Scotracer wrote:
If the Flood Model is at least partially correct their should be uniform folding throughout the entire strata height.
Yes, the FM would predict that generally we would see folding that would affect the entire sequence at any particular location on Earth. Same goes for erosion, faults, etc.
Now, would you agree that in standard geology that we should see roughly a uniform distribution of these in stratas? Folding, erosion, faulting should stop at one strata, and above that, it would not be affected.[/quote]
I fail to see why geology suggests only
one strata be folded. Plate tectonics and general uplift will cause large-scale folding to occur (over 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 or 1,000 strata).
Also, Folding is a term used to describe changes in geology
after strata have formed. If the Flood model is as you say it is, that would require events after the strata formed to cause the folds.
otseng wrote:
Joey is talking about strata just about everywhere in the world that is dated millions of years apart from the others (one easy example of this is the Grand Canyon). How could this be with the Flood Model?
The dating relies primarily on radioisotope dating. But, there are quite a number of assumptions that needs to hold true in order for it to be valid.
When we date rocks at Mt St Helens, we know exactly how old the rocks are (~ 30 yrs old), since we've witnessed the event. Yet, radioisotope dating puts the rocks on the order of
hundreds of thousands of years old. So, if radioisotope dating gives a false value for something that we
know the age for, how can we rely on it for something we do not know the age for?
As Joey eluded to, there are numerous methods for dating and when dating is taken place, more than one method is used to give an aggregate date.
Also, where are the sources for that link you provided? I read it and it claims many things but doesn't give any external sources. It states that the origin of the samples are unknown - only citing "Mt St Helens" - but continues to draw conclusions from them.
I just googled "Mt St Helens radiometric dating" to try and find some sources on it and was greeted with
this.
This article states (and I quote):
"Considering that the half-life of potassium-40 (40K) is fairly long (1,250 million years, McDougall and Harrison, 1999, p. 9), the K-Ar method cannot be used to date samples that are much younger than 6,000 years old (Dalrymple, 1991, p. 93). A few thousand years are not enough time for 40Ar to accumulate in a sample at high enough concentrations to be detected and quantified. Furthermore, many geochronology laboratories do not have the expensive state-of-the-art equipment to accurately measure argon in samples that are only a few million years old. Specifically, the laboratory personnel that performed the K-Ar dating for Austin et al. Specifically, personnel at Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, performed the K-Ar dating for Austin et al. This laboratory no longer performs K-Ar dating. However, when they did, their website clearly stated in a footnote that their equipment could not accurately date rocks that are younger than about 2 million years old ("We cannot analyze samples expected to be younger than 2 M.Y."; also see discussions by Bartelt et al.). With less advanced equipment, 'memory effects' can be a problem with very young samples (Dalrymple, 1969, p. 48). That is, very tiny amounts of argon contaminants from previous analyses may remain within the equipment, which precludes accurate dates for very young samples. For older samples, which contain more 40Ar, the contamination is diluted and has insignificant effects."
Now, looking at the table on the link you provided (which is mirrored on the one I have), you can see that "Pyroxene" is stated as over 2.8MY old. That is the first blunder - the rest of that page gives a full analysis of why it is wrong (and this time it has all the links, references and quotations necessary!).
The conclusions from the article (although I still recommend reading the paper even if just for educational purposes):
"Figure 4 in Austin's report, by itself, indicates that ancient zoned grains (phenocrysts and perhaps some xenocrysts) were common in Austin's dacite from Mt. St. Helens. It's also obvious from Austin's text that he was unsuccessful in adequately separating the volcanic glass from the much older minerals. Austin should have known that if he wanted to date the 1986 AD eruption the phenocrysts needed to be entirely removed from his 'fractions' and that another method besides K-Ar dating would have been required. Furthermore, when Austin submitted his samples to Geochron Laboratories, he failed to heed warnings from the laboratory about the limitations of their equipment. Both Austin and Swenson ignored the implications of zoned minerals and Bowen's Reaction Series on the age of the dacite. Obviously, it's Austin's improper use of the K-Ar method and not the method itself that is flawed. Rather than recognizing the flaws in Austin's essay, Swenson simply parrots Austin's erroneous claims without really understanding the chemistry and mineralogy of dacites. "
I'm not questioning your personal honesty but one must realise that there are people out there willing to blur science for their own personal ideologies and as a precaution all references must be checked. This is just another example of Creationist abuse of science for personal gain (the most obvious other example of it is the supposed Mammoth whose leg was thousands of years older/younger than the rest of it).
That's definitely evidence of a global Flood. But since they reject the Flood even though there are over 200 accounts from ancient peoples of a global flood where one family survived, they have to make up their own stories like ice ages that no one in history passed along. 
So it will be interesting to see what kind of a story they make up from their imaginations about the sea life on mountain peaks. I'm sure it will be very entertaining. 
