Manganese Nodules: Young or Old?
- Thread starter Bob Enyart
- Start date
No, I asserted that they've most certainly re-evaluated manganese nodule formation since the discovery of young nodules (i.e. <100,000 year old shallow-water nodules). I'm not referring specifically the formations to which you refer, rather young shallow water formations. However, young formations around a beer can are necessarily included in my statement since papers younger than the beer-can story have been published which further reaffirm the age of deep-sea nodules. There is a continual stream of papers in the past few years which reassert the age and growth rates of manganese nodules. These papers include both old and new dating methods and a variety of independent dating cross-checks. So it's a bit dishonest to imply that claims are not yet re-evaluated ("then previously published claims of required eons should be re-evaluated before being dogmatically retained" -Bob Enyart). Afterall, a re-evaluation occurs every time a paper is published describing manganese nodules. I said, "So then it's fairly obvious that as newer and newer techniques are being developed, old ideas are being checked and rechecked."
This statement shows your distance from the academic world. Researchers tend to stay on top of things in their fields. They subscribe to journals and they read them. And they also read all the news related to their fields Researchers who study manganese nodules for a living probably see every single publication that comes out. The research on manganese nodules is not overwhelming. In other words, researchers aren't swamped with a new journal full of manganese publications every other week.
If you think manganese nodules around a beer can wouldn't generate grant money because it might help creationists then you need to log off your computer right now, head down to the local store and purchase some tin foil. Fashion it around your head and wear it religiously.
I'm being serious here. You're bordering on absurdity. If you honestly believe that publications on young manganese nodules would be supressed or would dry up the grant funds then you are sadly mistaken. Afterall, there have been manganese nodules found and published on and extensively studied in lakebeds that are quite young. Further, to even imply that those who grant funds even think about the creation/evolution/age of the earth debate when granting funds is as absurd as implying that you consider what the cookie monster may think of your arguments before you use them.
You're being ridiculous now. Manganese nodules can be dated. If you stumble across an old car dated 1958, and then come across a new car dated 2006, does that really call into question the age of the old car? No. Not if the dating method is reliable. Now imagine you could date the old car with 8 independent methods. You did so, and all of the dates agree. You take one of those same methods you used to date the old car and you date the new car. You find that the dating method confirms that the car is new. Not a perfect analogy, but it conveys the point.
Two data points do not a trend make.
I'll fill it in. Bias. Bias bias bias. You want to talk about bias? You probably wouldn't mind since you've redefined the word to exclude yourself. But I must ask, how does answering "I don't know" to a question indicate bias? If I knew, I would have answered. I'm unsure of whether or not the two-column approach you suggested was appropriate.
Bob Enyart said:
Yo, sports fans, see my comments following e-mails with James Hein on the Manganese nodule summary thread. There are not 2 different interpretations of formation of manganese nodules, there are manganese nodules that form under different environmental conditions. Some form quickly, some form slowly. If you don't understand that, well, I guess I can help no more.
Lord Vader
New member
Polonium Halos
Polonium Halos
Ahhh, I remember the old days when it was thought that Polonium halos were damning evidence against an old earth. After the manganese thing, I wonder what we'll move onto next? Something old? Something new?
Polonium Halos
Ahhh, I remember the old days when it was thought that Polonium halos were damning evidence against an old earth. After the manganese thing, I wonder what we'll move onto next? Something old? Something new?
Bob dosen't post here much when he's in town, and he's out of town now so I wouldn't expect a response. I do know from past contact with him that he's a 10,000 or less guy, more around 6,000 but he keeps some wiggle room.kenny J said:
The best way to get a response is call the show when he gets back.
If the earth is so young, how can we see stars that are MILLIONS of LIGHT YEARS away from the Earth? Did God create the light "in transit"? The what we are seeing in the sky is a lie... it's somthing that never existed. Either the universe existed for billions of years, or TIME is relative... which is what I've been saying all along... for some reason Mr. Enyart doesn't belive in science and he doesn't belive that God can exist outside of time. Well Bod, you can't have your cake and eat it too... either Time is realtive are God is a liar. A stinking, rotten, liar. I don't think He is. What about all of YOU???
