Early One Friday Morning

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
SallyF
Guru
Posts: 1459
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2018 8:32 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Early One Friday Morning

Post #1

Post by SallyF »

In 1642, Dr. John Lightfoot wrote that man was created at 9:00 a.m., and in 1644, he wrote that the world was created on Sunday, September 12, 3928. http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/texts/ussher/white_ad.html

(The mythological, biblical) Jehovah god formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. (Genesis Chapter 2)

Now, the length of a biblical "day" can be whatever one chooses it to be, and one can apply that to the rest of the biblical creation mythology, but not to the creation of the mud-man. If one is a biblical scholar, one is obliged to add up the biblical "begats" to arrive at somewhere near the 3,928 years before the Son of Jehovah arrived on this planet in some sort of mysterious transference of divine DNA to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

On the evidence-based, scientific side of things, however:

The skull, detailed in the first of two papers in Nature, is set to rewrite our understanding of where A. anamensis fits between primitive hominins that lived more than 4 million years ago, and Australopithecus afarensis, the species made famous by the Lucy skeleton. https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/201 ... p/11444130

Pope Francis: ‘Evolution … is not inconsistent with the notion of creation’
https://religionnews.com/2014/10/27/pop ... -creation/

Would His Holiness need to toss his Bible in the trash can to make that claim …?
"God" … just whatever humans imagine it to be.

"Scripture" … just whatever humans write it to be.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Post #21

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 19 by EarthScienceguy]
Creationist have disputed radioactive dating and the geologic column and both disputed have proven to be founded. (Just as always the Bible has been proven correct)


Replace "founded" with "unfounded" in sentence #1, and replace "correct" with "incorrect" in the second sentence (which is in parentheses for some reason) and you'd have a valid statement. Radiometric dating is very well established both experimentally and theoretically (as is the geologic column), and a few creationist complainers won't change that.
This process has been proposed as a means to produce energy.


And yet never has. That paper was not published in a peer-reviewed journal, but written by someone trying to get funding for his company to pursue it as clearly stated at the end of the article. If it was actually viable, and they could prove it, money would find them very fast.
This is very similar to what Walt Brown theorized was happening almost 20 years earlier. This process is outlined in the following paper.


That is fission, not fusion, so they are not "very similar." And as usual you are ignoring the quantitative implications of these effects (like you did in an earlier thread claiming that the piezoelectric effect in rocks could create the distribution of heavy elements seen on Earth, when the effect is many, many orders of magnitude below what would actually be necessary). Creationists have yet to challenge any accepted scientific theory with anything more than weak, handwaving arguments.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Post #22

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to post 18 by DrNoGods]
The geologic column is another example of something where the explanation of modern geology that requires very long time frames must be disputed by YECs, and instead described as being caused by a great flood in order to support that narrative from the bible. It is not necessary that a human was present to actually observe the formation of chalk layers to work out how the process happened.
Yes, YEC also dispute the geologic column for good reason.

1st. There is the missing time in the rock layers.

There are many places in the geologic column that are missing layers of rock called unconformities. A major unconformity is called the Great unconformity because it is missing 1.2 billion years of rock. So where did all of the rock go and how did so much rock erode it is a great mystery.

And it seems like this great global mystery keeps occuring.

One of the most dramatic of these so called erosional breaks in the Grand Canyon strata is that between the Redwall Limestone and the Muav Limestone beneath (see Figure 1). The Redwall Limestone is assigned by evolutionary geologists to the so-called Mississippian Period (or the Lower Carboniferous to Europeans and Australians), said to have been 310-355 million years ago,3 whereas the Muav Limestone is said to belong to the so-called Cambrian Period, believed to be 510-570 million years ago.4 That means that where the Redwall Limestone rests directly on top of the Muav Limestone there is said to be a time gap of at least 155 million years during which the land surface was supposed to have been exposed to the forces of weathering and erosion.
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/ro ... ogic-time/


But don't take answers in genesis word for it here is another article the states the same thing.

The Great Unconformity (GU) is one of geology’s deepest mysteries. It is a gap of missing time in the geological record between 100 million and 1 billion years long, and it occurs in different rock sections around the world. When and how the GU came to be is still not totally resolved.
https://eos.org/articles/erasing-a-bill ... -the-globe


There are other places in the rock column that are missing 155 million years of rock.

