Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Dr.GH · 06-23-2002, 02:21 PM

I stand corrected. Thanks.

I was too lazy to look it up, and shot from the lip.

Tim Thompson · 06-24-2002, 10:21 AM

Dr. GH: The energies involved in the "Creation week scenario" would be so massive that I should think that they would have observable effects on other star systems even today if the universe were only 6K years old. Tim would be the expert there. In fact Tim, could this be an inadvertant opportunity for creation 'science' falsification?

It might, if ever you could pin a creationist down to specifics. That's why I made a point about the difference between whether or not something could happen or did happen. Creationists think they are scoring points by revealing that the smug evolutionist claim that radioactive decay rates are immutable is false. They think that all they need to do is point out that conditions are known to exist where they are variable, and the "flood" gate is open. Hw do we know that some other, unknown or unpredictable effect did not change the decay rates?

It looks convincing to creationists, who see it as a victory. But real scientists realize that the "constancy" of decay rates is implicitly understood to mean "constant under reasonable circumstances". Heating a rock to 200,000,000 Kelvins without even scorching the surface is hardly "reasonable", but creationists just don't care.

If they were to argue that the decay rates definitely did vary, then they are up against the wall to "prove" their own assertion. But as long as they stick to the "well, they could have varied" line, they don't really have to "prove" much of anything, just present enough circumstantial evidence to snow the unwary.

And remember the Big Bottom Lin: God can do anything, so if the evidence you expect to see isn't there, it's because God got rid of that. And in the creationist world view, it is unscientific to deny the power of God's will, and perfectly acceptable to include miraculous intervention in a scientific argument. If ever we will score real points, that's where I think the goal line really is. Just exactly what is "science" anyway? The creationists practice a version of "science" that is in the vast minority view, and contradictory to all major scientific societies & organizations. Expose what they do & say as true pseudo-science, I think that's the strongest approach.

scigirl · 06-24-2002, 02:00 PM

Rufus,

Quote:

Originally posted by RufusAtticus:
<a href="http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html#The%20Bible%20and%20Science" target="_blank">Radiometric Dating: a Christian Perspective</a>

Your link didn't work, but I did a google search to find the article, and none of the links work (the site that hosts that article appears to be down). Is this temporary? I remember that article being a very valuble resource. I hope it's still around somewhere!

scigirl

beausoleil · 06-24-2002, 02:15 PM

It was definitely there yesterday.

WinAce · 06-24-2002, 04:04 PM

I was going to say how the Google cached version was still probably available, but the images on it don't show up... How sad, it was a very good article.

<a href="http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:zy_5FoxSsu8C:asa.calvin.edu/ASA/resources/Wiens.html+%22radiometric+dating+a+christian+persp ective%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8" target="_blank">http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:zy_5FoxSsu8C:asa.calvin.edu/ASA/resources/Wiens.html+%22radiometric+dating+a+christian+persp ective%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8</a>

RufusAtticus · 06-24-2002, 09:40 PM

Scigirl,

Well, the ASA website is down too. Maybe it'll be up in a few days.

[ June 24, 2002: Message edited by: RufusAtticus ]

WinAce · 06-30-2002, 12:34 PM

*Resurrects thread*

At my continuing battle with the YECs, <a href="http://www.blizzforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=109" target="_blank">http://www.blizzforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=109</a> , I'm once again stumped in regards to geology.

A new article from ICR (June 30) is yapping about plate tectonics being incorrect. I need some help debunking it.

<a href="http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-032.htm" target="_blank">http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-032.htm</a>

Quote:

Evidence suggesting sea-floor spreading is claimed by many geologists to be the most compelling argument for plate tectonics. In the ocean basins along mid-ocean ridges or rises (and in some shallow seas) plates are thought to be diverging slowly and continuously at a rate of several centimeters yearly. Molten material from the earth's mantle is injected continuously between the plates and cools to form new crust. The youngest crust is claimed to be at the crest of the ocean rise or ridge with older crust farther from the crest. At the time of cooling, the rock acquires magnetism from the earth's magnetic field. Since the magnetic field of earth is supposed by many geologists to have reversed numerous times, during some epochs cooling oceanic crust should be reversely magnetized. If sea-floor spreading is continuous, the ocean floor should possess a magnetic "tape recording" of reversals. A "zebra stripe" pattern of linear magnetic anomalies parallel to the ocean ridge crest has been noted in some areas and potassium-argon dating has been alleged to show older rocks farther from the ridge crest.

