The solar system is 6,000 years old. reset

[EarthScienceguy]

Below is the famous paper that Russ Humphreys authored in 1984.

http://www.sedin.org/crs_samp/21_3a1.htm

In this paper he correctly predicted the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune before the voyager flew by them in the late 1980's. He based his theory on a universe that is 6000 years old. Using the following equation.

Quote:
So the magnetic moment M at any time t after creation would be:

M = Mc exp(-t/T)

His equations also accurately predicts the Moon small gravitational field that is just in surface rocks and long with Mars Magnetic field that is also in surface rocks.

He later went on and used the same equations to predict Mercury's magnetic field decrease.


ADDED

In this theory 5 assumptions are made.

1. That the fifth fundamental force that there has to be create our universe is a living being that has characteristics different from man. (The fifth fundamental force has to be different than anything in this universe.)
Characteristics of the fifth fundamental force (from Sean Carroll’s (atheist cosmologist) description of the Characteristics the “mother universe would have to have)

a. Has to be eternal (There would be no such thing as time because time is a construct of this universe but what that would mean)

b. To be eternal especially as Carroll’s describes this universe would mean it must be all-powerful. Meaning that it could never lose energy. Anyway you slice it to create an infinite number of universe would mean that energy could not decrease. He would describe this as time running in both directions.

c. This universe would also have to be infinite to create an infinite number of universes.

d. There has to be a fifth force because the 4 fundamental forces of this universe are tied to the space of this universe. So if there is no space then there are no forces.

e. The fifth force would have to be different. Because even if the 4 fundamental forces do exist in this ‘mother universe,� they do not have to act as they do in this universe.

2. God made a ball of water as described in Genesis 1 with all of the protons in hydrogen spinning the same way. It would have to be hydrogen because it has but a single proton and proton spin in the nucleus is paired like electron spin is.

3. After the creation of the ball of water. The water molecules alignment would be broken creating great electrical currents in the ball of water.

4. Humphreys did not say this but experiments out of Russia say this can happen. That these currents that were created made all of the elements that we see today in a process known as a Z-pinch.

5. Then the God guided these atoms together to form life.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods]

And what do you think the shuttle was doing as it was in ORBIT around the earth?

Speaking of accretion, a planetesimal must grow to at least a kilometer in diameter for gravitational attraction to take over.3 Smaller clumps do not stick--they bounce. Rather than grow into boulders, they are more likely to collide and fragment.4 Even then, unless protected, boulders would be drawn rapidly into the star. A recent article on Space.com said the realization that "boulders tend to fall into the star in a celestial blink of an eye" has been "a stumbling block for 30 years."5 One recent model proposed that boulders might join forces against the viscosity of the disk, forming a protective pocket--like that behind a semi truck--giving embryonic planetesimals time to grow. The authors of this ad hoc speculation, however, worried that such clumped boulders would actually be more likely to grind to dust.6

In recent years, planetary scientists have been undergoing a kind of "religious conversion" from the nebular hypothesis to a completely new "disk-instability hypothesis."7 Championed by Alan Boss, it postulates that knots in the swirling cloud contract catastrophically to form gas giant planets almost instantly. This idea should raise the eyebrows of many who were taught to think planet formation requires millions of years. The new model was proposed less on evidence than on attempts to get around the difficulties.

3. Paraskov, G. et al. 2007. Impacts into weak dust targets under microgravity and the formation of planetesimals. Icarus 191 (2): 779-789.

4. Ibid.

5. Mosher, D. Major Planet Formation Mystery Solved. Space.com, August 29, 2007.

6. Ibid.

7. Irion, R. 2003. When Do Planets Form? Inquiring Astronomers Want to Know. Science 300 (5625): 1498.

What on earth are you talking about now? And what is "your theories"?

I assumed that you believed in naturalistic theories. I guess you could believe in some sort of pantheistic theory. But regardless all naturalistic theories have to start with a multiverse. So if you do believe in naturalism then you have to believe in the multiverse. And it is not that science has developed enough it is simply a manner of logic that something cannot come from nothing.

