Catastrophic Plate Tectonics - Fact or Fiction?

OK (Bernd, Percy, Jar, anyone), after 3 days and nights of re-thinking the *big* CPT challenge of ARD itself ...
Regarding Accelerated Radioactive Decay?Theistic-Evo’ists and/or OEC-ists complain that a YEC must not naively expect that God should be *bothered* to incorporate *radiometrically matured* strata increasingly down into earth’s crust, especially during a *global flood* scenario.Ad-hoc solutions to the Problem of required Accelerated Radioactive Decay (ARD)1) One classical *YECish* conjecture: Apparent age (radiometric) is incorporated early in the creation week and *perhaps not totally required* during CPT events.
A) http://www.nwcreation.net/wiki/index.php?title=Accelerate... addresses somewhat the over-heat problem of ARD in terms of universal expansion (i.e., Commencing Genesis Day 2).
B) The RATE Group (http://www.nwcreation.net/wiki/index.php?title=RATE_group and Tools with a mission! | Evangelicals Now) refutes mainstream radiometric dating per se
Snelling states: The conventional techniques of radioisotopic dating of rocks have been repeatedly found to be unreliable, because there are consistent systematic discordances (disagreements) between the four regularly-used radioisotopic systems. It is also now well-recognised in the copious isotope geochemistry and geochronology literature that the Earth's mantle today is radioisotopically heterogeneous, due to massive global radioisotopic mixing between the mantle and crust through Earth history. Thus radioisotopic inheritance and mixing in mantle-derived magmas and crustal rocks are known to be common, which renders the radioisotopic dating of such rocks highly questionable etc.)2) If ARD is *really required* for CPT theory itself and if CPT is *really required* for global flood theory, I pose the following conjectures:
A) *Currently unexplainable* ARD of the elements occurred during a currently unexplainable global flood, that might be c/w a major creation dispensation of *God the Creator*. Genesis 6 and 8 (global flood history) curiously renames our deity from LORD to God ( the flip of Genesis 1 to 2.) that supports this notion of a creation dispensation.
B) Some of nature’s physical constants peradventure *changed* when God *touched down*: Compare the Kaluza-Klein idea with Dr. Chaffin’s data The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404)
C) Humphrey conjectures a weakening of the nuclear force during such ARD: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/acceleration.asp
D) Dr. Cresswell (here) quotes Jar’s rather profound statement //http://www.///cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=3&t=98&m=17:
The decay does not even have to happen, GOD can simply set initial ratios, daughter elements, resulting products as desired.3) *Time* itself vs. mere Radiometic clocks (this is my favorite).
A) None of us has yet to *explain* what time *really* is, despite our clever clocks.
B) We’ve assumed that time is somehow *defined by* or *faithfully recorded* by atomic clocks when we have yet to understand what really binds isotopic protons together (i.e., all those *mysterious* quantum hypotheses).
C) What we *temporally see* is not always what we get: Cosmic relativistic and quantum reality of radiometric dating (and *time constriction/ARD*) might be much greater (see Page not found | Doctor Professional) and deeper (respectively) than our puny radiometric techniques (and other clocks) inform us.
D) Time, as created by a creator, must commence from metaphysical and not physical things, anyway.In sum, ARD is a curious phenomenon that *seems required* for any valid CPT theory and YEC global flood agenda. Rebuttals (above) to this *dinner conversation* have stressed: (1) Radiometric dating challenges and questionable degrees of ARD, (2) Explainable mechanisms and unexplainable mechanisms of ARD (invoking scriptural re-creation event during the great flood, and (3) metaphysical components of time itself.

I had to laugh when I read your post. It was a great example of
'so little to say and so many words to say it.' Notice how carefully worded this statement is. Snelling won't say that, 'radiometric dating is 'consistently' found to be unreliable,' but 'repeatedly'. Likewise, I could say that wristwatches have been shown to be repeatedly unreliable, and I would be exactly correct. What does NOT follow is that we should abandon the use of wristwatches. Really? Well, that's interesting because a systematic error is the most easily corrected and/or explained, therefore the technique may NOT be invalid. Now, answer me this: do you think that ther is a remote chance that geochronologists might have actually thought about these things before YEC came along? Correct. And this has what do do with radiometric dating of supra crustal rocks? THat would be okay except that we are not measuring mixtures of rocks. We are measuring dates from carefully sampled geological materials and even individual mineral grains that can only tell when they formed and not necessarily how mantle and crust interacted. Snelling obviously has a low opinion of his fellow geologists. This is all foolishness on the part of Snelling and I won't say who the fools are. Do you really think this is a good argument for discerning between YEC and mainstream timeframes? "Well, we don't really know anything, so let's just evoke the supernatural and be done with it." This is an argument that seems to hold ignorance as virtue. However, I do admit that it is a common YEC viewpoint.

This is so much hogwash - there are no arguments here - just conjecture and assertions (not refutation as you suggest) by Snelling that have no basis in actual evidence. Mixing of rocks of different ages does not pose any real problems for geologists and it simply is not true that different methods of radioisotape dating don't agree - on the contrary, they are in remarkable agreement, within experimental error, of course. (Experimental error which doesn't even come close to giving any comfort to YEC hopes, by the way). Philip, you have finally outdone yourself in producing a screed so full of gibberish that it does not belong in a forum based on logical argument. Of course you are again off topic. This forum is about mechanisms for CPT - not about the reliability of radioisotope dating. You have contributed nothing useful to the discussion but you have managed to adhere to the worst stereotypes of the YEC "arguments".