Merfbliff: This thread, dealing with manganese nodules was started by the good Pastor Enyart after he watched a video. Look at his first post. There were 2 "geologists" on this video, one worked for the USGS and talked about the long long time it takes for such nodules to form. The other was someone named Yates, worked ?, who talked about manganese nodules on beer cans. Pastor Bob immediately told his family, and then us, that this was evidence of Genesis, etc. Now after lots of back & forth, and my suggestions that someone track Yates down (someone from AiG, or perhaps Kent Hovind--he maybe he can do that from the pokey when his tax evasion trial is over?) we never found Mr. Yates. I did e-mail with Dr. Hein, the other geologist, he does work for USGS, and he provided a simple explanation. Deep sea manganese nodules form very slowly, some manganese and iron concretions in shallow water can form quickly (beer cans as basis). There is a summary of my e-mails on a different thread summarizing this manganese stuff. Suprisingly, Pastor Enyart took a powder and left the building after my info from Dr. Hein.
And no one ever found Yates.
However, this thread should give you some idea of the level of scientific sophistication you are likely to find in the fundys on TOL. Sophistry perhaps but no real sophistication from the Enyartians.
And no one ever found Yates.
However, this thread should give you some idea of the level of scientific sophistication you are likely to find in the fundys on TOL. Sophistry perhaps but no real sophistication from the Enyartians.
Who-ho!
If ya google "beer can nodule" http://www.google.com/search?source...s=GGLD,GGLD:2005-02,GGLD:en&q=beer+can+nodule the top one is my post!
If ya google "beer can nodule" http://www.google.com/search?source...s=GGLD,GGLD:2005-02,GGLD:en&q=beer+can+nodule the top one is my post!
Merfbliff said:
The reason seems to be that the universe was expanded rapidly during a short period of time, similar to what "Big Bang scientists" hypothesized happened during the "inflationary period" of the Big Bang.
The expansion would expand the light waves (causing the Red Shift) along with everything else in the physical universe.
Since the expansion is in the physical coordinates of the universe the limit of the speed of light does not apply. In other words the expansion can occur many times faster than the speed of light.
The Big Bang proponents claim that the expansion slowed down, but it may not have. Perhaps once the universe attained its present size the expansion may have stopped. Interestingly this would leave no evidence that it had done so.
We had a guest speaker at our church talking aout the Big Bang Theory and explaining how it fits very well with the Genises account of creation. One way the Big Bang theory works very well is for all of the galaxies to have sprung into existance at the same instant. They were created with an initial velocity that is outward in direction so we see a measurable red shift. It was a very interesting class in that it proved, at least to me, that scince and religion are not mutually exclusive.
He is an old earth believer, as am I.Jukia said:
CabinetMaker said:
The "same instant" may be a relative term, i.e. all of the "evolution" of the galaxies might have been compressed into a very short time period, similar to the Big Bang hypothesis that there was an early inflationary period during which the universe expanded exponentially at a speed millions of times faster than the speed of light.
If this inflationary period had lasted only one more picosecond the universe would have reached its current size and then stopped (expanding).
This would explain the observations we see today, which after all are looking back in time using the typical assumption that the expansion did not exceed the speed of light (except during the initial inflationary period).
Thus, the Genesis account, as well as other scriptural references regarding God's action in "spreading out the heavens" would appear to agree with what astronomers observe in the heavens.
Of course, the billions of years versus the "less than one Earth rotation" (day) is also not a problem, since time during the expansion period time would of necessity be affected. This is why it is possible for the speed of light to exceed what would ordinarily be its current limit during the expansion period (which ended after the first Earth day).
An additional question would of course be : what effect would the expansion of the coordinates of space have had on the material comprising the Earth, during that first initial rotation of the Earth?
In other words: does the expansion of the coordinates of space, with its effect on time, also solve the radiometric dating of rocks problem?
