How old is the earth?

[Pyrotex]

Relative to what? ...We assume that this activity is constant. If it isn't, we're screwed. Also, we're assuming other phenomena are constant too, like the speed of light. Chemical reactions might take less or more time now than they did 100 million years ago. We just assume this stuff doesn't change.

No, we really don't have to assume these things, although there are excellent arguments for doing so.

 

Is there any evidence that humans were not green 10,000 years ago? You're asking the wrong question, in my opinion. For things to persist, to not change, or to change slowly, seems to be a universal trend. Rates of change vary for different phenomena, but the more basic a phenomenon is, the less likely it is to "suddenly" change.

 

There is evidence. When we examine Earth rocks that are a billion years old, we find that chemistry has not changed measurably in that time. When we examine the Infrared Background Radiation and the orbital mechanics of neutron stars orbiting 100,000 LY away, we see what we should expect if the speed of light has not changed.

 

If these basic processes HAVE changed, even by a miniscule amount, it would have left traces in chemical balances, orbital mechanics, the sizes of stars, the preponderance of one atom (say hydrogen) over another (say deuterium) in distant clouds flowing between the galaxies. The safety of assuming that these things have NOT changed over cosmic or geologic time is that this has already been studied in detail. Ambitious graduate students have searched for these traces, eager to make a name for themselves. We haven't found any yet.

[Eclogite]

How do strata form?

http://www.creationscience.com/Liquefaction6.html

I have seen concern expressed by educators and scientists in North America about the growing threat posed by fundamentalists and Creation 'Science'. If your link is an example of what's on offer the concern is overstated.

I do thank you for giving me a good laugh. I thought the least I could do was to offer something in return. I don't expect you to pay any heed to any of my remarks - that would be an unlooked for bonus. They are made for those new to such arguments, who might be persuaded, or at least intrigued by them.

 

Sixteen arguments against current sedimentological theory are advanced.

 

Argument 1:1. Many sedimentary layers extend over hundreds of thousands of square miles. (River deltas, the largest examples of sedimentation today, are only a tiny fraction of that area.)

Not so. Examine the layer in detail and small, yet significant differences will be found as we move laterally through the layer. Such differences reflect differences in the environment of deposition.

Secondly, deltas are rather small. Consider the extensive dune fields of deserts, or the radiolarian ooze of the deep ocean floor.

 

Argument 2:One thick, extensive sedimentary layer has remarkable purity. The St. Peter sandstone, spanning about 500,000 square miles in the central United States, is composed of almost pure quartz, similar to sand on a white beach. It is hard to imagine how any geologic process, other than global liquefaction, could achieve this degree of purity over such a wide area.

I am not familiar with the St. Peter Sandstone. It sounds like a typical beach sand (the link got that right, at least). It is diachronous. That is, although it seems continuous, it was not deposited at the same time. During a marine incursion the sand is deposited in shoals, banks and beaches along the water's edge. This edge progressively moves inland, so that eventually a very wide area is covered by this seemingly uniform sedimentary layer.

 

Argument 3:Streams and rivers deposit sediments along a narrow line, but individual strata are spread over large geographical areas, not along narrow, streamlike pathsAnd we can map these individual lines in the sub-surface. The development of many oil and gas field depends upon the accurate delineation of such structures. Of course, over time (the missing element for the Creationist) the course of the river migrates. The sand deposited locally at one time, is now found over a geographically diverse area. (I might also just say in passing, to be topical, tsunami.)

 

Argument 4:Sedimentary layers are usually sharply defined, parallel, and horizontal. They are often stacked vertically for thousands of feet. If layers had been laid down thousands of years apart, surface erosion would have destroyed this parallelism.Which is exactly what we see in many sedimentary sequences: clear evidence of minor erosion between layers. In other cases, because the sediments are not exposed at the surface, or to significant submarine currents, such erosion does not occur.

