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.
Other researchers are finding other catastrophic events that appear to cross the C-T boundary.
See:
http://books.google.com/books?id=ZaIO8wl_OZIC&…
Could the crossings be real or just inconclusive dating methods?
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.
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.
This doesn't really fit with the topic but Ben asked:
"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?"
Taking a physical rib (bone structure) from a body will not pass the shortage of the rib along to the offspring. The change must have been genetic of some sort.
This is going to sound strange, because it is strange even to me.
I believe that Adam (as the first of a kind) was a complete creation in himself. He/She/It could have been both male and female as we would describe the matter. The genetic makeup for male and female would have been potentially present in the chromosomal make up of every individual before the rib (part of a chromosome) was modified.
This would have meant that the potential for the physical expression of male and female was present in a full expression of the original pre-Eve "XZ" combination. I do not use XX because it would be assumptive to state which of the pair was changed. We assume the male Y chromosome contains less information than the X chromosome, but that is only based upon information theory. The Z chromosome what ever it was was modified and left male (Adam) with an XY and the female with an XX.
If a physical rib was removed, the genetic makeup that this rib would have contained would have been identical to Adam's and God would have still needed to modify the chromosomes if female was a new creation. We do not know Adam's chromosomal make-up, just as we do not know Jesus' genetic make-up.
I prefer to think that both Adam and Jesus both had a "Z" chromosome that was directly from God the Father.
This original "Z" chromosome was what was originally physically modified left both Adam's offspring and Eve with less genetic information. The male (Y) had less information and the female and Eve with only slightly less information (X). The female appears to need more genetic information due to the nature of bearing offspring.
Eve was called the mother of all living because she clearly began the human race not Adam.
You asked for how I consider the matter.
Karl, Dan's original question was not to explain how a worldwide layer of iridium might have been caused, his question was to explain how the Biblical Flood could have deposited a distinct layer of dense iridium sandwiched between layers of less-dense material. So far, you haven't addressed that question.
Moreover, your answer to the other question merely borrows from the answer already provided by science: the iridium layer came from an extraterrestrial source that impacted our planet. Science said it happened millions of years ago; you apparently believe it happened a few thousand. Trouble with your belief is that no impact craters of the age stated in the Bible have yet been found.
BTW, another problem with Karl's description of radioactive dating techniques concerns his erroneous assumption that moderators (e.g., water, in the case of fast neutron interaction with uranium-238) will *always* change the observed half-life of *all* radioactive materials; i.e., that the Biblical Flood caused *all* radioactive materials to rapidly accelerate their decay rates and, thus, caused modern scientists to radically overstate the age of rock strata and other items regardless of which radioactive dating method they use. However, Karl's assertion overlooks the fact that moderators only matter if the decay in question involves a cascade (i.e., chain) reaction; i.e., if decay occurs because a particle emitted from one atom passes through the moderator and then subsequently strikes a second atom and causes it to decay. If radioactive decay occurs without such a cascade reaction (i.e., without an atom-to-atom exchange of particles), then there is obviously no role for a moderator. I'm no expert, but I don't believe radioactive dating methods involve cascade reactions; I believe they involve atoms that decay *spontaneously*. Indeed, radiocarbon dating involves no cascade; decay occurs because (unstable) atoms of carbon-14 *spontaneously* decay by emitting beta particles. Since they decay *without* an atom-to-atom exchange of particles, there is no role for a moderator and, thus, it makes no sense at all to talk about a moderator changing their decay rate. In other words, there is no known (scientific) way for the Biblical Flood to have affected the half-life of carbon-14 in the manner Karl has suggested.
grumpypilgrim states:
"Karl, Dan’s original question was not to explain how a worldwide layer of iridium might have been caused, his question was to explain how the Biblical Flood could have deposited a distinct layer of dense iridium sandwiched between layers of less-dense material. So far, you haven’t addressed that question."
The majority of the clay associated with the iridium wasn't deposited during a time where it needed to somehow filter itself out from amid other materials being deposited.
The bulk of the iridium along with the finer materials of dust and clay forming pre-cursors would have been sent very high into the atmosphere at the time of the impact(s). It could have spent several days working itself down and actually seeding clouds all the while it was gradually descending.
A large amount of the earth's surface would have been changed abruptly by the first moments and immediate days preceeding these impacts. The iridium layer then would have fallen into the waters that were still increasing in volume but which only had rolling tidal undulations for the remainder of the 40 days of rain. The iridium and silt.clays would ahve then been deposited in what appeared to be a gradual process that one could assume from uniformitarian principles would require a long time of gradualism.
