I think it does. I noticed in some of Adam’s AI responses there appeared to be a YEC bias in the answer which I didn’t get when I ran a query that was probably similar to his.
2 Likes
Not only are you wrong concerning the geology of Siccar Point, you are wrong that there is any raging debate. You also lose a point for the sloppy reference to the Darwinian model. While organisms can serve as markers in geological formations, the study of geology is independent of biological evolution.
There are many reasons why the flood model is hopeless for explaining karst formations, but sticking with the easy to follow sixth grader level of understanding, even if the flood was responsible for the deposition, the following de-watering take millennia, the flood is over when uplift happens, the flood is over when erosion happens, the flood is over when infill happens, and the flood is over when overburden is deposited. Dolomite and marble require even more extended time. It is deluded to think all of this can take place within 4500 years. So there’s your problem.
Creation ministry articles are not from the Bible, Christians are not compelled to lie about Siccar Point or the Grand Canyon.
4 Likes
Grok was in the news lately for getting cozy with Nazi interpretations of history. You can definitely lead the witness by how you put the query. YEC does little real research, but has as its core mission the proselytizing creationism, and churns out voluminous articles which saturate the internet where AI has largely trained, and these show up in AI responses just as they always have in searches.
And sometimes, AI is just goofy. Just last week I was surprised to be informed orca whales are commonly found by my inland, by hundreds of kilometers, home town.
2 Likes
So… in other words. Roy would do much better to point out the possibility of bias (as well as lack of accuracy) in using Google IA rather than complain it is wasting everyone’s time with the false assumption Google IA is going to give the same response to everyone.
I talked to a medical doctor today. And he said one of the hopes of AI for the medical profession is they can correlate a far larger number of cases than any one doctor can experience personally regarding the more rare conditions.
There are AI applications trained on good data and carefully tested. Then there’s generative AI which is designed to make things up, flatter the user, and self-promote, at huge environmental cost.
Adam is mixing up unconnected aspects of glaciers. The dishonest young-earth argument relating to the WWII aircraft is claiming that the airplanes were deeply buried in a few decades, therefore any thickness of ice can be dismissed as forming quickly. It ignores the difference between uncompacted top layers and densely packed deeper layers, as well as the difference between the coastal area where the planes were, with heavy snowfall, versus the ice deserts of interior of Greenland or Antarctica. Of course, it also ignores vast amounts of data on glacier layers and ages.
The rate of building glaciers is rather distantly connected to the glacial investigations of Darwin. The idea that glaciers could explain several of the puzzling features of the recent geological past was a hot new topic as Darwin was getting some geological training before going on the Beagle. Glaciers also put an end to the idea that the earth had steadily cooled over time, one of many wrong uniformitarian ideas about geology to come out of the “Enlightenment”. But the way glaciers shaped the land poses other problems for young-earth models. The glacial landforms indicate multiple advances and retreats of glaciers across huge distances. Early work detected at least four, but modern stable isotope data matches Milankovitch cycles (long-term wobbles in the earth’s orbit that affect climate) and shows that glaciers advanced and retreated across vast distances dozens of times in the most recent ice ages. Sea level drops by 200 meters at times of peak glaciation, and is several meters higher than today at peak interglacials within the ice age. A young-earth model implies that glaciers were zipping back and forth across continents at more than a mile a day, sea level changed 300 m in 16 years, and no one noticed. And that’s just the most recent glaciation. Several more ancient ice ages are recorded in the rocks. Glaciers can only form on land - snow doesn’t pile up on water.
4 Likes
Adam wrote [to clarify who said what] “Google AI would seem to disagree with you there Roy…it seems to me that the study of glaciers is fundamental to Darwin’s idea of deep time.”
Darwin’s observations of glaciers, particularly during the voyage of the Beagle, significantly influenced his thinking about geological processes and time. He saw how glaciers could transport and deposit large boulders (erratics) far from their source, and how the action of ice could shape landscapes.
Darwin’s understanding of the power of these slow, gradual geological processes, like glacial erosion and deposition, led him to grasp the concept of “deep time” – the vastness of geological history stretching back far beyond what was commonly believed at the time.
Darwin’s work on glaciers in Tierra del Fuego, as documented in his “Voyage of the Beagle,” helped him to recognize the power of glacial action and the vastness of geological time, which indirectly supported his later development of evolutionary theory
Google AI is wrong on several key points there, but it could be parroting plenty of dishonest atheistic sources as well as young-earth ones that believe the atheistic claims, besides its own fabrication of claims.