The only subject where multiverses are discussed is theoretical physics. Do you think that has any bearing on evolution, or the chemistry, physics and mathematics that are practiced every day to create our technology, solve engineering problems, design drugs, build structures, etc.?

Not at all, your the one that has to believe in the multiverse not me.

What? Have you started the weekend parting early?

That did not come out very well. But the point was that nothing cannot make something.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 31 by EarthScienceguy]

But regardless all naturalistic theories have to start with a multiverse.

So the mole has popped up through another hole and the subject is now multiverses? Where do you get the idea that all naturalistic theories have to start with a multiverse?

Isn't Humphrey's magic water balls theory a naturalistic one (once a god has popped them into existence from nothing, of course). Where is the multiverse? He uses simple equations for exponential decay and magnetic moments to get his numbers, and he also has these magic water balls appear from nothing which you are objecting to as well. If something can't come from nothing, how does Humphrey's get his magic water balls? Why is Humphrey's allowed to use equations from naturalistic theories at any point (as he clearly does) if he doesn't incorporate a multiverse?

See how silly and inconsistent all of these kinds of creationist attempts at science really are?

[micatala]

Below is the famous paper that Russ Humphreys authored in 1984.

http://www.sedin.org/crs_samp/21_3a1.htm

In this paper he correctly predicted the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune before the voyager flew by them in the late 1980's. He based his theory on a universe that is 6000 years old. Using the following equation.

Quote:
So the magnetic moment M at any time t after creation would be:

M = Mc exp(-t/T)

His equations also accurately predicts the Moon small gravitational field that is just in surface rocks and long with Mars Magnetic field that is also in surface rocks.

He later went on and used the same equations to predict Mercury's magnetic field decrease.


ADDED

In this theory 5 assumptions are made.

1. That the fifth fundamental force that there has to be create our universe is a living being that has characteristics different from man. (The fifth fundamental force has to be different than anything in this universe.)
Characteristics of the fifth fundamental force (from Sean Carroll’s (atheist cosmologist) description of the Characteristics the “mother universe would have to have)

a. Has to be eternal (There would be no such thing as time because time is a construct of this universe but what that would mean)

b. To be eternal especially as Carroll’s describes this universe would mean it must be all-powerful. Meaning that it could never lose energy. Anyway you slice it to create an infinite number of universe would mean that energy could not decrease. He would describe this as time running in both directions.

c. This universe would also have to be infinite to create an infinite number of universes.

d. There has to be a fifth force because the 4 fundamental forces of this universe are tied to the space of this universe. So if there is no space then there are no forces.

e. The fifth force would have to be different. Because even if the 4 fundamental forces do exist in this ‘mother universe,� they do not have to act as they do in this universe.

2. God made a ball of water as described in Genesis 1 with all of the protons in hydrogen spinning the same way. It would have to be hydrogen because it has but a single proton and proton spin in the nucleus is paired like electron spin is.

3. After the creation of the ball of water. The water molecules alignment would be broken creating great electrical currents in the ball of water.

4. Humphreys did not say this but experiments out of Russia say this can happen. That these currents that were created made all of the elements that we see today in a process known as a Z-pinch.

5. Then the God guided these atoms together to form life.

Let's cut out the irrelevancies.

The universe must be at least as old as the earth.

The earth must be at least as old as features that are part of the earth.

We have ice cores that are dated to 1.5 million years based on layering and chemical analysis.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 081228.htm

The layers within the grand canyon span back to 2 billion years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_o ... anyon_area

See also here. http://www.bobspixels.com/kaibab.org/ge ... _layer.htm

This includes information on the different kinds of fossils found in different formations. In some cases, marine fossils are found at higher layers than land fossils.


In this link, the entire geological column is described in North Dakota.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/

In particular, one section of the williston basin has a 300 foot layer of salt.

"The Opeche shale is of Permian age and overlies the Minnelusa. The interesting thing about the Opeche is that in the center of the basin, at its deepest part, it is salt - 300 feet of salt. Permian pollen is found in the salt, modern pollen is not found (Wilgus and Holser, 1984, p. 765,766). This bed has the appearance of a period of time in which the Williston Sea dried up, leaving its salt behind in the deepest parts of the basin as would be expected. The area of salt deposition is 188,400 square kilometers. Assuming that over this area the salt averages half that 300 feet(91 m) or averages 45 meters, then this deposit represents 9 trillion cubic meters of salt! With a density of 2160 kg/m^3 this represents the evaporation of 845 million cubic kilometers of seawater. This is 1/14 of the world's ocean water. "

For this much salt to accumulate via evaporation of that quantity of water will certainly take more than 6000 years.



