|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Noah's Flood
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Alan, Barnabas, Hawk, Croesos: I'm looking for my thinking to be tested.
Martin, this is a flying visit - out for most of the day, in briefly for tea, then out again.
I'll PM you when I get back.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
TonyK
Host Emeritus
# 35
|
Posted
Hold on here - we're drifting back towards evolution again, despite previous hostly action.
There are other threads dealing with this subject - let's stick to the Flood on this thread!
Yours aye ... TonyK
Host, Dead Horses
Posts: 2717 | From: Gloucestershire | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Jamat, Jamat. My apologies. I'm not bipolar. Sad and frightened more than most perhaps. I have been diagnosed as mildly clinically depressed. However I am VERY familiar with cyclothymia and bipolarity in my close family.
I was using it as a figure of speech.
Your compassion moves me very much and reminds me, to say the least, that the differences in our thinking processes are as NOTHING compared to the commonalities in our feelings and our need for transcendent relationship.
God bless you my brother.
And you ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
TonyK
That was bothering me, too (one of the reasons for responding PM-wise to Martin). Sorry for my part in the drift - 'twas not easy to avoid.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Alan, Barnabas, Hawk, Croesos: I'm looking for my thinking to be tested.
For the first time in my life I've come to the point of positing that The Flood in particular may be purely allegorical. At the very best based on some local catastrophe where Ararat can't mean Ararat.
Not a miracle that would HAVE to be covered up by God.
So, I'm left with much LESSER miracles: Eden, Babel, S&G, The Exodus that would NOT have to be covered up.
Or would they ?
All miracles explicitly accepted by God incarnate.
I think part of the answer is going to relate to what is meant by 'miracle'. For one family to receive a warning about an impending flood (locally catastrophic, but not global) and be able to make preparations to survive that flood, along with some of their livestock, could quite reasonably be called a miracle - and I'm sure Noah and his folks would agree. All without anything happening that wasn't explicable by scientific enquiry (except, possibly, the advanced warning). The boat could even have come to rest in the vicinity of Ararat, I don't think there's any need to assume that the story in Genesis requires the Ark to have come to rest on or near the summit of Mount Ararat, just a hill in that range.
In response to the more general question that doesn't relate specifically to the Flood, maybe we need a thread in Purgatory on miracles.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seonaid
Shipmate
# 16031
|
Posted
I think BHB must have missed my previous request for reputable evidence, so I will request it again ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:
Please provide the evidence for the allegations you make about the dating methods, and please use reputable sites, not ones like answers in genesis or such ilk.
Posts: 195 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
ByHisBlood
Shipmate
# 16018
|
Posted
Seo,
You'll have those asap, maybe after the Christmas rush, so enjoy a wee dram in the meantime!
--------------------
"Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him" - Romans 5:9
Posts: 220 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seonaid
Shipmate
# 16031
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ByHisBlood:
Seo,
You'll have those asap, maybe after the Christmas rush, so enjoy a wee dram in the meantime!
Translated as I actually can't answer your question because no such sites exist!!!
[ 16. December 2010, 17:51: Message edited by: Seonaid ]
Posts: 195 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seonaid
Shipmate
# 16031
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ByHisBlood:
Seo,
The name is SEONAID!!!
Posts: 195 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
ByHisBlood
Shipmate
# 16018
|
Posted
SEONAID
Here are a few (with references) for you to savage in the meantime:-
As The Science of Evolution explains: "Several methods have been devised for estimating the age of the earth and its layers of rocks. These methods rely heavily on the assumption of uniformitarianism, i.e., natural processes have proceeded at relatively constant rates throughout the earth's history . . . It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological 'clock'" (William Stansfield, 1977, pp. 80, 84).
The potassium-argon [K-Ar] dating method, used to date lava flows, also has problems—as shown by studies of Mount St. Helens. "The conventional K-Ar dating method was applied to the 1986 dacite flow from the new lava dome at Mount St. Helens, Washington. Porphyritic dacite which solidified on the surface of the lava dome in 1986 gives a whole rock K-Ar 'age' of 0.35 + OR - 0.05 million years (Ma). Mineral concentrates from this same dacite give K-Ar 'ages' from 0.35 + OR - .06 Ma to 2.8 + OR - 0.6 Ma. These 'ages' are, of course, preposterous [since we know the rock formed recently]. The fundamental dating assumption ('no radiogenic argon was present when the rock formed') is questioned by these data.
