Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14 Evidences for a Young Earth & Fallacy of Evolution
#61
I think that Dr. Humphreys did address this issue when he took into account the quantities of sediment vs. rate of subduction. The math does not work out in favor of the gradualist view.
Reply
#62
The good Doctor suggests that sediment either goes down with the subducting plate or remains accumulated on the sea floor. He fails to grasp the full concept of plate tectonics, that sediment accumulating at the subduction trench becomes new continental crust, it accretes. Consequently when eventually continents collide, this is the material that is buckled and uplifted, this forms new mountain chains. The Himalayas, the Alps, they are examples of continental collision and uplift.
"Common sense is not so common" - Voltaire
Reply
#63
M. Le Tonk, you know, it is possible to tell the difference between sandy, soil-laden sediment deposited by rivers and other runoff, and crustal rock. The granitic mountains of the Himalyas and Alps may carry some layers of former sediment on their surface--where fossils have been found--but the mountains are mainly comprised of granite from the earth's crust that was uplifted. Dr. Humphreys took note of studies of the observable rate at which sediment is being swallowed up by subduction, and compared it to other studies of the observable rate at which sediment is being deposited into the sea by rivers and other runoff. His conclusion was that the observed rate of subduction is inadequate to explain why the layers of sediment are not many times thicker than they are--which they should be if millions of years of sedimentary runoff from the continents into the sea has been taking place. In fact, the sedimentary buildup at the mouths of rivers like the Mississippi--far away from any subduction zones--should be much deeper than it is now, if the rivers have been flowing for millions of years, or even for a hundred thousand years. The present rate of sedimentary buildup at the mouths of the rivers has been measured, and the present observed depth of the sedimentary buildup indicates that they have been accummulating for only a few thousand years. Those figures are hard to refute. Unless you want to claim that the Mississippi, the Amazon, the Nile, etc. have only been flowing for a few thousand years. In which case, you have just sided with the Creationist view.
Reply
#64
how much more nonsensical can you get? the whole of louisiana is an alluvial plain build up by mississipi sediments, the mouth of the river was hundreds of miles further inland millions of years ago. furthermore, every time the river builds a couple of sandbanks up, the ocean sends a hurricane who smashes them.
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney
Reply
#65
Well not at all, show me where in his calculations he takes any account of closing basins and continental collision?

The Earth isn't static the plates move, the oceans open and close. Within the next 350 million years the Pacific will close bringing the American plates into collision with the Eurasian and Australiasian land masses creating a new super continent. All the sediment within the Pacific basin will be raised up, there will be no Pacific Ocean.

This is what is missing from the good 'Doctor's' equation. Ocean basins open and close, the Earth isn't static.

Look at the following animation for the last 750m years.

Plate Tectonics Animation
"Common sense is not so common" - Voltaire
Reply
#66
As for your comments on the Mississippi, again you're looking at what you can see now. The river has changed course many times, sea levels have risen and fallen. Oil exploration in the Gulf of Mexico indicates that the thickness of deltaic sediments from the Mississippi are greater than 10,000m.

The Mississippi has been in existence since the late Jurassic, some 150 million years ago, after the break up of the Pangea super-continent and the opening of the Gulf of Mexico.
"Common sense is not so common" - Voltaire
Reply
#67
You might want to read the detailed article on the subject in CRS Quarterly by Larry Vardiman. Link: http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/art...tation.htm
Reply
#68
:lol:

But that isn't science, it's just arbitrarily adjusting the parameters to fit the outcome you want.
"Common sense is not so common" - Voltaire
Reply
#69
Most this junk I can't understand anyway,but,the strata on cliffs is a good way to impress folks like myself that the earth probably is real old.

