Noah's Ark?

[The Pixie]

Um, you got something better than wiki for this? I'm not disputing - but I'd like a better source to research from.

ETA: specifically, why should we expect that?

The Wiki article just gave background to radiometric dating.

Consider potassium-argon dating. Potassium-40 decays with a half life of a bit over a billion years, to produce argon-40 (and also calcium-40, but it is more conventient to measure the ratio of potassium and argon). As argon is a gas, any decay before the rocks formed or solidified will have disappeared, so the amount of argon indicates when the rock formed.

The old earth model says that the geological column was laid down over billions of years. Rocks that were laid down a billion years ago have had one half life of potassium-40, so half the potassium-40 will have gone, converted (partly) to argon-40. If the rocks were laid down 500 milion years ago, correspondingly less argon will be present. The higher up the geological column that you go, the smaller the amount of argon expected in the rocks, as the rocks were laid down more recently.

And this is what is seen.

Here is a university web site about it:
http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/faculty/sts...on_Dating.html

In the Flood model, the whole column was laid down in a year, just ca. 4000 years ago. That is firstly not enough time for enough argon to get produced by decay from potassium-40, but creationists often hand wave that away by saying the laws of nature were different back then. What they have never attempted to explain, as far as I know, is why they is more argon trapped in rocks at the bottom of the column, rather than the top. What is the sorting process here?

Also, note that if argon is being incorporated from the atmosphere, then we would expect argon-36, which is "observationally stable" to also be present (albeit at around 0.3%). Old earth scientists probably do not bother to report (or even look at) argon-36, but this is vital to the claims of creationist science, so creationist scientists have done this, right? Well, no, they have not. Here is an article by Snelling, a guy with a Ph.D. in geology, so should know what he is talking about, that does not even mention argon-36 at all:
http://www.icr.org/article/438/259/

See if you can find any articles by creationists that descrbe the sorting process. This must be something Snelling is aware of, but as far as I know, he has just turned a blind eye to it.

Hmm, perhaps it was God trying to fool us. What do you think?

[shunyadragon]

I didn't ask you - for freaking obvious reasons.

Are you genetically incapable of being kind or do you just enjoy being a jerk?

Nonetheless, the extensive scientific references are cited in wiki reference. No excuses.

Pixie agreed and followed up with more details as to the references cited in the wiki article. Did you read it?

[Teallaura]

The Wiki article just gave background to radiometric dating.

Consider potassium-argon dating. Potassium-40 decays with a half life of a bit over a billion years, to produce argon-40 (and also calcium-40, but it is more conventient to measure the ratio of potassium and argon). As argon is a gas, any decay before the rocks formed or solidified will have disappeared, so the amount of argon indicates when the rock formed.

The old earth model says that the geological column was laid down over billions of years. Rocks that were laid down a billion years ago have had one half life of potassium-40, so half the potassium-40 will have gone, converted (partly) to argon-40. If the rocks were laid down 500 milion years ago, correspondingly less argon will be present. The higher up the geological column that you go, the smaller the amount of argon expected in the rocks, as the rocks were laid down more recently.

And this is what is seen.

Here is a university web site about it:
http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/faculty/sts...on_Dating.html

In the Flood model, the whole column was laid down in a year, just ca. 4000 years ago. That is firstly not enough time for enough argon to get produced by decay from potassium-40, but creationists often hand wave that away by saying the laws of nature were different back then. What they have never attempted to explain, as far as I know, is why they is more argon trapped in rocks at the bottom of the column, rather than the top. What is the sorting process here?

Also, note that if argon is being incorporated from the atmosphere, then we would expect argon-36, which is "observationally stable" to also be present (albeit at around 0.3%). Old earth scientists probably do not bother to report (or even look at) argon-36, but this is vital to the claims of creationist science, so creationist scientists have done this, right? Well, no, they have not. Here is an article by Snelling, a guy with a Ph.D. in geology, so should know what he is talking about, that does not even mention argon-36 at all:
http://www.icr.org/article/438/259/

See if you can find any articles by creationists that descrbe the sorting process. This must be something Snelling is aware of, but as far as I know, he has just turned a blind eye to it.

Hmm, perhaps it was God trying to fool us. What do you think?

Thanks, I appreciate the links. I don't follow reasoning - an event that lasted less than two years should leave that big a footprint? Seems incorrect on the face but I got a lot of of reading to do.

Let me do some reading and I'll get back to this - in a few weeks.

Oh, and seriously, was the snarking necessary? Do you really think I'm gonna be more inclined to look favorably on your POV because you incorrectly anticipate my intentions? I'm not debating because I have enough sense to know I don't understand a significant part of the argumentation - and you treat me with disrespect for that?

But in answer to the stupid part - maybe God wasn't fooling anyone - perhaps you've (general) fooled yourselves. Science history is littered with that kind of debris.

[Teallaura]

Nonetheless, the extensive scientific references are cited in wiki reference. No excuses.

Pixie agreed and followed up with more details as to the references cited in the wiki article. Did you read it?

You didn't bother to read the first paragraph of his response, did you?

I go to Wiki for general information - I do not trust it for detailed or controversial or even contentious information because of it's very obvious limitations. In point of fact, I'd read that article previously - and I don't recall it even remotely answering my specific question.

Go act like a jerk elsewhere - you bore me.