Three separate lines of evidence, all debunking a very young earth independently of each other. This is just scratching the surface of such evidence.

Now, if one wants to postulate that God created the evidence as it exists for some reason, one could certainly 'explain' the evidence via this theological assumption. But if one makes this assumption, then science as an enterprise would be entirely irrelevant, including whatever Mr. Humphreys might have to say.

[micatala]

Here is another very detailed link on the geology of the upper midwest from the North Dakota Geological Survey.

https://www.dmr.nd.gov/ndgs/resources/

The fact that geological science can be used to correctly predict where gas and oil deposits are likely to lie is an indication of the soundness of the science.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to micatala]

The universe must be at least as old as the earth.

The earth must be at least as old as features that are part of the earth.

I can go along with this as long as you can.

We have ice cores that are dated to 1.5 million years based on layering and chemical analysis.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 081228.htm

You see the problem is that especially in geology Hutton's uniformitarian principle is only used when it fits uniformitarian ideas. "The present is the key to the past is Hutton's uniformitarian principle.

So using this principle they have a problem.

In 1946, a fighter was abandon on the Greenland ice sheet. 46 years later it was found under 260 feet of ice. That means the 1900 feet of ice could have been laid down in a little over 7 years.

From talk origins.

A report of "many hundreds" of layers in the ice above the Lost Squadron may also be explained by the airplanes' location on Greenland. That location is relatively warm because it is low and more southerly; its surface gets repeatedly melted during the summer, creating multiple melt layers per year. At the site of the GISP2 ice core, melting occurs only about once every couple centuries. Melt layers are easily distinguished in ice cores. The more than 100,000 layers in ice cores are definitely not melt layers (Seely 2003).

They can say that it is "Definitely not melt layers" but that does not erase the fact that "many hundreds of layers" were laid down in a span of 46 years.

Another method that they use is the the oxygen ratio method. In with this they take the ratio of oxygen 16 and oxygen 18. The ratio changes for warm and cold period. But again from the talk origins article above there are repeated warm and cool periods. This would also be reflected in the oxygen 16 and oxygen 18 ratio. So again I am not sure how the conclusion of "definitely not melt layers is arrived at.

The layers within the grand canyon span back to 2 billion years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_o ... anyon_area

See also here. http://www.bobspixels.com/kaibab.org/ge ... _layer.htm

This includes information on the different kinds of fossils found in different formations. In some cases, marine fossils are found at higher layers than land fossils.

The problem with the Grand Canyon, if you believe that the Earth is billions of years old, is that it should not be there. The Colorado plateau was uplifted and then the Colorado river cut through the plateau. The problem with this is that the origin of the Colorado river is lower than the top of the plateau. So, the only way that the Colorado river could have carved out the Grand Canyon was if it flowed uphill.

Summing up the confusing elements in the controversy, Wayne Ranney in Carving Grand Canyon: Evidence, Theories, and Mystery (page 19, published by the Grand Canyon Association, 2005) writes, “Grand Canyon is a puzzle, a mystery, an enigma. It appears to have been carved through an uplifted plateau, ignores fault lines, may have been born by a river that once flowed the other way, is possibly quite old or quite young – or both – and is set within a more mature landscape.�

I will not go through all of "Old Earth" Problems with the Grand Canyon. Because this could get quite lengthy but I will mention a few more.

Another is the side canyons that are attached to the Grand Canyon. Many of these side canyons have no visible way that they were formed.

And there are only fossils above the unconformity. And the ordering of the fossil makes perfect sense if two large lakes breached a natural dam creating the Grand Canyon.

I will get to the salt next.

[micatala]

[Replying to micatala]

The universe must be at least as old as the earth.

The earth must be at least as old as features that are part of the earth.

I can go along with this as long as you can.