Agreed. But what to do? This thread has become almost painful to keep up with. Sort of like watching 'reality' television. I still think there is reasonable probability that Philip is a troll and possibly a evo in disguise. It would explain a few things...This message has been edited by edge, 07-25-2005 10:47 PM

Hi Philip,It doesn't make any sense to rebut your post because you don't understand it anyway. Having no ability to judge the merit of any rebuttals, you can only respond by once more going off to YEC websites and cutting and pasting more material you're incapable of intelligently assessing.I again suggest you read an introductory geology text.Also, since EvC Forum exists to explore Creationism's claim to be science on par with evolution deserving of representation in science classrooms where the teaching of religion is ruled out by the US Constitution, please, no more references to God or the supernatural. To do so loses the debate outright.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

He doesn't even need a book to get started. I linked him to a USGS plate tectonics site geared towards the lay person. It presents the history and the basics of the theory. It appears he doesn't care to actually learn about the theory before completely discarding it.This message has been edited by roxrkool, 07-26-2005 07:48 AM

Hello Phillip,Against the advice of Percy I would like to discuss in some detail the objections you raised. I think that’s a good opportunity to prove him wrong and to show that you can do better than simply cut and paste material you are incapable of intelligently assessing. [1]Let’s start with the first link, which as you stated correctly in [2]: The article [3] first covers evidences and theoretical bases for nuclear decay. The next chapter is named Dealing with the Heat and begins with a concession: That‘s correct. The heat would melt the earth.
The solution of the mentioned problems has been found by the author in the following psalm: which he interprets as: So far to the scientific treatment of the excess heat problem. Now to my questions.

What does the author exactly mean by rapid stretching of space? Inflation?

​

If yes, what do you think were the parameters of the universe, when inflation started?

​

Assumed there would be an earth at the beginning of inflation, what would happen with it, provided that after inflation the universe is stretched by a factor of more than 10^30? ([4], p. 17)

​

If there are no effects by stretching, how does cooling work?

​

Regards
Bernd

​

References

​

[1] Message 260
[2] Message 256
[3] http://www.nwcreation.net/wiki/index.php?title=Accelerate...
[4] http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9901/9901124.pdf

Actually I've read intro-geo and PT stuff those last 3 days and think I at least did glance at your reference, Rox.Also, I may be coming to grips that CPT theory (and many of its variations) defies current explanation (hyper-naturalistic and/or hyper-Newtonian explanation that is). (Did I just lose the debate, outright?)But (looking at the big picture), current Inflationary theory of our universe (with its geology in the midst) seems such *religious* babble to my own puny brain/mind, anyway. ( may I declare it a US Constitutional *religious* violation?).This message has been edited by Philip, 07-27-2005 01:12 PM

Two things:
1) there is no particular relationship between geology and the theory of inflation. To suggest that there is would suggest that an auto mechanic should study cosmology because there is a connection from the radiator to the big bang. (off topic here anyway).2) (also off to topic but I will try to add a bit I just learned about inflation in Greene's "The Fabric of the Cosmos in the appropriate thread. that'll be in a few hours) Inflation sounded a bit adhoc to me too for a long time. It isn't. I have been astonished at the scientific strength it has. However, all of current cosmology and QM may sound a bit like babble unless you are willing to invest considerable (and I don't mean just a couple of hundred hours) effort into getting a layman's understanding of it. (Even then it leaves you shaking your head in bewilderment)ABEMore on topic: In science the current best theory is the one that stands as the consensus. So, yes, the debate is, for now, lost.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 07-27-2005 01:29 PM

Very well Ned,I won't beg the point and hereby DO CONCEDE that CPT defies any *hyper-naturalistic and/or hyper-Newtonian* explanation (if you will).Yet I still uphold the theory as conjectural and viable.--Philip

"I still uphold the theory (CPT) as conjectural and viable."Err - that is an oxymoron. A theory based on conjecture is by definition, not viable. A theory has to explain some facts to be viable. You are confusing the layman's definition of theory wuth the scientific understanding of theory.

So, Philip, not to change the subject, but what do you think of fixing foot problems by attaching magnets to the problem area? Or by placing the foot under a pyramid? Or by using therapeutic touch? Or by prayer?--Percy

On what basis?

This is ridiculous:I've used the word "conjecture" as: "(the forming of) a guess about something based on how it seems and NOT ON PROOF" (i.e., http://www.freesearch.co.uk/dictionary/conjectural)When said of a plan (scheme, theory, agenda, or whatever) "Viable" means: "having a chance of success; feasible; practicable." (Definition of viable)Thus how could there be an oxymoron in my statement: "I still uphold the theory (CPT) as conjectural and viable."A parallel might be an *agnostic* who states I uphold that deity is conjectural and a deity may be viable (or something like that)Recall, I’ve already conceded and *lost this debate* when I (personally and/or professionally) have failed to prove *hyper-Newtonian and hyper-naturalistic* mechanisms for CPT.

It doesn't have a chance of success, it's not feasible or practicable. Thus calling it viable is an oxymoron.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion