatic male loners with a passion for attacking and ridiculing religious believers. Any fellow atheist who disagrees with their Don Imus rhetoric, they label as appeasers.”
Said like a true Appeaser.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/08/oh_the_drama.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
August 12th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
“The need to appeal to out sources means the proof is not sufficiently present in the evidence one claims is overwhelming.”
Let me explain this better.
The original question posted in this section dealt with how Noah’s flood could explain the iridium layer(s). There are actually places on earth with unusual iridium. Some are thicker and some are multiple layers sandwiched between flood basalt layers.
I was stating that why must you appeal to the considerations for deep time elsewhere to try and respond to the matters under consideration.
The question was not if anyone was trying to convince you of a young earth. Discuss that else where. I was dealing with the question under consideration.
That what I meant by an out source.
August 13th, 2008 at 4:56 am
“As for Karl’s #5: Deep Time was discovered by astronomy and cosmology, and then extended by geology and later through quantum physics and genetics. Remove the whole science of sedimentation, and we still have all the other indicators of deep time. The oldest rock dates come from careful examination of isotope distributions in each layer found within individual fluorite crystals, that are found in most igneous and many sedimentary rocks. Where they are found in the strata (”the geological column”) is irrelevant to determining their age.”
The entire process of dating sediments is full of good technique, but not objective to say the least. More data is rejected than is accepted because the assumptions that are used to extrapolate are not first placed intot he crucible of needing to conform to the expected outcomes.
Molten lava known to have hardened in the twentieth century can be dated to billions of years if the proper portion of the sample is “selected” for study. Does this mean the rock materials existed for a long time or that the ratios of molten isotopes were altered by the affects of heat, pressure and gravity upon the magma?
Anyone who claims to be able to use a physical science scientific measuring tool to extrapolate is not measuring, they are calculating a theoretical number based upon an assumed error free methodolgy.
The theoretical number of an extrapolation is arrived at based upon the philosophical pre-disposition to extend data in known real time backward or forward into perhaps non-existent time. Mathematics is marvelous for describing existing relationships in data, but I will not place undue confidence in data that must be screened to fit the desired outcome.
More radioistopic data is rejected than accepted because the calculated ages don’t fit with the desired outcome.
August 13th, 2008 at 7:42 am
"Flood Basalt"? Basalt is an igneous intrusion. It can be found in any layer and traced back to a particular magma upwelling (volcano, caldera) that is younger than the layers on which it intrudes. Please cite where basalt was found inserted within the iridium layer.
There is only one anomalous iridium stratum from the last 300,000,000 years that spans the whole planet. It is found at every sedimentary location that was forming at that time in the world. The thickness of the layer (any layer) depends on the local formation conditions at the time. As tree rings differ for the same year at different locations.
There are other iridium layers, but they are thinner and less widespread. Most of those have been traced to smaller impacts. None to volcanoes or flooding events.
Like all heavy elements, iridium is normally found in widely scattered local concentrations, usually associated with a major igneous upthrust through the crust. It is generally rare in the crust itself.
Geological strata do line up for several hundred million years much like tree rings do for 12,000 years and Antarctic ice core layers for about 900,000 years. Here is a comparison of some of the dating methods used in various locations.
Deep time is an inescapable conclusion, not an a priori assumption. Archaeologists have shown that even human arts (writing, weaving, painting, sculpture) go back several times father than James Ussher deemed possible.
But since deep time isn’t the issue, the question still is, how can a single flood leave a thin, heavy layer surrounded by lighter layers? Evey flood ever examined or detected leaves a single layer of sediment. At most it might leave a wide graduated-by-density layer with the heavy stuff at the bottom.
I still don’t get “out source”. This particular iridium layer question still applies if the impact was only 6,500 years ago instead of the 65,000,000 to which every piece of evidence points.
August 13th, 2008 at 10:49 am
I’m not sure what this is supposed to mean, but I think the general idea of Karl’s comment is that geologists willfully ignore or suppress data that doesn’t fit their “desired outcome.” Any evidence for this? Also, project much?
Going back to poor William of Ockham (or Occam, in Latin), what is the need for an elaborate Rube Goldberg theory of a one-time event, instead of a theory that relies on easily observable processes? And which also relies on asserting, without evidence, that geologists are involved in a massive conspiracy to suppress evidence?
August 13th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Fresh lava can be dated as recent only by those who ignore the standard techniques developed to accurately date it. If you read Creation Science reports, if they mention their dating methods at all, they say they use the (long discredited) “Whole Rock” dating technique. If one uses unreliable techniques, one can get very interesting data that has little to do with accurate science. There are pieces of old rocks mixed in with lava, and these can be identified in several ways to eliminate the dating error. There are also often older rocks in sediment layers, that have to be properly dealt with.
No one has ever found any effect of temperature gravity or pressure on radioactivity. Yes, they have looked hard for it. Outside of comic books and Creationist literature, it is accepted that there is no change in nuclear behavior because of chemical-level characteristics. Well, until you get to pressures not available in normal matter, as in the core of a star where gravity overcomes electrical repulsion.
That individual scientists downplay evidence that seems to disagree with previous measurements is a known difficulty in the methodology. But the “bad” evidence is still supposed to be reported and explained. Anyone finding a significant amount of disagreeing evidence may be on his way to a Nobel prize, if he can explain why the evidence is “off”. Especially if it topples an existing idea.
Deep time was gradually developed as the old accepted ideas were gradually pushed back. Before the American Revolution, the world and universe were accepted as only as old as Bible scholars said. By the time Darwin was born, it was approaching a million. By the start of the 20th century, it was hundreds of millions. It stopped aging in the 1970’s, at the current estimate. The oldest dates given for our planet are assumed to be when part of the crust started to congeal. Pangaea came later, probably after the moon splashed off.
Here is a discussion of some of Hovind’s favorite Young Earth talking points.
August 13th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Check out the Deccan “flood basalts” perhaps misnamed but the igneous material has iridium sandwiched in thin layers. These layers spread widely with no volcano being buiit. The presumed opening down to the core is little understood.
See:
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1117901
and:
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1529647
and:
http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2003AM/finalprogram/abstract_58126.htm
and:
http://filebox.vt.edu/artsci/geology/mclean/Dinosaur_Volcano_Extinction/pages/studentv.html
From the above
In the early 1980s, the K-T boundary iridium enrichment provided the sole basis for the Alvarez impact theory. At the January 1981 national meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting held in Toronto, Canada, I proposed that the Deccan Traps mantle plume volcanism likely released the K-T boundary iridium onto earth’s surface. I did so later at the May 1981 Ottawa K-TEC II meeting, and at the October 1981 Snowbird I Conference (See References). Earth’s core is rich in iridium and the Deccan Traps mantle plume, originating at earth’s core-mantle interface, likely served as a conduit to transport iridium from the core to earth’s surface. In fact, the hotspot volcano that produced the Deccan Traps (Piton de la Fournaise on Reunion) is still releasing iridium today (Toutain and Meyer, 1989).
August 13th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Analytical science has the null hypothesis to contend with, does it not?
No relationships can be verified until their is statistical support for the null hypothesis to be even considered wrong. Long time frames have dismantled the interest in looking for geologic connections, it has stymied searching for invalid null hypotheses.
By presuming millions of years between events that are historic, the frustrations of not understanding what actually happened in any catastrophic event are pushed aside and therefore any attempt to reconsider connectedness between elements of the geologic data is rendered impotent and in fact not even a possibility until the evidence can’t be ignored.
Of course any data that points to connections between geologic data can be easily discounted because the null hypothesis is much easier and comfortable to believe.
This means that when relationships and connections between events can not easily be verified or even scientifically modeled the easiest way to remove the possibility of ever finding relationships is to put long time frames between the events. This is what the geologic column has done. When ever evidence from a clear catastrophic event shows up it is wrangled nearly to death because of the basic challenge catastrophies bring to the assumptions of the long geologic ages.
This is both why there is no clear hard unquestioned evidence for evolution but also why it is not considered scientific to question the assumed millions of years between unrelated geologic records.
For individuals wanting to believe in nothing but chance and randomness bringing life into being, it was easy to go from nearly a million, to an erroneous estimate of 4 to 5 billion because that is the easiest way to guarantee the null hypothesis can never be used to disprove the geologic records.
The inability to disprove the null hypothesis regarding connections between the cascading catastrophic events of The Biblical global flood renders any evidence however questionable that points to deep time as acceptable, but any evidence that points to interconnected catastrophies as needing more proof than is normally required because the model is beyond attempts to falsify it.
August 13th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
So I did a little reading about the Deccan basalts:
That eruption might well even have been caused by a lesser strike or a subsequent upwelling from the same event that left the impact crater at Chicxulub. Or just an independent penetration that created a moving hot spot, such as Hawaii or the Bermuda hot spot.
Iridium is about as common in the core as it is in space. But although the mechanisms of precipitation from space to the surface are well known, there is no known mechanism to transport material from the core, through the thick mantle and the crust to the surface that wouldn’t also melt most of the crust.
Even MantlePlumes.org discussion of the Deccan Traps don’t claim that any significant amount of core material is transported upward by these surface events. They claim that the plumes may reach down as far as the core-mantle boundary, but not cross it.
Again, the dating of these events is not based on the assumption of deep time, but rather contributes to the evidence for it.
August 13th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Vicki Baker stated:
“Going back to poor William of Ockham (or Occam, in Latin), what is the need for an elaborate Rube Goldberg theory of a one-time event, instead of a theory that relies on easily observable processes? And which also relies on asserting, without evidence, that geologists are involved in a massive conspiracy to suppress evidence?”
I do not believe this is a conspiracy, it is the expected outworking of naturalistic science that assumes the null hypothesis until the data shows otherwise. Once a disconnect with recorded history was assumed proper because of the complexities of cascading catastrophes, it became more and more difficult to reconnect even simple obvious events. I’m all for observable processes, its just that the observable processes in a cascading catastrophe have to be pieced together by someone willing to attempt to do so.
If there is no will to connect the geologic data so it might have to condense down a few million years here and there, there is certainly no way to ever make the null hypothesis work in favor of finding scientific truth regarding historical geology.
Take for example how an impact like Chicxulub vaporized organic life forms in its immediate environment and burned tremendous amount of forests at a distance from the impact
Limestone left behind from the original flash and impact of Chicxulub in the vicinity would have produced sediments that looked extremely old because they would have contained mostly CaCO3 shell forming organism and little if any non-mineral rich life forms. If the organism was more water than minerals, the salts, the minerals, salts and carbon would have just become part of the limestone. There are ways for extreme heat to produce what we would call the oldest layers of the geologic record.
This is not a Rube-Goldberg with seemingly no rational for the connections being formed. The connections are waiting to be made, are there any serious students of science willing to connect the pieces?
August 14th, 2008 at 6:27 am
Here is evidence that connects the geologic long ages.
http://www.youtube.com/v/lXDBX99qePA
This WILL BE discounted as meaningless in the scheme of things because of the inability to accept that the connection of the null hypothesis with long ages have become part and parcel of the way naturalistic science operates.
The nested loops with circular reasoning have been so entrenched in modern academia that an ocean or a land dwelling dinosaur found alive today would be claimed to be an anomaly or a clone created on purpose to make the establishment appear to be in error when actually there is nothing to be concerned about the fact of long ages of geological history on planet earth.
August 14th, 2008 at 6:28 am
Karl said—”Of course any data that points to connections between geologic data can be easily discounted because the null hypothesis is much easier and comfortable to believe.”
Bear in mind that when Lyell first proposed an older earth hypothesis, this was fought tooth and nail because it was “easier and more comfortable” to believe in Biblical time scales. The acceptance of a more accurate measure of the age of the Earth was a difficult battle that required mountains of evidence to break down the resistance to it. You seem to be trying to refight that battle by retrofitting data onto theoretical structures that no longer support reasonable conclusions.
Why is it so damn difficult for otherwise intelligent people to accept that those old stories are no more than exaggerations of what were local events or fairytales constructed to support a worldview that at the time had little to gainsay it? Do you honestly think you’re going to go to hell for believing things happened differently than depicted in the Pentateuch?
August 14th, 2008 at 11:21 am
Mark asked:
“Why is it so damn difficult for otherwise intelligent people to accept that those old stories are no more than exaggerations of what were local events or fairytales constructed to support a worldview that at the time had little to gainsay it? Do you honestly think you’re going to go to hell for believing things happened differently than depicted in the Pentateuch?”
I didn’t say anything about anyone’s character or intelligence. “Recorded history verses stories” is the issue you seem to question. I certainly can’t vouch for every thing written in the past or Present being fact or fiction. I chose to agree with what to me is more reasonable concerning philosphical matters of great concern to me.
August 14th, 2008 at 11:22 am
The Delk Track has nothing to do with the iridium layer, but we did discuss it here.
One piece of evidence of questionable provenance and examined only with questionable methods is unlikely to change any minds. The video is very persuasive, unless you already have some understanding of materials science, geology, and/or anatomy.
There is a difference between “circular reasoning” and reinforced understanding. Circular reasoning involves a set of conclusions, each dependent only on the other conclusions, with no hint of independent data.
No part of isotopic dating methods depend on time being any particular length. They depend on the weak nuclear force being consistent (not necessarily constant, although all observations so far (accurate to parts per billion per decade) indicate that it is as constant as the gravitational constant and the speed of light). Ages produced by multiple isotopic methods agree with numbers produced by other methods of dating, like tree rings, ice layers, sedimentation (”geological column” studies), magnetic orientation, thermoluminescence, amino acid racimization, tectonic travel rates, gene drift, etc).
The Delk footprint video that Karl presented says that there is no way of knowing where the footprint came from. But any geologist could check the isotopic signature of the rock, and locate the formation that it came from. Oddly, those in possession of the rock seem reluctant to consult actual geologists or paleontologists to verify this potentially Nobel prize-winning piece of evidence.
August 14th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Just the type of response I expected.
No one using the university isolated time scale of geologic history would dare say that even a few stray dinsoaurs could have escaped the extinction events that occurred millions of years prior to the appearance of man. Dinosaurs are just too big, awkward and dumb to have managed that one.
This is how every single piece of contary evidence is treated. The interpretations in the geologic records can’t possibly be wrong and deep time (an unfalsifable concept) is the answer for anything that doesn’t fit the model.
A “single piece of evidence” (NOT) means nothing in regards to the voluminous work of countless scientists who had no philosophical or theological bias in how they did their work.
August 14th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
No part of isotopic dating methods depend on time being any particular length. They depend on the weak nuclear force being consistent (not necessarily constant, although all observations so far (accurate to parts per billion per decade) indicate that it is as constant as the gravitational constant and the speed of light). Ages produced by multiple isotopic methods agree with numbers produced by other methods of dating, like tree rings, ice layers, sedimentation (”geological column” studies), magnetic orientation, thermoluminescence, amino acid racimization, tectonic travel rates, gene drift, etc).
Place your sample of any radioactive material under or in the the flood waters which themselves would have acted like a neutron moderator and this would have affected their half-lives by causing accelerated half-lives if nothing else.
Are half-lives constant under hundreds of feet of water. I doubt it very seriously.
Have someone willing to take it on the chin investigate that one and let me know what they come up with.
August 14th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Karl said–”I didn’t say anything about anyone’s character or intelligence. ”
Perhaps not intentionally, but by suggesting people believe—how did you put it?—oh yes “data can be easily discounted because the null hypothesis is much easier and comfortable to believe.”
Ease and comfort of belief pertains to commitment to reason, intelligence, and, I would assume, character. This tends to paint people a certain way and suggests—strongly—that their beliefs can be discounted as the result somehow of sloppy thinking or a lack of integrity, hence the point of my response. My apologies if I misinterpretted the underpinnings of your disputations.
August 15th, 2008 at 7:25 am
Karl - experiments on the effects of pressure and temperature on nuclear forces were extensively done in the early 20th century. Nothing in the world of electro-magnetic or chemical effects affect the weak or strong nuclear forces. Pressure and temperature are measurements of the interactions between the fields of the electron shells of atoms and molecules, i.e: electrical energy. Chemical interactions also ignore the isotopic pedigree of atoms, caring only about the electron shells. After those experiments, scientists came up with the idea of using decay rates to tell time.
Once you know how fermions and bosons interact, the roles of the weak and strong nuclear forces, and get a clue about what a nuclear moderator actually does, then you will understand that flood water of any depth or composition could not change any nuclear decay rate any more than the position and speed of other planets changes cellular mitosis rates on Earth.
A couple of hundred feet depth is moderately dangerous to scuba divers, but not noticeable to molecules or atoms, much less to the nuclei deep within them.
“University isolated time scale”? Many competing institutions from competing countries (like the USSR vs. US) all trying to prove the others wrong came up with the current time scale. Researchers are always trying to refine or even overturn it. That’s how science works.
Some dinosaurs have been shown to have survived beyond the C-T boundary event. Those smaller scavenger species who already were living in frigid environments lasted for years, possibly generations, until the massive extinction of most other plants and animals caught up with them.
August 15th, 2008 at 9:45 am
“Once you know how fermions and bosons interact, the roles of the weak and strong nuclear forces, and get a clue about what a nuclear moderator actually does, then you will understand that flood water of any depth or composition could not change any nuclear decay rate any more than the position and speed of other planets changes cellular mitosis rates on Earth.
A couple of hundred feet depth is moderately dangerous to scuba divers, but not noticeable to molecules or atoms, much less to the nuclei deep within them.”
I understand that the theory explains nothing. it is a statistical mathematical random flip of the coin that has no interest in looking for any types of interactions which might actually make the weak force become stronger and lead to the decay of the nucleus.
Has anyone placed a radioactive substance with a measureable amount of radioactivity down into a thousand or more feet of water and seen what happens to the emission rate? Until you do such, again you are assuming the null hyopothesis is correct and not worth anyones time of day.
If it proves the constancy of half-lives wrong this would be worth of a noble prize now wouldn’t it.
August 15th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Karl says:
Dan says that extensive experiments were made in the last century regarding the effects of temperature and pressure on nuclear forces. Have you made an extensive review of the scientific literature to see if any experiments relevant to your scenario have been done? Do you have a theory as to why immersion in a thousand or more feet of water would have an effect?
Sounds like an incredibly cheap experiment to conduct, unless I’m missing something. Send some isotopes and a geiger counter down in a lead container and rig up a way to transmit the data. If there’s really a nobel prize in it, and if it would topple the theory of Deep Time, what is the Discovery Institute waiting for?
August 15th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Karl ignores history. Back in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, they did those tests that you seem to think original. Read about the Curies and Geiger. More recently, most nuclear reactors ARE in deep water. So we have a 60 year history of continuously studying all aspects of radioisotope behavior under water. Various isotopes have also been extensively measured in a vacuum, and in orbit, and out beyond Pluto, and on the floor of the oceans, and heated to a plasma, and chilled to absolute zero. The decay rate of unstable isotopes is not measurably affected by these piddling supra-nuclear conditions.
Neutrino detectors are huge, deep caverns full of water. In order to detect something as elusive as neutrinos, they have to be very, VERY sure of how isotopes behave in deep water. And of the constant value of the weak interaction, that affects neutrinos and quarks.
As I said before, no one even considered using isotopes for dating until it was certain how they behaved under all possible conditions of temperature, pressure, and mixtures of substances. They have now been using and calibrating them for half a century.
Your question emanates deep ignorance of what an isotope is, what the nuclear forces are, and what are the thousands of sources of extensive data that support atomic theory from Bohr forward. You say
You basically don’t even understand what “theory” means, much less what the theory of weak nuclear interaction is about. Nor (I suspect) do you understand the use of statistics in the validation of theories, nor what is meant by randomness in quantum theory.
btw: If the weak force were stronger then half lives would be longer, not shorter.
You also suffer from that odd idea that science is based on what some authority once said. It isn’t. It is based on how they proved a theory, and how it can be proved further.
“Theory” in science means falsifiable and repeatedly proven. Deep time is a philosophical phrase, not a theory. But any selected short time can be falsified. Pick an age, and you can test if something is older.
No one has yet proven that anything in the universe is older than about 15,000,000,000 years. On Earth, the upper limit is less then 5,000,000,000.
August 15th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
I say, “Stop picking on Karl. That kind of schoolyard bullying has to stop immediately!”
August 15th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
I am asking about hundreds or thousands of feet of water. Show me the references in the literature where this has been experimented with.
Be careful when you say all factors were examined. Some factors weren’t even considered I’m sure.
Reactors are in water because of the effect the water has upon the known presence of neutrons. It slows them down to better enable interaction with nuclei. How do you think stable nuclei placed in a reactor are rendered unstable, they interact with the known abundance of neutrons.
Again show me the work of the Curies and Geiger that studied half-lives while the material was still in the environment of very deep waters.
August 15th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Proj: They’ve got Karl down and they stop kicking him but then he keeps trying to get up!
August 16th, 2008 at 6:24 am
A model for a non-spontaneous half-life model is simply this.
Existing atoms do have a built in tendency to decay more readily under the conditions that cause them to decay.