We have ice cores that are dated to 1.5 million years based on layering and chemical analysis.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 081228.htm

You see the problem is that especially in geology Hutton's uniformitarian principle is only used when it fits uniformitarian ideas. "The present is the key to the past is Hutton's uniformitarian principle.

Hutton's theory was the first of its kind in many ways, and geologists, having a lot more data than was available to Hutton, have updated the theory and allow that catastrophes can play a role in geological history along with processes that operate over millenia.

In 1946, a fighter was abandon on the Greenland ice sheet. 46 years later it was found under 260 feet of ice. That means the 1900 feet of ice could have been laid down in a little over 7 years.

From talk origins.

A report of "many hundreds" of layers in the ice above the Lost Squadron may also be explained by the airplanes' location on Greenland. That location is relatively warm because it is low and more southerly; its surface gets repeatedly melted during the summer, creating multiple melt layers per year. At the site of the GISP2 ice core, melting occurs only about once every couple centuries. Melt layers are easily distinguished in ice cores. The more than 100,000 layers in ice cores are definitely not melt layers (Seely 2003).

They can say that it is "Definitely not melt layers" but that does not erase the fact that "many hundreds of layers" were laid down in a span of 46 years.

You should have read the entirety of what you are quoting.

Ice layers are counted by different methods (mainly, visible layers of hoar frost, visible dust layers, and layers of differing electrical conductivity) which have nothing to do with thickness. These methods corroborate each other and match with other independently determined dates (Seely 2003).

The airplanes landed near the shore of Greenland, where snow accumulation is rapid, at about 2 m per year. Allowing for some compaction due to the weight of the snow, that accounts for the depth of snow under which they are buried. The planes are also on an active glacier and have moved about 2 km since landing. Ice core dating takes place on stable ice fields, not active glaciers. The interior of Greenland, where ice cores were taken, receives much less snow. In Antarctica, where ice cores dating back more than 100,000 years have been collected, the rate of snow accumulation is much less still.

A report of "many hundreds" of layers in the ice above the Lost Squadron may also be explained by the airplanes' location on Greenland. That location is relatively warm because it is low and more southerly; its surface gets repeatedly melted during the summer, creating multiple melt layers per year. At the site of the GISP2 ice core, melting occurs only about once every couple centuries. Melt layers are easily distinguished in ice cores. The more than 100,000 layers in ice cores are definitely not melt layers (Seely 2003).

Two meters is six feet times 50 years gives you 300 feet. This explains that 260 feet is not at all unreasonable for this location.

The ice cores I referred to are in much colder regions without a whole lot of repeated melting and cooling. Your example here is not only invalid as far as your claim, it is irrelevant to refuting mine.

The layers within the grand canyon span back to 2 billion years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_o ... anyon_area

See also here. http://www.bobspixels.com/kaibab.org/ge ... _layer.htm

This includes information on the different kinds of fossils found in different formations. In some cases, marine fossils are found at higher layers than land fossils.

The problem with the Grand Canyon, if you believe that the Earth is billions of years old, is that it should not be there. The Colorado plateau was uplifted and then the Colorado river cut through the plateau. The problem with this is that the origin of the Colorado river is lower than the top of the plateau. So, the only way that the Colorado river could have carved out the Grand Canyon was if it flowed uphill.

Perhaps you should provide some evidence for this claim. I can think of several possible explanations for why your argument here is invalid, but I will wait until you specify. In particular, where is the source of the Colorado river now and where was it when the carving of the grand canyon would have been commencing.


[

quote]Summing up the confusing elements in the controversy, Wayne Ranney in Carving Grand Canyon: Evidence, Theories, and Mystery (page 19, published by the Grand Canyon Association, 2005) writes, “Grand Canyon is a puzzle, a mystery, an enigma. It appears to have been carved through an uplifted plateau, ignores fault lines, may have been born by a river that once flowed the other way, is possibly quite old or quite young – or both – and is set within a more mature landscape.�

I will not go through all of "Old Earth" Problems with the Grand Canyon. Because this could get quite lengthy but I will mention a few more.

Another is the side canyons that are attached to the Grand Canyon. Many of these side canyons have no visible way that they were formed. [/quote]

And this claim is based on?