At least since New Testament times, there was speculation within the church as to whether the age of the earth might be vast, but it was not until the second half of the 1600’s that study of geology was used to help test that idea. Deep time was established from the geological evidence by the 1770’s and suspected on geological grounds by the 1690’s, building on the work of Ussher and other scholars who compiled all of the available historical data over the previous centuries. Darwin did not extend geological history beyond what was commonly believed (by anyone in touch with scientific research) before he was born.
Glaciers were a relatively new concept as an important geological factor when Darwin was learning geology, and merely one of myriad pieces of geologic evidence available relating to earth history. His work on glaciated areas in Britain before he left on the Beagle was formative for him. In Tierra del Fuego he merely applied what he had already learned about glaciers and their effects. He did a fine job of applying what he had learned, but the claim that his experience on the Beagle was leading to his recognition of the vastness of geologic time is false, as the claim that glaciers were especially important in the process.
2 Likes
Paleomalacologist: Some of the rock layers show unambiguous evidence of being solid and eroded before the next layer was deposited, such as karst
Adam: why should this be a problem for YEC scientists? They do not claim that there was no drying during the flood and re deposition of layers…im not sure why you dog bark up trees about this kind of thing?
My reply: Because the YEC promoters claim otherwise, and because it is incompatible with flood geology. There are many YEC claims that the layers were all rapidly deposited during the flood and that the terrestrial deposits were made underwater by the flood. If you admit that these are land deposits, then you are admitting that the YEC claims to have them form underwater are untrue. But also there is no time for these features to form during any brief drying in the Flood. Remember, anything during the flood has to happen within a single year. You can’t take a few decades to blow sand dunes around in the middle of it. You really can’t take a few decades to blow sand dunes around dozens of times to produce all the different windblown dune deposits in the middle of the flood. If they are pre-flood, then all the layers below them must be pre-flood and you can’t use the flood as an excuse to explain any of those layers. If they are post-flood, then all the layers above them are also post-flood and you can’t use the flood as an excuse to explain any of them.
Adam: No one cares whether or not some of the layers were set down rapidly and others slowly…this is not inconsistent with flood models.
My reply: It is inconsistent with flood geology models. For a young earth to be true, absolutely all of earth history must happen extremely fast. Remember the first microseconds a day ago when Paul was evangelizing? What problems are created to claim that the past 2000 years actually only took one day? That is what creation science claims. You can’t have slowly in a young-earth model.
Adam: The earth after the flood experienced considerable change…we cannot know what the water levels were immediately after the flood. The Bible simply tells us “the ground was dry”…that in no way explains what the ground was like further a field or whether or not ongoing significant weather events continued. I would suggest that the fact that God set the rainbow in the sky, that this gives a strong indicator that Noah and his family were still very afraid of what was going on around them after they exited the Ark. I’m not sure why you think it was some kind of utopia they walked out into?
My reply: Fitting the geologic record into a young-earth timeframe, supplying and removing enough water to flood the globe, changing the rate of radiometric decay or the speed of light – any of those would completely destroy the earth. A young-earth scenario doesn’t allow Noah to survive, much less have a utopia. But I said nothing about conditions after the flood. If you are saying that these features are post-flood, there’s still not enough time, besides the fact that you are saying that most of what young-earthers try to explain away by invoking the flood was after the flood.
paleomalacologist:
The Grand Canyon is a popular topic of young-earth claims, but actually checking the data shows that the young-earth claims are untrue. Sime of the rock layers show unambiguous evidence of being solid and eroded before the next layer was deposited, such as karst.
Adam: I fail to see what the problem is with Karst? We know factually that heavy rain has a significant impact on how quickly these form…sinkholes, caves, underground rivers and disappearing springs found in such formations…those things forming rapidly, that is entirely consistent with the flood model there is no issue there for me.
