>-----Original Message-----
>From: Guy Blanchet [mailto:guyblanchet@sympatico.ca]
>Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2002 3:15 AM
>Mr. Morton,
>
>Yes I agree that OECs are makers of fine scientific theories.
I am delighted that you recognize this. And the converse seems to be true
also, YECs aren't great theory builders.
>But, in striving
>to be scientific right down to the tips of their toes they tend to
>forget that
>the ultimate goal of proving that the earth is zillions of years
>old instead of
>only tens of thousands will never be achieved. One very important step in
>science which is verification will always be out of reach. So how
>scientific
>are they really?
I would beg to differ with you. Verification is exactly what has happened
when it comes to the age of the earth and universe. First, we can observe
present rates of erosion and extrapolate back to account for the thickness
of the sediments and we always come up with millions of years. see
http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/erosion.htm for arguments using
this approach.
Now how would we verify that the sediments were deposited that slowly? Why
footprints and burrows on layer after layer up the column are indications
that there was much time during the deposition of the sediment. It takes
time for an animal to dig a burrow or take a stroll. We find duck nibbling
traces (eating traces) in the sediments of the earth. We find lizard and
insect tracks converge in the Rotliegendes of Europe with only the lizard
tracks continuing on after the convergence? (was that dinner or did the
insect fly off?) WE find in the middle of the geologic column dinosaur
tracks which crush both plants and oysters in the shallow waters they were
walking in. All of this is a VERIFICATION of the prediction of the
calculations in erosion.htm. If the sediment were deposited at 100 feet per
day, as is required by a global flood, there should be NO footprints and
burrows in the higher layers as all the animals would have DIED in the lower
layers. The grass wouldn't have had time to grow for the dinosaur to have
smashed it. Thus the observation of burrows and footprints throughout the
geologic column show that the young-earth global flood view is falsified.
Next we get verification from the existence of salt beds. Salt is highly
soluble in water. If all the sedimentary column were exposed to water
during a one year flood, then all the salt should have been dissolved. And
if that had happened the salinity of the ocean would only be 30% greater
than today.
ěThe data presented above support the contention that the concentration of
many of the major constituents of seawater could have varied only modestly
during the Phanerozoic Eon. This conservatism extends to the concentration
of Na+ and Cl- as well. Zharkov (1981) has compiled the available data for
the quantity of sulfate and halite rocks in Paleozoic strata, and has
proposed that the volume of 'salt rocks' in Paleozoic evaporite basins is
2.944 X 106 km3. If all of these rocks consist of pure halite, Paleozoic
evaporite basins contain 6.4 x 1021 gm NaCl. This corresponds to
approximately 15% of the NaCl content of the present-day oceans. Holser
(personal communications, 1981) has estimated that the entire inventory of
halite in sedimentary rocks of all ages amounts to ca. 30% of the NaCl
content of the oceans. There is no disagreement between the two estimates."
~ Heinrich D. Holland, The Chemical Evolution of the Atmosphere and Oceans,
(Princeton Univ. Press, 1984, p. 461
THus YECs can't use the influx of salt to claim that the oceans would be far
saltier if the earth were billions of years old. Why? Because the maximum
salinity is only 30% higher. And we know that salt is removed from the ocean
via evaporation.
We know or can VERIFY that the salt was deposited slowly by comparing the
amount of meteorite dust in salt and comparing it with the present rate of
meteorite dust influx. If the salt were deposited rapidly, we should find
almost NO meteorite dust. Yet what we find verifies the slow rate of
deposition of the salt.
"The sedimentation rate of the A-1 Evaporite of Michigan was
determined by analysis of micrometeorites found as inclusions in
the halite deposit. The samples were obtained from the Dow
Chemical Company salt well number eight. The residue from the
dissolved salt was magnetically separated and later analyzed by
Particle Induces X-ray Emission (PIXE), x-ray diffraction, and
microprobe techniques. The amount of extraterrestrial material
was determined from the quantity of nickel present.
"A sedimentation rate of .01 to .4 centimeters per year was
calculated for the salt based on a constant influx rate of
meteoritic material of 1 x 10^4 tons per year. This
sedimentation rate is much slower than previously reported
sedimentation rates for salt. This relatively slow sedimentation
rate and the close association of hydrocarbons with salt suggests
that the original hydrocarbon content of petroleum-producing
evaporite basins may be much greater than previously believed."
~ James Matthew Barnett, Sedimentation Rate of Salt Determined by
Micrometeorite Analysis, M. S. Thesis, Western Michigan
University, 1983, p. i.