Argument 5:Sometimes adjacent, parallel layers contain such different fossils that evolutionists conclude those layers were deposited millions of years apart, but the lack of erosion shows the layers were deposited rapidly.What lack of erosion? The erosion is not evident the way it can be at angular unconformities, but that does not mean it is not there, or that there is not evidence for it.

 

You know, these simplistic interpretations of field geology by this Creationist site are becoming tedious, but lets try a couple of more gems.

 

Argument 6:Many communities around the world get their water from deep, permeable, water-filled, sedimentary layers called aquifers. When water drains from an aquifer, the layer collapses, unable to support the overlying rock layers.

This is pure fantasy. The layers do not collapse. They may well, depending upon the matrix strength of the porous aquifer, undergo some degree of compaction, but they most certainly do not collapse. At best this is pure misunderstanding, at worst it is intellectual deceit.

 

Argument 7: Varves are extremely thin layers (typically 0.004 inch or 0.1 mm) which evolutionists claim are laid down annually in lakes. By counting varves, evolutionists believe time can be measured. However, groups of varves contain fossils, such as fish. Fish, lying on the bottom of a lake, would decay long before enough varves could accumulate to bury them.Clearly posted by someone unfamiliar with the common occurence of anoxic conditions in the bottom of lakes.

 

Do I really have to go on? These arguments are weak nonsense, that any one with a smattering of education in geology could dismiss without breaking a sweat. Surely, you have something more substantive than this Southtown.

[Southtown]

Surely, you haven't missed the point, Eclogite. Explain the strata.

 

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/HydroplateOverview.html

 

You're scoffing, excuses, and disdain have no effect on me. Although, I'm sure there are a few studious fledglings willing to spend most or all of their parents money to learn to immitate your pious indignation without actually explaining anything.

[Southtown]

Do I really have to go on?

If I only had a nickel...

[questor]

Professor Stephen Hawking :

 

''In this lecture, I would like to discuss whether time itself has a beginning, and whether it will have an end. All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted. We are not yet certain whether the universe will have an end."

This lecture is available in pdf format.

[Pyrotex]

Surely, you haven't missed the point, Eclogite. Explain the strata.

http://www.creationscience.com/webpictures/grandcanyon.jpg

You're scoffing, excuses, and disdain have no effect on me....

The so-called "science" at the above website is nicely presented, well written (by and large) and provides exactly the conclusions that certain segments of the Christian community want to hear.

 

However, the persuasion of the website depends on the assumption that the believing reader has no significant education in the subject of geology. Rather, the website treats geology as if it were so simple and obvious that the very idea that it should take six years to get a Masters degree in geology is ludicrous.

 

The website's treatment of geology is like that of a hostile critique observing some folks put together a jigsaw puzzle. The border of the puzzle is nearly complete. There are several large patches of pieces assembled, and several of these patches have been matched to the border, or to other patches. The puzzle is indeed well over 50% complete, and it is obvious that the picture is of the Eiffel Tower in Paris.

 

But the critique ignores all the hard-won progress. The critique points to the several "holes" in the puzzle, where no one has found the right piece (yet) and attempts to argue that the puzzlers "don't know anything!"

"If you're so smart, how come you don't know what goes here?"

"Look at all these unmatched pieces! Why this could be a picture of the Grand Canyon! Your claims that this is the Eiffel Tower is totally unfounded!"

"Here's a hole! Here's another hole! Explain THAT!"

 

The explanations and the science and the evidence is out there. Do some REAL research for a change. And don't be surprised if it takes you six years to learn enough and understand enough to speak intelligently about the vast complex subject of Earth's geology.

[LOC]

Are you saying a model is invalid if it can't be productively applied to salinity issues?

I'm saying if you can't apply your model to real-world situations, what use is it?

 

You stated everything could be explained using the YEC model (a supposed geologic model) and so I asked how you would apply the YEC model to salinity/Selenium issues, which are geologic issues, in the Colorado River. While you might not be able to offer a definitive answer, you could at least have given it a try.

