Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why not here (re: Joe's geomagnetism web page)
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 16 of 44 (63347)
10-29-2003 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by TrueCreation
10-29-2003 3:58 PM


I'm not a geophysicist but I think that one reason that those things aren't concerns of the mainstream is that they are falsified, they predict things which didn't or can't occur. Once a hypothosis is shown to be wrong then it isn't given much consideration after that. Not without new information anyway.
Be careful if you plan on introducing even one miracle (decay rate changes). As soon as you do you step outside of science which deals with natural explanations. You may do that as part of your exploration. If you find consequences of your "paradigm shift" to a miraclulous explanation that can be tested then you will really have accomplished something. If you can not test them you will be ignored.
However, as much as you are setting up a test for the scientific explanations you seem to be setting your faith up for a scientific test as well. Why would you want to do that? If after all you research all you can conclude is that what you think your faith is telling you is wrong, what then? You conclusion must be as Galileo pointed out a long time ago. Your interpretation of the Bible is wrong! ( I am assuming that the other possible conclusion -- that the Bible itself is wrong is not acceptable)
[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 10-29-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by TrueCreation, posted 10-29-2003 3:58 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by TrueCreation, posted 10-30-2003 3:23 PM NosyNed has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 44 (63480)
10-30-2003 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by NosyNed
10-29-2003 4:09 PM


quote:
I'm not a geophysicist but I think that one reason that those things aren't concerns of the mainstream is that they are falsified
--Impossible. If they are not concerns of the mainstream community, how can you infer that they have been falsified (ie, they are not concerns, there has been no research, therefore no definite conclusion in their regard). I think the main reason they are not concerns of the mainsteam community is that they are (apparently)doing just fine with research under the uniformitarian philosophy. Not to mention that you believe catastrophic geology was substantiated as impossible 150-200 years ago.
quote:
, they predict things which didn't or can't occur.
--Accelerated decay is the only thing which cannot occur as a natural phenomena. The other 'inconsistencies' are all topics of research which are not concerns to the mainstream community.
quote:
Once a hypothosis is shown to be wrong then it isn't given much consideration after that. Not without new information anyway.
[emphasis mine]
--Exactly. That new information (or research) has yet to be done.
Cheers,
-Chris Grose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by NosyNed, posted 10-29-2003 4:09 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by NosyNed, posted 10-30-2003 3:36 PM TrueCreation has replied
 Message 19 by Percy, posted 10-30-2003 4:00 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 18 of 44 (63484)
10-30-2003 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by TrueCreation
10-30-2003 3:23 PM


If they are not concerns of the mainstream community, how can you infer that they have been falsified (ie, they are not concerns, there has been no research, therefore no definite conclusion in their regard).
The point is *no longer* a concern. The path there has been closed off by what is known. It simply doesn't fit.
It appears you are going down this path assuming you will have to invoke a miracle for accelerated decay. If so why don't you just invoke miracles to get rid of excess heat, vicosity problems etc. as well.
As long as you have one "supernatural" explanation left in there you will not be successful in convincing anyone.
Additionally, if you look to the thread here disucssing this you will find you need more than one miracle. If you can use one miralce as an explanation then why not use more?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by TrueCreation, posted 10-30-2003 3:23 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by TrueCreation, posted 10-30-2003 4:32 PM NosyNed has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 19 of 44 (63486)
10-30-2003 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by TrueCreation
10-30-2003 3:23 PM


Hi TC!
NosyNed raises a good point in his reply:
NosyNed writes:
Additionally, if you look to the thread here disucssing this you will find you need more than one miracle. If you can use one miracle as an explanation then why not use more?
How do you know that God is following a rule of "The fewer miracles the better"? Maybe God likes miracles, and the more miracles the better!
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by TrueCreation, posted 10-30-2003 3:23 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by TrueCreation, posted 10-30-2003 4:38 PM Percy has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 44 (63488)
10-30-2003 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by NosyNed
10-30-2003 3:36 PM


