Could Girdled rocks in the Atacama desert have been formed via ice in the Iceage after Noahs flood

Faith & Science Conversation
,
1

This example has come up a few times on these forums as an attempt at stumping YEC…well perhaps there is YEC supporting theory there?

image
image1819×1103 504 KB

In addition to the above, earthquakes as a rapid source of change here…this is perfectly consistent with the YEC view that after the flood, the tectonic and seismic activity was extreme for many years/centuries. It is the YEC view that most of the large mountains we see today arose during and soon after the flood in Noahs day.

The rock tumbler example is I think largely consistent with the Noahs flood event narrative in the bible. This is not a problem for YEC beliefs I don’t think.

2

Your AI-generated text doesn’t even mention the girdled rocks.

2 Likes
3

perhaps if you research the AI response there, the Atacama desert is famous for girdled rocks…also known as “the world biggest rock tumbler”

The ANE premise is, this is direct evidence refuting YEC…trouble is, that isnt actually as defensible as people here claim.

For example, one of the supposedly “slam dunk” defenses for ANE there is that Cosmogenic dating proves these rocks much have been travelling down the hillside for millions of years due to the rocks that have broken off the upper levels now being exposed to direct radiation over a long period of time vs younger rocks higher up demonstrating lower levels of radiation. However, theres a big problem with that claim:

image
image1792×1123 402 KB

image
image1057×706 72.6 KB

4

I know that. Your AI response doesn’t mention it.

Why don’t you research the AI response you posted, then perhaps you’ll know what it does and doesn’t say.

Better still, you could research the topic and post something that isn’t just a screenshot of AI-generated text.

This thread is a waste of time.

3 Likes
5

However, if you actually read some of the research you will see the care taken to insure the dates are correct. For example here.

2 Likes
6

What wouldn’t be consistent with the YEC view? What observations, if made, would falsify YEC?

3 Likes
7

The Atacoma desert rock tumbler…these are girdled rocks.

Moving on from that, ask yourself this question…

How are Girdled Rocks dated?

Answer…cosmogenic radiometric dating.

The AI reference is bang on topic.

8

Lookup up problems with cosmogenic dating.

9

The view is that seismic activity amounting to about 100,000 hours of grinding of rocks against each other to make this phenomenom would take hundreds of thousands, even millions of years at the current recorded seismic activity rates for that area measured over only the last 100 years.

Thats uniformatarianism right there. What if seismic activity has not been anything like that in the ancient past…much stronger and more frequent…as the bible indicates, the cosmogenic dating would be out by a large margin.

10

Obviously you didn’t bother to read the paper because if you did you would see the measures taken to avoid the errors noted in your AI generated dump. Do you really think professionals don’t know sources of error and how to avoid them?

Except stronger would tend to jumble the rocks and sediments and so not look like they do now. Just like accelerated nuclear decay would get you young dates but at the expense of the generation of enough heat to melt the earth’s crust. Every rescue device the YEC folks come up with just generates more problems (with the exception of just invoking undocumented miracles to solve their problems).

Edit to add: And exactly where in the Bible are these strong earthquakes and the movement of tecktonic plates zooming around like bumber cars recorded?

3 Likes
11

You quoted T’s question, and then didn’t answer it. Perhaps a moratorium on further questions and threads from you would be appropriate until you get this dealt with.

Can you give any examples at all of how YEC could be falsified, Adam? If everything we’ve actually seen and measured is claimed by you to somehow support YEC, then you’ve really got nothing in any scientific way.

2 Likes
12

That doesn’t answer my questions. Here they are again:

What wouldn’t be consistent with the YEC view? What observations, if made, would falsify YEC?

3 Likes
13

It should be obvious by now that there are no observations that would falsify YEC. Any observation that appears to falsify YEC can be explained away (usually badly) and/or miracles invoked (quietly) to get around them.

4 Likes
14

Who knows, maybe Adam will surprise us all and come up with some potential falsifications for YEC.

But if Adam admits that YEC is unfalsifiable, then I would suggest it is a bit misleading to use phrases like “this evidence is consistent with YEC”.

“A theory that explains everything, explains nothing.”
–Karl Popper

3 Likes
15

Fixed that for you. The YEC position denies that standard physics and chemistry are consistent – in other words, it requires that God is capricious. If God is faithful, then the lab tests that show an absolute minimum age of hundreds of thousands of years for all uplifted mountain ranges are correct, since they require no assumptions about the past.

The Bible says no such thing. You may have books that claim the Bible does, but there is nothing in the text to support this view.
And if seismic activity had been more vigorous, the rocks would look different – the forces of impact would have been more vigorous, and that would show in the mineral structures in the rock. The YEC view is like looking at a car bumper with five hundred small dents in it and claiming that it was accomplished by one car wreck that just hit harder: the way the dents are formed tell how hard the impacts were and how many there were, and any mechanic who you told those five hundred dents were the result of one high-speed collision would tell you to stop talking idiocy.