My reply: No, they don’t form rapidly enough to fit a young earth model. Besides the fact that many cave formations can be dated, we can observe extremely slow formation of many features. It takes a long time to dissolve away enough limestone to make a sinkhole, though the actual collapse may be quick. (Incidentally, the “Quantum Futures Group”, who claim to know that plasma from space causes everything because the space aliens told them, has a video with lots of false claims about sinkholes that got a lot of circulation on YouTube.) Building cave formations into the holes takes significant additional time. All of those require the rock to be solid before it can be dissolved away; else no hole would be formed and sediment would just fill it in. But Answers in Genesis prominently claims that the layers in the Grand Canyon were not solid until after the flood. As with glaciers, there is also the problem for young-earth claims that there are myriad ancient karst deposits as well as the modern ones. The famous Belgian herd of Iguanodon fell into a sinkhole, for example. Karst features in the Grand Canyon that have other rock layers covering and filling them, the eroded pieces of layers present in younger deposits, and the basic fact that many layers do not grade into each other shows that there were significant time gaps between deposition of one layer and the next. Of course, it does not prove how long, but it shows that young-earth models have a serious unsolved problem. Claiming things happened very fast is not a credible model; they need to do the actual work of determining what would be necessary for things to happen quickly and what effects that should have, and then honestly compare those results to the evidence, instead of trying to fool the public with grand but totally unsubstantiated claims.
When you talk about rock layers showing unambiguous evidences…I have to point out that the Siccar Point debate rages entirely because of ambiguity even within the Darwinian model. It struggles to explain some very significant observations about that formation that are consistent with massive global flood rather than a localised event.
Below i have collated some evidences from Creation Ministries regarding this formation…
- the lower rock Greywacke is clearly indicative of rapid deposit…it has randomised grains of varying sizes which are also jagged and not smooth…both of which support very rapid deposition and not millions of years. There is evidence of crossbedding due to water flow and folding due to the rocks being quite plastic as a result of water saturation…the contact layer between vertical and horizontal formations shows evidences of no differential weathering, further supporting the idea of rapid deposition.
-the upper sandstone beds there is a metre thick layer of broken rocks (breccia) which are dumped on top of an eroded surface over a huge area and the alignment is such that it tends to face the same direction…the rocky pieces are blocky and angular, indicative of a large flood where they did not roll against each other much during deposition.
-The Siccar deposit is large… 400km long and about 100km wide and contains pebble beds, sand and silt mixed with volcanic lava up to 7km thick.
- Red Sandstone in that formation contain well preserved fossils that are indicative of rapid burial.
The successive beds of the Old Red Sandstone show they were deposited one after the other without significant time breaks between them. For example, there is no evidence of ancient soil layers, or of organic matter incorporated into a soil or of plant roots.13 Some sandstone horizons contain animal tracks, so there was not much time involved.16 There are no canyons or valleys cutting across the beds. Yet there should be if, for long periods, the weather had been eroding them. Tas Walker- Creation Ministries<
My reply: The quote from Creation Ministries keeps claiming that these happened fast. But there is no effort whatsoever to actually work out how long these would actually take. The reality is that even what they admit plainly shows that a young-earth is false. Each of the layers takes a certain amount of time to form. Of course, the mixed sizes of pieces and lack of rounding reflects less time than it would take to have everything thoroughly worn down. But it still requires more time than a young-earth allows. The greywacke and mudstone layers are fine-grained turbidite deposits. Each individual layer formed moderately quickly, but requiring relatively calm conditions to be deposited. Calm conditions are not possible in the current flood geology model. They have to be pre-flood or post-flood. And there is not time in a young earth model for each layer to be deposited, sit for a while and have organisms live on it, and then have the next layer come along. But every single one of the greywacke and mudstone layers in the Gala Group below the unconformity had to have enough time to be deposited.
Those layers were hardened before they were tilted up to their current configuration. That takes quite a while for mudstone and sandstone (greywacke is muddy sandstone). They were tilted by plate tectonic collisions between what’s now northwestern Europe and eastern Canada. The layers were then eroded down to produce a relatively flat surface before the Old Red Sandstone was deposited on top. This took more time. The tall mountains formed in the plate collision eroded sediment to both sides, which accumulated to form the Old Red Sandstone deposits in both northeastern North America and northwestern Europe. Having assorted sizes and angular pieces does not take as long to form as the many deposits that are made of rounded, uniformly-sized pieces, but still takes much longer than a young earth has time for. It’s similar to the modern rock deposits I was recently walking over in desert mountain areas in west Texas. The red is from rust – iron oxide minerals such as hematite, goethite, and limonite. That oxygen is from the air. It’s a land deposit of debris eroding off a mountain and piling up in the first flatter areas. But there are ocean deposits as you trace the layers further from the ancient mountains. Many rivers had time to pile up huge deltas. Again, each layer in the Old Red Sandstone had some time to form. To fit in a young-earth timescale, you can’t be piling up a layer, letting animals wander around on it, piling another layer, letting animals wander around on it… But there’s about 1300 meters of layers in the Old Red Sandstone that must be accounted for. Whether there are canyons and valleys in a particular area or not depends on how much water is available to erode them and how elevated the land is. The lower parts of the Old Red Sandstone are coastal deposits, so there would not be particularly deep erosion. There is significant change over time in the content of the layers, which again requires time for rivers to shift their patterns of erosion.