"The point is *no longer* a concern. The path there has been closed off by what is known. It simply doesn't fit."
--What do you mean, "no longer a concern", runaway subduction and CPT is relatively new, and I don't know of any rigorous mainstream studies on its veracity. More importantly, as I noted in my earlier post:
quote:
No one in the mainstream community cares about putting in countless of tedious hours of work into figuring exactly what would happen with hydrothermal systems when plates are moving at catastrophic velocities. No one in the mainstream community cares about the implications for island arc volcanism with high subduction velocities. It seems to me that most of the concerns of catastrophic geodynamics are not concerns of the mainstream community.
--I cited two very relevant examples and I could give hundreds more if I camped at my computer writing them down, none of which are concerns to the mainstream community, and probably never were.
quote:
It appears you are going down this path assuming you will have to invoke a miracle for accelerated decay. If so why don't you just invoke miracles to get rid of excess heat, vicosity problems etc. as well.
As long as you have one "supernatural" explanation left in there you will not be successful in convincing anyone.
Additionally, if you look to the thread here disucssing this you will find you need more than one miracle. If you can use one miralce as an explanation then why not use more?
--The ultimate point is that the most fundamental aspect of science is potential falsification. If any miracle can be potentially falsified, bring it on. I think that as we start piling up the research on heat flow physics the excess heat problems will begin to disipate (or will begin to become more pronounced, I have no pre-concieved conclusion. But I have an opinionated hope). Indeed, I think they already have begin to dim. And the simple fact is that if a global flood is responsible for the last "500 Myr" of the earths geology, than accelerated decay is an inevitable requisite. Therefore, if it can be substantiated that such an episode of accelerated decay would indeed induce a chain reaction in all the relevant geodynamic systems to produce this amazingly complex geological history, in my opinion catastrophic geology is more than plausible. It is my aim to do the relevant research required to make the conclusion. I feel that this conclusion cannot yet be made(at least in the fields I have studied in some depth).
--BTW, there is no 'viscosity problem'.
Cheers,
-Chris Grose
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 10-30-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by NosyNed, posted 10-30-2003 3:36 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by NosyNed, posted 10-30-2003 5:05 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 44 (63489)
10-30-2003 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Percy
10-30-2003 4:00 PM


"How do you know that God is following a rule of "The fewer miracles the better"? Maybe God likes miracles, and the more miracles the better!"
--Good point. Well I think that if he really did use numerous miracles that could not have left some kind of suggestive evidence, I feel that (in the long run) my transition to the old earth perspective is inevitable.
Cheers,
-Chris Grose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Percy, posted 10-30-2003 4:00 PM Percy has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 22 of 44 (63495)
10-30-2003 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by TrueCreation
10-30-2003 4:32 PM


If any miracle can be potentially falsified, bring it on
Of course, this is what is wrong with miracles as an explanation. They can be constructed anyway you like so they can not be falsified. They can explain *any* observation and therefore can explain none of them.
If you want to do science, fine. If not, then I don't care what you have to say.
No, viscosity problem? I guess I've been mislead into thinking that moving the continents at rates 1,000,000 times more than they are presents some problems. Could you explain where that is wrong? I think you could go to the threads for that.
Or is the answer you have now only that more research is needed? If so let's wait till you finish that.
Until you do, the best available explanation is that there is no CPT only the consensus scientific explanation has any reason to be accepted until you have finished with your work.
( I am, btw, not holding my breath )

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by TrueCreation, posted 10-30-2003 4:32 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by TrueCreation, posted 10-30-2003 5:21 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 44 (63496)
10-30-2003 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by NosyNed
10-30-2003 5:05 PM


"Of course, this is what is wrong with miracles as an explanation. They can be constructed anyway you like so they can not be falsified. They can explain *any* observation and therefore can explain none of them.
If you want to do science, fine. If not, then I don't care what you have to say."
--I've explained my reasoning for having no problem with invoking some kind of miracle to explain the isotopic data. There isn't a lot to 'construct' with accelerated decay; either it accelerated, or it didn't. Accelerated decay isn't ad hoc, but I presume it was miraculous.
quote:
No, viscosity problem? I guess I've been mislead into thinking that moving the continents at rates 1,000,000 times more than they are presents some problems. Could you explain where that is wrong? I think you could go to the threads for that.
--What thread? I think Baumgardner's 2D simulations model this quite well. Viscosity can be decreased by many orders of magnitude without even approaching melting temperature. What exactly is the 'viscosity problem' you think is so problematic? If you want to open a new thread I might discuss this there.
Cheers,
-Chris Grose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by NosyNed, posted 10-30-2003 5:05 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by PaulK, posted 10-30-2003 5:35 PM TrueCreation has replied
 Message 25 by Loudmouth, posted 10-30-2003 6:31 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 24 of 44 (63497)
10-30-2003 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by TrueCreation
10-30-2003 5:21 PM


