Wrong Answers Only #2: The New Answers Book 1, Chapter 2
23rd July 2022 | Creation Myths
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LzYFeuq2Is
4:40 "we have fossils in layers, going from earliest deepest"
Fish over trilobites in Bonaparte Basin and similar ... OK. Layering could be layered habitat of the water creatures.
A km or so worth of different shellfish in Grand Canyon ... OK. Layering could reflect different inflows of shellfish coming in to there from several different sources around. Also aquatic, by the way.
A geologist spoke to me about a dinosaur being above a pelykosaur. OK. Where? North Dakota. It turns out, they are in opposite ends of North Dakota. In normal layman's terms, we do not find the dinosaur above the pelykosaur, so, in normal layman's terms, we do not have a layering of fossils of land creatures.
And this is fairly typical when it comes to land creatures.
A possible exception would have been in some part of Lower California or where it was ... some Ceratopsians from the obviously Cretaceous buried beneath some Decapods, that is shrimps and lobsters or whatever, from the Palaeogene. I lost the reference. My guess : it was land before the Flood, but so near sea lots of shrimps could come in with Flood waters.
4:50 "We see a pattern of increasing complexity ...."
If you count trilobites as less complex than fish, sure. That's perhaps the very reasons trilobites were roaming the sea bottom instead of swimming higher up along the fish.
5:02 (citing creationists) "well, the more complex animals were smarter, meaning they climbed up to ..."
Read that in Edgar Andrews too.
As said, I have myself contributed, as a creationist, to debunk this as superfluous and as predicting a much more layered fossil record than we in fact do find.
5:43 Whales would typically be swimming higher up in the seas than trilobites, though.
And often higher up than sharks too.
But, about same level up as mososaurs. I tentatively predict, you will not find whales and mososaurs together and also not whales above mososaurs.
If you look up Laetoli, Ethiopia, the place where they found footprints considered australopithecine is not above dinosaurs.
5:56 "not very high in the geological column"
Whatever that means, when you add the magical words "in the geological column."
Ankerschlag in Tyrol is higher up than Lienz in Upper Austria. In Lienz you find marine Tertiary, like some "early" type of whale. In Ankerschlag you find a Jurassic Pterosaur.
6:44 Your point being, flowering plants don't come "earlier" than Cretaceous, and that includes grasses.
A dinosaur koprolith was featured on CMI because it contained - grass.
So, you seem to be giving your audience a counterfactual account of what we actually find.
7:49 "You can't carve out a canyon under a Flood"
Yes. You can have a sediment saturated Flood water that by saturation deposits sediments quickly. And part of these can then be eroded quickly, by Flood waters from the right angle, that are, as said, sediment saturated. "Work like liquid sand paper" to use a phrase Kent Hovind likes. So, you can.
- Peter Gaskin
- Just definitely not the Grand Canyon. Or any other Canyon that's been around for more than a week or so.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Peter Gaskin Well, the thing is, the mud may not have been around for more than a week or so when the canyon was carved.
9:22 James Hutton directly observed erosion and weathering over years - and interpreted the past as an uniformitarian back-projection from that, and guess what, he was not a Christian.
Wikipedia has, for his page, a category called "British deists" ... hence, presumably, his uniformitarian interpretation of his observations of the present as key to a past excluding the Flood.
9:37 It so happens, Charles Lyell, on his wikipedian page, gets the sobriquet (or category) "Scottish deists" ... as well as CMI actually giving quotes that make him the kind of liberal theologian that already back in the day wanted nothing to do with Moses (including Genesis, obviously).
So, forget the intervention of Dapper Dinosaur.
10:29 Darwin's earthquake was also tiny compared to the Flood.
By the fact of reading Lyell, he was already before this compromising his faith, if he even still had any left.
Btw, height of mountains, on my view, comes from a centuries long process of verticalisation in the early post-Flood times, which helped to dry out the Flood water from the land.
The Patu industry in Nepal (lower edge of Himalayas) shows these inhabitable, with my recalibration of the carbon dates, a bit before the birth of Abraham - so within 942 years after the Flood, Himalayas had in fact rosen to a considerable portion of their present height.
- Peter Gaskin
- And which flood would that be and where is the evidence of it occurring anywhere other that Mesopotamia.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Peter Gaskin 1) Noah's.
