How can young earth creationism stand up to ice core data?

a reply to: TheChrome

We are not talking about a hurricane or tropical storm here, since that amount of rainfall is not sufficient to create a mud flow capable of plugging up such huge gaps. Also many animals were washed in and fossilized such as saber tooth tigers, mastodons, etc.

Oo..k?

And you don't think there's any other logical explanation for this other then "the flood"

Granted, there have always been floods, history records plenty of them... but theres nothing that suggests a world wide flood ever happened... except for the so called science used by said aforementioned... ass hat

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TheChrome

I don't think anyone said that floods don't happen.
The problem is, there is no evidence that a global flood occurred. The world was never covered with water.

How can you, or science be so certain? Would a sudden coverage of fresh water necessarily create a silt layer that could be tracked or ascertained by science? What would such massive amounts of water do? Create new mountain ranges, due to the immense pressure upon the earths crust? Probably. Create new canyons when the water receded? Probably. I don't think science has a handle of the massive ramifications of such an event, and thus cannot begin to put together the building blocks or puzzle pieces.

Genesis 1:7 "So God separated the water under the expanse from the water above it."

Since the bible indicates there was a "water above the expanse", or in essence a separate water layer of the atmosphere, could science prove that layer existed in the past but not today? The same layer of atmosphere that made the earth more temperate? Can they prove that God did not cause that layer to burst and cause the global flood?

a reply to: TheChrome

Since the bible indicates there was a "water above the expanse", or in essence a separate water layer of the atmosphere, could science prove that layer existed in the past but not today?

No. Science could not prove that layer existed because it is a physical impossibility.

The Bible is a wonderful collection of allegorical morality tales, not a history, not a science text. There is no (non, nada, zip) evidence of a global flood. Ever, much less in the timeline of the Bible. There is, however, plenty of evidence of massive localized floods at various times.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TheChrome

Since the bible indicates there was a "water above the expanse", or in essence a separate water layer of the atmosphere, could science prove that layer existed in the past but not today?

No. Science could not prove that layer existed because it is a physical impossibility.

The Bible is a wonderful collection of allegorical morality tales, not a history, not a science text. There is no (non, nada, zip) evidence of a global flood. Ever, much less in the timeline of the Bible. There is, however, plenty of evidence of massive localized floods at various times.

The bible has accurately depicted history, and it has predicted the future before it happened. The scientific things contained within it, were before it's time. It has proven to be reliable with all things, thus I must disagree with your assumptions.

a reply to: TheChrome

The bible has accurately depicted history, and it has predicted the future before it happened. It has proven to be reliable with all things, thus I must disagree with your assumptions.

I disagree on all points, except for your disagreement. I'm sure that you do disagree.

a reply to: TheChrome

Except for the fact that all animals who perished within inner space cavern did so over 1000's of years, not at one time and it was filled in around 14,000 BP and it's not even evident that the sealing of the entrances was done all at once. Sure... Evidence is there is you look hard enough and exclude most of the data.

originally posted by: TheChrome

Genesis 1:7 "So God separated the water under the expanse from the water above it."

Since the bible indicates there was a "water above the expanse", or in essence a separate water layer of the atmosphere, could science prove that layer existed in the past but not today? The same layer of atmosphere that made the earth more temperate? Can they prove that God did not cause that layer to burst and cause the global flood?

But the bible certainly does NOT indicate a separate water layer of the atmosphere. The bible does state that god created the 'expanse' or 'vault of the sky' and separated the water below it from the water above it. But then it goes on to state in Genesis 1:14+ that he created the sun and moon and stars and places them IN the expanse. Since the expanse separates the waters below from the waters above, this would place this second layer of water ABOVE the moon and sun and stars, far far beyond our atmosphere.

a reply to: TheChrome

It's called the end of the last glacial period. Geologists can find direct evidence in layers from when flooding has occurred. From this data they have documented numerous floods all around the world at different times... but NOT all at once and certainly not a flood of the entire planet. There is also the high possibility of impact events causing flooding as well around that time. If Geologists can find evidence of flooding in sedimentary layers, then surely they'd be able to find evidence of this flooding event anywhere they dug on earth and it would date back to the same time. The problem is this is definitely not the case. Something like that would be obvious and noticeable.

a reply to: TheChrome

Local floods, sure....global flood as in the Bible: no way.
That quote you provided does in no way support a global flood.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: TheChrome

Except for the fact that all animals who perished within inner space cavern did so over 1000's of years, not at one time and it was filled in around 14,000 BP and it's not even evident that the sealing of the entrances was done all at once. Sure... Evidence is there is you look hard enough and exclude most of the data.