Adam: “Now i do not doubt that Darwinian model offers solutions to these problems. However, for you to say that that is the only view that is consistent with the evidence is simply untrue…there are a now increasing number of Creation Science evidences that remain consistent with evidences in many geological formations around the world…i would argue that quite often they are more consistent with the evidence than the Darwinian model.
For the Christian, what is important is that the evidences and conclusions are not only consistent with the observed, but also consistent with the historical record found in the bible via a normal reading of language. Twisting language in order to make an ancient text fit with modern “non biblical” world views is dangerous…entire religions have derived from that which are well known to the false…two examples being Mormonism and Islam.”
My reply: No. There is no “Darwinian” model of how the layers formed. That was developed long before Darwin. The young-earth claims do not even provide an explanation, much less a credible one. They do not demonstrate a viable model, and they are often untruthful in representing the evidence. The young-earth model is a total failure as far as geology is concerned. Nor is it consistent with the historical record found in the Bible via a normal reading of language. The Bible plainly says that you shall not bear false witness; creation science says that any claim supporting its views is a good claim. The Bible describes the location of Eden in terms of geography after the flood; creation science claims that the flood totally destroyed pre-flood geography. The modern young-earth creation movement is twisting language in order to make the ancient text fit a modern non-biblical world view, namely the idea that the Bible must be speaking scientifically if it is really true. As a result, it has become a false religion in some cases, where salvation is by believing and promoting a young earth rather than by believing in Jesus.
7 Likes
I could find out about Newton’s calculation that the earth cooling from red hot iron would take more than 75,000 years and Buffon’s idea the earth might be as much as 3 million years old. Are you referring to something other than these? At most I am finding that various people were finding reason to believe the earth was older than 6000 years but I am not seeing anything so definite as what you seem to be implying… not before the 19th century.
Darwin is reported to have made a calculation of erosion rates to say the Weald (in south England) took 300 million years to form, though this calculation was shown to be flawed and thus removed in the final copy of Origin of the Species. To be sure he was looking for some way to justify the amount of time needed for his principles of evolution to work.
Wasn’t Ussher the one who used the Bible to calculate a 6000 year age of the earth in 1611? Perhaps you mean the work of Benoît de Maillet 100 years later who calculated the age of the earth to be 2 billion years based on measurements of falling sea levels. Obviously that calculation couldn’t be right any more than the later calculation of Darwin. So the most we can claim is that people were coming up with much older estimates of the age of the earth than the 6000 estimate of Ussher using the Bible.
By all means show me I am wrong. I am just trying to get some more details than what I have been able to find on the internet.
1 Like
My go to book is The Bible, Rocks and Time which I considered a great read. I found a mention of a paper which I found online if you want to check it out.
A sample
2 Likes
eh? Which half of Genesis would that be? The book starts out with history and continues with said history right through until the end…Moses continues that history into Exodus. I dont know what Genesis you read, however, its clearly the redacted version you wrote yourself.
look David, you are playing straw plucking games…there is not universal agreement on these things even among Darwinian scientists…stop with the nonsense there you are lying to yourself.
A variety of depositions is not incompatible with the flood model…i have already highlighted this before. You cannot demand that other areas on the earth were all dry (or wet) when Noah left the Ark. There is no reason to make such a claim, or that there was not ongoing flooding in other regions for years/decades after the main flood. As i said, there is strong evidence for this because the fact that God put His rainbow in the sky after the flood, we know that clearly there was fear among Noah and his family when they left the ark. What they saw and experienced is to be expected. I am not aware of any scientist who claims that a huge upheaval of that nature would just suddenly subside without significant ongoing activity…modern earthquake studies are proof of that. Given the flood would have seen the largest and most widespread tectonic activity known to man, one should not be so stupid as to think once Noah left the ark everything was sweet…the theological evidence is clearly that was not the case and this aligns with the scientific evidence as well!