2nd The deposition of rock is not correct.

According to the geologic column the rate at which rock is deposited is somewhere around .01 m per 1000 years if my memory serves me correctly. The current rate of deposition is somewhere around 100 m per 1000 years. So where is all of this missing rock. And why doesn't the geologic rock column portray the deposition that we see today.

It is well known that measured deposition rates decrease systemically with measurement duration (Figure 3) for virtually all depositional environments in which there are sufficient data, with intervals ranging from minutes to millions of years [Sadler, 1981, 1999]. Here we refer to this pattern as the “Sadler effect.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com ... 09JF001266


The evidence warrants scepticism of the current theories that suggest long ages.

User avatar
Diagoras
Guru
Posts: 1392
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
Has thanked: 170 times
Been thanked: 579 times

Post #23

Post by Diagoras »

[Replying to post 22 by EarthScienceguy]
How about killing two birds with one stone? That neatly solves both your ‘unconformity’ problem and your ‘Cambrian explosion’ problem together. See how science works to solve problems, rather than sit on the sidelines and moan “but you don’t have an answer�!

Incidentally, you seem to be happy to accept the dating of the Redwall and Muav limestones as accurate enough to create your ‘problem of missing rock’, but I haven’t seen you state your acceptance of these datings in isolation. Would you therefore kindly answer:

1) Can the Redwall Limestone be reliably dated to 310-355 myo?

2) Can the Muav Limestone be reliably dated to 510-575 myo?

If not, please supply a link to the scientific study(ies) that support a different age for these formations.
Christianity has not changed its belief system to accommodate scientific thought.

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Post #24

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to Diagoras]
How about killing two birds with one stone? That neatly solves both your ‘unconformity’ problem and your ‘Cambrian explosion’ problem together. See how science works to solve problems, rather than sit on the sidelines and moan “but you don’t have an answer�!
I read this article all ready. It does of great job of supporting 30 year young earth creation theory. But lets go through this great theory they are proposing and see if it "holds any water". Get it. Ha, Ha.

Ok here we go.

1st. From the article
During the early Cambrian, shallow seas repeatedly advanced and retreated across the North American continent, gradually eroding away surface rock to uncover fresh basement rock from within the crust.

If this is true are they trying to express the idea that the ocean moved to and fro without forming rivers. Even if this article is expressing a belief that the ocean was moving fast enough to erode vast layers of rock. The turbulence would cause uneven underwater erosion not even sheet erosion. The observation still shows that this water phenomenon would have had to occur over the entire surface of the Earth to erode all the layers from 1.2 billion years of rock.

There are other theories that suggest that glaciers pushed all of the 1.2 billion years of rock in the ocean and then all that rock was subducted into the ocean. This theory also has it problems because moraines are not the only deposition that glaciers make. There are also eskers and drumlins that are formed under the glacier where are these deposits. https://www.livescience.com/64419-earth ... found.html

Conclusion both oceans retreating because of uplift and glaciers would both leave evidence of erosion and deposits on the continents that should contain the 1.2 billion year old missing rock. These theories seem doubtful.

2nd The changing of the chemistry of the ocean.

Exposed to the surface environment for the first time, those crustal rocks reacted with air and water in a chemical weathering process that released ions such as calcium, iron, potassium, and silica into the oceans, changing the seawater chemistry.

How is sea water chemistry changed without changing the temperature of the water? Take silica for instance if sea water were 77 degrees F or 25 degrees C sea water could only increase in silica content to 6 ppm. If the ocean were colder because of snowball earth then the silica content would be even lower in the oceans.

Creationist also say that the ocean chemistry has changed here is Andrew Snelling and his evidence for that change:

Skeptics claim that it is impossible for the chalk beds to have been rapidly deposited during the yearlong biblical Flood. They say it would take a long time for the trillions of foraminifers and coccoliths to breed, grow, die, and be buried to produce these thick chalk beds all around the globe.

When they say this, they assume that ocean water conditions have always been like they are today. But during the global Flood cataclysm, water conditions were very different—hot volcanic waters and nutrients changed the water temperature and chemistry, which caused the rapid blooming of foraminifers and coccoliths in just hours, days, or weeks, not millions of years.6

These skeptics also ignore the fact that these chalk beds were deposited across the continents by ocean waters that rose high enough to completely flood the continents.