What on earth do you mean that accelerated decay issn't ad hoc ? The only possible reason for believing it is an assumption that the Earth is young in the first place.
What is more you need a very specific miracle that speeds all the relevant decay rates by the same amount, somehow keeps the spreadign rates close to proportional on top of explaining how carbon dating goes back beyond your Flood and has been calibrated and tested against independant measures such as dendrochronology and the varves of Lake Suigetsu to dates that go past the usual YEC creation, let alone the Flood.
And then you have to reconstruct geology so that massive catastrophes somehow produce the same results that mainstream geology predicts for far greater timescales - instead of looking like massive catastrophes.
There is no cause for optimism there. A more realistic view would be that your opinion is so close to the "appearance of age" argument that it suffers from the same theological problems in addition to the reliance on ad hoc miracles and a huge dose wishful thinking.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by TrueCreation, posted 10-30-2003 5:21 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by TrueCreation, posted 10-30-2003 8:40 PM PaulK has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 44 (63503)
10-30-2003 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by TrueCreation
10-30-2003 5:21 PM


TrueCreation writes:
I've explained my reasoning for having no problem with invoking some kind of miracle to explain the isotopic data. There isn't a lot to 'construct' with accelerated decay; either it accelerated, or it didn't. Accelerated decay isn't ad hoc, but I presume it was miraculous.
First of all, in order to fit the geologic timeline into a YEC model you have to assume increased isotopic decay ad hoc.
Second, decay rates are as intrinsic as mass, for example. You don't chain yourself to the desk in case the mass of Carbon suddenly changes, do you? What proof do you have that isotopes can change their half lives, because I sure haven't seen anything that would refute uniformity in decay rates. As stated above, decay rates can be verified by many methods (varves, trees, ice samples). I can list more for various other isotopes if you would like.
What you're left with is a miracle. But why would God fool with isotope decay? It makes no sense. Why would he destroy evidence of a young earth when it is not necessary in any way. It's like turning back the odometer in your car just before you total it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by TrueCreation, posted 10-30-2003 5:21 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Brad McFall, posted 10-30-2003 6:43 PM Loudmouth has replied
 Message 28 by TrueCreation, posted 10-30-2003 8:42 PM Loudmouth has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 26 of 44 (63504)
10-30-2003 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Loudmouth
10-30-2003 6:31 PM


not part of main thread drift
this is just a small side point,
Loud, how does one "know" what is "ad hoc" if one accepts a dual model approach to science C or E. I suppose if one used the duality to polarize ones model,tradition,paradigm or pedagogy then what is ad hoc would be clear but I find the most information on c/e comes from looking at BOTH models together. That is why we have c/e webs of links but no c/e school depts as of yet so either I answered my own question or you could say a little better what criteria or means one uses to "discern" what is ad hoc and what is not to be added?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Loudmouth, posted 10-30-2003 6:31 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by edge, posted 10-30-2003 10:28 PM Brad McFall has replied
 Message 41 by Loudmouth, posted 10-31-2003 12:50 PM Brad McFall has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 44 (63520)
10-30-2003 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by PaulK
10-30-2003 5:35 PM


"What on earth do you mean that accelerated decay issn't ad hoc ? The only possible reason for believing it is an assumption that the Earth is young in the first place."
--The reason it isn't ad hoc is because it is invoked to explain the distribution of radioisotopes in the earths crust, as well as a potential initiation for CPT. I suspect that with further studies plenty more implications can also be found. For instance, all of the successive fossil forests at specimen ridge in Yellowstone could be spaced over a very short time scale (recalling from memory; with 200 year old trees, 200-500 years for pedogenic development required for the volcanic soil to be capable of sustain living trees, and 12 forests) with a lower limit of approximately 4800-8400 years for the entire lithofacies to be buried from bottom to top if they did indeed grow there. And so it would be expected that if accurate radioisotopic dates were taken from material in the specimen ridge forests the radioisotopic record should reflect this. However if we take into consideration accelerated radiosotopic decay in catastrophic geology 5000-8500 "years" of radioisotopic decay would be accomplished in no time:
Assuming a uniform increase with no variation during accelerated decay, and packing approximately 500 Myr of isotopic decay in 1 year means that every day there would be about 57,000 "years" of decay. This would mean that all these forests would have to be layed down in a couple hours if we found what would be expected in the uniformitarian scenario. So if the fossil forests were deposited in a scenario of catastrophic geology, than these fossil forests should reflect a much larger radioisotopic difference (several million years of decay).
--I could also hypothesize similar expectations in various areas where we find mud cracks, coprolites (and their dessication cracks), nests, and other trace fossils which we know would have to take some time to form.
quote:
What is more you need a very specific miracle that speeds all the relevant decay rates by the same amount, somehow keeps the spreadign rates close to proportional on top of explaining how carbon dating goes back beyond your Flood and has been calibrated and tested against independant measures such as dendrochronology and the varves of Lake Suigetsu to dates that go past the usual YEC creation, let alone the Flood.
--Well I'm glad you realize the complexity of the issue.
Cheers,
-Chris Grose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by PaulK, posted 10-30-2003 5:35 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by edge, posted 10-30-2003 10:03 PM TrueCreation has replied
 Message 34 by PaulK, posted 10-31-2003 2:51 AM TrueCreation has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 44 (63521)
10-30-2003 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Loudmouth
10-30-2003 6:31 PM


