Evolution is Not Science

"Outgassing occurs when magma is depressurized during an eruption."
--Yes this is why Hawaiian lava flows are not at all as devistating or explosive as, say, japaneese volcanic eruptions."Many of these gases are toxic or have other effects on the climate. The eruption of Laki in 1783-84 polluted the air in Europe for months and resulted in acid rain, a short growing season and famine. Forage was killed off in Iceland during the "blue haze famine" and most of the livestock died. The gases were mostly water with some carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, hydrogen chloride and flourine. It is estimated the the eruption produced 50 million tons of sulfur dioxide and ultimately 150 million tons of sulfuric acid aerosols. The Mississippi River actually froze in New Orleans that winter. The cold weather may have contributed to the food shortages leading up to the French Revolution. So, the effects of degassing are not trivial. This information is from Volcanoes in Human History by de Boer and Sanders."
--Hm.. I found this slightly what I may have been looking for:

quote:

---

The gases were mostly water with some carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, hydrogen chloride and flourine.

---

--Though I still didn't get my questions answered:
1 - show me the source of gas
2 - origin (the reason it previously existed in the earth)
3 - relatively how much would have been extruded------------------

"Um I had a devastating agument all typed up but I backed out on my browser and lost it Joe...."
--I had not gotten my 'devastating argument', 'all typed up' in the other thread, I went through the posts and commented on information that I need before I do the calculation. This isn't just a throw the numbers together and do the calculation.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 03-25-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

--Besides the fact that they are very simmilar, micro changes can produce macro effects, genetics and anatomy can have little or devistating effects on taxonomy.

---

YAY!!!! Our first convert to evolution!! Micro changes CAN produce macro effects!!Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"So which Cambrian forms did they "microevolve" from? Can you put forth a candidate for their Cambrian ancestor?"
--Possibly Waptia fieldensis, Penaeus speciosus, and Udora brevispina

​

---

Waptia fieldensis is an arthropod from the middle Cambrian. Are you suggesting arthropods and crustaceans have a common ancestor?The other two are from the late Jurassic. How did Jurassic creatures "microevolve" into Cambrian ones?

KP,I moved my reply to this over to...... http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=1&t=162&p=1message 9Cheers,Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Outgassing occurs when magma is depressurized during an eruption."
--Yes this is why Hawaiian lava flows are not at all as devistating or explosive as, say, japaneese volcanic eruptions.

---

The point being? Actually, have you ever experienced an Hawaiian eruption? They try to keep people with medical conditions away from the solfataras.

quote:

---

--Hm.. I found this slightly what I may have been looking for:

​

e: The gases were mostly water with some carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, hydrogen chloride and flourine.

​

--Though I still didn't get my questions answered:
1 - show me the source of gas
2 - origin (the reason it previously existed in the earth)
3 - relatively how much would have been extruded

---

I thought the answers were pretty clear. The gases are partly dissolved in the magma. Some, are picked up from the rocks that magma travels through and some (like the water) are from incorporated sea water that has infiltrated the volcanic edifice through cracks.Have you seen any of the compositions of the black smokers found at the mid-ocean ridges? Lots of sulfur, heavy metals, water, etc. You were incorrect in saying that no water would be involved, by the way. Sure, some magmas are relatively low in water, but in highly fractured areas such as the rift zones, water is not scarce.And let's not forget that the creationist models that I've seen call for huge, unrealistic amounts of water in the mantle.I gave you an estimate on the amount of sulfuric acid aerosols produced by Laki. You can extrapolate that to a global flood and continental sprint model a la Baumgardner on you own. Keep in mind that the Laki eruption was microscopic in magnitude compared to the thousands of miles of mid-ocean ridges that would be opened up by a Baumgardner event.As to why these gases previously existed in the earth, I'm not sure that it's relevant. They are there. The mantle is probably the largest reservoir of practically every element on earth.If anything, a Baumgardner event would have been more devastating because not only because of the magnitude of the volcanism, but there should actually have been more dissolved gases in the mantle so close to the creation event; and because of the fact that there had been no previous volcanism (degassing) or mountain building, etc (according got most YEC models). You see, with CPT, the mantle turnover at high temperatures would have been so rapid that gasses would logically have escaped much more rapidly; and there would have been much less volatile matter in the mantle available for the Laki eruption.