 

Since you failed to do so, I can only assume 1) you don't know enough about the YEC model to know how to apply it or 2) the YEC model cannot be applied and is therefore unworkable. Either way, you should not be promoting the model as an answer to all our questions when its applicability is dubious at best.

 

 

 

How do strata form?

 

http://www.creationscience.com/Liquefaction6.html

Do you need a pepsid?

Yes, I do believe I need a Pepsid after reading that unadulterated nonsense that you have ignorantly assumed is geology.

[Eclogite]

Surely, you haven't missed the point, Eclogite. Explain the strata.

You offered a web site that supposedly offered a superior explanation for the nature of sedimentary layers than the conventional ones. I have offered a brief critique of the first half dozen or so points raised in that site. The arguments were very weak and easy to refute.

Please identify

(a) which explanations you found unsatisfactory

(:) why you found them unsatisfactory

 

Please do not attempt to deflect attention away from this website, which you linked us to, until we have thoroughly discussed and agreed upon the fallaciousness of its arguments. So, I repeat:

Please identify

(a) which explanations you found unsatisfactory

(;) explain why you found them unsatisfactory

 

You're scoffing, excuses, and disdain have no effect on me. .

I've have made no excuses. I have not scoffed at anything. I have treated the arguments with more respect than they deserve. Moreover I am willing to continue to treat them with further respect, by discussing them with you in as much detail as is required.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Pyrotex:

If these basic processes HAVE changed, even by a miniscule amount, it would have left traces in chemical balances, orbital mechanics, the sizes of stars, the preponderance of one atom (say hydrogen) over another (say deuterium) in distant clouds flowing between the galaxies. The safety of assuming that these things have NOT changed over cosmic or geologic time is that this has already been studied in detail. Ambitious graduate students have searched for these traces, eager to make a name for themselves. We haven't found any yet.

:evil: I'll abdicate the point but I'll watch for evidence. Nice response by the way.

[Pyrotex]

Pyrotex::evil: I'll abdicate the point but I'll watch for evidence. Nice response by the way.

You are very welcome. I will consider your "abdication" as temporary, until you acquire more ammunition. Good luck. :evil:

[Southtown]

But the critique ignores all the hard-won progress. The critique points to the several "holes" in the puzzle, where no one has found the right piece (yet) and attempts to argue that the puzzlers "don't know anything!"

"If you're so smart, how come you don't know what goes here?"

"Look at all these unmatched pieces! Why this could be a picture of the Grand Canyon! Your claims that this is the Eiffel Tower is totally unfounded!"

"Here's a hole! Here's another hole! Explain THAT!"

Not true at all. Dr. Brown presents logical reasons why the placed puzzle pieces are in the wrong spot. Your rhetoric is frustrating, and pointless to argue.

 

You stated everything could be explained using the YEC model (a supposed geologic model) and so I asked how you would apply the YEC model to salinity/Selenium issues, which are geologic issues, in the Colorado River. While you might not be able to offer a definitive answer, you could at least have given it a try.

And I said theory has nothing to do with it. The solution would involve either large-scale engineering or extremely large-scale filtration. Since any funding would no doubt be public, the issue is obviously political.

 

As for real-world application, I offered alternative explanations for volcanoes and earthquakes. Instead of looking for tectonic activity we should be focusing on the gravitational settling of the globe back into a spherical shape. All in all, the two geologies are similar and use a lot of the same evidences. Except the global flood takes less time, explains the strata better, and more accurately describes the nature of crustal movement -- mostly lateral in small increments, but only to equalize adjacent landscapes of varying pressures from different altitudes or densities.

 

The magma chambers beneath the surface, oddly, contain lots of steam -- very congruent with the hydroplate theory. Hotspots are also conguent, as they occur in trail-patterns, growing in intensity as they reach their current locale, completely consistent with friction from sliding hydroplates as they empty their lubrication to the Earth's surface. All this without the use of assumed mechanisms of sub-mantle geology.

 

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/HydroplateOverview6.html

 

The time alloted for evolutionary theory by the hydroplate theory, along with theological implications, keep this matter from being discussed with any serious thought.