The primary conditions that causes them to decay is for the nucleus to interact with either increased levels of energy in the high energy end of the electromagnetic spectrum, i.e. high energy x-rays or gamma radiation, or the nucleus needs to have it’s internal arrangments and motions interferred with by particles themselves.
Obviously when a neutron gets absorbed into a nucleus this greatly increases the likelihood a nuclear change occuring.
However, a non-absorbing impact or an oblique impact by a neutron (possibly even a neitrino) with the proper alignment and momentum wouldn’t show up as a change to atomic mass or atomic number at the impact, but it could cascade into an internal changes to the nucleus which could be responsible for tipping the nucleus into its various decay possibilities.
The deeper the water gets (whether its heavy water or not) the more likely neutrons are going to be slowed, which would bring about a greater likelihood of an interaction be it an absorption of the particle or the impact of the particle in an obliqe fashion.
Radioactivity (and changes to half-live) should therefore show a direct relationship to depth of water.
The deeper the sample goes it should give off radiation at an increased rate. Materials having been placed under great depths of water should therefore have experienced accelerated decay rates.
August 16th, 2008 at 10:00 am
Waaaaah, he started it!
Seriously, I don’t think I’m being meaner to Karl than I am to anybody else around here.
August 16th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Karl has proposed an ingenious and hilarious model of nuclear decay that appears to be based on a wild extrapolation of a partial understanding of one mechanism of nuclear disruption of one particular isotope (U235). That particular isotope is more sensitive to slow neutrons than fast, and those trigger fission (a strong nuclear interaction) not decay (a weak nuclear interaction). U238 and Pu239 (for example) ignore the slower neutrons that U235 likes, and absorb faster ones (thus light-water reactors for breeding plutonium).
Free neutrons are very rare in the wild. It doesn’t matter how deep the water, there are statistically no loose neutrons flying around. Anyway, neutron absorption has nothing to do with alpha and beta decay rates.
Compare this simple redundancy to “the sun has a built-in tendency to shine more readily under conditions that cause it to shine.” Same argument. The conditions that cause unstable nuclei to decay are intrinsic to the nuclei, not extrinsic. Likewise the rate at which the sun shines (decays) is not affected by the behavior of the planets around it.
An unbalance in the quark pool (nominally neutrons and protons) is what causes spontaneous decay. Sure, a gamma photon or beta particle can occasionally cause a proton to flip to a neutron upsetting or setting such a balance. But this is a relatively rare occurrence, even in free space. It’s even rarer down here under the van Allen belts and atmosphere. Still less likely immersed in liquid water. Therefore, the effect of being under water would be to reduce the rate of random decay (by an immeasurably small amount), not to increase it. But it would not affect the half-life of individual isotopes, but just change the isotope ratio on the exposed surface.
But none of this has anything to do with how a very thin layer rich in an atypical and heavy element (iridium) can be deposited near the upper end of many different distinct layers of randomly varying density adding up to over 10,000 feet thick in a single flood event.
(The C-T iridium layer is just under the Roman V on the left in this illustration of the Grand Canyon area)
August 16th, 2008 at 11:37 am
Bravo, Dan. You beat me to it and did it much more eloquently (and clearly) than I was about to. I spent too much time rereading Karl’s hypothesis, scratching my head, and feeling very Homer Simpson ( “Huh? Oh…doh!”)
It almost put me in mind of the Darksucker theory that went around several years back (you remember? wherein we are told that our understanding of light is backwards, that in fact light sources do not emit light but rather absorb dark?).
Anyway, Dan, kudos!
August 16th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
I still think Karl’s proposed experiment of placing radioactive materials under a few thousand feet of water would be quite easy to do, even if it is of no real benefit to science. How much could it cost? A few hundred thousand, maybe. Just a fraction of the combined budgets of all the organizations promoting creationism. If it could really revolutionize several different domains of knowledge at once, what are they waiting for? And if it wins a Nobel, the investment would be recouped.
Karl, I still wonder about the “philosophical commitments” that prompt you to propose these elaborate theories. By claiming that the biblical flood was caused by meteor impacts, aren’t you debunking it as a miracle caused by God, just like the scientists whose theories you oppose?
August 16th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Dan says:
“Karl has proposed an ingenious and hilarious model of nuclear decay that appears to be based on a wild extrapolation of a partial understanding of one mechanism of nuclear disruption of one particular isotope (U235).”
Wikipedia says:
A thermal neutron is a free neutron that is Boltzmann distributed with kT = 0.024 eV (4.0×10-21 J) at room temperature. This gives characteristic (not average, or median) speed of 2.2 km/s. The name ‘thermal’ comes from their energy being that of the room temperature gas or material they are permeating. (see kinetic theory for energies and speeds of molecules). After a number of collisions (often in the range of 10–20) with nuclei, neutrons arrive at this energy level, provided that they are not absorbed.
Dan says:
“Free neutrons are very rare in the wild. It doesn’t matter how deep the water, there are statistically no loose neutrons flying around. Anyway, neutron absorption has nothing to do with alpha and beta decay rates.”
From Wikipedia:
Cosmic radiation interacting the earth’s atmosphere continuously generates neutrons that can be detected at the surface.
In many substances, thermal neutrons have a much larger effective cross-section than faster neutrons, and can therefore be absorbed more easily by any atomic nuclei that they collide with, creating a heavier — and often unstable — isotope of the chemical element as a result.