2 Likes
17

Bill i accept and agree with that truth…and it is i think, demonstrably true.

I have like your post BTW…“mine is like number 4”

One problem, the same is true for the opposing view…so i would argue its irrelevant to the defense of either side other than we can use it to force the other side to at least consider the opposing view in depth (ie read it). I agree with that premise…but it doesnt appear to me that is what happens here…because an awful lot of straw plucking goes on and evidences such as the World Biggest Rock Tumbler" proves YEC wrong as cited…when in fact this example does not such thing. Creationists are using that same example to show the complete opposite it the case…that is not answerable with the blanket statement “psuedoscience”.

Why isnt it Pseudoscience?

Because:

  1. we only have seismic data for 100 years in that region
  2. there is evidence that ice can move the rocks faster and evidence of an iceage is perfectly consistent even within the darwinian model (you cant shoot yourself in the foot to beat my argument)
  3. the bible flood account strongly suggests (indeed even claims i think), far more seismic activity in the recent past. The trouble there is, even science says that modern records of an apparent “increase in seismic aciivity” is likely attributable to an increase in monitoring rather than actual number of recent earthquake activity…that is going to be a problem for refuting the bible inferences about high activity during and immediately after Noahs flood!
18

Thank you for the fixing part

I am not of the view that YEC denies the standards of science are consistent. (where standards are the accepted results) Im not of the interpretation that YEC organisations such as AIG and CM make that accusation?

I think the results are the same…only that the conclusions drawn from those results are often different.

For me i think largely even many of the seemingly different/opposing conclusions are probably separate by a single variable…time.

Seismic activity and the Bible…

Gensis 7

11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life,

on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.

the above text plainly illustrates an enormous event stemming from deep in the oceans. We alreayd know that this could be massive techtonic plate movement (earthquake), volcanic eruptions, or underground acquifers.

I think we are going to have a hard time with any geologist trying to convince them that tsunamis for example driven from the depths of the oceans did not come about as a result of anything other than massive vertical movement of the ocean floor and that deformation of it has not occured. To me this would be consistent with the Mosaic account there…the difference being, where did all the water come from that would cover the entire earth to a depth of 15 feet?

Answer:

the average depth of land above water is 2,800 feet
the average depth of oceans is 12,500 feet

if one was to think even just a litte bit about those stats, one would realise that the water was already here and still is. The only thing keeping us out of it are the mountains. Trouble is, we do not have the ability to look back and compare the earth in Noahs time before the flood with what it looks like today.

oh i forgot to address this one below…(given my own father was a mechanic before he went to university and studied to became a pastor and, I have two uncles who are automotive panel beater/spray painters, this one im intimately familiar with)

“The YEC view is like looking at a car bumper with five hundred small dents in it and claiming that it was accomplished by one car wreck that just hit harder:”

id pick a better example you are falling into the same trap there as Bill…which i critiqued with the “agitating a concrete mix on a construction site example”…

its not about harder…its about time. If you studied the Rock Tumbler science even you should already know that. No one is necessarily arguing bigger earthquakes there (if i have inadvertently written it that way in my post, then i will correct it…i have never wished to convey that)

hmm…just gone over my post…ive not said stronger earthquakes in the original post

image
image775×303 56.4 KB

my addition of stronger was in a subsequent post…that was a generalised statement in response to anothers post…it wasnt claiming that as a source of the rock tumbler…and note that even in that post where i have said stronger, i still included increased frequency (so the two were both used together). That doesnt mean one or the other is to be included or excluded there.

Do i think that stronger earthquakes would have occured in the initial stages of the flood? Absolutely.

Does that mean that all earthquakes after the flood must be strong? Absolutely not!

Is it likely in my view that earthquakes at the start of the flood vs those in subsequent years after the flood have lessened in strength and frequency? Yes, i do think that.

Do we stil get strong earthquakes and could the strength and frequency of them increase again in the future? I dont see why not. Some Evangelicals are certain that evironmental change will see things start to rapidly degenerate…it seems to me that this is even consistent with some among the darwinian evolutionary scientific fraternity.

19

Mervin…you are not explaining yourself there…what i see above is a blanket statement.

What “everything we actually seen and measured”? The science is the same, the conclusions are the main difference.

Even when Mary Sweitzer found soft tissue in dinosaur bones, prior to her developing a test for it, earlier finds of soft tissue was put down to very exceptional circumstances and essentially ignored.