Although there could be a reason it accumulated quicker than thought. Maybe big upheavals and what not happened we aren't aware of.
Reply
#70
Ron's latest gem is prefaced with the sentence "Modern evolutionism requires that the earth be very old", this is wrong, geology has nothing to do with evolution, geology is the scientific study of physical structure and substance of the earth and the processes by which it is shaped and changed, it has nothing to do with evolution theory which deals with the biological sciences. The age of the earth is based on radiometric data, the oldest terrestrial rocks discovered so far are dated at 4.4 billion years, lunar samples from the Apollo missions dated at a maximum of around 4.4 and 4.5 billion years old, whilst meteorite samples date to 4.6 billion years old giving an upper limit to the formation of our solar system. Based on this evidence the earth is considered to be some 4.5 billion years old.

The whole notion that a flood, even of biblical proportions, would result in kilometers of sediment laid down in neat order, including sandstones and limestones which have no place in a flood environment is laughable. We can examine flood sequences, and as you might expect the type of sedimentation is chaotic, with ill-sorted angular rock fragments of various sizes in a dirty matrix, this is then topped off with layers of flood silts as the fine material settles out. To suggest that you might get well organised sedimentation in a short lived flood event is ludicrous and totally at odds with all the evidence we see.
"Common sense is not so common" - Voltaire
Reply
#71
M. Le Tonk, your statement: "geology has nothing to do with evolution" is a prime example of what it means to be disingenuous. Evolution's only hope of having any credibility is for vast ages in the billions of years to be postulated to allow for the highly unlikely increase in genetic complexity to take place by random natural processes, such as mutation and natural selection. The link between biological evolution and geological gradualism is not only direct, it is causal. Scientists want to interpret any evidence they can be selective with in such a way that it implies vast ages for the physical earth and biosphere precisely and directly because they want to believe in evolution, and absolutely no one would believe in evolution if it had to take place in only a few thousand years.
Reply
#72
Evolution doesn't factor in the study of the physical processes of the earth, you're thinking about palaeontology, that's not my field. To suggest that I and other physical geologists conspire to deceive is ludicrous. I don't believe in evolution, I don't believe in anything, belief went out with Father Christmas and the Tooth Fairy, I'm persuaded by the scientific evidence, if it didn't persuade me I wouldn't accept it.

You seem to be seeking to invoke a huge, centuries old, global scientific conspiracy ~ sorry but you're barking mad.
"Common sense is not so common" - Voltaire
Reply
#73
Like Piltdown Man never happened? Almost the entire scientific community bought into the hoax for over FORTY (40) YEARS, before the fraud was uncovered. That's the better part of two generations going through high school and college and university being taught that Piltdown Man was the true "missing link."

And then there's Ernst Haeckel's series of drawings of stages in human embryonic development that were supposed to demonstrate evolution being recapitulated. This was proven to be a fraud--Haeckel blatantly falsified several of the drawings--in 1874. Yet a hundred years later, Haeckel's fraudulent drawings were still appearing routinely in biology textbooks in American high schools and colleges. Even after Creationists have made a loud issue about this, the drawings still occasionally turn up in textbooks.
Reply
#74
Monsieur Le Tonk Wrote:Palladin, it's not a matter of 'just blowing this off', I can spend a considerable amount of my time giving a detailed scientific answer to Ron's questions, something I've tried previously, only to have the answer/science ignored/dismissed because it doesn't accord with his belief. There is no point discussing science with someone who doesn't wish to countenance an alternative and cleaves to dogmatic belief.

I suggest you try the following website as I know you have a more rational approach, the website seems to succeed in accommodating god with science and actively seeks to debunk young earth creationism.

Answers In Creation

I've read this thread and had fun observing it, but so far, despite any articulate arguments, it threatens to repeat itself and nothing new is introduced from Ron's side. I understand Piltdown Man now (I have to given it's been mentioned so many times I wish nothing but curses on Piltdown Man's memory), and other things, but when new evidence and supporting argument and facts are introduced, you cannot simply just toss it away because it fails to fit one piece of inconclusive evidence and the ever staunch pride of someone who refuses to adjust to any new information.

This thread threatens to be a never-ending loop with new lyrics being evidence you provided and the same chorus over and over again being Ron's argument.

The only thing awesomely new is that you're now part of a mass cabal to prove God and Creationism wrong by simply being a geologist.
Reply
#75
Ron,

"Evolutionists" do not any longer need old anything,they'd be the same if geologists changed and stated the earth was only 5K years old. They're as flexible as AGW proponents.