[The Pixie]

Thanks, I appreciate the links. I don't follow reasoning - an event that lasted less than two years should leave that big a footprint? Seems incorrect on the face but I got a lot of of reading to do.

The usual creationist position is that the entire geological column - or certainly most of it -was put down during the Flood.

https://answersingenesis.org/geology...ologic-column/

Let me do some reading and I'll get back to this - in a few weeks.

Oh, and seriously, was the snarking necessary? Do you really think I'm gonna be more inclined to look favorably on your POV because you incorrectly anticipate my intentions? I'm not debating because I have enough sense to know I don't understand a significant part of the argumentation - and you treat me with disrespect for that?

But in answer to the stupid part - maybe God wasn't fooling anyone - perhaps you've (general) fooled yourselves. Science history is littered with that kind of debris.

Not sure what you read into my post, but I meant nothing snarky or disrespectful of you (Snelling, on the other hand...).

[Teallaura]

The usual creationist position is that the entire geological column - or certainly most of it -was put down during the Flood.

https://answersingenesis.org/geology...ologic-column/

Not sure what you read into my post, but I meant nothing snarky or disrespectful of you (Snelling, on the other hand...).

1) Okay - I don't get why they'd think that.

2) You specifically asked my opinion about 'God fooling us' - that was what struck me as both snarky and disrespectful - but if that wasn't your intent, then okay.

[shunyadragon]

Go act like a jerk elsewhere - you bore me.

Not your thread, and not your call.

The problem remains the question you asked was answered in the article with extensive footnotes from scientific sources.

[The Pixie]

A recent article has shown how dating methods from geology and biology arrive at the same date for the break up of the supercontinent Pangaea, around 180 million years ago.

"Our original goal was to quantify how long continents had been isolated from each other, to see if some species would evolve into the hypothetical 'intelligence niche'," said Dr Lineweaver from the Research School of Astronomy and Astrophysics and the Research School of Earth Sciences at ANU.

"Along the way, we had to verify if geological and biological dating methods agree. We found that they do."

https://phys.org/news/2017-06-geolog...t-breakup.html

I wonder how creationists will explain that one.

[tabibito]

A recent article has shown how dating methods from geology and biology arrive at the same date for the break up of the supercontinent Pangaea, around 180 million years ago.

Seems reasonably conclusive.
Did they happen to come up with an explanation for the Wallace Line while they were at it. That one really has me curious.

[Roy]

Seems reasonably conclusive.
Did they happen to come up with an explanation for the Wallace Line while they were at it. That one really has me curious.

That's the (main) border that separates flora/fauna from Australasia and Asia, and marks (fuzzily) the boundary between life that evolved on the southern landmass with life that evolved on the northern during their separation. While there is some intermixing especially of flight-capable and aquatic species, the deep ocean channels and island separations have kept land animals from crossing the line.

[Roy]

When I asked something about what evidence to expect (ages ago) in Nat Sci, I mostly got 'we don't know - what should it look like?' as the answer. Since they don't have models for a worldwide flood, they aren't sure what to look for.

If the YECs ever came up with a consistent model for how the flood occurred geologically, we'd know what to look for. In the meantime, there are plenty of side effects that would be expected of a worldwide flood that are contradicted by reality, including but not limited to:
- aeolian features in supposedly flood-deposited rocks
- subaerial trace features in them
- no fossils of modern animals, including man, below them
- inappropriately located fossils within them
- no worldwide recent genetic bottleneck
- biogeography inconsistent with recent dispersal from Anatolia
- dendrochronology and ice-cap layers that go back too far
- correlations between varves/tree-rings/ice-cores/carbon dating that wouldn't occur
- old artefacts and geological features that wouldn't have survived
etc etc etc.

[Roy]

Should this be spilt across to Nat Sci?

[shunyadragon]

That's the (main) border that separates flora/fauna from Australasia and Asia, and marks (fuzzily) the boundary between life that evolved on the southern landmass with life that evolved on the northern during their separation. While there is some intermixing especially of flight-capable and aquatic species, the deep ocean channels and island separations have kept land animals from crossing the line.

Also the boundary for the surviving Marsupial species in the southern land mass. North and west of this boundary there are virtually none (?) surviving, except in South America.

[JonathanL]

So all that water was sitting around deep underground in this sponge-like rock, then one day it all decides to go to the surface (a trip of 400 miles), and hang around there for a year, before heading back down below.


Want to talk us through the mechanics of that, Sparko?

If the flood happened it probably happened through the intervention of God. Trying to find a scientific explanation for it would probably be an exercise in futility.

ETA: Didn't see that this thread had been going on for a while and that I simply repeated what others had already said. Oh well...

[Teallaura]

If the YECs ever came up with a consistent model for how the flood occurred geologically, we'd know what to look for. In the meantime, there are plenty of side effects that would be expected of a worldwide flood that are contradicted by reality, including but not limited to:
- aeolian features in supposedly flood-deposited rocks
- subaerial trace features in them
- no fossils of modern animals, including man, below them
- inappropriately located fossils within them
- no worldwide recent genetic bottleneck
- biogeography inconsistent with recent dispersal from Anatolia
- dendrochronology and ice-cap layers that go back too far
- correlations between varves/tree-rings/ice-cores/carbon dating that wouldn't occur
- old artefacts and geological features that wouldn't have survived
etc etc etc.

Thank you.