Meanwhile, the chalk beds are not found under the ocean floor where the limey ooze is today. And today’s limey oozes are nowhere near as pure in calcium carbonate as the chalk beds formed in the past.

Where do we see limey ooze slowly accumulating on the continents today—and burying and fossilizing huge ocean dwellers (like the extinct plesiosaurs and mosasaurs) together with large land dwellers (like the extinct dinosaurs and pterosaurs)? Or what about the fossil found in the Kansas beds of the voracious predatory fish Xiphactinus audax, 13 feet (4 m) long with a nearly perfectly preserved 6-foot-long (1.8 m) fish Gillicus arcuatus inside of it?


Here is Walt Brown:

Apparently, the flood waters escaping from under the northeastern edge of the Americas hydroplate dumped limestone at the Bahamas Bank.13 Similarly, waters escaping from under the northwestern edge of the European-Asian-African hydroplate dumped limestone in and around what is now the English Channel. Later, in warm surface waters, rich in dissolved limestone, vast algae blooms—perhaps daily—produced the soft, fine-grained type of limestone known as chalk. As long as nutrients and sunlight are plentiful (as was the case following the flood) algae blooms will expand exponentially. The algae die quickly and sink to the bottom of the sea. Most famous are the exposed layers in England’s White Cliffs of Dover and France’s Normandy coast. [See Figure 151 on page 258.]

Some deep-sea sediments include the components of chalk: silicate and calcareous (limestone) structures secreted by tiny organisms, such as foraminifera and coccoliths (a type of algae). Today, when they die, their hard body parts settle to the ocean floor too slowly to (1) bury and fossilize larger animals or (2) achieve the purity seen in famous chalk deposits. Because thick and very pure chalk deposits worldwide preserve many large fossils, including soft-body animals, deposition had to be rapid. Secondly, the microscopic organisms that form chalk must have abundant sources of dissolved limestone and silica—exactly what algae blooms require and the warm waters from the subterranean chambers provided. Powerful wave action, driven by the fluttering crust (explained on page 197) and mountain building events, could have easily scoured, transported, and dumped these low-density sediments into thick, pure, fossil-bearing, chalk deposits.


This change in ocean chemistry is what creationist have predicted for years.
Incidentally, you seem to be happy to accept the dating of the Redwall and Muav limestones as accurate enough to create your ‘problem of missing rock’, but I haven’t seen you state your acceptance of these datings in isolation. Would you therefore kindly answer:
I am using the dates of those that believe in long ages because I am assessing their own theory not because I accept the dates they suggesting.
1) Can the Redwall Limestone be reliably dated to 310-355 myo?

2) Can the Muav Limestone be reliably dated to 510-575 myo?

If not, please supply a link to the scientific study(ies) that support a different age for these formations.
There are several dating methods which one are you suggesting.

Let's start with radioactive dating since that is the one most commonly used. In a paper by Robert B. Hays, Hays in his paper entitled, "Some Mathematical and Geophysical Considerations in Radioisotope Dating Applications" points out some serious problems with radioactive dating because of the diffusion of atoms. http://www.ans.org/pubs/journals/nt/a_39676

There is also evidence of Piezonuclear Fission in the Earth crust. "Piezonuclear Fission Reactions in Rocks: Evidences from Microchemical Analysis, Neutron Emission, and Geological Transformation" https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... sformation

There is also evidence that the Piezonuclear fission takes place in rocks.

Now adding to the problem of the "Great Unconformity", the question of why 90% of all radioactive elements in the crust is concentrated in the continental crust? Can you provide documented evidence of why this is?

User avatar
Diagoras
Guru
Posts: 1392
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
Has thanked: 170 times
Been thanked: 579 times

Post #25

Post by Diagoras »

[Replying to post 24 by EarthScienceguy]
I am using the dates of those that believe in long ages because I am assessing their own theory not because I accept the dates they suggesting.
Odd. When I don’t accept the basic underlying facts of a theory, I tend to dismiss it, rather than go on to trumpet its conclusions as somehow relevant.

Either they’ve got all their dates messed up (in which case there’s no reliable evidence of any ‘missing’ period of time), or they’ve got them correct - in which case, you’re defeating your own position.