After the 40 days and up until the end of the flood, for about 8 or 9 months more. the earth's surface would again have had ample opportunity through more shifts of the crust (both vertical and horizontal) in the forms of plate techtonics, earthquakes, sea floor spreading and mountain building to redposit additional less dense materials on tip of the iridium layers.
Most geologists just can wrap their thoughts around the idea that catastrophies are valid and that they can be interspersed with slower gradualism.
Without flood waters the deposition of the iridium should have actually only been found in the bands where the air currents and heavy storms would have deposited them, and they would have runoff and eroded into places that would not have given them similar depths of deposition in such wide distribution and with such uniform compositions as they are found in.
grumpypilgrim Says:
"August 21st, 2008 at 4:13 pm
BTW, another problem with Karl’s description of radioactive dating techniques concerns his erroneous assumption that moderators (e.g., water, in the case of fast neutron interaction with uranium-238) will *always* change the observed half-life of *all* radioactive materials; i.e., that the Biblical Flood caused *all* radioactive materials to rapidly accelerate their decay rates and, thus, caused modern scientists to radically overstate the age of rock strata and other items regardless of which radioactive dating method they use. However, Karl’s assertion overlooks the fact that moderators only matter if the decay in question involves a cascade (i.e., chain) reaction; i.e., if decay occurs because a particle emitted from one atom passes through the moderator and then subsequently strikes a second atom and causes it to decay. If radioactive decay occurs without such a cascade reaction (i.e., without an atom-to-atom exchange of particles), then there is obviously no role for a moderator. I’m no expert, but I don’t believe radioactive dating methods involve cascade reactions; I believe they involve atoms that decay *spontaneously*. Indeed, radiocarbon dating involves no cascade; decay occurs because (unstable) atoms of carbon-14 *spontaneously* decay by emitting beta particles. Since they decay *without* an atom-to-atom exchange of particles, there is no role for a moderator and, thus, it makes no sense at all to talk about a moderator changing their decay rate. In other words, there is no known (scientific) way for the Biblical Flood to have affected the half-life of carbon-14 in the manner Karl has suggested."
Again, I will try to state that the neutrons ae not acting like the types of moderators of nuclear fission variety, becuase their involvment can't be detected because no track record of their direct interaction in changing masses or atomic numbers can be traced.
The term "spontaneous" is used whenever a scientist can't determine a cause for a phenomenon. You believe what you choose to believe about nuclear radioactivity, I believe what I choose to believe. I believe that it is not a totally random event governed by a statistical analysis.
I prefer to keep looking for factors that influence half-life, uniformitarians have stopped looking long ago.
Ben asked:
"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.)"
I believe the waters on the surface were originally gathered into a shallow seas (probably the pacific) that served as the source of the waters that replenished an intricate circulation system that ran throughout the crust.
Most of the continents were connected because the earth was also a smaller planet.
The circulation and filtration system provided fresh water through large springs and fountains. There are remnants of this system left after the flood and these are the boundaries of the continental and oceanic plates as well as the sea floor ridges were the spreading occurs. These where the major disconnects that existed between the pieces of the crust. These regions were linked together in a dynamic balance that only the tides and internal heat of the earth were needed to keep functioning.
From the looks of things, the earth was smaller and more dense before the flood with great strength in the structures that made up this intricate circulation network. At the flood this network was nearly obliterated, the waters that were normally kept below the continents were pumped up but could not find their way back down into the caverns because the pressures prevented the "intakes" to the system to function properly. The heat built up in the crust to the point that the strong structures melted and the billions of years for the split up and migration of pangea and gwondonoland ocurred mostly in only a matters of one year.
Sea floor spreading was much more rapid during the flood, and continued after the flood at a slower pace for about a hundred years while the bulk of the galciers finsihed melting back. Sea floor spreading occurs now at an extremely slow rate which makes uniformitarians think it must be proof for a very old earth.
Karl writes:
I'm not convinced that the non-uniformitarians (or whatever creationists are calling themselves these days) are really looking either or have considered the research that has been done.
When Karl claimed that a quite simple experiment would revolutionize several fields of science at once, I asked why this experiment hasn't been done.
He replied that no one takes creationist seriously, etc, etc and that:
Well, establishing a grant-making foundation isn't exactly rocket science either. Do some paperwork, raise the money, issue a request for proposals. As long as you guaranteed that the results would be published no matter what they revealed, I'm sure you would get takers.
Creationists have lots of money to build bogus museums, yet they don't have money to fund a grant for independent research that could be done by undergrads in physics and robotics? Give me a break!
Karl writes: "You believe what you choose to believe about nuclear radioactivity, I believe what I choose to believe. I believe that it is not a totally random event governed by a statistical analysis."