And there are only fossils above the unconformity. And the ordering of the fossil makes perfect sense if two large lakes breached a natural dam creating the Grand Canyon.

Please explain in detail taking into account all the formations and the fossils found therein. When did this particular breaching occur? I can accept there may be no fossils below the unconformity but am not sure how that negates any of the evidence provided by the fossils above the unconformity.

I will get to the salt next.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to micatala]

Hutton's theory was the first of its kind in many ways, and geologists, having a lot more data than was available to Hutton, have updated the theory and allow that catastrophes can play a role in geological history along with processes that operate over millenia.

The difference is that "old Earth Theories" have to assume multiple catastrophes while the "young Earth creationist assume but one." It is without question that some sort of global catastrophe has happen in the past al theories point to some sort of catastrophe.

Our theories describe the catastrophic observations as one event instead of multiple events.

Two meters is six feet times 50 years gives you 300 feet. This explains that 260 feet is not at all unreasonable for this location.

The ice cores I referred to are in much colder regions without a whole lot of repeated melting and cooling. Your example here is not only invalid as far as your claim, it is irrelevant to refuting mine.

I wasn't refuting your claim I was supporting mine. I was simply showing that it does not take thousands of years to form the glaciers with the properties that we observe in the glaciers. After the flood snow fall would have increased greatly because of the oceans being warmer. Add a few super volcanic eruptions in the 700 years after the flood and you have glaciers like the ones we observe today.

Another is the side canyons that are attached to the Grand Canyon. Many of these side canyons have no visible way that they were formed.

The whole western side of Marble Canyon.

The problem with the Grand Canyon, if you believe that the Earth is billions of years old, is that it should not be there. The Colorado plateau was uplifted and then the Colorado river cut through the plateau. The problem with this is that the origin of the Colorado river is lower than the top of the plateau. So, the only way that the Colorado river could have carved out the Grand Canyon was if it flowed uphill.

Elevations of the Colorado river

Head waters 9000 feet
Midway to Utah 6100 feet
Colorado - Utah border 4300 feet
Mid-way to the Grand Canyon (Rider point) 3000 feet (no Canyon here)
North rim of the Grand Canyon the Colorado river is at an elevation 2800 feet. The Colorado river is proposed to cut through a plateau that is at 9200 feet. that is almost 6000 feet up hill. Wow, that is amazing.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/ent ... rado_River

2. problem Inner Gorge

One of the sure signs of water erosion is rounded rocks. There are rivers that have cut through the rock and in all of those rivers the rocks are rounded. That is not what we see in the inner gorge of the Grand Canyon we see sharp jagged rocks. This is not evidence of slow river erosion.

3. Problem: The Colorado river cutting into the hard metamorphic schists and granite instead of cutting into the soft sedimentary rocks on the sides.

Water usually follows the path of least resistance. So it would be much easier for the Colorado river cutting into the sedimentary rocks on the sides and slowing and widening. Than it would be to cut down into the hard schist and granite layer.

4. Problem: The Great Denudation

There are two great erosional events that any formation theory for the Grand Canyon must explain. The Grand Canyon is own and the Great Denudation is another. The Great Denudation is an event that excavation of around 2000 mi3 of rock.

The Great Denudation is the uniformitarian name for the massive
erosional event that stripped tremendous volumes of sedimentary
rock from the surface of the Colorado Plateau. Like the origin of Grand
Canyon, this event remains inexplicable to uniformitarian geology.
However, any hypothesis of the origin of the Canyon must account for
the conjunction of these two very large-scale, yet very different events.
The Great Denudation was accomplished by east to northeast flowing
sheets of water, which left a cobble and boulder lag—the Rim Gravel—
on the southwest Colorado Plateau. Uniformitarians propose erosion
by northeast flowing streams, but there is no sedimentary evidence for
their depositional activity, and the sheet-like erosion is not consistent
with observed styles of fluvial erosion.

It is extremely hard to believe a river eroded this much sediment over about a 10000 mi2 area.

5. Problem: Side Canyons

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Gra ... _224829532

As you can see from this picture the Grand Canyon is only part of a larger system of Canyons many of these canyons lie perpendicular to the Colorado river.