There are many fossils in the cave not related to the mud flows, true. I am talking about those within the mud flows, that were washed in at once. So your argument is not sound.

originally posted by: TheChrome

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: TheChrome

Except for the fact that all animals who perished within inner space cavern did so over 1000's of years, not at one time and it was filled in around 14,000 BP and it's not even evident that the sealing of the entrances was done all at once. Sure... Evidence is there is you look hard enough and exclude most of the data.

There are many fossils in the cave not related to the mud flows, true. I am talking about those within the mud flows, that were washed in at once. So your argument is not sound.

And again... you prove your point to yourself by citing one piece of data and ignoring everything else, including the context of what you seem to think proves your argument.

Let's revisit your quote from the PDF on the geology of the formation...

Geologists suspect in the past, when some of the collapsed areas in the cave were open to the surface, that high rainfall washed in sediment and moved through the caverns rapidly and abraded the cave walls and ceiling in addition to dissolving them. The extensive deposits of red clay in the cavern are derived from terra rossa soils that were washed in from the surface. These red - brown soils characteristic of karst areas are found as relict soils over the Edwards Plateau. Terra rossa soils have been mapped in the Central Texas area by Dr. Keith Young

Nowhere does this quote refer to a singular flooding event. Please show me where in the above, this connotation exists. The above quoted portion is supposed to by supporting statements like the following, but if I am wrong, please let me know.

It's in the PDF. Look at my above quote. The cave had "three" natural entrances at one point in time. At some point, massive rainfall washed huge amounts of mud into the cave and plugged up all entrances. We are not talking about a hurricane or tropical storm here, since that amount of rainfall is not sufficient to create a mud flow capable of plugging up such huge gaps. Also many animals were washed in and fossilized such as saber tooth tigers, mastodons, etc.

Let's now look at your data, which is contradicted by the PDF that you cite.

First, you make the assumption that the 5 previous openings to the cave were all miraculously filled simultaneously yet the second paragraph in the accompanying PDF gives 3 very different dates for 3 of the openings, implying that there is at least one other date associated with the other two openings but no data is available.

Conclusion, there are a minimum of 4 dates for the 5 openings to have been filled by flood residue. Radiocarbon dates show that three of the entrances were open 23,000; 15,000; and 13,000 years before present.

Another claim you made is that all the remains were from the exact same flood event. Here we will take a look at openings Laubach 1, Laubach 2, Laubach 3, Laubach 4 and Laubach 5 . Let's see what the geologists have to say here...

Laubach 1 is located in the southern part of the cave system at the edge of Bone Sink 1. Bones were collected from several places around the edge of this debris cone (Figure 1). In some places they were concentrated (Figure 5). It is presumed that the bones from the various places around the debris cone are the same age. They were reported by Slaughter (1966).
Laubach 2, located on the northeast edge of Bone Sink 2 (Figure 1), is the only site known to have had an opening to the surface during historic time as evidenced by the presence of some modern garbage along its edge when the cave was first entered by investigators. The entrance shaft is currently plugged by sediment and contains the partial skeleton of a mammoth. Below is a characteristic debris cone with some bone on the surface. These bones are covered by a thin layer of travertine. At the base of the cone is a basin in which one small excavation. Skulls of the extinct peccary (Platygonus compressus) in place at Laubach 1 was carried out. The material from the surface of the debris cone, the excavation in the basin, and the mammoth lodged in the shaft of the original opening may not be same age.
Laubach 3 is located at the southwest edge of Bone Sink 3 (Figure 1). This is at the base of a debris cone of large limestone boulders that have been heavily cemented by travertine. The fossiliferous sediments are not cemented but seem to be closely related to the part of the debris cone that underlay the cemented boulder layer. The sediments are darker colored than those from the other fossiliferous deposits in the cave, and the bone is stained a dark brown. This is in contrast to the light cream color of bones from the other localities in the cave.
Laubach 4 is located on the north flank of the same debris cone as Laubach 2 (Bone Sink 2). A small trench excavated at the base of the debris cone produced some evidence of aboriginal human activity in the form of a few flint flakes but no recognizable artifacts. These are cataloged in the collections of the Texas Archaeological Research Laboratory under the number 41WM 231. Remains of a number of small animals were also recovered (Table 1).
Laubach 5 is located on the southeast flank of a debris cone approximately 220 feet (67.6 meters) north-northwest of Bone Sink 1. The fauna is similar to that from Laubach 1 and 2.