Now, the fact that we find meteorite dust in the salts proves that they were
deposited slowly and falsifies the young-earth scenario.
And of course, we have verification of the age of the earth via radioactive
dating, the travel time of light in the universe. Supernova SN1987a proves
that the universe is at least 170,000 years old and it proves that the speed
of light hasn't changed and that the rates of radioactive decay hasn't
changed. Go see. http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/age.htm
And while you are there, take a look at the core from an oil will in
Colorado which recovered about 3 feet of sediment with layer after layer of
roots, each having grown in the middle of the flood. I show 3 inches of the
core and it has abut 10 layers of preserved roots. Ten years of growth
deposited 3 inches of sediment which now lies 7000 feet down. Slow
deposition is verified, and thus an old earth is verified. THe YEC paradigm
is falsified.
And before you claim that radioactive dating isn't verified, compare the fit
of varves (yearly deposits in lakes) with the corresponding C14 dates
obtained by dating the varves. This verifies that radioactive dating works.
I would also point you to Lake Suigetsu.
http://www.abcnews.com/sections/science/DailyNews/carbon0220.html
The scientific article says:
"Here we present a high-resolution atmospheric radiocarbon calibration
from annually laminated sediments for the total range of the radiocarbon
dating
method [<45,000 cal yr B. P.] The sediments were taken from Lake Suigetsu
(35o
35'N, 135o53'E) near the coast of the Sea of Japan. The lake is 10 km
around
the perimeter and covers an area of 4.3 km2. It is a typical kettle-type
lake
with a nearly constant depth at the center, ~34 m deep. A 75-m-long
continuous
core and four short piston cores were taken from the center of the lake in
1991
and 1993. The sediments are laminated in nearly the entire core sections
and
are dominated by darkcolored clay with white layers resulting from
spring-seaso
diatom growth. The seasonal changes in the depositions are preserved int he
clay as thin laminations or varves. The sedimentation or annual varve
thicknes
is relatively uniform, typically 1.2 mm/year during the Holocene and 0.61
mm/yeard during the Glacial. The bottom age of the SG core is estimated to
be
older than 100,000 years, close to the beginning of the last interglacial
"Our high-resolution calibration curve is consistent with other proxies
until
31,000 cal yr B. P. Beyond 31,000 cal yr B. P. much work is still needed to
obtain a better understanding of hte atmosphereic [del]14C signal. Here our
calibraiton deviates from paleomagnetic U/TH and 14C dating of speleothems.
These data suggest that 14C dates at this time are ~5000 years too young.
This
discrpancy can be caused either by speleothem datin problems (such as
unknown
initial 14C age and possible detrital TH contamination) or missing varves in
the
older section of Lake Suigetsu. New 10Be data from the Arctic GRIP and
GISP2
cores show the large spike at ~41,000 cal yr BP, which is inconsistent with
both
our [del]14C maximum and the antarctic 10Be record. This finding would
indicate
either a problem in one of the chronologies, or that the 10Be and 14C peaks
do
not have the same cause."~H. Kitagawa and J. van der Plicht, "Atmospheric
Radiocarbon Calibration to 45,000 yr B. P.: Late Glacial Fluctuations and
Cosmogenic Isotope Production," Science 279(1998):1187-1190, p. 1189
So radioactive dating can be compared with varves for 45,000 years back
showing that at least over that interval C14 is ok. That is significantly
older than 7000.
No, Guy, all roads lead to the conclusion of a young-earth. Everything
verifies everything else. The only reason one would deny these
verifications by various methods is for theological reasons. What you are
seeking is some way to think the world is different than it really is.
Or do you think all these observational items point the same direction by
mere chance or coincidence? If so, then I would suggest that you might be
one of those mathematically challenged individuals who beleives that buying
a lottery ticket is a good investment. (Don't get me wrong, I buy an
occasional ticket, but I know it is the worst investment one can make).
>
>May I suggest in closing Mr. Morton that outbursts such as the one you just
>displayed should ideally not occur on the ASA post.
Hey, I was just admiring your logic and using it in a analogical fashion and
applying it to other areas. I actually liked the idea that it proved that I
am an expert in everything except geophysics (my profession). If that is
the case, then all y'all (plural of y'all) out there should listen to me. I
have told all y'all this many times. :-)
Seriously, Guy, logic is fair game in both theology and science. It is
perfectly valid to show by analogy what is false in a person's line of
reasoning. If you don't want the logical flaws pointed out, then don't use
faulty logic!
glenn
see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm
for lots of creation/evolution information
anthropology/geology/paleontology/theology\
personal stories of struggle
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Apr 27 2002 - 11:10:58 EDT