6. Problem 6 No fossils below the great unconformities.

There are no great layer of fossils being laid down today. Fossilized objects are a very rare event and

Animals cannot live without oxygen, so no animals live there. In these situations, the only possibility of fossilization is if a fish or other swimming animal dies in oxygen-rich waters above, sinks down into the stagnant muddy bottom, and is buried by sediments.

Fossilization on land is very uncommon, however, because most areas of the land are being eroded. Unless there is deposition, fossils cannot be preserved. Deposition on land is common only in river valleys. Fossils are fairly common in sediments deposited on river floodplains. Some ocean environments that support animal life are exposed to very strong currents and waves.

https://www.americangeosciences.org/edu ... ssils-form

As you can see whether in ocean or on land both require a watery environment and movement of water. If we look river delta and flood planes today we do not see fossils being formed. It does not take 10000 years to make a fossil. Here is a little experiment you can do at home and make your own fossil.

Materials
2 kitchen sponges
1 shallow dish
1 small pot
1 cup of water
Epsom salt
Food coloring
Fossil Experiment
Procedure
(Adults should supervise the experiment and perform all cutting.)

Cut both sponges into bone shapes and set one aside. Place the other sponge into a shallow dish.
Heat water close to boiling and stir in as much Epsom salt as will dissolve. Add food coloring to water (if desired).
Pour the salt water over the sponge.
Place the bowl where it will not be disturbed for a few days. Leave uncovered so the water can evaporate.
Final Result
Once dry, compare the two sponges. Break the fossil in half. What happened to the sponge material? Was it encased (permineralized) or replaced (petrified)?

So we do not see fossil formation today. Just like below the great unconformity. So to see fossils in the layers above the great unconformity would be a violation of uniformitarian principles. Flood theory can easily explain these fossils, because a flood would have lost of water. Floods also have shown time and time again that they do layer sediments.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to micatala]

In particular, one section of the williston basin has a 300 foot layer of salt.

"The Opeche shale is of Permian age and overlies the Minnelusa. The interesting thing about the Opeche is that in the center of the basin, at its deepest part, it is salt - 300 feet of salt. Permian pollen is found in the salt, modern pollen is not found (Wilgus and Holser, 1984, p. 765,766). This bed has the appearance of a period of time in which the Williston Sea dried up, leaving its salt behind in the deepest parts of the basin as would be expected. The area of salt deposition is 188,400 square kilometers. Assuming that over this area the salt averages half that 300 feet(91 m) or averages 45 meters, then this deposit represents 9 trillion cubic meters of salt! With a density of 2160 kg/m^3 this represents the evaporation of 845 million cubic kilometers of seawater. This is 1/14 of the world's ocean water. "

For this much salt to accumulate via evaporation of that quantity of water will certainly take more than 6000 years.

Are you serious about this. The great salt lake and the dead sea are both evaporating and they both have water flowing into them. Even if we use normal ocean water salinity it still would not take even close to 6000 years to evaporate.

Are you talking freshwater or saltwater? Because (9 X 10^12 m3 of salt) / (8.45 x 10^8 km3) only gives about .00107% salt water by volume.

I thought the ocean was 3.5% by mass or weight

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/whysalty.html

Further the volume of the world's oceans is 1.5 x 10^9 km3. Taking your volume of water 8.45 x 10^8 km3 / 1.5 x 10^9 km3 = .563

So that would mean that your little lake would be 56% of the world's oceans. The pacific is only 31% so this little body of water you are speaking would be almost twice as large as the pacific ocean.

You said the area of the pond you are speaking of is 1.88 x 10^5 km2 the area of the pacific ocean is 1.55 x 10^8 km2. Something is not adding up in your math.

Let's see if I can help you.

According to good old Tennessee University the energy of the sun at the surface of the earth is about 1000 w/m2. So that means at the surface of your beautiful lake the sun would be applying 1.88 x 10^14 W of energy.
(1.88 x 10^11 m2 x 1000 w/m2)

You said that the are of your pond is 1.88 x 10^5 km2. Changing this value to m2 would mean moving the decimal point 6 places which would give you 1.88 x 10^11 m2.