I have no problem with significant weather events long after the main flood…these events id argue would have been absolutely catastrophic as well. Just because they didnt result in a repeat of the original world wide deluge, it doesnt mean that nature would have experienced ongoing flooding, drying and flooding again on a huge scale.
The bible only tells us that God promised to not wipe out all humanity and every living thing that creepeth over the ground again…it does not make the claim that significant catastrophic flooding, earthquakes, volcanoes…that these would not continue. It is you who make that demand of the text…not me!
Given that, apart from apologists, no scientist would claim that an upheaval such as a global flood is possible to begin with.
On a local, realistic level, there are numerous floods every year. We can see the effect of these, and they look like nothing on the scale of what you are suggesting.
Flood geology is incoherent, and as consistency is necessary for agreement, YEC will never get its act together.
And here is an exhibit of such incoherence. If there was a global flood, the earth was all wet.
You do have a problem. Eyewitness history confirms that there was the same pace and degree of weather and climate events in keeping with conventional science, going back to hundreds of years prior to YEC’s flood date.
You are also unable to deal with the specifics of the formations referenced, and resort to hand waving deflections.
2 Likes
I said we knew this couldn’t be right. It is because we know the sea levels do not drop at a constant rate and sometimes (like right now) the sea levels are rising. Also we know land is often created and rises due to processes like volcanic eruption and crustal uplift from the collision of continental plates.
But I did ask the question of whether there was a time when oceans covered the whole earth. The answer found by Google AI at sites including a national science foundation article and astronomy magazine is the earth may have been covered with water 3.2 billion years ago (score one for the Bible bashers, LOL). Here is a video of what they think happened since then. I count 11 supercontinents named in this simulation, which must define supercontinent as exceeding a percentage of total land since some are really small.
2 Likes
There can’t be evidence for Noah’s flood creating anything if no possible evidence could count against it.
It’s not obvious at all. The types of species in the Cambrian contains nearly zero modern species, or anything close to them. Why can’t we even find a jawed bony fish in the Cambrian, much less birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians?
They aren’t assumptions. They are conclusions based on evidence.
4 Likes
Rudwick Bursting the Limits of Time, is probably the best single source on the history of geologic time. In the 1660’s, Steno published on clues to putting geological layers in order. Many of these principles were long used by workers digging wells or mining, but Steno brings them into academia. Also, Steno and many others were contributing to the abandonment of Platonic and Aristotelian ideas of influences and patterns in favor of what we would now think of as “natural” causes. As a result, many people across Europe (and soon Europeans in other parts of the world) started looking more at geological layers. Also, economic growth and the industrial revolution were increasing demand for resources. Besides the direct importance of geology for mining, improved transportation involved digging canals and cutting through the ground to make railroads and roads. Thirdly, the economic growth meant that there were more people around who could spend time thinking about rocks instead of just focused on surviving.
As people started looking more at rocks in the late 1600’s, they found that there are a lot of layers, and these layers are often widespread across Europe. How long would it take to form all of them? Ussher, Newton, and many others had tried to assemble all available historical data into a comprehensive history of the world. By the late 1600’s, people were realizing that archaeological data provided additional clues, like the remarkable relics that could be dug up at Pompeii. In the latest 1600’s, people began to think about how geological clues could, like an old coin, be pointers to earth history, and suspected there was a lot of geological time. Not only were there lots of layers, but also none of them had well-verified traces of humans.
Geological data continued to accumulate and be discussed through the 1700’s. Newton’s achievements in physics had the unfortunate side effect of promoting the idea of simple formulas applying to everything. Buffon measured cooling rates for iron. The idea of measuring ocean salinity and the rate of salt supply was proposed, but data weren’t available to test it. Neptunism, a very popular idea in the mid-1700’s, proposed that the earth had started out covered by an ocean with rather different chemistry from today. Different layers precipitated out as the ocean changed chemistry. Eventually it lowered to the point of having some land exposed and continued to retreat steadily to its present level, with further chemical changes leading to different layers forming.