"Waptia fieldensis is an arthropod from the middle Cambrian. Are you suggesting arthropods and crustaceans have a common ancestor?"
--Crustaceans are arthropods."The other two are from the late Jurassic. How did Jurassic creatures "microevolve" into Cambrian ones?"
--well they didn't, I gave a list of diffferent plausable subjects for todays diversity in these phyla.------------------

"YAY!!!! Our first convert to evolution!! Micro changes CAN produce macro effects!!"
--Your not really looking for a macro effect, but a macro change. For instance, you can get your DNA scrambled and make yourself produce 6 arms, simple change, macro effect. Far from a converstion to an old earth Evolutionist.------------------

"I moved my reply to this over to...... http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=1&t=162&p=1
--Allright. Someone want's to urge me into discussing Radionucleic dating so they can stomp on my face I'm thinking. I would not expect myself to do well in this area.------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Waptia fieldensis is an arthropod from the middle Cambrian. Are you suggesting arthropods and crustaceans have a common ancestor?"
--Crustaceans are arthropods.

​

"The other two are from the late Jurassic. How did Jurassic creatures "microevolve" into Cambrian ones?"
--well they didn't, I gave a list of diffferent plausable subjects for todays diversity in these phyla.

​

---

Sorry, I should have asked, "are you suggesting that crustaceans and *other* arthropods have a common ancestor?"

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Sometimes it is basic. Unfortunately, it is always basic to the professional creationists."
--I was more refering to my statments such as the obviousness of heat effects viscosity and the like. This is most basic.
--You should hold your tounge here, please hold off on the ignorance, It would be most appreciative. I do not believe these sort of comments are at all abundant in my responses toward any old earther through a biased notion against them besed entirely on the fact of this characteristic.

---

Saying that you are on the same level as a PhD in Geology but do not even know basic terminology is about as arrogant as you can get. You will also note that I said nothing about the ignorance of anyone here.

quote:

---

"And how is "must be ... sea floor spreading" evidence? Evidence should indicate that sea floor spreading actually was slower."
--Not exactly, this is evidence because it is an expectant, your notion on what this evidence should provide is based on interperetation of the evidence.

---

Yes, but now you need to provide evidence. Otherwise all are you are doing is telling stories.

quote:

---

"What is the evidence?"
--Heat is being lost, convection is slowing and if the earth continues, convection will cease and the planet will be tectonically dead.

---

Still just a story! I'm not even disagreeing with you here, but you need to understand that evidence supports a theory.

quote:

---

"What about the rest of the earth? Was not radioactivity increasing there also? What did this do to life on earth?"
--Radioisotopic decay may not have been decaying at a higher rate in the lithosphere, as it was much more stable than the core.

---

If they were more stable in the core then radiogenic heat should have been less. Remember, you need that heat. Are you saying that radiometric dating in the crust is possibly okay because the decay rates were slower and constant?

quote:

---

"How do yo know this? What is the evidence? You are telling stories without any supporting data."
--At one point in time, tectonic plates were one thick mass, the effects of heat ate away at the lithosphere, and now lithosphere is being underplated because of this loss of heat, the supporting data is the fact that this is exactly what is expected from the effects of heat.

---

What do you mean, "one thick mass?" And what is your evidence for it? This is another story. What is "expected" is not "data." You need to show that the lithosphere actually thinned and then thickened.

quote:

---

"This is another story. What is the evidence?"
--This is what happens when heat is added, and this is how the magnetosphere and polarity are controlled, in the outer-core. The earth is losing heat.

---

Aha! A piece of evidence! The earth is losing heat. This is good. Now show us how your explanation is better than the conventional plate tectonics model that also observes the earth to be losing heat. This will take more evidence...

quote:

---

"Tell us which mountain ranges you are talking about and then perhaps explain the older mountian ranges that are eroded away."
--Don't know the names of these uplifting mountains, though aligning shields and rocks of three mountain-building phases help give this ancient fit for southern lands, shields, early paleozoic rocks, early Mesozoic rocks, Late Mesozoic and Early Cenozoic.