 

I've have made no excuses. I have not scoffed at anything. I have treated the arguments with more respect than they deserve.

You are delusional. I did not read one serious response from your post containing alternative explanations, at least not in a straight-forward manner. All I read was defamatory garbage disguised as jest.

 

I find stratigraphic explanations other than an immense amount of water preposterous, for the sole fact that no other process sorts sediments over large areas, nor lays them in parallel layers. Other processes such as weathering or tectonic action have a mixing effect. Name me one process that lays many sorted, parallel layers of sediment over many square miles, in any amount of time.

 

You can either explain the strata, or ignore them. Which is true science?

 

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/HydroplateOverview.html

[Eclogite]

You are delusional. I did not read one serious response from your post containing alternative explanations, at least not in a straight-forward manner. All I read was defamatory garbage disguised as jest.

This was the first argument from your linked website and my response:

 

Argument 1: Many sedimentary layers extend over hundreds of thousands of square miles. (River deltas, the largest examples of sedimentation today, are only a tiny fraction of that area.)

Not so. Examine the layer in detail and small, yet significant differences will be found as we move laterally through the layer. Such differences reflect differences in the environment of deposition.

Secondly, deltas are rather small. Consider the extensive dune fields of deserts, or the radiolarian ooze of the deep ocean floor.

 

Please explain what is delusional about the above post.

What in this post do you find 'not straightforward'?

What is defamatory about this post?

What is garbage about this post?

 

You have made these very definitive claims about the character of my response. I am ready to discuss each of these claims seriously. Are you?

 

Your emotional reply gives the appearance that you are embarassed to have been caught out in possession of some very weak arguments. You have responded with an ad hominem attack that completely fails to address the substance of my rebuttals. I am happy to give you the opportunity to reverse that impression, but that requires you to address the substance of my points in a calm, objective, scientific manner. I look forward to this.

[Pyrotex]

...I am ready to discuss each of these claims seriously. Are you? Your emotional reply ...some very weak arguments. You have responded with ... attack that ...fails ... I am happy to give you the opportunity to reverse that impression, ... I look forward to this.

Eclogite, you may look forward to this, but do not hold your breath.

 

Southdump, I see no point in discussing geology with you at all. You are a "potty-mouth". Of course, I mean that metaphorically. There is something seriously missing in your dialogue on this subject. I know you have no interest in experiencing insights into your own intellect and character, but humor me; I enjoy explaining things.

 

Trying to set up a virtual 3-way dialog with a person not present ("Doctor" Brown) simply cannot accomplish anything. Either you have to get the good doctor here so he can argue his own points, or YOU have to learn enough about geology to state and defend your own points. Given what I've seen in your posts so far, I have no great hope that either will happen.

 

But to answer every (some, most, many) honest and valid rebuttals with "go read Dr. Brown" (or words to that effect) is not the way to engage in a meaningful debate. That dog just won't hunt and it ain't gonna happen.

 

However, if you want to clearly demonstrate that YOU fully understand what you (or Dr. Brown) are proposing, and are willing to take full responsibility for YOUR arguments (as Eclogite has demonstrated that he is), then we will engage you and take you seriously.

 

And please stop insulting people. It makes you look... well, less than intelligent. :)

[Pyrotex]

Your rhetoric is frustrating, and pointless to argue.

What you actually mean by this childish paroxysm of words is that 1) you do not understand my point and 2) you are unable to formulate a coherent response.

[Eclogite]

Pyrotex, I fully understand the points you are making to Southtown. However, I am by nature an optimist. Southtown clearly feels there is a problem in explaining the process of sedimentation - since I have observed various forms of sedimentation and subsequent diagenesis in progress I am at a loss to understand his problem. I expect, by discussing aspects of the process(es) one of two things will happen:

1) Southtown will come to realise his concerns are not valid. This is a very good thing.