There are some major problems with this classic and "most persuasive" evidence of sea-floor spreading. First the magnetic bands may not form by reversals of the earth's magnetic field. Asymmetry of magnetic stripes, not symmetry, is the normal occurrence.4 It has been argued that the linear patterns can be caused by several complex interacting factors (differences in magnetic susceptibility, magnetic reversals, oriented tectonic stresses).5

Second, it is doubtful that the magnetic anomalies have been successfully dated. Wesson6 says that potassium-argon dating when correctly interpreted shows no evidence of increasing age with distance from the ridge system. The greater argon content (giving older apparent age) of ocean basalt on the flanks of the ocean ridges can be explained easily by the greater depth and pressure at the time of solidification incorporating original magmatic argon.7

Subduction
Corollary to the idea of plate accretion by sea-floor spreading is the notion of plate destruction by subduction. (If sea-floor spreading occurs without plate destruction, the quantity of crust will increase and the volume of the earth must increase!). Subduction theory supposes that converging plates are destroyed below ocean trenches. The island arc or coastal mountain range associated with ocean trench subduction zones is claimed to form by compression as one plate is underthrusting another. The plate that is "subducted" below the trench is thought to be remelted at a depth of up to 700 kilometers. Gravity data indicate low density material of crustal character on the landward side below trenches. (Also, deep and high intensity earthquakes (i.e., earthquakes in Alaska, Peru, Nicaragua, etc.) are assumed to indicate break-up of the underthrust plate.

Two major difficulties are encountered by models supposing subduction to explain the modern tectonic phenomena in ocean trenches. First, if subduction theory is correct, there should be compressed, deformed, and thrust faulted sediment on the floors of trenches. Studies of the Peru-Chile Trench and the eastern Aleutian Trench,8 however, show soft flat lying sediment without compression structures. Second, seismic first-motion data indicate that modern earthquakes occurring approximately under trenches and island arcs are often tensional, but only rarely compressional.9
The Mysterious Cause of Drift
What is the driving force for continental drift and plate tectonics? How is a plate ten thousand kilometers long, several thousand kilometers wide, and one hundred kilometers thick, kept in constant but almost imperceptibly slow movement during millions of years? Will slow and continuous application of stress on a plate 100 kilometers thick cause it to be torn asunder? How can a plate be broken and then rammed slowly into the earth's mantle to a depth of 700 kilometers? Here are some of the most baffling problems for plate tectonics.

Evolutionary-uniformitarian explanations for plate motion range from very doubtful to impossible. A popular idea is that rising convection currents in the earth's mantle exert lateral forces on plates moving them slowly and continuously. The best theory of the viscosity of the earth's mantle, however, shows that large-scale convection systems are impossible.10 Three other theories are sometimes mentioned: (1) plates slide by gravity from the elevated mid-ocean ridge to the depressed trench, (2) plates are "pulled" into the mantle below trenches by chemical phase changes during melting, (3) plates are "pushed" apart along mid-ocean ridges by slow injection of magma into vertical cracks. Each of these mechanisms (alone or together) cannot overcome the viscous drag at the base of the plate, and cannot explain how the difference in elevation developed or how the plate boundary originally formed. The absence of sufficient mechanism for plate motion, the uncertainty regarding the existence of sea-floor spreading, and the doubts about subduction cause us to question the popular geologic syntheses known as "plate tectonics."

...

Conclusion
The idea that sea-floor plates form slowly and continuously at a rate of a few centimeters each year as the ocean crust is being rift apart, is not supported by geologic data. The concept of destruction of sea-floor plates over millions of years by slow underthrusting below ocean trenches is also doubtful. Furthermore, the cause for the alleged gradual and uninterrupted motion of plates is an unsolved mystery. Despite these failures in the modern theory of "plate tectonics," the notion that the earth's surface has been deformed at the margins of moving plate-like slabs appears to be a valid one. The facts indicate that the separation of the continents, rifting of the ocean floor, and underthrusting of ocean trenches, were accomplished by rapid processes, not occurring today, initiated by a catastrophic mechanism. Noah's Flood, as described in the Bible, was certainly associated with tectonic processes and provides the time in the Biblical framework of earth history when continental separation may have occurred.

I've checked the usual sites for a rebuttal but it's obviously too new an article to be debunked yet.

From what I understand of plate tectonics, it's a well-supported theory that ties together continental movement and production of mountain ranges like the Himalayas, however, I'm not in a position to answer some of these criticisms.

Specifically, what are they talking about when they mention that potassium-argon dating shows no evidence of increasing age with distance? They reference a paper written in 1972. I suppose newer research has revealed more?

I'd appreciate some data that utterly destroys their model of the (flood breaking up the lithosphere? Wouldn't that cause catastrophic stuff like Noah's ark being destroyed?)

I assume there are inconsistencies that would make a geologist say 'get the ... outta here', just like every other bit of 'research' these sites churn out.

Thanks again for any help.

tgamble · 06-30-2002, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Allan:
*Resurrects thread*

At my continuing battle with the YECs, <a href="http://www.blizzforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=109" target="_blank">http://www.blizzforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=109</a> , I'm once again stumped in regards to geology.

A new article from ICR (June 30) is yapping about plate tectonics being incorrect. I need some help debunking it.

<a href="http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-032.htm" target="_blank">http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-032.htm</a>

I've checked the usual sites for a rebuttal but it's obviously too new an article to be debunked yet.

From what I understand of plate tectonics, it's a well-supported theory that ties together continental movement and production of mountain ranges like the Himalayas, however, I'm not in a position to answer some of these criticisms.