They started out with the long term,slow changes over millions of years,then they flexed that with these immediate,breathtaking changes such that there is no evidence in the fossil inventory for them.

However,here I have to side with Tonk. Geology is what it is and the fact Tonk also is into evolution is no reason to denigrate the knowledge he does have relative to geology.

The Bible does not give us an age for the creation of the universe. It gives us a rough age of mankind. The 2 may very well not be created in linear fashion,IMO.
Reply
#76
Pal, Tonk stated he doesn't *believe* in evolution either.

Tonk Wrote:Evolution doesn't factor in the study of the physical processes of the earth, you're thinking about palaeontology, that's not my field. To suggest that I and other physical geologists conspire to deceive is ludicrous. I don't believe in evolution, I don't believe in anything, belief went out with Father Christmas and the Tooth Fairy, I'm persuaded by the scientific evidence, if it didn't persuade me I wouldn't accept it.

I too, side with Tonk in all this - at this point it's also obvious who is being dogmatic and utterly refusing to accept anything else contrary to *belief*.
Reply
#77
G,

I just noticed that.

Another case of me being wrong.
Reply
#78
Ah Piltdown Man again, and who debunked this fraud, scientists. Did scientists continue accepting the skull as proof regardless of the evidence, no they accepted the new data, adjusted and moved on; this is the difference between science and religion.

G4U I think you might have misconstrued my meaning, I think the theory of evolution by means of natural selection is approximately right, it certainly fits the data, but it's not something I hold as a belief; belief implies faith, and faith implies an acceptance based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
"Common sense is not so common" - Voltaire
Reply
#79
Monsieur Le Tonk Wrote:Ah Piltdown Man again, and who debunked this fraud, scientists. Did scientists continue accepting the skull as proof regardless of the evidence, no they accepted the new data, adjusted and moved on; this is the difference between science and religion.

He'll never let it go, Tonk. In fact, we'll probably see a repeat of it all again, all the while he'll shake his head and yell "no, no no!".

Quote:G4U I think you might have misconstrued my meaning, I think the theory of evolution by means of natural selection is approximately right, it certainly fits the data, but it's not something I hold as a belief; belief implies faith, and faith implies an acceptance based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

I stand corrected - doesn't mean you *believe* in it though as you just said. Ron is relying mostly on belief here.
Reply
#80
The Piltdown man episode is an important one and deserves study for a couple of excellent reasons.

1)A simple cursory examination of the teeth by any dentist on earth would have shown it was not a unified skull.

YET,the hoax stood as truth from 1912 till around 1954 or so.

WHY?

Why would learned humans avoid the most basic,easily seen piece of evidence in making a determination if this is real or not?

2) Why was it finally invalidated? What caused the industry to finally check the thing out?

Other finds seemed odd compared to it,that's the ONLY reason. So,the integrity of paleontology is not sacrosanct. No field's representatives are,mine included.


BTW,Tonk, is dead wrong about religions not changing based on evidence.

Christendom has done about a 180 change from say 800 AD. Tonk is just talking about things he hasn't studied.

My guess is other religions as well have flexed overtime.

My belief system is probably a long way from a typical Christian's in the dark ages or crusades eras for example.

History,experience and reference to our texts as opposed to men and tradition brought all these incremental changes.

In fact,I bet I'm so much different from a Christian right here in ET in 1850 it would be astonishing.

Making statements like that are as ignorant as a believer like myself saying I know the earth is just 5K years old when I don't.

Secular humanists always get a freebie to malign and make ignorant statements about men of faith. It's the culture.

I prefer living in our culture as opposed to one where religious folks were fascists and ruled,but,secular humanism has it's own level of arrogance and strait jacket type cultural mentality as well.

Saw it in the USSR,see it right here in the USA. Just not as violent here as Moscow is all.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Sun is half the size of the Earth, and flat just like Earth Canuknucklehead 5 2,928 02-20-2008, 01:04 AM
Last Post: WmLambert

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)