What's that they said? Oh...

At the base of the cone is a basin in which one small excavation. Skulls of the extinct peccary (Platygonus compressus) in place at Laubach 1 was carried out. The material from the surface of the debris cone, the excavation in the basin, and the mammoth lodged in the shaft of the original opening may not be same age.

3 different spots of one prior opening to the surface may NOT be the same age? That's interesting isn't it? What did they say about the bones in Laumbach 3? Well, they said they was that they were a dark color compared to the light cream colored bones in the other locales. What ever could that mean? It means the dark colored ones were still fossilizing and the cream colored ones had not started yet. i.e. were deposited much more recently. Add in the different dates of when the openings were closed and let's not forget the ages of the Fauna found within the openings right?

The fauna that were tested in Laubach 3 for example came in at ~ 23,230 +/- 490 years where Laubach2 is 13,970 +/-319 years. Laubach 1 was ~ 15, 850 +/- 500 years. In addition to the disparate dates, there is an inconsistency with the fauna in the 5 locations which demonstrates changes in the local ecology and the niches it provided to its resident life forms.

The conclusion here is that you read the bare minimum to make your biblical literalism hat spin and twirl in place and as I said earlier, ignored everything else Because hey... everything else altered the context of your quote mining(whether purposeful or inadvertently is irrelevant as the end result is the same) or explicitly states data in complete contravention to your thesis. I'm sorry but there is absolutely zero evidence of simultaneous, world wide, flood events ever having taken place and this is a terrible example to use unless you're trolling and know it's BS

originally posted by: TheChrome

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TheChrome

Since the bible indicates there was a "water above the expanse", or in essence a separate water layer of the atmosphere, could science prove that layer existed in the past but not today?

No. Science could not prove that layer existed because it is a physical impossibility.

The Bible is a wonderful collection of allegorical morality tales, not a history, not a science text. There is no (non, nada, zip) evidence of a global flood. Ever, much less in the timeline of the Bible. There is, however, plenty of evidence of massive localized floods at various times.

The bible has accurately depicted history, and it has predicted the future before it happened. The scientific things contained within it, were before it's time. It has proven to be reliable with all things, thus I must disagree with your assumptions.

No, the bible has not depicted history accurately. It gives you a flavour of what happened in one area, after being manipulated by umpteen priests and kings. Solomon's kingdom is depicted as being far larger than the evidence proves, the Canaanite conquest is deeply dodgy, the Hittites (one of the major powers in the region) are barely mentioned, the Egyptian presence seems to be downplayed in areas, a female consort to Jehovah has been poorly hidden and the Macedonian conquest of the area is also fudged in areas. Here's a handy link that shows a few things.

As for the science angle - no. The bible is not scientifically accurate in any way shape or form. It states that pi = 3 for a start.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: TheChrome

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TheChrome

Since the bible indicates there was a "water above the expanse", or in essence a separate water layer of the atmosphere, could science prove that layer existed in the past but not today?

No. Science could not prove that layer existed because it is a physical impossibility.

The Bible is a wonderful collection of allegorical morality tales, not a history, not a science text. There is no (non, nada, zip) evidence of a global flood. Ever, much less in the timeline of the Bible. There is, however, plenty of evidence of massive localized floods at various times.

The bible has accurately depicted history, and it has predicted the future before it happened. The scientific things contained within it, were before it's time. It has proven to be reliable with all things, thus I must disagree with your assumptions.

No, the bible has not depicted history accurately. It gives you a flavour of what happened in one area, after being manipulated by umpteen priests and kings. Solomon's kingdom is depicted as being far larger than the evidence proves, the Canaanite conquest is deeply dodgy, the Hittites (one of the major powers in the region) are barely mentioned, the Egyptian presence seems to be downplayed in areas, a female consort to Jehovah has been poorly hidden and the Macedonian conquest of the area is also fudged in areas. Here's a handy link that shows a few things.

