Novarupta: Biggest Eruption of the 20th and 21st (so far) Centuries

Take a look at the site of one of history's biggest volcanic eruptions, and the evidence that exists for a young earth. Learn about Katmai National Park, The Valley of 10,000 Smokes, grizzly bears, geology, and something called a pumice storm. Watch Dr. Shormann test the electric bear fence.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Novarupta
• Katmai
• geology
• volcano
• Trident
• Martin
• Griggs
• Mageik
• Valley of 10
• 000 Smokes
• TVTTS
• pumice storm
• ash
• Creation
• Flood
• Redemption
• Bible
• grizzly bear
• salmon
• River Lethe
• Naknek

[comingatchu]

You seem to be afraid to commit to an opinion as to the age of the earth and universe. Are you afraid of being mocked? Considering what a very simple question it is that I've asked, that's the only reason I can think of to account for your evasiveness.

Also, you seem to forget that even if I didn't know, as you put it, "the difference between natural history research and scientific research", it would only take me a few minutes of searching the internet to come up with that answer.

Pony up!

[ichthmus153]

@comingatchu Afraid?! You can't be serious. I am just testing to see if I am talking to a scholar. I am not, but maybe that will change in the future.

As a scientist, I do not know how old the Earth is, because science cannot answer that question. A meteorologist collects data and makes predictions about weather that can be verified. A geologist uses the same format to determine Earth age, but cannot verify his claims without a time machine. Do you have a time machine?

[comingatchu]

@ichthmus153

Mountains of research into the ages of the earth and the universe has been performed over the years, and as the available technology gets better these approximations get more precise. No more than a coroner needs a time machine to ascertain an approximate time of death for a corpse, neither do scientists need a time machine to profer an approximate age for the universe. Scientists reach conclusions based on the best available evidence they have at the time. That's the way it works.

[ichthmus153]

@comingatchu Calculating earth age is different than forensic science, but you obviously can't see the difference. Allow me to explain. Forensic scientists have collected loads of data FROM THE POINT OF DEATH onwards to make reasonable models. For natural history to be on the same level as forensic science, researchers need to collect data FROM THE POINT OF ORIGIN onwards. Of course, that's impossible, so that's why ALL claims made about Earth age are historical claims, not scientific claims.

[comingatchu]

@ichthmus153

The light from the most distant parts of the universe is just now reaching Earth and we can DIRECTLY OBSERVE THIS. This allows scientists to look into the past and actually works somewhat like that time machine you previously referred to. Read up on the scientific discipline of Cosmology and you'll get a handle on how this information allows scientists to estimate the age of the universe. Once again, about what age do you personally believe the Earth and the universe to be?

[ichthmus153]

@comingatchu You already know what my faith-based belief in Earth age is. Didn't you watch the video, or are you just here to rant? You are the one who needs to read up on cosmology, and while you're at it, you might want to read up on time dilation. Also, some cosmologists use 1 over the Hubble constant to come up with a universe age between 13-14 billion years ago. Others think it might be 2/3 times 1/H, but that makes the universe younger than our galaxy. Alternatively, both could be wrong.

[ichthmus153]

@comingatchu Your options are as follows 1) do things my way or 2) leave me alone.

Or, if you don't know the answer to my question, a humble admittance of that will be gladly accepted.

[comingatchu]

You seem to be purposely evading an incredibly easy question. Do you, or do you not, agree with the most recent approximations of the age of both the earth and the universe as has been determined by the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community? If not, then please state what you believe their ages to be. In my initial post I referred to the scientific disciplines, so why no stick with a scientific perspective rather than a natural history perspective when stating your opinion.

[ichthmus153]

@comingatchu I am not convinced you know the difference between natural history research and scientific research, and I want to discuss this with an educated person. Please explain the difference between natural history research and scientific research.

[comingatchu]

@ichthmus153

From either perspective. Lay it on me.