(1.88 x 10^11 m2) x 45 m (depth of salt) gives a volume of salt of 8.46 x 10^12 m3.

Using your density of salt 2160 kg/m3 gives the mass of this salt bed as
1.83 x 10^16 kg of salt.

Salt as stated earlier is 3.5% of ocean water so you take 1.83 x 10^16 kg /.035 = 5.22 x 10^17 kg of water.

Latent heat of vaporization of water is 2256 kj/kg.

5.22 x 10^17 kg of water x 2256 kJ/kg = 1.18 x 10^21 kj of energy is required to evaporate all this water. From above I pointed out the the surface of this body of water receives 1.88 x 10^14 W of energy every day. 1 W = 1 J/s
1.88 x 10^14 j/s.

Converting 1.18 x 10^21 kj to j would = 1.18 x 10^24 j now to get how long it would take this volume of water to evaporate

1.18 x 10^24 J/1.88 x 10^14 J/s = 6.28 x 10^9 seconds. There are 3.15 x 10^7 seconds/year. So that means 6.28 x 10^9 seconds / 3.15 x 10^7 second/years = 2 x 10^2 or 200 years to evaporate.

I think there would be plenty of time for this volume of water to evaporate.

Three separate lines of evidence, all debunking a very young earth independently of each other. This is just scratching the surface of such evidence.

You might want to keep scratching. Because God creating this universe and this world is the only thing that makes rational sense when looking at the observations.

Now, if one wants to postulate that God created the evidence as it exists for some reason, one could certainly 'explain' the evidence via this theological assumption.

I just did. Some did not even need to use God as an assumption.

But if one makes this assumption, then science as an enterprise would be entirely irrelevant, including whatever Mr. Humphreys might have to say.

You see. You still have the pesky problem of the predictions that he made. Why would the his predictions be accurate? Why if one assumes that everything we see was once water accurately predict the magnetic fields of almost every astronomical body in space?

When Einstein developed his theory of relativity which is nothing more than a reworking of Newton's equations. This theory of relativity had to explain why Newton's equations worked so well. Newton's equations were a triumph of man's ability to predict the motion of objects. So his theory had to predict why this was true.

You may say that Humphrey's equations are bogus but then you must explain why they still predict magnetic fields so accurately.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 38 by EarthScienceguy]

Let's see if I can help you.

You seemed to have misunderstood micatala's quote. The quote did not say that the "little body of water" was 845 million cubic km of seawater in size ... it said that the amount of salt left in the area was equivalent to evaporation of that much seawater. So there was no inference that the former lake was equivalent in size to 56% of the world's oceans.

If the surface of the former lake is 188,400 km2, that is 1.88 x 10^11 m2 as you correctly have. So the total sunlight energy hitting the surface of the lake would be 1.88 x 10^14 W. You are assuming that 100% of this energy goes into evaporation of the water, but that isn't the case. You also assume that the sun is shining 100% of the time and ignoring day/night cycles, cloudy days, whether the surface of the lake is frozen or liquid, whether rain and rivers/streams add water to the lake, etc. The amount of sunlight reflected from the water depends on the sun angle as well, and the amount of energy absorbed depends on the wavelength (eg. H2O does not absorb visible light to any significant extent ... otherwise it would not be clear). You calculation for the evaporation rate is way too simplified.

The albedo (ratio of reflected to absorbed light) is about 0.06 for ocean water (94% of light absorbed), but as high as 0.7 (70% of light reflected) for an ice surface (which this lake would no doubt have for a significant portion of the winter given its location). Since most of the sun's energy is in the visible region where H2O is a very weak absorber, not all of the energy can go into the heat of vaporization. Humidity of the air above the lake also affects the evaporation rate (it is lower when the humidity is higher), as does wind speed and other factors.

So you have grossly underestimated the actual time it would take to evaporate all the water from the lake. And if the salinity of the lake water were less than ocean water, then it would take longer to accumulate the same equivalent of salt. But Noah's flood has been debunked so many times from virtually every discipline of science it is hardly worth arguing about one particular example. Such a flood did not happen as the bible describes, when it was supposed to have happened, and that is a 100% certainty.