By the late 1770’s, the amount of geological evidence for an old earth reached the point of being conclusive. Volcanoes were particularly important. One study looked at the volcanoes of central France. One lava flow would be topped by a soil layer weathered from the lava, followed by another lava flow, then another soil layer. The top lava flow blocked a stream, making a lake. This lake was already there when the first written records of the area, from Roman sources, were recorded. Nothing about volcanoes in France is known from Gaulish mythology. The geological report famously appealed “Time! Time! Time!” Plus, some volcanoes were flimsy cinder cones that woudl not stand up to a global flood, and the time needed to allow for all of the volcanic activity doesn’t touch on the many geological layers under the volcanoes (which include some of the youngest geological layers). Similarly, a well dug on the side of a volcano in Italy found seven layers of lava flow followed by weathering into soil and plant growth. The most recent lava flow in the area was historically recorded as 200 years old and looked fresh. How long would it take to weather into soil? Two local clerics got in an argument over it; the papal authorities investigated and banned the young-earther’s writings.
Thus, Hutton in the late 1700’s was merely up to date in recognizing that the earth was old, not an innovator and quite wrong to hold “Enlightenment” ideas that there had been infinite cycles into the past, with humans and other life basically like today throughout earth history. By the 1800’s, anyone scientifically knowledgeable knew that the earth was old. Steve Gould commented on the silly claims in Simon Winchester’s The Map that Changed the World. William Smith was not boldly challenging the church and risking jail by claiming that the earth was old. William Smith was focused on the practical utility of recognizing layers and had not thought about the age of the earth; two of his pastor friends had to tell him that the earth was old.
Darwin and many others had guesses about erosion rates. Darwin was very heavily influenced by Lyell’s overly uniformitarian ideas on geology, a throwback to the Enlightenment errors rather than data-driven. .
7 Likes
More general problems with the young earth claims:
“Now i do not doubt that Darwinian model offers solutions to these problems. However, for you to say that that is the only view that is consistent with the evidence is simply untrue…there are a now increasing number of Creation Science evidences that remain consistent with evidences in many geological formations around the world…i would argue that quite often they are more consistent with the evidence than the Darwinian model.”
This is straw plucking. During the time that the geological features were deposited, the earth made a certain number of orbits around the sun. [Ignoring numerous technical details about different ways to measure one complete orbit.] A young-earth model must explain everything simultaneously. You can’t use the entire flood just to make Siccar Point. All geological features fit into an old-earth model. Hardly any can fit into a young-earth model.
There are at least four options. One is to seriously consider old-earth models instead of demonizing them. Another is to invoke relativity. From the perspective of an observer traveling close to the speed of light, the total time from the creation of earth to now can be made as short as you like. This would have a “young and old” conclusion. However, it has to give a reasonable explanation of why Genesis 1 should be interpreted as a scientific account from the viewpoint of something traveling extremely fast. Another solution is to admit that current young-earth models are bad while hoping for new ideas that will work. As young-earth models have not had success for a few hundred years, I would not be very optimistic about success of such new ideas, but one could argue that people haven’t tried very hard, being too quick to accept bad arguments rather than working on developing good ones. Another solution would be to claim that God created the universe and earth with an appearance of history for some reason. This raises theological problems - is this being deceptive? What would be the reason? But it does not contradict the scientific data.
Note also that the young-earth description is very vague. Only a few bits of information are given about the layers, and these are not necessarily accurate. Likewise, there are no details about how the flood supposedly worked that could be used to justify the claims. These are red flags, tipping you off that the young-earth claim is not well-substantiated. In fact, often the largest amount of time necessary to investigate a young-earth claim is to figure out exactly what the claim is based on in order to be able to look it up.
The young-earth claims about Siccar Point jump from “happened rapidly” to “can be done by the flood within the young-earth time frame” without any supporting evidence. But a geologist’s concept of rapid is not the same as ordinary human ideas of rapid.
A variety of depositions is incompatible with the flood model. You can’t have a flood that is simultaneously moving water around the globe at hundreds of km per hour to produce all the global fluctuations in stable isotopes and also perfectly calm to allow tiny particles to settle out and bury well-preserved fossils. You can’t have the continents zipping around at 70 km/h and the formation of distinct thin layers from individual volcanic eruptions. You can’t have a flood that is salty enough to precipitate evaporite deposits and allows ocean life to survive. An honest flood model must specify what conditions were like at different times, check if the data fit with that, and either adjust or abandon the model as needed if it does not match up.
If conditions were actually radically different during the Flood, it should be clear what layers were deposited during the Flood versus before or after.
If a flood model is actually intended as a serious attempt to understand the workings of God’s creation rather than just a magic excuse to ignore the evidence, then it needs to specify what layers were formed during versus before versus after. It is possible to say “I was wrong, the boundaries need to be changed to here” after proposing a particular model. But the model must actually have testable content.