Um, no Karl, I don't "choose" to believe what I do about nuclear radioactivity, I believe what observations and experiments demonstrate, repeatably, to be true.
"Um, no Karl, I don’t “choose” to believe what I do about nuclear radioactivity, I believe what observations and experiments demonstrate, repeatably, to be true."
Anytime you say that a specific concept is unrelated to anything else and is a "constant," you stand the chance of being proven wrong. That is the risk of putting your faith in a universal statement that you believe can't be wrong.
I asked Dan to show me in the literature where half life has been investigated in terms of depths of water. I'll ask grumypilgrim the same thing. Show me where Curie, or Rutherford or Geiger or anyone has studied how plain water at a depth of huindreds to thousands of feet with no other radioisotopes in the mix doesn't affect half life and I'll have to admit that depth of water and the slowing of neutrons in that water doesn't affect half-life. I guess you can call me doubting Thomas. Isn't that how science is suppose to operate?
Vicki states
"Creationists have lots of money to build bogus museums, yet they don’t have money to fund a grant for independent research that could be done by undergrads in physics and robotics? Give me a break!"
I think you misunderstood the tone of what I wrote. I do not say that the research will not be done. I stated that unless some univerisity that is a part of the current accepted geo-historical model gets it in their craw to carry on the experiments, the results if acheived by a creationists group would be looked upon with suspect and relegated to just "one more of those anomalies" that must have an easy explanantion.
Take for example what researchers are now disputing about what Dr. Mary Schweitzer and others are finding in Dinosaur bones:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0325Dino…
The real experts are very doubtful of what is obviously there because it should be "impossible" based upon their geologic historical dating model.
They are know starting with the usual responses, it just took a while for them to circle the wagons to find a reasonable. plausible explanation for these flukes of nature. Now the best they can come up with is that the stuff is really a slime mold. There may be outer coverings of slime mold and bacteria, but the stuff that was undecayed is not a slime mold.
http://www.astrobio.net/news/modules.php?op=modlo…
As usual even the bulk of the unexplainable DNA evidence means nothing because it doesn't fit the model. Only the most recent suface examination that show that slime mold was the most recent thing still alive in the sample is what is stated. As usual, if you can't take evidence at face value, turn around and slime it.
The new researches are stating that the creatures causing the decay is what we need to focus upon, not the actual stuff that hadn't been fully decayed at this point in time. Why should it surprise anyone that bacteria and slime were present before it was dissolved? Why is it necessary to state that what was there actually isn't there because bacteria and slime was the surface material?
This is the typical response to any data that challenges the geo-histroical model used by the universities.
Karl: About that study for which you correctly state that I am not giving you a reference: The depth of water affecting radioactivity is a quantitative issue, not qualitative. Although very many experiments have been run that unequivocally refute your odd postulate (that water somehow magically accelerates nuclear beta decay at some depth or deeper), I am not going to do your homework to prove it to you. You should have little trouble finding relevant experiments in the literature.
You propose no mechanism to cause this still undiscovered effect, and there are many facets to the current model of atomic theory that explain why it would not be found.
It is an experiment that can be done thoroughly for less money than Vicki suggests above. A simple test case can be done with equipment found on eBay for a few hundred dollars. But I won't tell you how to do the experiment because I, someone who is certified to work with radioisotopes, think you would probably be a danger to yourself to do it.
But, if you are right, then the energy crisis is solved! Just put any normally benign, low level, commonly available beta emitter (like carbon-14) under water, and turn turbines with the resulting steam as its internal energy is miraculously emitted in days instead of millenia.
btw: If you actually read the actual science report you cited about the soft tissue found in dinosaur bones, you'll see that it has been confirmed as modern bacteria and slime mold, not saurian tissue of any age. I didn't see any unexplained DNA mentioned in any scientific reports on this issue. Please cite.
Dan, et al,
Longshot here, but as a suggestion—you don't think Karl is basing this on the old heavy water experiments, do you? I mean, I'm looking at the claims, the lack of citation, the implications, and it seems all too plausible to me that some fringe voodoo science type took that, recast it in a new guise, and put it out as this rather bizarre conjecture.
Just a thought.
Karl wrote: "I prefer to keep looking for factors that influence half-life, uniformitarians have stopped looking long ago."
Maybe they did, but most particle physicists have not—if for no other reason than they are still looking for the Higgs Boson.
I suppose, though, because they aren't finding what you seem to think they should find, that means they aren't looking. Well, that's also bassackwards reasoning.
Karl wrote, "I asked Dan to show me in the literature where half life has been investigated in terms of depths of water. I’ll ask grumypilgrim the same thing."