---

I think the names of mountain ranges can often be found on maps. THese are the details you need in order to provide evidence. Now, what about the ranges that are eroded away?

quote:

---

"Do you know that the only reason he needs heat is to make his model work? So, Baumgardner's model actually explains Baumgardner's model!"
--Did you know the only reason Evolution needs natural selection is to make Evolution work? (I don't see the fault in logic)

---

The main difference is that we have observed natural selection. That is evidence. What is your evidence for high heat flows 4000 years ago?

quote:

---

"There is no evidence for such heat flows in the geological record."
--This is souly dependant on your interpretation, mechenism, and explanation on the Earths past geologic history.

---

No. There should be some evidence in the form of massive volcanism confined to a short period of time. There should be unusual rock types and formations. There should be extensive, even worldwide ash flows and hyaloclastites. Where are they?

quote:

---

"And is explained more than adequately by standard plate tectonics."
--And this means that my interpretation is falsified how?

---

Well, maybe it wasn't you who said that the CPT model better explains the evidence.

quote:

---

"How is your plate tectonics better?"
--Opinionated.

---

In other words not supported?

quote:

---

"Indeed. Now how is this different from standard plate tectonic theory?"
--Well I guess it isn't, we cant share in the same pile of scientific observation and physics?

---

Gladly, but you seem to only see parts of the pile.

quote:

---

"All you have thrown a bunch of ideas, stories and and scientific nonsense, along with a dash of evidence, up against the wall to see if it sticks. Care to try again?"
--It sticks., I do not think that 'trying again' is necessary.

---

Right. You have answered all of the questions asked of you... I am concerned, TC that you do not understand the concept of evidence. Sure you can make up a story, but you have consistently avoided anything that looks like data. Your model fails in every case where it confronts the details of the geological record.

"The point being?"
--That volatiles increase explosive reactions in volcanoes, this includes water, which would not have been present in any large quantity, because it is due to subduction."Actually, have you ever experienced an Hawaiian eruption? They try to keep people with medical conditions away from the solfataras."
--Yes this blends in to how much sulfuric gas or any other such volatiles that would be present. See next comments."I thought the answers were pretty clear. The gases are partly dissolved in the magma. Some, are picked up from the rocks that magma travels through and some (like the water) are from incorporated sea water that has infiltrated the volcanic edifice through cracks."
--I see, this wouldn't have been the case in many areas, as sea water may not have been present above the active fissure in its beginning, thus no real explosive eruption."Have you seen any of the compositions of the black smokers found at the mid-ocean ridges?"
--Yes, If I am not mistaken, these would have been present in abundance preceeding the flood in the pacific area of the tethy's."You were incorrect in saying that no water would be involved, by the way. Sure, some magmas are relatively low in water, but in highly fractured areas such as the rift zones, water is not scarce."
--Yes in the large plate subduction trough's, volatiles are more concentrated than in other areas of the world and are very explosive."And let's not forget that the creationist models that I've seen call for huge, unrealistic amounts of water in the mantle."
--I would like to keep the quantity of water in the mantle (not to mention gas, as it's presence is not a main source from a core or asthenospheric process, but mainly from leaching) at all much higher than zero."I gave you an estimate on the amount of sulfuric acid aerosols produced by Laki."
--Yes you have, but like my Q#2, where is such sulfuric gases coming from, and how did they get there."You can extrapolate that to a global flood and continental sprint model a la Baumgardner on you own. Keep in mind that the Laki eruption was microscopic in magnitude compared to the thousands of miles of mid-ocean ridges that would be opened up by a Baumgardner event."
--Yes, If I must deal with such quantities, I may have a major discrepancy."As to why these gases previously existed in the earth, I'm not sure that it's relevant. They are there. The mantle is probably the largest reservoir of practically every element on earth."
--It is extreamly relevant, this is the question which is going to change the quantity of gases producing an explosive and corrosive cloud of gas. I do need very much of this for the whole picture of the Flood. Though I can't deal with so much as it would poach the whole planet within a day."If anything, a Baumgardner event would have been more devastating because not only because of the magnitude of the volcanism, but there should actually have been more dissolved gases in the mantle so close to the creation event"
--How did you come to that conclusion?"and because of the fact that there had been no previous volcanism (degassing) or mountain building, etc (according got most YEC models). You see, with CPT, the mantle turnover at high temperatures would have been so rapid that gasses would logically have escaped much more rapidly; and there would have been much less volatile matter in the mantle available for the Laki eruption."
--See above, and I do not think that the Laki eruption would have been different because its volatilic material is mainly originated from sea water leaching.------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"The point being?"
--That volatiles increase explosive reactions in volcanoes, this includes water, which would not have been present in any large quantity, because it is due to subduction.