When Einstein developed his theory of relativity which is nothing more than a reworking of Newton's equations.

Completely wrong ... not even worth a comment.

You may say that Humphrey's equations are bogus but then you must explain why they still predict magnetic fields so accurately.

Because his premise is completely wrong. There is no basis for claiming that all the planets started as balls of H2O, and (even more ridiculous) no basis for claiming that all of the hydrogen nuclei had their spins aligned. He just made both of those up out of thin air, so any conclusions that he may draw from these assumptions are garbage. I can propose that the moon is made of concrete, then calculate various properties like its mass, gravity, etc. and get reasonable answers. Does that mean I have proven that the moon is made of concrete? Surely you can see that Humphrey's initial assumptions are just made up nonsense, so why would you believe anything that he derives from them?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 39 by DrNoGods]

You seemed to have misunderstood micatala's quote. The quote did not say that the "little body of water" was 845 million cubic km of seawater in size ... it said that the amount of salt left in the area was equivalent to evaporation of that much seawater. So there was no inference that the former lake was equivalent in size to 56% of the world's oceans.

I have no idea what you are trying to express here.

If the surface of the former lake is 188,400 km2, that is 1.88 x 10^11 m2 as you correctly have. So the total sunlight energy hitting the surface of the lake would be 1.88 x 10^14 W. You are assuming that 100% of this energy goes into evaporation of the water, but that isn't the case. You also assume that the sun is shining 100% of the time and ignoring day/night cycles, cloudy days, whether the surface of the lake is frozen or liquid, whether rain and rivers/streams add water to the lake, etc. The amount of sunlight reflected from the water depends on the sun angle as well, and the amount of energy absorbed depends on the wavelength (eg. H2O does not absorb visible light to any significant extent ... otherwise it would not be clear). You calculation for the evaporation rate is way too simplified.

The units on the latent heat of vaporization is kj/kg. Evaporation does occur in the dark. Just put a glass of water in your closet and it will evaporate. It will evaporate at the same rate in the winter or in the summer as long as your heating and cooling system is keeping your home at the same temperature. So it does not matter whether it is by your furnace or not. All that matter is the heat energy striking the earth.

But does it really matter. Add a few hundred years it still is well within young Earth parameters.

So you have grossly underestimated the actual time it would take to evaporate all the water from the lake. And if the salinity of the lake water were less than ocean water, then it would take longer to accumulate the same equivalent of salt.

What if the salt content was higher? Then it would have taken less than 200 years.

But Noah's flood has been debunked so many times from virtually every discipline of science it is hardly worth arguing about one particular example. Such a flood did not happen as the bible describes, when it was supposed to have happened, and that is a 100% certainty.

I am sure that this is a very convincing argument especially when the only theory that can possibly explain the Grand Canyon is the Flood theory.

Quote:
When Einstein developed his theory of relativity which is nothing more than a reworking of Newton's equations.


Completely wrong ... not even worth a comment.

You have never heard of F = ma.

According to Newton as long as force is applied to an object any speed is up to infinity is possible. Einstein had to explain why Newton's equation which predicts the motion of objects with great precision is limited by the speed of light.

And again with Momentum

Ft = dmv

What happens to the added force if the velocity cannot exceed the speed of light.

Quote:
You may say that Humphrey's equations are bogus but then you must explain why they still predict magnetic fields so accurately.


Because his premise is completely wrong. There is no basis for claiming that all the planets started as balls of H2O, and (even more ridiculous) no basis for claiming that all of the hydrogen nuclei had their spins aligned. He just made both of those up out of thin air, so any conclusions that he may draw from these assumptions are garbage. I can propose that the moon is made of concrete, then calculate various properties like its mass, gravity, etc. and get reasonable answers. Does that mean I have proven that the moon is made of concrete?

Maybe, not but it would why would that be the case? Is there something in the moon that we do know about. Or is it missing something that we assumed was in there. That is the power of predictions and observations. There has to be a reason why the moon would be behaving like concrete.

Surely you can see that Humphrey's initial assumptions are just made up nonsense, so why would you believe anything that he derives from them?

His equations still made predictions that not one of your old Earth Series cannot do in the least.