2) Ankerschlag und Linz, zum Beispiel. A Jurassic Pterosaur in Ankerschlag and a Miocene or something whale in Linz area were buried by the Flood. You actually have less evidence of the Flood in Mesopotamia than most other places, that famous mud layer being very clearly post-Flood.
@Peter Gaskin 2 continued - and obviously, the Himalayas too.
11:22 "we have proved that the world is that old"
By assuming that lead 206, 207 and 208 always come from decay, starting for instance by Uranium.
By assuming you can correctly calculate the very long halflife, when even the much shorter halflife of C14 needed corrections by checking with historically known objects, or at worst objects known from dendro, to get the correct halflife.
- Ross Benners
- I hear your point but prefer to think scientists, who are willing to admit they’re wrong and update decay rates etc as and when new evidence becomes available, and who work with uranium in reactors and understand decay rates intimately are at the very least not 99.99999% wrong.
Could be that they’re way out on uranium dating by millions of years but I don’t think this argument lends any real credence to a young earth.
Nobody who understands science expects anything to be perfect.
But, as I say, I do hear your point - it took x volumes to prove 1+1 really did = 2 after all ;)
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Ross Benners Fission in reactors has quite another rate than decay in natural samples.
Plus, when was there furnished a proof that only lead 204 was naturally occurring?
That 1 + 1 = 2 is actually the definition of 2.
It does not involve any dubious steps.
- Ross Benners
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl regarding 1 + 1 = 2 - I was agreeing with your point that we shouldn’t say “we know!” So easily, and just mentioning the 1000s of pages it took just to prove that 1+1=2 beyond doubt. Forget the name, principia perhaps. So there’s little point arguing when I agree with you ;)
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Ross Benners It doesn't take 1000's of pages to prove 1 + 1 = 2 without doubt. It takes knowing the definition of 2.
- Ross Benners
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl but it did in principia. And, again, I’m agreeing with your original point of not being so quick to proclaim “we know” - insert another analogy if you dislike it.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Ross Benners Thank you.
I'm curious of what book would be using 1000 pages on proving 1+1=2, though ... what was the author called?
- Ross Benners
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl bro I’ve just told you twice: Principia ;)
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Ross Benners Principia is a title.
I highly doubt it could be Principia Mathematica by Newton, because it doesn't deal with Mathematics, but with making physics more mathematical.
So, what was the author?
- Ross Benners
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl whitehead and Russell
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Ross Benners Ah - yes, when I read the works list of Bertrand Russell on wiki, it says:
1910–1913. Principia Mathematica.[221] (with Alfred North Whitehead). 3 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Thank you.
So, they spent 1000 pages on proving 1+1=2?
13:15 If the problem were a technique "below the detection threshold," it should be giving "age zero" and not a very old age.
- Peter Gaskin
- It might give totally random dates. If it's Monday it's 2 billion years; if it's Friday it's 32 years.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Peter Gaskin Would you mind telling me how something below the detection threshold (which 32 years certainly are for K-Ar) could sometimes give dates like 2 billion years?
Or anytime, whether sometimes or always?
15:05 For radiocarbon in diamonds, your objection is close to the one that Jonathan Sarfati answered.
// The 14C readings in the diamonds are the result of background radiation in the detector. // This shows that the objector doesn’t even understand the method. AMS doesn’t measure radiation but counts atoms. It was the obsolete scintillation method that counted only decaying atoms, so was far less sensitive. In any case, the mean of the 14C/C ratios in Dr Baumgardner’s diamonds was close to 0.12±0.01 pMC, well above that of the lab’s background of purified natural gas (0.08 pMC). //
https://creation.com/diamonds-a-creationists-best-friend
So, no, it wasn't a misunderstanding of someone else's study, it was a new one. Done with well adapted equipment.
15:38 For Ka-Ar, U-Pb, and so on, I don't see the need for "orders of magnitude faster" - but this could be my infamiliarity with these methods.
If this conclusion is also meant to apply to C14, they have jumped to the Setterfield bandwagon, which I oppose.
My own model for C14 involves:
1) level at Flood rising very slightly above zero, to 1.4 pmC or so (35 000 extra years + actual time = c. 3000 BC = 38 000 BC, 40 000 BP);
2) rising to present level between Flood and Fall of Troy (c. 1200 BC);
3) which rise involved a much faster, up to ten times faster, production rate of C14 just after the Flood, that radioactivity also feeding into lowering of life spans and into ice age.