---

You know, I just got through a big argument with a creationist who claimed that there is evidence that there is more water in the mantle than all of the surface waters combined. And then we have people like Walt Brow who wants to have a continuous cavern several kilometers high and full of water in the mantle. And here you are saying that the water in the mantle is solely due to subduction! ARGHHHH!Cant' you guys a) get together a little bit, and b) take a path somewhere in the middle?You are WRONG. There is water in the mantle. There is also water entrained by magmas coursing near the surface. Can I be any clearer on this?

quote:

---

"Actually, have you ever experienced an Hawaiian eruption? They try to keep people with medical conditions away from the solfataras."
--Yes this blends in to how much sulfuric gas or any other such volatiles that would be present. See next comments.

---

So you admit that there are volatiles in the magma, even at Hawaii. Good.

quote:

---

"I thought the answers were pretty clear. The gases are partly dissolved in the magma. Some, are picked up from the rocks that magma travels through and some (like the water) are from incorporated sea water that has infiltrated the volcanic edifice through cracks."
--I see, this wouldn't have been the case in many areas, as sea water may not have been present above the active fissure in its beginning, thus no real explosive eruption.

---

Get this, TC... Iceland is on a spreading center. There is water in the magma. Your model calls for spreading boundaries all around the globe. This is getting tedious and disrespectful.

quote:

---

"Have you seen any of the compositions of the black smokers found at the mid-ocean ridges?"
--Yes, If I am not mistaken, these would have been present in abundance preceeding the flood in the pacific area of the tethy's.

---

Good. Then you understand that there are toxic volatiles released during even mild volcanism at the spreading zones. Now multiply this by millions of times and see what the effects of your CPT would be.

quote:

---

"You were incorrect in saying that no water would be involved, by the way. Sure, some magmas are relatively low in water, but in highly fractured areas such as the rift zones, water is not scarce."
--Yes in the large plate subduction trough's, volatiles are more concentrated than in other areas of the world and are very explosive.

---

Yes, and Iceland is on a spreading zone. So now you are telling me that even more toxic gasses would be released at the convergent boundaries during CPT even further toxifying the atmosphere. This is getting worse for Noah.

quote:

---

"And let's not forget that the creationist models that I've seen call for huge, unrealistic amounts of water in the mantle."
--I would like to keep the quantity of water in the mantle (not to mention gas, as it's presence is not a main source from a core or asthenospheric process, but mainly from leaching) at all much higher than zero.

---

Yeah, and I'd like to play linebacker for the Packers. Sorry, but wishing things are so does not make them that way.

quote:

---

"I gave you an estimate on the amount of sulfuric acid aerosols produced by Laki."
--Yes you have, but like my Q#2, where is such sulfuric gases coming from, and how did they get there.

---

From the SO2 in the vapors released from the lava, and water in the atmosphere. Do you understand this?

quote:

---

"You can extrapolate that to a global flood and continental sprint model a la Baumgardner on you own. Keep in mind that the Laki eruption was microscopic in magnitude compared to the thousands of miles of mid-ocean ridges that would be opened up by a Baumgardner event."
--Yes, If I must deal with such quantities, I may have a major discrepancy.

---

Please proceed.

quote:

---

"If anything, a Baumgardner event would have been more devastating because not only because of the magnitude of the volcanism, but there should actually have been more dissolved gases in the mantle so close to the creation event"
--How did you come to that conclusion?