I've already given two reasons why Karl's proposed experiment is irrelevant: radiocarbon dating does not involve fast neutrons and does not involve the interchange of subatomic particles; therefore, water (i.e., a neutron moderator) will not affect the reaction. Sadly, Karl is one of those folks who decides in advance what he wants to be true and then simply ignores all facts that undermine his desired belief. It's the same inverted thinking process that convinced George Bush that Saddam had WMDs: Bush decided in advance what he wanted to be true, then simply ignored all facts that undermined his desired belief. We all know how unreliable that process is.
Mark wrote, "Longshot here, but as a suggestion—you don’t think Karl is basing this on the old heavy water experiments, do you?"
I'm still wondering why Karl is beating the dead horse of fast neutron moderators when it has nothing to do with either the iridium layer (the original subject of this post) or radiocarbon dating (the tangent that Karl spun off on). Seems to me Karl's understanding of science begins and ends with the Bible and Wikipedia. He claims to be a "doubting Thomas," but he obviously manages to believe a lot of very bizarre things while demanding that Dan or I cite articles to prove him wrong. If he were truly a doubting Thomas, he would be skeptical of his bizarre beliefs until he finds research that proves himself correct.
To the above comments I'd like to add that I, and I assume most of the other commenters here, don't base our entire values system on geology. My concept of what is true, beautiful, and good is not based on radioactive isotopes behaving in a way they have never been observed to behave.
If the fields of geology and radiometric dating were revolutionized overnight and the Earth was proven to be much younger than has been assumed since around 1850, my value system would not be suddenly lacking a foundation.
Isn't there a story about building your house upon a rock rather than sand? Seems to me I've heard that somewhere.
Karl, you've made some pretty strong comments about scientist ignoring evidence, when the most any scientist will ever stake on experimental data is her ego and her professional reputation. You are staking your entire philosophy of life on the data all pointing in the direction you want it to go. That's a pretty deep motive for ignoring evidence.
Uh-oh, I've been exposed. Yes, I did pose as Jehovah to post a comment earlier and it was stuck in the Name text field.
Actually, godhood can be a rewarding second career. Ask me about it sometime!
I'm absolutely speechless. Vicki is even worse than me! She posted under a different name to tease that poor dude! That was priceless! :lmao: I definitely need to go and look for another rolemodel. 😀
Sorry, to be away for awhile.
Here's something to mull over about the constancy of half-lives.
It appears something about the background radiation that we always try to eliminate from the measuring of any half-life may actually be influencing the rates of half lives themesleves! Neutrons, neutrinos, mesons or something is a factor in what we have been calling spontaneous activity for over 100 years.
http://arxivblog.com/?p=596
For some reason Wikopedia doesn't approve of posting this material that is not the proper interpretation of the data.
Karl: This is discussed on a post about decay rates over here.
This newly discovered (and much discussed in mainstream science pages) annual fluctuation is interesting, but doesn't affect long term decay measurements per se.
Nonetheless it does show a dent in the presumptive armor of total independent spontaneity of half-life. It can be at least by influenced up to one part per thousand by the earth distance from the sun.
If were are willing to look at what's staring us in the face some other factors will be sure to show up as well.
Even knocking a few million years off of geologic history will not be an easything to get uniformitarians to agree is reasonable.
On how the iridium deposits were extruded from the core of this planetary body (earth) and distributed in the crust of the earth you just need to understand what is described in http://owou.com/?p=1069 , that that Cataclysm known as Noah*s Flood was really an Omni-Volcanic Sub-Oceanic Crustal Eruption of “all the fountains of the Great Deep” for 5 solid months (details to follow: since a fountain is what sets the height and depth of any pool, “all the fountains of the Great Deep” means every eruption-capable opening in the ocean floor, including all the sub-oceanic volcanoes (where one eruption could open up lots n lots of other eruptions), sub-terranean water channels, and the like, exploding for 5 solid months, so indicated by the fact reported in Genesis 11, if I remember correctly, that the waters did not stop rising for 5 months). Again, check out http://owou.com/?p=1069 . That means a whole lot of iridium was extruded from the core of the earth into the sediment-laden waters to be distributed onto the crust of the earth. Selah, meaning Pause and think about that …
Richard, this reinforces my question: How did a such a brief geological event create both the very thin worldwide iridium layer, and the massively thick and distinctly very differentiated thousands of strata on both sides of it that are relatively poor in iridium?
That owou.com gave me a good chuckle. Probably the most creative apologetics (I’m being generous with that term, but the “creative” was an intentional pun) out there.
Dan, the answer simply must be obviously hidden in Genesis…someone from that site should be able to decipher which Genesis verse indicates the uniformly thin distribution of iridium, even if a couple thousand years of scholarship and apologetics has yet to.