"Instead, data from this Mount St. Helens dacite argue that significant 'excess argon' was present when the lava solidified in 1986 . . . This study of Mount St. Helens dacite causes the more fundamental question to be asked—how accurate are K-Ar 'ages' from the many other phenocryst-containing lava flows worldwide?" (Stephen Austin, "Excess Argon within Mineral Concentrates from the New Dacite Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens Volcano," Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, Vol. 10, No. 3, 1996, pp. 335-344).
In layman's terms, these volcanic rocks that we know were formed in 1986—less than 20 years ago—were "scientifically" dated to between 290,000 and 3.4 million years old!
Such examples serve to illustrate the fallibility of the dating methods on which many modern scientists rely so heavily. GN (Good News).
Snow even here in Cardiff today (dated at 3.45 hours and one layer, so will reply as much as able). Take care people ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
--------------------
"Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him" - Romans 5:9
Posts: 220 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
TonyK, Louise
A question. Would you prefer this subtopic to go to one of the alternative threads e.g Does Creation Science give comfort to the Enemy? I've found a neat link for Seonaid and others to consider but it's likely to provoke more discussion. I've plonked it in the Creation Science thread pro-tem.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ByHisBlood:
"Instead, data from this Mount St. Helens dacite argue that significant 'excess argon' was present when the lava solidified in 1986 . . . This study of Mount St. Helens dacite causes the more fundamental question to be asked—how accurate are K-Ar 'ages' from the many other phenocryst-containing lava flows worldwide?" (Stephen Austin, "Excess Argon within Mineral Concentrates from the New Dacite Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens Volcano," Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, Vol. 10, No. 3, 1996, pp. 335-344).
In layman's terms, these volcanic rocks that we know were formed in 1986—less than 20 years ago—were "scientifically" dated to between 290,000 and 3.4 million years old!
Such examples serve to illustrate the fallibility of the dating methods on which many modern scientists rely so heavily. GN (Good News).
Such examples rather serve to illustrate just how biased these 'journals' are. K-Ar dating should not be used on 20 year old samples. Even Wikipedia provides more valid information than your example.
quote:
As the simulation of the processing of potassium-argon samples showed, the standard deviations for K-Ar dates are so large that resolution higher than about a million years is almost impossible to achieve. By comparison, radiocarbon dates seem almost as precise as a cesium clock! Potassium-argon dating is accurate from 4.3 billion years (the age of the Earth) to about 100,000 years before the present. At 100,000 years, only 0.0053% of the potassium-40 in a rock would have decayed to argon-40, pushing the limits of present detection devices. Eventually, potassium-argon dating may be able to provide dates as recent as 20,000 years before present
See here.
Do you have any other less easily refuted pieces of 'evidence'?
[ 17. December 2010, 09:02: Message edited by: pjkirk ]
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Link doesn't work for me, pj.
I found another and stuck it on the Creation Science DH thread, for thread demarcation reasons. It might say similar things to the one of yours I can't read!
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Link doesn't work for me, pj.
I found another and stuck it on the Creation Science DH thread, for thread demarcation reasons. It might say similar things to the one of yours I can't read!
Gah! The 'L' at the end of the URL got stripped somehow.
Yours is wildly more detailed, and dedicated to the specific 'test.' Mine's from a course page for a Univ. of California archaeology class, just talking about the method in general.
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seonaid
Shipmate
# 16031
|
Posted
BHB, I asked for facts, not fairytales. I also asked for reputable evidence - anything with creation in the title is NOT reputable!!!
Posts: 195 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Got it, pjkirk. And here it is.
(With apologies to DH Hosts if this is in the wrong thread).
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ByHisBlood:
In layman's terms, these volcanic rocks that we know were formed in 1986—less than 20 years ago—were "scientifically" dated to between 290,000 and 3.4 million years old!
Such examples serve to illustrate the fallibility of the dating methods on which many modern scientists rely so heavily. GN (Good News).