Referring to your common complaint about radioactive dating, I’d like to direct the general reader to this article. Here’s an extract:
The creationist approach of focusing on examples where radiometric dating yields incorrect results is a curious one for two reasons. First, it provides no evidence whatsoever to support their claim that the earth is very young. If the earth were only 6000–10 000 years old, then surely there should be some scientific evidence to confirm that hypothesis; yet the creationists have produced not a shred of it so far. Where are the data and age calculations that result in a consistent set of ages for all rocks on earth, as well as those from the moon and the meteorites, no greater than 10 000 years? Glaringly absent, it seems.

Second, it is an approach doomed to failure at the outset. Creationists seem to think that a few examples of incorrect radiometric ages invalidate all of the results of radiometric dating, but such a conclusion is illogical. Even things that work well do not work well all of the time and under all circumstances. Try, for example, wearing a watch that is not waterproof while swimming. It will probably fail, but what would a reasonable person conclude from that? That watches do not work? Hardly.
Christianity has not changed its belief system to accommodate scientific thought.

User avatar
Diagoras
Guru
Posts: 1392
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
Has thanked: 170 times
Been thanked: 579 times

Post #26

Post by Diagoras »

But once again, I’m afraid that EarthScienceguy has taken the discussion on tangent upon tangent, rather than address the claim made in the opening post - namely that “the bible teaches that Jehovah created a complete human male from mud�, and that there is zero scientific evidence of such.

Perhaps we can still return to that focus before we hear the cry of “Science still doesn’t have an answer for abiogenesis!�, as if that is enough to make Science pack up its tools and books, and return, sheepish and defeated back to the Bronze Age thinking promoted by YEC’s?

Seth
Student
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2020 8:53 pm

Post #27

Post by Seth »

[Replying to post 22 by EarthScienceguy]

Are you seriously quoting AIG in a discussion? Why don't you quote Goldie Locks and The Three Bears.

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Post #28

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to post 27 by Seth]
Are you seriously quoting AIG in a discussion? Why don't you quote Goldie Locks and The Three Bears?
Sure why not? People quote all kinds of things on this site, like Wikipedia and all kinds of atheist websites all the time.

Are you trying to communicate that the individuals with Doctorates at answers in genesis in a particular field like genetics really do not have their doctorate from places like Ohio State?

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Post #29

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to post 25 by Diagoras]
Quote:
I am using the dates of those that believe in long ages because I am assessing their own theory not because I accept the dates they suggesting.

Odd. When I don’t accept the basic underlying facts of a theory, I tend to dismiss it, rather than go on to trumpet its conclusions as somehow relevant.

Either they’ve got all their dates messed up (in which case there’s no reliable evidence of any ‘missing’ period of time), or they’ve got them correct - in which case, you’re defeating your own position.
OR we use these dates the same way I would speak Spanish to a person that speaks Spanish.

Referring to your common complaint about radioactive dating, I’d like to direct the general reader to this article. Here’s an extract:
Oh!!!! this is a classic!!


The creationist approach of focusing on examples where radiometric dating yields incorrect results is a curious one for two reasons. First, it provides no evidence whatsoever to support their claim that the earth is very young. If the earth were only 6000–10 000 years old, then surely there should be some scientific evidence to confirm that hypothesis; yet the creationists have produced not a shred of it so far. Where are the data and age calculations that result in a consistent set of ages for all rocks on earth, as well as those from the moon and the meteorites, no greater than 10 000 years? Glaringly absent, it seems.
Really no evidence.

1. Carbon 14 in diamonds, coal, and fossils.
2. Helium in zircon crystals.
3. The exponential decaying magnetic field of planets
4. The faint sun paradox
Second, it is an approach doomed to failure at the outset. Creationists seem to think that a few examples of incorrect radiometric ages invalidate all of the results of radiometric dating, but such a conclusion is illogical. Even things that work well do not work well all of the time and under all circumstances. Try, for example, wearing a watch that is not waterproof while swimming. It will probably fail, but what would a reasonable person conclude from that? That watches do not work? Hardly.
It is good to see the article state that there are incorrect radiometric dates. Creationist claims incorrect dates because it has not been shown that rock is mix uniformly like it has to be for these dates to be correct.

Seth
Student
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2020 8:53 pm

Post #30

Post by Seth »

[Replying to post 29 by EarthScienceguy]

What is your alternative to radiometric dating?

Post Reply