16:31 Unlike "much faster rates of decay" this model does not lead to a heat problem for the Global Flood.
17:53 Unlike Baumgardner, I don't think the pre-Flood world was configured as Pangaea, and the configuration into the world as we have it would at its hottest be sth like Indian plate bumping into Asia (Tibetan plate?) and building Himalayas.
What if it was some centuries before they were in place?
- Peter Gaskin
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl What if it were several tens of millions of years?
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Peter Gaskin How would you remotely know?
Reconstruction without the aid of narrative history.
How do I know (or as good as I can get near that)?
Reconstruction with the aid of narrative history.
It's the narrative history that trumps the reconstruction, not the other way round!
- Brenda Paduch
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl it still causes the same heat problem, and is still orders of magnitude faster than possible
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Brenda Paduch Ten times faster production of C14 so much does not cause the same heat problem.
Plus with radioactivity making for ionising particles for cooler weather, that would take care of any heat problem.
24:38 The radiometric example from Gabon is impressive, still, it would be the discrepancy.
For carbon, you can check 5730 years as halflife by testing objects that are, for instance 1/8 of the halflife old. 716 years can be verified by historically dated objects. You can't that with a billions of years old halflife.
Carbon and geology are perfectly compatible with the Biblical data.
- Creation Myths
- You can't ignore the non-carbon radiometric methods.
- Apollorion
- Nor should dendrochronology (a.k.a. tree-ring dating) be ignored. This helped verifying the carbon dating method and shows that the oldest still living tree is older than the YEC's Earth's age.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Creation Myths For most of non-carbon, I presume it is K-Ar, and that lava was solidifying quickly, trapping much argon, during the Flood.
At Laetoli, there are several layers of lava, the higher ones are younger, and obviously, the more the timeline of the Flood went on, the shallower the water was that was cooling down, because the higher up the ground with the lava was already.
Phenomenon comparable to a Hawaii volcano, erupted some time before 1900 but after 1800. Lava above ground - present is within error margin. Two km or so out into the sea, 2 million years or whatever it was.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Apollorion "This helped verifying the carbon dating method"
Like history, the other "lignine based" dating method, dendro is more abundant at 1400 AD (the example in Arizona helping to confirm carbon, btw, at 1400 AD the atmosphere had reached the present level and vaccillated around it for 2600 years, so no discrepancy at carbon expected on my part).
"and shows that the oldest still living tree is older than the YEC's Earth's age."
Ooooops ... if you meant bristle cone pines or similar, it would be beyond the Ussher date for the Flood, but not the Ussher date for Creation. I am anyway involved in LXX based Biblical chronologies, specifically using the one of the Roman martyrology for Christmas day (pre-90's version!).
And if you meant Old Tjikko in Lappland, Sweden, still living, supposed to be 9000 years old - that is not dendro, that's carbon dating of the root system.
So, your bad whichever you meant.
- Apollorion
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl "YEC's Earth's age" meant about 6000 years ago.
But you're right that I indeed confused our achievements with respect to Bristle Cone pines and clonal trees such as the oldest one, in Australia, or the second oldest, Pando, in the US of some A.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Apollorion The oldest living one would be c. 5000 years - consistent with a LXX date for the Flood. When it comes to those dendrochronologically dated, that is.
- Apollorion
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl I agree with "The oldest living one would ca. 5000 years, "-"when it comes to those dendrochronologically dated, that is." <- That I agree with, but that does not mean you can ignore dendrochronology.
P.S. I cut that "LXX date" and "the Flood" out because I don't know what you mean by that.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Apollorion Masoretic and Ussher dates of the Flood make it less than 4500 years ago.
LXX dates make it c. 5000 years ago.
Do you get the connexion?
Oh, by the way, the thing with the Flood (of Noah) is, trees might have had a hard time of surviving it. That is why 5000 years old trees are big news if you think the Biblical date of the Flood was 4400 years ago, less so if you think it was 5000 years ago.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Apollorion Oh, one more, when it comes to freestanding dendro samples from "1400 BC" I do feel perfectly justified in ignoring that, since back then so much tree and wood samples are gone and so much of what remains is small, so matches are on pretty slim ground.
So, you can guess what I think of "dendrochronological dates" of 10 000 BC - even the carbon is worth more, I can at least translate that to a little before Babel (a little before Noah died 2607 BC).
No comments:
Post a Comment