It's kind of important, because this has major implications for the plausibility of a global flood. There are geological features all over the world that couldn't have been in a major flood (i.e. one so deep that it covers every continent on the planet) since they were initially deposited or formed.
Water or ice? I'll agree with you about the ice - glaciers can move huge amounts of rock - there are places all over the world where you can see drumlins and other glacier-produced geological features.
We know that ice covered huge parts of the planet during the last Ice Age. You're arguing for something else.
This explanation suggests to me that you don't know enough about geology to be as certain as you are.
I was not trying to come off as knowing everything, was just trying to spark debate, so we can learn from each other.
As for the ice age, it could very well account for the global flood.
If the world was covered in ice, and it all melted, the world would be covered in water until it drained off and precipitated, right?
I surely am not qualified to override what science says and am not trying to, but I also am aware that all kinds of scientists give conflicting theories and they usually settle on the most plausible according to what the evidence suggests.
I am not a YEC, but it's obvious that scientists use everything from strata layers, fossil records, the big bang model and other things, to date the earth.
Now that they realize that the universe is expanding faster, they adjusted everything to fit.
Even with Carbon Dating, its very very inaccurate according to articles like this
Carbon Dating Undercuts Evolution's Long Ages
One must really question how the heck we can actually date stuff to be billions of years old, in reality we cant, its just that one part of testing relies on another, and another, and conclusions are made, and from that, everything else is tested and assumed to follow the same carbon patterns.
Here is what wiki says:
4.54 ± 0.05 billion years
Age of the Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sure they may be exactly right, but a whole lot of assuming is going on, because it is all we have to go on.
Its not that I disagree, because I cant actually do that honestly and intelligently, but never the less, I assume many years from now, that number will change as they learn and discover new methods of dating.
taken from the icr.org link
Its all white noise to me, but never the less its suggesting that dating methods are severally flawed
A key technical advance, which occurred about 25 years ago, involved the ability to measure the ratio of 14C atoms to 12C atoms with extreme precision in very small samples of carbon, using an ion beam accelerator and a mass spectrometer. Prior to the advent of this accelerator mass spectrometer (AMS) method, the 14C/12C ratio was measured by counting the number of 14C decays. This earlier method was subject to considerable "noise" from cosmic rays.
The AMS method improved the sensitivity of the raw measurement of the 14C/12C ratio from approximately 1% of the modern value to about 0.001%, extending the theoretical range of sensitivity from about 40,000 years to about 90,000 years. The expectation was that this improvement in precision would make it possible to use this technique to date dramatically older fossil material.1 The big surprise, however, was that no fossil material could be found anywhere that had as little as 0.001% of the modern value!2 Since most of the scientists involved assumed the standard geological time scale was correct, the obvious explanation for the 14C they were detecting in their samples was contamination from some source of modern carbon with its high level of 14C. Therefore they mounted a major campaign to discover and eliminate the sources of such contamination. Although they identified and corrected a few relatively minor sources of 14C contamination, there still remained a significant level of 14Ctypically about 100 times the ultimate sensitivity of the instrumentin samples that should have been utterly "14C-dead," including many from the deeper levels of the fossil-bearing part of the geological record.2
Let us consider what the AMS measurements imply from a quantitative standpoint. The ratio of 14C atoms to 12C atoms decreases by a factor of 2 every 5730 years. After 20 half-lives or 114,700 years (assuming hypothetically that earth history goes back that far), the 14C/12C ratio is decreased by a factor of 220, or about 1,000,000. After 1.5 million years, the ratio is diminished by a factor of 21500000/5730, or about 1079. This means that if one started with an amount of pure 14C equal to the mass of the entire observable universe, after 1.5 million years there should not be a single atom of 14C remaining! Routinely finding 14C/12C ratios on the order of 0.1-0.5% of the modern valuea hundred times or more above the AMS detection thresholdin samples supposedly tens to hundreds of millions of years old is therefore a huge anomaly for the uniformitarian framework.
This earnest effort to understand this "contamination problem" therefore generated scores of peer-reviewed papers in the standard radiocarbon literature during the last 20 years.2 Most of these papers acknowledge that most of the 14C in the samples studied appear to be intrinsic to the samples themselves, and they usually offer no explanation for its origin. The reality of significant levels of 14C in a wide variety of fossil sources from throughout the geological record has thus been established in the secular scientific literature by scientists who assume the standard geological time scale is valid and have no special desire for this result!
BTW, I just like a good discussion, am no where near being a YEC.
:yes:
