I’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.
Not only atheists find evolution to be the best explanation of human development.
"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.
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!"
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?
If you loved the Creation Museum, I have another great museum of pseudo-science for you:
http://www.mysteryspot.com/index.shtml
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.
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)
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.
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)
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.
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.
Karl: How about citing to authority when you make a wild claim?
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.
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/
Karl uses big words and mentions <del datetime="2008-08-08T21:25:57+00:00">Occam</del> Ockham, 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.
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.
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?
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.
I wonder if there is a Biblical penalty for taking a dead Franciscan monk's name in vain?(William of Ockham)
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.
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!
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.
"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.
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.
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.asp… .
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.