Dan says:
“Compare this simple redundancy to “the sun has a built-in tendency to shine more readily under conditions that cause it to shine.” Same argument. The conditions that cause unstable nuclei to decay are intrinsic to the nuclei, not extrinsic. Likewise the rate at which the sun shines (decays) is not affected by the behavior of the planets around it.”
The logic is impeccable but the assumption of matters’ intrinsic properties can never be proven unless you can isolate it from every aspect of the environment it is currently in. Create an isolated universe for your intrinsic properties to be studied in. I prefer to take into account that there may be parts of our universe that are right under our noses but not detected.
Vicki says:
“I still think Karl’s proposed experiment of placing radioactive materials under a few thousand feet of water would be quite easy to do, even if it is of no real benefit to science. How much could it cost? A few hundred thousand, maybe. Just a fraction of the combined budgets of all the organizations promoting creationism. If it could really revolutionize several different domains of knowledge at once, what are they waiting for? And if it wins a Nobel, the investment would be recouped.”
If this experiment were done by creationists the results would likely never see the light of day. Just like all of the other “just one” evidences that have no value to the unwavering long age historical geological domain.
Unless grant money were forth coming for a university they wouldn’t do it. That’s the status of the value of the null hypothesis to science. Even if it were statistically significant it would be of “no real value” to what you refer to as science.
August 16th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Vicki asked:
“Karl, I still wonder about the “philosophical commitments” that prompt you to propose these elaborate theories. By claiming that the biblical flood was caused by meteor impacts, aren’t you debunking it as a miracle caused by God, just like the scientists whose theories you oppose?”
I believe it was miracle that any air breathing life made it through the utter destruction of the earth’s surface.
It would have been like the worst science fiction scenarios we’ve imagined on TV all rolled into the time frame of a little over a year. Deep impacts, fireballs, hurricanes, floods, volcanos, ice storms and glaciers beyond belief, even huge amounts of nuclear fall out. There was so much limestone in the quickly advancing glaciers that it formed the Lewis overthrust when it almost as rapidly in a matter of months melted back towards the east and north.
The only difference between this and science fiction is that life was preserved purposefully by the providence of God, not by the abilities of one intelligent animal making a huge ark.
August 16th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Yes, but what caused this nightmare destruction scenario? The bible says it was god. You seem to be saying it was just a really bad accident, from which god was able to save some humans and animals in a wooden houseboat.
August 17th, 2008 at 3:23 am
Vicki, it’s nothing against you. I’m just sitting at the sideline here, trying to follow the discussion and making inappropriate comments at the most inopportune moments to add fuel to the flames.
August 17th, 2008 at 6:02 am
The reasons why god either allowed or directed the events that led up to the global flood are of a nature that science can not discuss without getting into theology or metaphysics. It was not something that just happened and that god somehow put a supernatural “Bubble” around Noah’s house boat.
Theologically, if the existence of God can be considered outside of science there are ways to discuss different perspectives on this event that was recorded in human historical contexts.
August 17th, 2008 at 7:44 am
So you’re claiming that because life survived, it must have been at the behest of a divine authority… which kind of takes it all out of the realm of science after all.
August 17th, 2008 at 10:20 am
I think God puts a supernatural “bubble” around scientists heads to allow them to use lots of skepticism so that they hone in on truths by tossing away supernatural pseudo-answers.
August 17th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
The ultimate first cause (origins), if considered at all must be well outside of the realm of science or we all are just playing games with evidence for our own advantage.
August 17th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Karl, I have to admit I’m still confused. Does God intervene in the Universe or not? If he does intervene, are his interventions constrained by the the laws of physics, or not?
Is the Flood narrative a human recording of historical events, or the inerrant Word of God?
If the former, why not accept the far more likely explanation that the biblical flood was a catastrophic, but localized, flood event?
If the latter, why not accept the biblical account that the Flood was caused by God making it rain and causing the fountains of the deep to open? Why invent a meteor impact that is not in the Bible?
August 17th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
I have my own question about the Biblical flood: why does the fossil record contain so many extinct sea creatures? Wouldn’t they have been unaffected by a flood?
August 17th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
The supernatural skepticism you speak of is skeptical when its comfortable and of value to the skeptic. Why question authority when you agree with it? Pure science looks for relationships in data no matter where it may lead.
August 18th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
“Karl, I have to admit I’m still confused. Does God intervene in the Universe or not? If he does intervene, are his interventions constrained by the the laws of physics, or not?”
If God created the universe using laws, he could easily carry these laws to their extremes which would seem supernatural to most of us.
God has revealed in scripture that one day the elements will melt with intense heat. This may have been the original plan of God entirely at the start of the earth altering processes involving the flood. If the events had kept escalating no life would have survived and probably even the fossils would have been gone as well. Enough heat and a little electricity of the right frequency and even salt water burns. That would have seemed rather magical to people just a few years ago.
“Is the Flood narrative a human recording of historical events, or the inerrant Word of God?”
The Bible like most other holy/sacred writings were not written directly by the hand of God. (Perhaps the first set of the ten commandments were). The Spirit of God inspired these writers in their activities.
Human (potentially fallible) writers set down into hardcopy what they perceived as factual information concerning matters they were involved with. Some written materials were also poetical or “songs” if you wish to call them such. They wrote with cultural biases, philosophical predispositions and theological beliefs. I’d say nearly all religious sacred documents began the same way.
