Right Divider
Body part
Yes. His explanation can actually be demonstrated with well known and understood physics.
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
Why Evolution is real science - let's settle this "debate"!
- Thread starter ThisIsMyUserName
- Start date
None of this is of any relevance. When you're prepared to discuss the evidence, then we'll show some interest.
Active avoidance. I even went as far as pretending to be English.
We had been discussing the difference between hypothesis and theory, and that would be a matter of scientific consensus, which is the result of bringing evidence to bear on different hypotheses. To get to 'theory' you really need consensus: scientists need to be able to form a collective opinion about what conforms best to Occam's razor and so on. So, on the question of what to call the hydroplates, it is very relevant. There is no scientific consensus on hydroplates, so it's not a scientific theory in the sense of being the best current explanation.
I recommend reading back over the threads in this section and deciding whether we have actually been discussing evidence or not. You might even be able to inject some evidence on behalf of creationism, because the other creationists here sure aren't interested in discussing evidence. JudgeRightly has been to some extent.
Tell me about how a hydroplate can slide off a relatively low mid-oceanic ridge, lubricated by water, and subsequenty run up to a much greater height in collision with other hydroplates which also arrived lubricated on water, and then stay there without Newton's First Law and Hooke's Law collaborating to reverse that?
Can you explain why the uranium content of meteorites is different to the uranium content of either the oceanic crust (lower) or the continental crust (higher)?
I note in passing that plate tectonics pretty easily accounts for both.
Can you explain how Widmanstatten crystals are possible in meteorites if they have not been in space, cooling over vast periods of time? For the mm to cm sized crystals found in iron/nickel meteorites you need millions of years of diffusion of atoms through metal crystals with cooling of, at the absolute fastest, 10,000oC per million years.
There's India next, maybe some moral victories on home pitches will help.
Stuart
A PhD would only 'require' that a person can do extended research over a period of three years under supervision then successfully submit a thesis and be subjected to an oral assessment that showed they had a world-class level of knowledge and critical ability in an extremely narrow field of study. Obviously such people have undergratuate degrees in science, and some of them will have taken science papers outside their major subject(s). And an understanding of the range of science directly relevant to the PhD research is necessary, but a PhD is no guarantee of general knowledge in science by any means. Of course there are many PhDs with brilliant knowledge across different disciplines, but that's not what 'PhD' tells you.
Walter Brown is not any kind of authority in the international community of scientists. He is treated as an authority in creationist circles, but that group doesn't include a large number of scientifically literate people, relatively.
How did I do that? I thought I gave him credit for expertise in some field of mechanical engineering.
Stuart
Right Divider
Body part
Let me reiterate that I did not say that a PhD is "telling you that". Only that you were mocking a very brilliant man for no reason.
Ah... so now you want to look at credentials and consensus to continue to disparage him?
More "atheist science authorities" to help "support" your side?
You called him a "mechanical engineer" (in quotes) as a way to belittle his theory. We weren't born yesterday.
I hope Stripe asks you why you are not willing to discuss the evidence regarding cells-to-humans!
So your explanation for, going downwards, tens to hundreds of thousands of layers of ice of decreasing thickness would be what?
Stripe?!
Thank you for being honest that one of your two reasons is a conspiracy theory. Since this is supposed to be about science, do you have specific, unambiguous evidence for it? By the way, about 40% of professional scientists are religious believers. You might be interested further that 4% of professional scientists have some kind of creationist worldview, including Young Earth Creationism, but it's much less than 1% of those working in the biological sciences with the YEC commitment.
Right, which is why I mentioned the 40 years. Think of scientists who are trained according to the models of the day, and become stuck on them regardless. What would it take to shift their view? Hopefully the answer is unambiguous evidence. Sometimes it takes quite a while to establish that observations are repeatable and consistent with one another. So skepticism is an important aspect of science, which slows things down for good reasons. On the other hand it is well recognised in science that changing the paradigm often involves the retirement or death of the old guard (hence my retelling of Wegener's case). So, now that those who trained before, let's call it the advent of creation science are retiring and dying as we move into the 2020s, what has been unconvincing about creation science for those who were new to science in the 1960s or in the 1980s?