You keep complaining that conditions after the ark landed could have been varied. But you must specify which layers were formed at what stage of the flood to make a meaningful model. As is, you are just making up excuses with no rooting in reality. I am not asserting that major events would not continue after the flood; your arguments are a straw man and don’t make much sense. The layers that you claim that post-flood conditions can explain are throughout the entire geologic column; you are leaving nothing for the Flood itself.
In fact, major weather and geologic changes could not occur after a global flood because global flood models would destroy the earth, leaving nothing to change unless you count gradual cooling off of the ball of plasma that would be the remains of earth and Noah. But ignoring the physics problems to focus on the geological ones, significant geological and weather events continue to happen. But we must be honest about what effects they do and don’t have. Floods produce certain types of deposits and not others.
5 Likes
I asked google AI if google AI ever just makes things up…
Yes, Google’s AI models, like other large language models (LLMs), can sometimes generate information that is factually incorrect or “make things up.” This phenomenon is often referred to as “hallucination.”
Here’s why this can happen:
Training Data Limitations: AI models learn by identifying patterns in the vast amounts of data they are trained on. If the training data contains errors, biases, or outdated information, the AI may reproduce these inaccuracies. For instance, if the training data includes a false claim, the AI might repeat it as fact.
Predictive Nature: LLMs are designed to predict the next most likely word or sequence of words to generate fluent and coherent text. Their primary goal is not necessarily to be truthful, but to create plausible-sounding content. This can lead to the generation of plausible but factually incorrect information.
Lack of Real-World Understanding: AI models don’t possess genuine understanding or common sense in the way humans do. They operate based on statistical patterns and lack the ability to truly comprehend context or evaluate information for factual accuracy.
Prompt Engineering: The way a prompt is formulated can also influence the likelihood of hallucinations. If a prompt is ambiguous or lacks sufficient context, the AI might fill in the gaps with invented information.
Limited Context Window: LLMs can only process a limited amount of text at a time. If a question requires information from a lengthy document, the model might not be able to process the entire context, potentially leading to errors or omissions.
Important Considerations:
Google and other AI developers are actively working to mitigate hallucinations and improve the accuracy of their models.Users should always be critical of AI-generated content and fact-check important information, especially when dealing with critical domains like medical advice or financial planning.
I am reminded of old logical puzzles about determining which of two tribes is always lying and which is telling the truth. IOW if google sometimes just makes things up then do we believe it when it says it makes things up? LOL Answer: of course we do. And we can conclude that while it sometimes makes things up, most of the time it is reporting things accurately.
And what is the difference of this from science or religion? Isn’t it a matter of which has a better track record, not only making things up versus getting it right, but also for correcting its mistakes. In this I would say religion easily has the worst track record. But how can we compare science and google AI? The latter is only a couple years old. And the early years of science is pretty wild in its inaccuracies, right? LOL
Well as I said before, I think correcting itself is an AI specialty. Of course it depends on the goals given it by the programmers.
1 Like
Now there is an interesting assertion to try and prove.
As most of religion is faith, how can that faith be proven or disproven?
Richard
Nothing can be easier to prove from the simple fact that there are so many different religions all contradicting each other.
Of course since I believe there is an irreducibly subjective aspect to reality, there is a lot which I would not include in the category of mere fantasy even when they disagree. But when its claims are taken as being about objective reality then we can conclude there are many things which are wrong and made up.
But more importantly, the track record of religion with regards to correcting its mistakes is easily the worst of the three. And I think this is because the beliefs involved are so important to people. Science by comparison is actively testing its conclusions over and over again. Finding a mistake has been made is what will make a scientist’s whole career. But as I suggest above, I think when accuracy is the goal of the AI, then an AI can do even better.
I was thinking on this a bit over the weekend. One thing that stood out to me is the string of volcanos running just inland parallel to the coasts of Oregon and Washington, and also parallel with a subducting tectonic plate.
These are examples of composite volcanoes that were created by the melting of a subducting tectonic plate.
If the YEC model is correct with its quickly moving tectonic plates, we shouldn’t find these in restricted areas. They should be found all over the US, but they aren’t. Instead, they show up where they should if the tectonic plate is moving slowly and melting as it first reaches mantle that is hot enough to convert the rocks in the tectonic plate.
4 Likes