As for the science angle - no. The bible is not scientifically accurate in any way shape or form. It states that pi = 3 for a start.

Okay, I read that link and there are some obvious deficiencies in the arguments. First of all, most everything revolves around Christian and Jewish tradition. Tradition is not fact.

What does this have to do with the history of the bible:?

All of which left the "first man" and his putative descendants in the awkward position of being stripped of all historical context until Charles Darwin naturalized the Garden of Eden with the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859.

If we want to talk evolution nonsense, then we should take it from Darwin himself:

the distinctness of specific forms and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty.-Origin of the Species, 1902 edition, part 2, pg. 54

The Bible identifies Nebuchadnezzar as being the king of Babylon about the time of Jerusalem’s destruction. Archaeological evidence supports the Bible’s testimony about his existence. A cameo made of onyx stone is on display in Florence, Italy. It bears an inscription that says in part: “In honour of Merodach, his lord, Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, in his life-time had this made.” Nebuchadnezzar ruled from 624 to 582 B.C.E.

Much of the biographical information collected by historians about Nebuchadnezzar is taken from inscriptions on buildings that were erected during the rebuilding of Babylon

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: peter vlar

My response to you is, you are thinking Micro, rather than Macro. If you think me giving one example (micro) proves the (macro) you are not at all seeing the big picture. You have to see the big picture, and that is something that you will just have to gather over time.

a reply to: TheChrome

There's more guano in that reply than there is on the floor of Inner Space Caverns. I'm seeing the "big picture" just fine. It's you who is wandering the cave with blinders on and again, ignoring every single piece of evidence demonstrated here.

How exactly does a singular worldwide flood event give the geologic results demonstrated in this particular site? There are possibly 3 separate dates attributed to just one of the openings. Each opening can be dated to a completely different time period with gaps of thousands of years up to 10 KA. There were such vast periods of time separating these incidents in a geologic time scale that the outside environment had changed enough that different types of fauna were located proving that the above ground ecological niches were considerably different.

My example was to show that you aren't even understanding the context of the "evidence" you believe supports your views. If you can't grasp the context of the example you chose to cite, how can you expect people to think you're grasping the minutiae of everything else? You clearly can't because you insist that ONE event closed off these 5 entrances by completely ignoring every piece of information that was presented by the geologists. Are you being willfully ignorant or intellectually dishonest when you continue to make these claims? Are you willing to admit you just might be in error or do you have a workaround that will explain the geological data and rationalize a way for it to still equate with a singular flood event?

Is there any reason in particular that you chose to ignore the refutations I posted and instead opted for telling me I can't see the big picture? Anytime you want to discuss the data instead of playing games with semantics, please feel free to do so because I'm quite interested in how you will attempt to reconcile a 10,000 year gap between the sealing off of Laubach 2 and Laubach 3 or why there are a minimum of 4 separate dates for the 5 openings being sealed by flood water and sediment.

originally posted by: TheChrome
How can you, or science be so certain? Would a sudden coverage of fresh water necessarily create a silt layer that could be tracked or ascertained by science?

yes it would. every other flood has done so. Is god's flood so magical that he made sure to leave no trace of it in the geologic record?

What would such massive amounts of water do? Create new mountain ranges, due to the immense pressure upon the earths crust? Probably.

Please describe the geology behind this process.

Create new canyons when the water receded? Probably.

There are an awful lost of "probablies" here for someone so sure of themselves. Could you again, describe the geologic process behind these events, how exactly these mountains were formed, canyons carved and what time frame this all took place and perhaps some actual corresponding geological formations the support this line of thinking?

I don't think science has a handle of the massive ramifications of such an event, and thus cannot begin to put together the building blocks or puzzle pieces.

I'm inclined to strongly disagree. Geologists in fact DO have a pretty firm grasp on how all of this works, how mountain ranges are formed, how deposition layers are deposited and what precise information can be extracted from the types and sizes of flows uncovered, how to date all of it to within a reasonable margin of error with much higher degree of certainty than "probably". True story.

Genesis 1:7 "So God separated the water under the expanse from the water above it."