Specifically, what are they talking about when they mention that potassium-argon dating shows no evidence of increasing age with distance? They reference a paper written in 1972. I suppose newer research has revealed more?

I'd appreciate some data that utterly destroys their model of the (flood breaking up the lithosphere? Wouldn't that cause catastrophic stuff like Noah's ark being destroyed?)

I assume there are inconsistencies that would make a geologist say 'get the ... outta here', just like every other bit of 'research' these sites churn out.

Thanks again for any help.

ok patrick, destroy em.

<a href="http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html#The%20Bible%20and%20Science" target="_blank">http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html#The%20Bible%20and%20Science</a>

Valentine Pontifex · 06-30-2002, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Allan:
*Resurrects thread*

At my continuing battle with the YECs, <a href="http://www.blizzforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=109" target="_blank">http://www.blizzforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=109</a> , I'm once again stumped in regards to geology.

A new article from ICR (June 30) is yapping about plate tectonics being incorrect. I need some help debunking it.

<a href="http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-032.htm" target="_blank">http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-032.htm</a>

I just looked at the number (32) and knew that it was not a new article. Follow your own link, the article is a quarter-century old. The author is none other than Steve Austin (Stuart E. Nevins was a pen name he used to use).

[ June 30, 2002: Message edited by: LordValentine ]

WinAce · 06-30-2002, 01:40 PM

Umm, whoops. The copyright date indeed says it was published in the 70s.

... strange that they republished an old article such as this in the newest issue. Oh well, it's nothing new for them.

This changes everything. Plate tectonics has actually been recorded by satellite imagery now. I'll be sure to use that in my reply.

Thanks for pointing that out. I was able to piece together a rebuttal from various webpages on plate tectonics, including one from the Infidels library

06-24-2002, 09:40 PM	#16
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	Scigirl, Well, the ASA website is down too. Maybe it'll be up in a few days. [ June 24, 2002: Message edited by: RufusAtticus ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-23-2002, 02:21 PM	#11
Dr.GH Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Dana Point, Ca, USA Posts: 2,115	I stand corrected. Thanks. I was too lazy to look it up, and shot from the lip.

06-24-2002, 10:21 AM	#12
Tim Thompson Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Pasadena, CA, USA Posts: 455	Dr. GH: The energies involved in the "Creation week scenario" would be so massive that I should think that they would have observable effects on other star systems even today if the universe were only 6K years old. Tim would be the expert there. In fact Tim, could this be an inadvertant opportunity for creation 'science' falsification? It might, if ever you could pin a creationist down to specifics. That's why I made a point about the difference between whether or not something could happen or did happen. Creationists think they are scoring points by revealing that the smug evolutionist claim that radioactive decay rates are immutable is false. They think that all they need to do is point out that conditions are known to exist where they are variable, and the "flood" gate is open. Hw do we know that some other, unknown or unpredictable effect did not change the decay rates? It looks convincing to creationists, who see it as a victory. But real scientists realize that the "constancy" of decay rates is implicitly understood to mean "constant under reasonable circumstances". Heating a rock to 200,000,000 Kelvins without even scorching the surface is hardly "reasonable", but creationists just don't care. If they were to argue that the decay rates definitely did vary, then they are up against the wall to "prove" their own assertion. But as long as they stick to the "well, they could have varied" line, they don't really have to "prove" much of anything, just present enough circumstantial evidence to snow the unwary. And remember the Big Bottom Lin: God can do anything, so if the evidence you expect to see isn't there, it's because God got rid of that. And in the creationist world view, it is unscientific to deny the power of God's will, and perfectly acceptable to include miraculous intervention in a scientific argument. If ever we will score real points, that's where I think the goal line really is. Just exactly what is "science" anyway? The creationists practice a version of "science" that is in the vast minority view, and contradictory to all major scientific societies & organizations. Expose what they do & say as true pseudo-science, I think that's the strongest approach.

06-24-2002, 02:15 PM	#14
beausoleil Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: US and UK Posts: 846	It was definitely there yesterday.

06-24-2002, 04:04 PM	#15
WinAce Beloved Deceased Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Carrboro, NC Posts: 1,539	I was going to say how the Google cached version was still probably available, but the images on it don't show up... How sad, it was a very good article. <a href="http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:zy_5FoxSsu8C:asa.calvin.edu/ASA/resources/Wiens.html+%22radiometric+dating+a+christian+persp ective%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8" target="_blank">http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:zy_5FoxSsu8C:asa.calvin.edu/ASA/resources/Wiens.html+%22radiometric+dating+a+christian+persp ective%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8</a>

06-30-2002, 01:40 PM	#20
WinAce Beloved Deceased Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Carrboro, NC Posts: 1,539	Umm, whoops. The copyright date indeed says it was published in the 70s. ... strange that they republished an old article such as this in the newest issue. Oh well, it's nothing new for them. This changes everything. Plate tectonics has actually been recorded by satellite imagery now. I'll be sure to use that in my reply. Thanks for pointing that out. I was able to piece together a rebuttal from various webpages on plate tectonics, including one from the Infidels library

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.