Some sacred texts have claimed they were directed what to write as if they were only a channel or servant through dictation. This is not fully the sense of what is in the Old and New Testaments of the protestant Christian Church. There are discriptions of visions and the like but these are not the majority of what is the Holy Bible of the Christian Churches.
What we have recorded concerning the flood is not clearly a scientific treatise. Noah gave us the basics of what he could peice together from the before during and after picture of what he observed.
If he had observed what actually happened he wouldn’t have survived it.
Perhaps some of what is recorded in Revelation is actually God’s way of revealing the extreme power of what he could have done if he had chosen to do so.
If the former, why not accept the far more likely explanation that the biblical flood was a catastrophic, but localized, flood event?
If the latter, why not accept the biblical account that the Flood was caused by God making it rain and causing the fountains of the deep to open? Why invent a meteor impact that is not in the Bible?
August 18th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
Karl, sounds like we agree that the Bible is not inerrant and that the account of the biblical flood is not a reliable factual narrative. However, I think that your interpretation gets shredded by Occam’s razor from whatever angle you approach it. You think the narrative is unreliable because it doesn’t include the meteor impacts essential to your version of geology. I think it’s unreliable because no one from that culture in that time period had the least inkling of the true extent of the earth’s surface. So while the description of unusual rainfall and rising waters sounds like every other flood (or flood myth) in recorded history, the part about the water covering the entire surface of the earth is extremely unlikely to be true.
August 19th, 2008 at 5:57 am
I agree that there was a great deal more to the flood that is not recorded in the narrative of the Bible. That does not make what is written about the flood in error. The tops of mountains were covered for over 8 months, that was not your local flood scenario. The ark came to rest on mountains and it took several months after that for the rest of the landscape to drain and eventually become hospitable to animal life once again.
The Bible does not claim to give details about many observations which were attributed to the hand of God. The perspective from the Bible is that God has an active will and a permissive will. God can actively control and even redirect the timing of events or God can appear to let the physical laws run their natural course. In either case God is still large and in charge as the vernacular goes.
August 19th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Grumpypilgrim asks:
I have my own question about the Biblical flood: why does the fossil record contain so many extinct sea creatures? Wouldn’t they have been unaffected by a flood?
There were obvious areas of extreme heat during certain time frames and in various locations that were part of the cascading catastrophic events that were witnessed by Noah as the great flood. Not all evenets looked the same everywhere around the earth’s surface. Where Noah and the Ark were located this heat obviously was not directly present. The same for areas of extreme cold in other places on the earth at this time. The ice and muck that buried the mammoths did not dump onto of the Ark.
The Chicxulub impact has been shown to be associated with large amounts of limestone. Limestone doesn’t only form gradually over millions of years.
Huge amounts of organic material can be vaporized and became parts of the limestone but the hard calcium carbonate mineral parts of sea creatures with shells managed to leave fossil evidence.
August 20th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Karl appears to be good at dishing up lots of red herrings. Have you noticed that despite writing more than TWO DOZEN comments to this post, he has still not addressed Dan’s original question. What he has presented is a rambling discussion that contains all sorts of omissions and self-contradictions. For example:
- Karl suggests that the iridium layer might have been caused by the impact of bolides that “…went deeper than we can imagine into the crust and even sent momentum and energy into the mantle….” Unfortunately, Karl has identified no evidence anywhere on our planet that such events ever happened, much less that such events occurred when the Bible claims the Flood occurred (namely, a few thousand years ago).
- Karl suggests that such bolides “…slammed into the crust and besides causing their own surface damage they set off cascading events that released vast amounts of water and magma. Some of these cascading events vaporized water and rock that were deep underneath the crust before the flood….” Again, Karl offers no evidence that such events ever happened.
- Shortly after the above declaration (i.e., that “Some of these cascading events vaporized water and rock that were deep underneath the crust before the flood”), Karl then declares, “2) Modern science does not know what the crust, lower lithosphere and mantle looked like before the Biblical flood.” Apparently, Karl believes that he knows what the crust, lower lithosphere and mantle looked like before the Flood, even though modern science does not.
- Karl complains that, “Molten lava known to have hardened in the twentieth century can be dated to billions of years if the proper portion of the sample is “selected” for study.” Karl overlooks the fact that molten lava that hardened in the 20th-century could nevertheless be composed of material that *is* billions of years old, so would create no contradictions if dated to billions of years.
- Concerning limestone, Karl asserts that, “There are ways for extreme heat to produce what we would call the oldest layers of the geologic record.” Unfortunately, even if we accept, for the sake of discussion, that Karl’s assertion is true, Karl offers no evidence that our planet has ever been subjected to the sort of extreme heat that would corrupt accurate dating of *the entire worldwide geologic record*.
- Karl asserts, “Place your sample of any radioactive material under or in the the flood waters which themselves would have acted like a neutron moderator and this would have affected their half-lives by causing accelerated half-lives if nothing else. Are half-lives constant under hundreds of feet of water. I doubt it very seriously.” Again, even if we accept, for the sake of discussion, that Karl’s assertion is true, it overlooks the fact that many types of radioactive decay do not involve neutrons and, thus, would not be moderated in the manner Karl suggests. For example, radiocarbon dating (carbon-14) relies on radioactive *beta* decay (i.e., electrons or positrons).