Well in that case, I appeal to Stripe to lecture you.
Stuu: I haven't given you a creation of life story. How would you say, mechanistically, life was created?
So you were prepared to assume what I believe based on your stereotype of me?! Wow. You would hope I wouldn't do that to you, right?
I have taken quite a deal of care to explain that I do not know how the first cells came to be, and I have made it clear that while it is good science, the origins of the first cells are necessarily speculative given the understandable lack of empirical evidence.
And what was the mechanism for supernatural creation? How was the matter manipulated into position, or whatever?
The point is, if meteorites were produced in some explosion on the surface of the earth, and hurled into space, then why do meteorites not have the same percentage uranium as the rocks that make up the crust. This is not a radioactivity problem, it's a chemical composition problem.
No, I have not read any atheist's claim about the Himalayas and hydroplates. I have read the relevant claims in the references you provided. It is me, now, asking you how Walter Brown can hold up the Himalayas and Tibetan Plateau on a plate that slid off a mid-oceanic ridge and ran up to that height without bouncing off the other two hydroplates and sliding back down. The hydroplates didn't start out at 8 kilometres high so how did they end up 8 kilometres high? How did the hydroplates apparently accelerate, despite the drag due to the water under them?
Science doesn't prove, remember. Did you ever grow copper sulfate crystals as a child? The water evaporates from a saturated solution and the copper ions and sulfate ions join onto the crystal. It only takes days to weeks to grow a large crystal, if you are careful about it. The ions move into position spontaneously, and the ordering of them is driven by the evaporation of the water. You can also produce crystals quickly by cooling down a pure molten sample, and the size of the crystals you make depends on how fast you cool. The slowest cooling produces the largest crystals.
I should be clear about the idea of a Widmanstatten pattern: it is possible to grow ferrite Widmanstatten patterns by heating steel, but that's not what is being referred to as the Widmanstatten pattern in the iron and nickel of a meteorite. With these large Widmanstatten patterns in meteorites we are talking about metal atoms moving through solid metal to end up selectively on the growing edge of one crystal. And it's not just the formation of one crystal, it's the differential recrystallisation of the whole meteorite into large bands of the different purified alloys, all starting with lattice diffusion of atoms jostling past one another in the solid. Metal crystals don't allow that to happen easily, otherwise metals would not be the reliable materials that we have used for thousands of years. And the driving force for the atoms ending up rearranged is not the evaporation of water but the slightly higher thermodynamic stability of the crystallised phases.
You can heat a nickel-iron alloy, say 80% iron like some meteorites with Widmanstatten crystals in them, then cool it very slowly over the course of a week or so and look, as I believe one experiment did. I can't find the paper for it, but I'll keep looking. I understand other experiments in diffusion of atoms through solid metal have involved clamping together finely milled surfaces of pure silver and pure gold, following by investigation of how fast the gold atoms diffuse into the silver, and vice-versa. Over the course of several years it's very tiny movements, not wide-scale alloying.
Another factor important in the growth of these particular meteorite patterns is the lack of a strong gravitational field. And the kamacite Ni/Fe phase is not found naturally on earth at all, except in meteorites. The ultimate problem is that we can't reproduce the patterns so it's quite difficult to know how to study their formation in detail.
Alright then. Shall I line up an appearance on Fox?
Stuart
Right Divider
Body part
No origin... no evolution. Start from the beginning.
Your origin story is bankrupt from the beginning.
Fishing for layers is no way to do empirical science.
:juggle:
It's not a conspiracy.... it's a fact.
Do you deny the truth of the following statement?
It's a fact that you can try to deny.... but ... it's a fact.
Atheist scientists will never accept an earth theory that supports the Bible and creation
:rotfl:
WOW... less than half that could possibly believe a creation theory. WOO HOO.
You do know that most of those "religious believers" are NOT Bible believing creationists, right?
They buy the "millions/billions" of year, just like you.
Appeal to the majority.... it's a FALLACY.
:blabla:
Search the web for water deep under the Tibetan plateau.
If you have a non-standard atheist philosophy, feel free to share it with the class.
So you should now believe in special creation.
:french:
You just deny the Creator at every opportunity, don't you?