2) Southtown will refuse to recognise the validity of the processes we are describing and will cling to the insubstantial arguments from his recommended website. This is a bad thing, but associated with it

3) Readers of the thread will learn that sedimentation is a well understood process that explains the character and distribution of sediments globally perfectly well. This is also a good thing.

So, what ever the outcome, we have a good thing. The only potential loser in all of this is Southtown. I can live with that.

 

While I am waiting for Southtown to respond to my previous post I'll just tackle another couple of items from the website. I'll try to give a fuller answer, since ST felt my previous explanations were defamatory garbage. [i have this mental image of a rubbish tip, screaming at passers by, "You're a hypocrite and you embezzle money."]

 

Southtown - from the Center for Scientific Creation site,

 

[B]Argument 10.[/b] Sediments, such as sand and clay, are produced by eroding crystalline rock, such as granite or basalt. Sedimentary rocks are cemented sediments. On the continents, they average more than a mile in thickness. Today, two-thirds of continental surface rocks are sedimentary; one-third is crystalline.

Was crystalline rock, eroded at the earth’s surface, the source of the original sediments? If it was, the first eroded sediments would blanket crystalline rock and prevent that rock from producing additional sediments. The more sediments produced, the fewer the sediments that could be produced. Eventually, there would not be enough exposed crystalline rock at the earth’s surface to produce all the earth’s sediments and sedimentary rock. Transporting those new sediments, often great distances, is another difficulty. Clearly, most sediments did not come from the earth’s surface. They must have come from powerful subsurface erosion, as explained by the hydroplate theory, when high-velocity waters escaped from the subterranean chamber.

SouthTown, I think I should apologise. There probably was an element of scoffing in my previous post. It is difficult to eliminate. The problem is that when one has a passing understanding of the sedimentation process the above passage is seen to be simply stupid. It would be very easy to laugh out loud, if it were not being forward with such seriousness.

Sediments are derived from minerals. The minerals can come from any rock. They do not have to be from igneous or metamorphic sources. Sedimentary rock are also composed of minerals. They can also be eroded. Their fragments can then be deposited in new sediments.

Not only can this happen, we observe it happening, in a variety of environments, all around the world. This is is not some fancy theory thought up by little men in white lab coats, sitting in an ivory tower, but is the result of simple observation.

Indeed the observations are so simple that you could, if you wished to, make them yourself.

As a small aside, your attack also overlooks the fact that a proportion of sedimentary rocks are converted to crytalline metamorphic rocks, and some even to igneous rocks.

I am afraid Argument 10 bites the dust, or at least the deposited sediment.

 

Here is another silly one. Sorry, Southtown, but you don't have to be a geologist to see how whimsical this is.

Argument 15. Animals are directly or indirectly dependent on plants for food. However, geological formations frequently contain fossilized animals without fossilized plants. How could the animals have survived? Evidently, liquefaction sorted and separated these animals and plants before fossilization occurred.

Fossilisation is a rare process. One of the few things that fossilises relatively well is bone. How much bone are you accustomed to seeing in your everday plant?

 

Come back at me SouthTown. Attack any of the facts I am presenting, with facts. Challenge any of my claims, with facts. Present any evidence you wish that you feel supports your case. I shall address it, and if you can demonstrate you are right in any particular I shall instantly concede.

What do you have to lose?

[Southtown]

But to answer every (some, most, many) honest and valid rebuttals with "go read Dr. Brown" (or words to that effect) is not the way to engage in a meaningful debate. That dog just won't hunt and it ain't gonna happen.

My point was towards LOC's challenge to ask him/her a question. That was "explain the strata." I offered the points in question as a primer on my perspective. I am not pushing the points, nor have I pretended to.

[Southtown]

Come back at me SouthTown. Attack any of the facts I am presenting, with facts. Challenge any of my claims, with facts. Present any evidence you wish that you feel supports your case. I shall address it, and if you can demonstrate you are right in any particular I shall instantly concede.

What do you have to lose?

You can have the points. I am already in the midst of LOC's challenge. Explain the strata. Migrating rivers?

 

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/HydroplateOverview.html