Since the bible indicates there was a "water above the expanse", or in essence a separate water layer of the atmosphere, could science prove that layer existed in the past but not today? The same layer of atmosphere that made the earth more temperate? Can they prove that God did not cause that layer to burst and cause the global flood?

Let's look at it this way... it's quite easy to prove that this water canopy did not and could not have existed. If there was supposedly life during this period of time, then there was no water canopy. Just 12" of water in an even, consistent layer across the entire planet would have increased the surface pressure so much that the surface temperature and pressure would have been hot enough to boil water. Not one single surface dwelling organism on earth that lives today, could have been alive beneath a water or vapor canopy. And anything that had been adapted to survive under those conditions would have immediately perished once the water was released from the sky. The worldwide environmental havoc this would have played is simply beyond comprehension. This is not a situation that would have corrected itself in a matter of hours, days, month or even years. The time scale in question is completely unrealistic, it's inconceivable and not even remotely possible for such an event to have transpired.

But it's "science" who doesn't have a handle on the massive ramifications of things? Who can't begin to put together the building blocks or puzzle pieces? Interesting...

a reply to: TheChrome



Your argument has devolved so much from the original. Each time you get proven wrong you just pretend it didn't happen and try to backtrack out of it and change the subject or make some irrelevant statement about the other person being wrong without addressing a single counterpoint or any of the cited evidence. Doesn't it get old, parroting a world view and forcing evidence to fit where it does not in a attempt to convince others of your faith?

Peter clearly and concisely showed that your argument was faulty and that you were misunderstanding the evidence. Do you have anything to counter it aside from changing the subject?

AngryCymraeg, Barcs, peter vlar:

I appreciate your demand for proof. I am in no way trying to change the subject. You have to understand from my standpoint, I have to provide proof to science based individuals, religious individuals, and historians. Do I believe all science is objective and correct? No! Do I believe all representations of the bible are correct? No! Do I believe all history has correct assessments of dates? No!

What I have to do, is look at what agrees with science, history, and the bible. I don't have enough hours in the day to filter through all my research, and write a huge dissertation about every comment. Most don't read long posts anyway.

So I promise I will get back with you when I have more time...

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: TheChrome

Are you being willfully ignorant or intellectually dishonest when you continue to make these claims? Are you willing to admit you just might be in error or do you have a workaround that will explain the geological data and rationalize a way for it to still equate with a singular flood event?

I'm quite interested in how you will attempt to reconcile a 10,000 year gap between the sealing off of Laubach 2 and Laubach 3 or why there are a minimum of 4 separate dates for the 5 openings being sealed by flood water and sediment.

I'm not going to get in a big argument with you but here is something to consider. In the conclusion of the paper:

The faunas from three localities have radiocarbon dates of 23,230;15,850;and 13,970 years before present. The faunas are not exactly the same and may indicate changes in the regional fauna during the late Pleistocene. The faunal assemblages indicate more mesic conditions during the last glacial maximum, and the presence of now allopatric species indicate a more equitable climate at that time.

So you are correct by indicating the differences in dates as being +-10,000 years.

What is said in previous statements?

Age of the faunas: However, subsequent studies (Surovell, 2000) have found that the indigenous carbonate in bone apatite will exchange at the molecular level and that bone apatite dates may still be compromised by unknown amounts of molecular-level, secondary carbonate contamination of the hydroxyapatite crystal. In limestone terrains, the common error will be dates being too old, but this is not always the case and there currently exist no criteria to determine the direction or the magnitude of the error.

So while a decisive conclusion is made regarding dates, previously they admitted a margin of error for their dating methods. So who is being intellectually dishonest?

I am not taking a decisive conclusion that this cave is absolutely related to "The Flood" event, but it is worthy of note. An interesting thing is that there were apparently humans co-dwelling with the animals in some of the deposits:

Laubach 4 is located on the north flank of the same debris cone as Laubach 2 (Bone Sink 2). A small trench excavated at the base of the debris cone produced some evidence of aboriginal human activity in the form of a few flint flakes but no recognizable artifacts. These are cataloged in the collections of the Texas Archaeological Research Laboratory under the number 41WM 231.

a reply to: TheChrome

I am not taking a decisive conclusion that this cave is absolutely related to "The Flood" event, but it is worthy of note.

Seriously? You did not bring it up in the context of a global flood?
Otherwise, how is it worthy of note, considering your position?