We cannot be intentionally blinded by rejection of the conclusions to the point where we think that the YEC science methods are generically different.YEs there may be some basket cases, however that is the case even with the ranks of ANE…so different methods fundamentally, they are not!!!

For example, i fundametally dissagree with AIG and CM on a range of issues…climate change being a really big one. I absolutely reject the AIG/CM claim that mankind is not driving signficant climate change and that what we do isnt bringing on a catastrophe.

I was brought to tears when i watched the David Attenborough Documentary “Ocean”…what our fishing fleets are doing to our oceans is nothing short of catastrophic and we must change our habits there.

A separate media report on Nickel mining in Indonesia another on deforestation in the Amazon and all around the world…these habits are catastrophic for our planets ability to control CO2 and more importantly, keep it in balance.

I only have to look over the city where i fly paragliders to see the smog…and note that during COVID, those same cities (Sydney and Melbourne) were smog free. I dont need any science to make a call there.

Just because I am YEC…it doesnt mean an atheist earthmoving operator can drive a bobcat or excavator better than i can

Just because I am YEC…it doesnt mean that i cannot TIG weld aluminium as well as an ANE

Just because I am YEC…it doesnt mean that I do not have the same abilities in home renovations as someone who is ANE

Just because I am YEC…it doesnt mean that I was not able to teach high school students as well as another design and Technology teacher

Just because I am YEC…it doesnt make me a less able parent than an ANE parent

Only a deluded fool would believe that the skillset and implementation of said skillset is directly proportional to ones Darwinian beliefs or lack thereof (and they are beliefs).

So moving forward from skilled workers…are we really going to attempt to then promote the claim that academically I am not as capable as ANE at science? (ill call bullshit any day of the week on that one)

Now lets move onto my theology…can we honestly support the claim that my theology here is not methodical and extensively referenced and cross referenced?

ill answer that…no we cannot because i can provide hundreds of screen shots showing it is exactly that…any claim im straw plucking texts with my cross referencing is proven nonsense…i am inputing bible concordance references and internal references found alongside the very texts in the bible those references support

The relevance of this to the rock tumbler example above, i have presented alternative theories that have been observed in other locations around the world…these are not made up pseudo-science beliefs…they are real evidence coming from other researched sources that in some instances are not even Christian!

Now the interesting thing about the Atacoma desert is this, we know what almost certainly its “Iceage” links are as recent as only about 20,000 years ago…so how could the rock tumbler be a result of only seismic activity dating back millions of years ago?

That theory has huge problems because of the known ice age and its effects in the Andes not only after the last 20,000 years, but most certainly before it. We full well know that the grinding from glaciers end up being washed into the oceans, however, what if there isn’t an ocean below the glacier for the sediment to wash into? Well its going to stay right there and given the ability of wind to move sediment around (both up and downhill), i dont see that really being too much of a problem personally…sand dunes are an example of what the wind can do with sediment.

Does that mean that the Rock Tumbler was 100% only glacier ice, or 100% seismic activity…at this point i would argue both…glaciers probably had some impact during the iceage.

What is an interesting fact about the Andes…its a relatively young mountain range in the geological timescale

image
image1139×709 203 KB

20

Yes ice, if present, would move the rocks faster but then the erosion pattern on the boulders wouldn’t be the same. Glaciers dig valleys and leave distinctive features like moraines behind. Features missing here.

Ice ages are perfectly fine, except there have been multiples and are all dated to much more than 4,000 years ago. I like the example of isostatic rebound that has been measured by satellite and shows there have been multiple ice ages, none of which are recent (in geologic time).

Reference please (and “fountains in the deep” don’t mean what your modern scientific world view would suggest).

3 Likes
21

Springs bursting forth do not cause earthquakes. And “the great deep” is not the oceans, it is the primordial waters of chaos from Genesis 1, the waters that God divided to make dry land – the t’hom (teh-home) from back before the earth was unformed and desolate.
You pride yourself on cross-referencing, but once again you begin by reading modern science into the text. In ancient Hebrew cosmology that “great deep” was still there down under the earth and was regarded as the source of all springs, water sort of leaking through the world’s foundations to trickle onto the surface. If you want to give this a purely physical meaning, it’s that all those springs everywhere, including ones that only flowed occasionally, stopped being small leaks and flowed like rivers.

So: no “enormous event”, and not in the oceans.

There you go again, trying to make Genesis into a science text. It isn’t. There’s no plate movement or any of the rest here, there’s just springs suddenly flowing like rivers.

You’re going to have a harder time getting any geologist to do anything but laugh when you invent tsunamis from springs suddenly increasing their flow. You’ve done several things wrong, first changing the meaning of the text and then adding to the text.
Then you shift into pure science fiction.

Once again you show no respect for the text of scripture, turning it into something to fit a MSWV rather than letting it be what it is.

2 Likes