Others have already pointed out the flaws in the claims of 'Good News', whoever they are. (NB. please link to your sources rather than just mentioning who they are - otherwise we can't see the context and we have no idea how reputable the source is unless we see where you've pulled it from). But I thought I'd also mention that this is a very unconvincing attempt to disparage the dating methods.
KR-AR dating is already well known by scientists to have problems with potentially flawed results and so necessitates the strictest methods of sample collection preconditions to ensure the results are viable. Even Wikipedia gives this information with a long list of preconditions that NEED to be observed for any reputable scientist to publish the results as evidence for the age of a site.
For this creationist to purposely fail to meet these preconditions and then claim the results are wrong is not proof of anything except what scientists are already aware of. The test results are just test results, they need to be added to the context and scientific interpretation before you can even start making wild generalisations that 'Science says x, x is wrong, therefore Science is wrong!!!'.
I love how creationists like to point out the difficulties in the dating methods as though they've uncovered some conspiracy, while scientists are all well aware of these difficulties, and are totally open about them, and have long since accomodated for them in their results. Science is incredibly critically self-aware. That's the foundation I think of what most creationists misunderstand. They imagine a conspiracy of silence and no scientists daring to disturb the party-line status quo - which is about as far from the truth as its possible to get!
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
I love how creationists like to point out the difficulties in the dating methods as though they've uncovered some conspiracy, while scientists are all well aware of these difficulties, and are totally open about them, and have long since accomodated for them in their results. Science is incredibly critically self-aware. That's the foundation I think of what most creationists misunderstand. They imagine a conspiracy of silence and no scientists daring to disturb the party-line status quo - which is about as far from the truth as its possible to get!
And I love how they believe that pointing out these things somehow makes creationism more credible.
Even if you could definitively prove that evolution is false, it doesn't make creationism more true. Believing it does, shows a lapse in rational thinking.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
TonyK, Louise
A question. Would you prefer this subtopic to go to one of the alternative threads e.g Does Creation Science give comfort to the Enemy? I've found a neat link for Seonaid and others to consider but it's likely to provoke more discussion. I've plonked it in the Creation Science thread pro-tem.
The trouble is any discussion of the Flood gets into the old lies about "Flood Geology", and that gets into the age of the Earth - which is of course the one thing that YEC needs to fudge. So you can't keep the arguments separate. There is no way to talk about the Flood in this context without also talking about YEC.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
Wrong topic. I'll take it to the other thread
[ 17. December 2010, 13:53: Message edited by: Niteowl2 ]
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
TonyK, Louise
A question. Would you prefer this subtopic to go to one of the alternative threads e.g Does Creation Science give comfort to the Enemy? I've found a neat link for Seonaid and others to consider but it's likely to provoke more discussion. I've plonked it in the Creation Science thread pro-tem.
The trouble is any discussion of the Flood gets into the old lies about "Flood Geology", and that gets into the age of the Earth - which is of course the one thing that YEC needs to fudge. So you can't keep the arguments separate. There is no way to talk about the Flood in this context without also talking about YEC.
Inclined to agree, ken, but there is already a ruling and I was just trying to clarify it in this case.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ByHisBlood:
As The Science of Evolution explains: "Several methods have been devised for estimating the age of the earth and its layers of rocks. These methods rely heavily on the assumption of uniformitarianism, i.e., natural processes have proceeded at relatively constant rates throughout the earth's history . . . It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological 'clock'" (William Stansfield, 1977, pp. 80, 84).
I know very little about geological dating methods but even I am aware that 33 years can be a long time in science. Even if the information in that quotation was accurate in 1977, it may no longer be so now.
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
hosting
As it keeps coming up, I've opened a thread on the scientific dating methods which get discussed. Please take arguments which rely on arguing for or against dating methods being reliable to there.
cheers,
Louise
Dead Horses Host
[ 17. December 2010, 19:37: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Well BHB, did we know each other in the WCG ?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
Ha! l forgot we already had a massive thread on the Flood for those who like that sort of thing.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Good News is from an Armstrongite heresy reactionary cultlet of my former redeemed cultic fellowship.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