- Even if there are any radiographic dating methods that involve neutron decay (I’m no expert), neutron moderation is only relevant for reactions in which the neutron temperature significantly affects the collision cross section of the target nucleus. For many materials (e.g., uranium-235 and plutonium-239) the collision cross section does not significantly depend upon neutron temperature, but Karl assumes (and his argument depends upon the assumption) that *all* neutron-based radiographic dating methods involve materials for which neutron temperature affects the collision cross section. Where is Karl’s evidence for this?
- As regards my question above concerning sea creatures, Karl has obviously dodged that question, too.
August 20th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Until I started discussing the topic it appeared to be a rather onesided consideration of the matter in question.
If the iridium came from the single impact at Chicxulub, why are there three layers in the flood basalts in the Deccan region of India?
The only credible recorded human evidence concerning the pre-flood observations of the crust, lithosphere and hydrosphere are recorded in the Bible.
August 21st, 2008 at 3:12 am
grumpypilgrim states:
“Karl appears to be good at dishing up lots of red herrings. Have you noticed that despite writing more than TWO DOZEN comments to this post, he has still not addressed Dan’s original question. What he has presented is a rambling discussion that contains all sorts of omissions and self-contradictions. ”
My response:
Suggesting that impacts were involved at the start of the Flood that were involved in cascading events that refigured the surface of planet earth is definitely a way of offering an answer to Dan’s question. If iridium was thrown high into the atmosphere from either the disintegration of the impactors themselves or from internal materials from the lower crust or mantle, the materials would be present in the air along with the rest of the fine dust that would then settle out as the forty days and nights served to not only increase the flood waters but also to help cleanse the atmosphere of the materials that were circulating in it.
As the fine dust and silt were washed from the atmosphere (all around the globe) there would be a distinctive quick build up of the clay layer that contains the iridium.
If this does not answer Dan’s question please explain how else this fine layer could have been deposited to such wide spread regions. By the way, this layer is not found everywhere. Areas where glacier activity has been obvious do not have this layer as well as other places as well. It is only found plainly in areas of undisturbed sediments that can be traced back to what appears to be a similar timeframe.
I’ll respond to the other points if this is acknowledged as a possible way of answering the question of this Blog. If the global flood is limited to just a “water event” then the iridium’s source is “miraculously” present.
August 21st, 2008 at 6:42 am
Deccan Basalt is an igneous intrusion that began at about the same time as Chicxulub. It might have laid 2 strata as the iridium was precipitating. It might have been caused by a smaller impactor with its own iridium just before or after Chicxulub, or it might have forced sheets of lava into the still-soft iridium layer, splitting it. All 3 of these types of mechanisms have been observed. There are other, less likely natural explanations, as well. Which of these correctly explains a multiple iridium layer dating to the C-T boundary time somewhere in the Arabian Sea or on East India (Deccan region) is still unproven.
August 21st, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Hi Karl, thank you for leading this wonderful debate. You clearly know a lot about science and you seem to have an excellent understanding of the workings of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. I value your opinion. I have been studying the Bible (The Word of God) and I am confused by one part in particular:
Do men and women have the same number of ribs? The Bible says that Eve was created from Adam’s rib… but science (the Atheist) are adamant that men and women each have 12 ribs.
Who should I believe?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rib_cage
—
Also for Karl: Do you believe that the Continents used to be connected? Thats what the scientists (Atheist) want us to believe. (They are quite adamant about this one.)
Here we can see how the continents (supposedly) looked 180 million years ago:
http://www.wwnorton.com/college/geo/egeo/flash/2_5.swf
August 21st, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Ben: I understand your concerns. Scientists just don’t get it sometimes. It’s the same problem with many non-believers. I’ve heard that some non-believers think it’s a bad idea to kill their own children by throwing stones at them.
http://dangerousintersection.org/2007/09/02/who-to-stone-and-when/
August 21st, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Other researchers are finding other catastrophic events that appear to cross the C-T boundary.
See:
http://books.google.com/books?id=ZaIO8wl_OZIC&pg=PA146&lpg=PA146&dq=iridium+depositions+map&source=web&ots=lBK5YutTpV&sig=a2QhLcImvOn-iZJ9LHdBn34t3RY&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result
Could the crossings be real or just inconclusive dating methods?
August 21st, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Well, I hope this discussion with Karl has at least disabused some of you of the notion that fundamentalist creationists are the only ones who “really believe” their holy text, as opposed to those wishy-washy “moderate” believers (one area where the fundies have completely bamboozled Sam Harris, among others)
The fact is, Karl doesn’t really believe that the Bible is written by a reliable narrator. If he did, he would accept at face value the explanation for the Flood that is clearly given in Genesis: namely, that 40 days of rain and upwelling of groundwater caused the sea level to rise many thousands of feet. Any fourth grader who knows how to calculate volume and isn’t afraid to ask questions could poke holes in that theory. So, he discounts this description by saying it’s because Noah only wrote about what he saw with his own eyes - he didn’t see the meteor impact and the “mysterious cascading chain of events.” Then you can make up a complicated explanation with lots of big words that make it easier to pretend it’s science. Then when this gets challenged, retreat into biblical infallibility. Lather, rinse, repeat.
August 21st, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Karl, is that you? I thought I told you to go out and love your neighbor 2000 years ago! So get off your butt! And while you’re at it, clean up this place! You’re old enough by now that I shouldn’t have to remind you to take care of your own planet every 5 minutes.