"What you're left with is a miracle. But why would God fool with isotope decay? It makes no sense. Why would he destroy evidence of a young earth when it is not necessary in any way. It's like turning back the odometer in your car just before you total it. "
--There are ways to tell if you have turned back the odometer. God may have 'fooled with isotopic decay' because it would result in what he wanted, a global catastrophe.
Cheers,
-Chris Grose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Loudmouth, posted 10-30-2003 6:31 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by edge, posted 10-30-2003 10:26 PM TrueCreation has replied
 Message 42 by Loudmouth, posted 10-31-2003 1:07 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 29 of 44 (63532)
10-30-2003 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by TrueCreation
10-30-2003 8:40 PM


quote:
--The reason it isn't ad hoc is because it is invoked to explain ...
And that is the entire reason that it is invoked. It is, therefore, ad hoc.
quote:
...the distribution of radioisotopes in the earths crust,...
Exactly what does it tell us about the distribution of radioisotopes in the earth's crust?
quote:
... as well as a potential initiation for CPT.
Nope, it tells us nothing about the potential of CPT. You have to invoke even more ad hoc arguments in order to apply it to CPT.
quote:
I suspect that with further studies plenty more implications can also be found. For instance, all of the successive fossil forests at specimen ridge in Yellowstone could be spaced over a very short time scale (recalling from memory; with 200 year old trees, 200-500 years for pedogenic development required for the volcanic soil to be capable of sustain living trees, and 12 forests) with a lower limit of approximately 4800-8400 years for the entire lithofacies to be buried from bottom to top if they did indeed grow there. And so it would be expected that if accurate radioisotopic dates were taken from material in the specimen ridge forests the radioisotopic record should reflect this. However if we take into consideration accelerated radiosotopic decay in catastrophic geology 5000-8500 "years" of radioisotopic decay would be accomplished in no time:
Assuming a uniform increase with no variation during accelerated decay, and packing approximately 500 Myr of isotopic decay in 1 year means that every day there would be about 57,000 "years" of decay. This would mean that all these forests would have to be layed down in a couple hours if we found what would be expected in the uniformitarian scenario. So if the fossil forests were deposited in a scenario of catastrophic geology, than these fossil forests should reflect a much larger radioisotopic difference (several million years of decay).
What is your point here?
quote:
--I could also hypothesize similar expectations in various areas where we find mud cracks, coprolites (and their dessication cracks), nests, and other trace fossils which we know would have to take some time to form.
Are you saying that if something takes a long time then it really doesn't?
quote:
--Well I'm glad you realize the complexity of the issue.
The question is, do you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by TrueCreation, posted 10-30-2003 8:40 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by TrueCreation, posted 10-30-2003 10:47 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 30 of 44 (63540)
10-30-2003 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by TrueCreation
10-30-2003 8:42 PM


quote:
--There are ways to tell if you have turned back the odometer. God may have 'fooled with isotopic decay' because it would result in what he wanted, a global catastrophe.
Just as there should be ways to tell if accelerated decay actually occurred. Just what was the process by which accelerated decay occurred according to you? In other words, 'why did decay accelerate?' And then decelerate? How many times did it accelerate? And why did it leave no trace of its happening? Why is the appearance of age necessary?
The fact is that the only reason for accelerated decay is that you need it for CPT and as a tool to question radiometric dating. There is no evidence for it other than the fact that you need it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by TrueCreation, posted 10-30-2003 8:42 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by TrueCreation, posted 10-30-2003 10:53 PM edge has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024