If life cannot be explained through materialistic methods... there's a better answer.
As was CLEARLY explained earlier... even the crust has CONCENTRATIONS of uranium and it is nowhere near evenly distributed in the crust.... so just how, exactly, do you compare these levels?
No wonder you do not understand it when we give you scientific evidence and theory.
You should read more carefully. The Himalayas and the Tibetan Plateau ARE the crust. THEY sit on the MANTLE.
Bald assertion is no legitimate way to refute it. Your explanation for, going downwards, tens to hundreds of thousands of layers of ice of decreasing thickness would be what?
What would you say is the motive attached to this conspiracy of atheists?
The point of science is not to support a religious text or any particular opinion, it is to find out what is going on by collecting unambiguous evidence and interpreting it without prejudice. So, show the unambiguous evidence and my mind is changed. If you think there is some kind of prejudice as per your earlier claim, you should say exactly what it is, or else retract the accusation.
The problem with this is not the bible or creation per say, but Occam's razor, which tells you that the fewer untestable assumptions, the better the quality of the inference. As soon as you assume that Genesis is right, you close yourself to the possibility that it isn't. I think you are doing it yourself. Is it open to question whether the assumptions inherent in radioisotope dating are disproving ones? You don't appear to be willing to question that dogma, unless I have misinterpreted your reaction.
The whole hydroplate confection is based on two verses:
| Gen 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. 7:12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights. |
So we have a man who has already lived about six times as long as a human today, we have something called the fountains of the deep (note it does not say chambers below the crust), which is something that is somehow capable of breaking up. There are windows of some kind in heaven. These windows can be opened, and presumably that is somehow related to the rain mentioned in 7:12. And this goes on for 40 days, as did the flood, the time it took the Egyptians to embalm Joseph, the time Moses was on the mount in the cloud, the time Moses abstained from food and drink on receiving stone tablets, the length of stay that Moses's spies stayed at Canaan, the length of time Goliath came near and presented himself, the time Elijah survived on two meals, the time Ezekiel lay on his left side, the time Jonah prophesised that would pass before Nineveh was overthrown, the length of time horses and soldiers appeared above Jerusalem, the time that Jesus fasted and was tempted by the devil, and the time the resurrected Jesus ascended into heaven. It looks like 40 days is more about good rhetoric than accurate science.
What are the windows? I haven't seen them mentioned in Mr. Brown's hypotheses. Maybe I'm not up to that bit yet. Where does scripture mention the differential radioactive content of the earth, or the chambers, or the generation of radioactivity, or the ejection of 2% of the earth's mass, or the unzipping of the crust, or plates floating about, or orbital alignment of asteroids or superheated water? Does this Mr. Brown fancy himself as the next Moses? Maybe he is specially divinely inspired.
Why would that make any difference to the job of finding out what is really going on, regardless of what it turns out to be? I only mentioned it to counter the suggestion that there is a conspiracy of atheists at work.
They don't buy anything. It's a provisional conclusion based on evidence. There is no good reason in existence to believe the earth is only a few thousand years old. It's not written in scripture, so why is it taken literally by fundamentalist christians?
The fact that the earth is only about 4.55 billion years old is subject to contradictory evidence like anything is in science. Do you have any contradictory evidence?
I didn't make any argument based on it, so it's not a logical fallacy.
Did literally that. What was I looking for?
Thank you for the invitation. You would have to tell me what a standard atheist philosophy is before I could say. But I can help by pointing out that atheism is only one thing: it is the conclusion or belief that the gods described by other humans don't exist. Other than that, there is not much that is standard between atheists.
But of course you are going to find atheists tend to agree with science because science has established itself as the most effective epistemological method, and they have no motive to disagree, provisional on new evidence of course. Science tends to converge on agreement, although it can take time and argument before that happens for any given idea. Religions tend to schism, as you will be aware from the fact that while there is only one 'science', there are well over 40,000 christian denominations. And that is probably not intellectually satisfying to atheists, given that there is no agreement on how to conclude things. Science has evidence, religions have internally inconsistent scriptures.
That's the way I look at a few things. Was that what you think standard atheist philosophy is? I hope another atheist takes issue with something I have written, just to demonstrate the point!
Don't know, so goddidit? What was that you were saying about fallacies earlier? You should be careful making a god-of-the-gaps argument. Many god-of-the-gaps have been slaughtered by scientific discovery. Although, religious fundamentalists seem to keep a lot of dead gods-of-the-gaps in a cabinet called Young Earth Creationism, and whenever someone calls them out on it based on science filling in that god's gap, they make the lips of that dead gap god move and mouth the words 'I'm still alive, you're an idiot'! Meantime, other religious believers don't make gods-of-the-gaps. Their god is still potentially alive because they hid it when rational inquiry came calling.
Sensible them!
What creator? I see no creator, hear no creator, taste no creator, smell no creator, and especially physically feel no creator. And the bible backs me up on that, and also tells me I am wrong about it.
Life can be explained, except the first population of cells. Living organisms are made of chemicals, and chemical behaviour is in many aspects cell-like. I agree there must be a better answer than that.
I'm sorry to tell you that I don't think you have a better answer though, because you haven't mentioned yet that life is made of chemicals, or gone on to explain how they are manipulated by this supposed creator. A creator is not a better answer because it creates more questions than it answers. What created the creator? And if your answer is the creator wasn't created, then the next question is 'how does that work'?
Good question. You compare them by noting that the oceanic crust has one, reasonably consistent uranium concentration and the continental crust also has one, reasonably consistent (higher) uranium concentration. The difference is due to fractional separation of uranium compounds at subduction zones, with the uranium extracted from the continental crust and piled on top just before it is melted down into the magma, at which point the depleted magma has a greater chance of becoming oceanic crust than continental crust. Now, breathe in.
Anyway, however it happens, the meteorites came from neither earth-based source because they have uranium concentration intermediate between those two values which, if you think about it, you would expect from a homogeneously mixed cloud of gas and dust with a certain amount of uranium that made all the objects in the solar system (or at least those found around the ecliptic) at meteorite-type concentrations, and then left the earth to get on with its fractional crystallisation processes which made one lot of rocks higher in uranium at the expense of the other lot of rocks. Hence, meteorites are in the middle of those two.
And the Indian plate is subducting under the Eurasian plate, right?
Stuart
Last edited:
Right Divider
Body part
Once again... your "many" layers are not annual layers.
READ my post more carefully. I said that there was NO conspiracy.
Oh.. the pristine unbiased science that does not actually exist in this universe.
Rejecting the obvious intrusion of God into your atheist world is always going to be a problem for you.
Continuing with that bit a foolishness again, eh?
No, that's not how it works. It's a bit humorous that you atheists think that you're capable of understanding everything that God did without God.
Right Divider
Body part
Plate subduction is a silly myth.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/TechnicalNotes22.html#wp10620867
Right Divider
Body part
Continuing with your dishonesty.
Well if there were just layers of ice with no other clues, you would have a legitimate question. The question about whether they are annual has been answered pretty clearly. Volcanic eruptions leave characteristic ash deposits. We know that Vesuvius erupted in 79CE, so all you have to do is count back what you think is 1940 layers and see if there is the characteristic ash from Vesuvius, which there is. You can also look for telltale isotopes that only appeared in the atmosphere because of atmospheric nuclear testing in the 1950s. 36-Cl is the unnatural isotope that has a long enough half-life to still be present where you would expect it to be. Annual temperature variation between summer and winter leaves an annual pattern of water with more and less 18-O in it; pollens collect annually because of plants' annual cycles; for layers closer to the top a difference in the crystallisation of the ice can be seen between winter and summer. We know what an annual ice layer looks like.
It's no problem at all. I was born atheist, as we all were, and although believers have tried to convince me, I still haven't seen a good reason to believe that Odin exists. Or indeed any other god. You and I are almost identical in our agnosticism: there have been something like 10,000 gods proposed by humans in different cultures. You reject 9999 of them, and I reject 10,000 of them. What makes you reject so many gods?
I don't think it is foolish to want to know what is really going on, and question religious texts.
I find it humorous that you are seriously entertained by hydroplates and all the flights of fantasy that entails, when none of that is the best scientific explanation for what we observe, and especially because none of it is written in scripture.
Stuart
Last edited:
So Dr. Brown (since it could be thought of as mechanical engineering) thinks that rock has too weak a tensile strength to pull a plate into a subduction zone. How then did a hydroplate, at least initially, get held up by it's Himalaya-forming collision?
Anyway, his engineering is poor. Firstly, he has used a coefficient of friction that applies between solid rocks up to 350oC, but the mantle isn't the same as solid rock, it's an extremely viscous plastic material with temperatures in excess of 1000oC and is capable of plastic movement. The difference between (better go back to calling him Mr. as he is obviously not a physical geologist) Mr. Brown's model and reality is the difference between rubbing one rock hard against another rock and rubbing a rock against warm plasticine. So his mu value is wrong.
Next, his concept of the opposing force F is wrong. The leading edge of the plate melts, it's not 'blunt' in the manner he claims. The plasticly melted rock eventually just joins the moving plastic mantle rock. If you want to appreciate this kind of melting, try heating a piece of HDPE plastic milk bottle above 180oC. It kind of melts, and kind of doesn't. The thing the milk bottle plastic and the rock have in common is polymer chemistry. Remember this is all happening at the speed of plastic deformation of rock, something like the speed your fingernails grow.
Thirdly, I don't see anywhere in his calculation the difference in density between oceanic crust and continental crust. Subduction almost always involves denser oceanic crust subducting under less dense continental crust.
Lastly, I live above a subduction zone, and I know that because the pattern of earthquake hypocentres determined from triangulating seismic waves shows us where it is. In this map, the depth of the hypocentres is differentiated by colour. The plate on the right is subducting under the plate on the left, and the spots where the plates (or faults near the plate boundary) get stuck then suddenly release is where you get an earthquake hypocentre. The shape of the plate boundary is clearly visible in the pattern of increasing hypocentre depth:
Stuart
Last edited:
Right Divider
Body part
You need to learn BOTH the theory that you're trying to support AND the one that you're opposing. You clearly know neither.
Subduction is NOT said to be a PULLING of a plate into a subduction zone. The theory says that plates are PUSHED under other plates.
No, his engineering is excellent as his credentials and his career demonstrate.
It is YOU have has no skill in the area.
And the truth is that ocean trenches were formed by being pulled down, per the hydroplate theory.
Last edited:
I recommend you read the Wikipedia page on subduction.
Well I have no reason to doubt he was able to work successfully as an engineer in the military. And yet you could barely find another creationist organisation that accepts the contents of his book, let alone any real scientist or other engineer.
Here is a series of seismographic maps of probably the most famous oceanic trench, the Mariana trench:
How do hydroplates explain the distribution of earthquakes?
Stuart
Right Divider
Body part
i.e. pushed down
Everyone has their "story"... his actually conforms to real science and the laws of physics, etc.
Right Divider
Body part
So you still have not read anything about it.
Nope. That should be left up to the guy with the idea.
You can insist all you want and define things whatever way you like, but at the end of the day an idea — be it a hypothesis or a theory — must be judged according to logic, reason and the evidence. "Consensus" is never a determining factor and should never be touted as anything of serious significance in a scientific discussion. That you — along with every other Darwinist — insist on bringing it up at every opportunity only exposes your anti-science bias.
Then talk about the evidence, not how many people agree with it!
No, they don't. Ideas are always either valid or invalid regardless of the number of people who agree with them.
We don't care.
When you're ready to discuss the evidence, then we might get somewhere. If you're not interested, butt out of the conversation. If you're going to insist that our ideas are not valid, explain why using evidence. Counting the number of hands raised when you ask for those opposed is never a rational or useful contribution.
You want me to count how many people are part of the discussion? Why? What use would that be?
They couldn't. When you've actually learned what it is that is proposed, you might have a shot at posing a challenge.
Sure. Can you?
Oh. Really? :chuckle:
You can't even provide a sensible mechanism that powers PT.
Maybe. :idunno:
Ugh. Based on the past month, we're in for a lot more pain.
Right Divider
Body part
I don't remember who I was discussing radiometric dating with in another thread, but they constantly went back to consensus.... they just don't get it.