Could somebody out there please help me figure out these creationist arguments that 'disprove' an old earth?

Question

The private school I attend funnels every scientific study and manipulates all forms of evidence to fit their very specific brand of fundamentalist Christianity. I can usually research things for myself to find out just how wrong my teachers actually are about stuff like this, but I had trouble finding answers to the following two points my "science" teacher gave to our class. I would really appreciate some help, fellow science geeks of the internet!

1) He claims that the Redwall limestone in the Grand Canyon is proof for Noah's flood because there are so many perfectly fossilized marine creature in the limestone. The only way for the really fragile creatures to stay in tact is with a catastrophic event.

2) He claims alll forms of half life chemical dating are incorrect because scientists do not take into account external factors (wind, rain, snow, etc) that could speed up the chemical decay. He also claims that at the university he attended a proffesorr carbon dated a recently killed squirrel and dated it at 14000 years.


Point number one I'm not really sure how to approach.

Point number two is easier. I think. When I pointed out to him that all types of chemical dating from all over the world all point to roughly the same age, he said,"They only point to the same age because scientists want them to." or something like that.


Also, could the squirrel thing be true?

Answer 1

For the grand canyon thing, you might be interested to find that I found a couple references saying there is coral in that layer. Coral takes a really long time to grow, so, that layer would have to represent say... a few hundred years or so. See youtube for "creationism dubunked" videos.



As for the carbon dating, chemical decay wouldn't affect much in the way of the ratio of carbon 14 to carbon 12. Changing carbon 14 to carbon 12 is a nuclear thing... loses neutrons. To suggest that, because some random professor epic failed at carbon dating, that the entire process is without merit doesn't do justice to the procedure. Who is the professor? What is his area of expertise? If he has a phd in religious studies, that doesn't exactly make him credible on carbon dating. Has this professor ever been published in a peer reviewed scientific journal while using carbon dating? Can the teacher even name the professor? Can you call the professor and ask about it?

Answer 2

He cited in point one that the only way for the really fragile creatures to stay intact is with a catastrophic event. This doesn't give any proof that the redwall limestone in the grand canyon were formed from the great flood during noah's time. Even before the great flood, there exists fossils of dinosaurs etched into the earth's limestones. To have a really perfect fossilized marine creature in the limestone, the process is not only affected by water but certain elements of nature like heat and air and the perfect fossilizing effect of the earth's crust.

Answer 3

1) Life forms entirely unlike anything alive today, yes. And, in some parts of the world you can find MANY layers of fossiliferous limestone, such as the Canadian Rockies where you will find alternating bands of limestones, sandstones, and shales. Further, limestones capture MARINE environments; how exactly is such an environment to be seriously disrupted in a preservation-conducive fashion by a flood?



2) Where such external effects do effect the dating, scientists actually DO take them into account. It's called 'calibration'. It is most significant in radiocarbon dating, and requires correlation with another dating method to establish a calibration scheme for a particular region. Identifying anomalies is also pretty easy. Scientists don't use radiocarbon dating for 'recently killed' things, by the way. The atomic tests of the 1950s put enough radiation into the biosphere so as to throw off the metrics. His story is dubious because most professors would consider it a waste of their time and research budgets (it is NOT cheap) to try to carbon date anything so recent.

Answer 4

First off...the date can be wrong if even one mistake is made in the process, which could mean that this guy made a mistake and stated that the squirrel was a lot older than it actually was...could have been inexperienced too.

For the first point...a world wide flood would not preserve fragile creatures so well...what would have preserved them is if the canyon dried out over time. A flood would have damaged any creatures in the area

Answer 5

To part one, I believe there is some law or even amendment that says school must be seperate from religion or state, something like that. So if he is actually TELLING you that it WAS here and gave you a quiz on it then that would be in violation of the amendment I stated above. I may be wrong though correct me if I am.



The second part, yes that would be more logical than some giant ark think landing in the grand canyon (PS I'm atheist, so Im sorry if I offend any religions). Carbon dating, I do not think can really be that wrong, but it's a possibility, human error occurs everywhere.



I hope I helped solve this question.

Answer 6

The Redwall limestone and other geological features are indeed evidence of a global flood as opposed to periodic deposition over eons of time in shallow lakes or local flooding events as suggested by secular science.Here;s a couple links with articles on them...



"Evidence 3 Rapidly deposited sediment layers spread across vast areas



"We find rock layers that can be traced all the way across continents—even between continents—and physical features in those strata indicate they were deposited rapidly. For example, the Tapeats Sandstone and Redwall Limestone of Grand Canyon can be traced across the entire United States, up into Canada, and even across the Atlantic Ocean to England. The chalk beds of England (the white cliffs of Dover) can be traced across Europe into the Middle East and are also found in the Midwest of the United States and in Western Australia. Inclined (sloping) layers within the Coconino Sandstone of Grand Canyon are testimony to 10,000 cubic miles of sand being deposited by huge water currents within days."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/worldwide-flood-evidence



http://www.icr.org/article/were-grand-canyon-limestones-deposited-by-calm-pla/



Carbon 14 dating methods along with radiometric dating of older timescales also have numerous flaws in them and are based on assumptions of equilibrium being met, constant solar influx, the amount of carbon in the biosphere, etc... C14 has a fairly short half-life of around 5730 years and should not be found in measureable amounts in items that are older than 60-80,000 years old....yet we do find evidences of C14 in such things as diamonds, coal, carbonate rocks, natural gas wells, etc... which are conventionally dated to be millions of years old. A number of assumptions goes into dating methods and those could be wrong....indeed they are based on the evidences.



Preserved tissues and DNA have also been found in fossils which shows that they cannot be millions of years old based on known rates of dergadation of those preserved items.

http://www.icr.org/fresh-fossils/



And there is a plausible means for rapid nuclear decay which could have occurred during the Flood event via piezoeletric effects of rocks grinding against each other and something called Z-pinch fusion and plasma effects. The rocks of earth appear to be much older than they because of this rapid decay process.



For further explanation of the process, read Dr Walt Brown's book on his Hydroplate Theory of the Flood event with many other scientific evidences for it. He also discusses the problems with C14 and radiometric dating methods..

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/index.html



"SUMMARY: Powerful electrical activity within earth’s crust produced earth’s radioactivity. As the flood began, stresses in the massive fluttering crust generated huge voltages via the piezoelectric effect. For weeks, this resulted in discharges of electrons within the crust and subterranean water, much like bolts of lightning. These electrical surges squeezed atomic nuclei together temporarily into very unstable, superheavy elements which quickly fissioned and decayed into subatomic particles and new radioisotopes. Each step in this process is demonstrable on a small scale. Calculations and other evidence show that these events happened on a global scale.4"

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Radioactivity2.html

Also read the previous page on plasma.



A short video explanation by Dr Brown of the Flood event....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zkrJG4XUeo





A longer explanation by Pastor Kevin Lea...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2uu8_RB_0s&feature=related

Answer 7

"For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible."

Stuart Chase