---

Because there had been no previous volcanos or mountain building to allow degassing. The flood was at time=zero for degassing. Sometimes it would help if you read on before posting.

quote:

---

"and because of the fact that there had been no previous volcanism (degassing) or mountain building, etc (according got most YEC models). You see, with CPT, the mantle turnover at high temperatures would have been so rapid that gasses would logically have escaped much more rapidly; and there would have been much less volatile matter in the mantle available for the Laki eruption."
--See above, and I do not think that the Laki eruption would have been different because its volatilic material is mainly originated from sea water leaching.

---

So you are saying that there are no volatiles in the mantle? Sorry, but the data is not on your side. Or are you saying that the argon that is such a problem for radiometric dating or the helium fluxes that show us how young the earth are somehow manufactured in the mantle to maintain a constant flux?Besides, the point is that such eruptions, when extremely rapid and worldwide, would release such gasses. We know that it happens.

"Saying that you are on the same level as a PhD in Geology but do not even know basic terminology is about as arrogant as you can get."
--I think I know the terminology, though as for my assertion that basically 'were on the same level' with Joe, It was not meant in the context as everyone is refering. I interpereted Joe's post as that it seemed he believed there are spreading centers taking place on continents producing new continental mass(If this were so, it would have been quite an ignorance of geology), which I did not think that he thought. So I asserted that I was on the same level as he in this question. I am most sertaintly not on the same level 'period' with him."You will also note that I said nothing about the ignorance of anyone here."
--You don't have to mention ignorance to use it."Yes, but now you need to provide evidence. Otherwise all are you are doing is telling stories."
--I see my mistake in my first notion. I said that 'many magnitudes slower than today'. More correctly 'many magnitudes slower than previously'. The problem with direct evidence for this is it is expected that this would be vague on the basis that what it seems you would be looking for is evidence from plarity stripping, or sea-floor age. These two properties are not constants but flow at the rate of sea-floor spreading, so it wouldn't matter whether it were going 5 inches a year or 1000 inches a year, there wouldn't be such a noticable difference. I see no problem in this reasoning as it is simply a reasonable explination within the picture."Still just a story! I'm not even disagreeing with you here, but you need to understand that evidence supports a theory."
--Talk to Gould. In detail, you would refer to my last comment, though why this is evidence, "Heat is being lost, convection is slowing and if the earth continues, convection will cease and the planet will be tectonically dead", is that that means the planet used to be warmer, my model says that this warmth was released rather quickly and over the past 4,500 years it has slowed. My 'story' is no less plausable than the entire theory on diversity and deposition of the Geologic column."If they were more stable in the core then radiogenic heat should have been less."
--Right, thats why this wasn't the case in the core, but in the lithosphere."Remember, you need that heat. Are you saying that radiometric dating in the crust is possibly okay because the decay rates were slower and constant?"
--I see no problem in 'dating' with radioisotope ratio's within the spectrum of older and younger, but as an absolute dating method, I disagree."What do you mean, "one thick mass?" And what is your evidence for it?"
--One thick mass, that is, tectonic plates not being plates, but a single global plate. The evidence, the origin of such plates is from world volcanic activity breaking the plates, they once were one mass, I place this date preceeding the flood."This is another story. What is "expected" is not "data." You need to show that the lithosphere actually thinned and then thickened."
--The problem is that there is no direct evidence for the thinning of the lithosphere from a previous thicker state, this is an indirect notion, basically what is found in Evolution abundantly, I see no problem in this reasoning."Aha! A piece of evidence! The earth is losing heat. This is good."
--I thought you had disregarded this earler, well anyways "Now show us how your explanation is better than the conventional plate tectonics model that also observes the earth to be losing heat. This will take more evidence..."
--Show you how it is 'better'? I may be able to show you how it is a compairable explination in plausability, though being 'better' should be dispelled as being opinionated. Heat would have been lost because spreading centers would have been more rapid because of this heat generating convection, in this way, heat would have dissipated from the earth because of these large fissures of extruding heat."I think the names of mountain ranges can often be found on maps."
--Yes, I don't have access to one currently, just the text which doesn't mention the names but locations."THese are the details you need in order to provide evidence. Now, what about the ranges that are eroded away?"
--Yes, what about the ranges that are eroded away?"The main difference is that we have observed natural selection. That is evidence. What is your evidence for high heat flows 4000 years ago?"
--Heat leakage, and the rapid drop in heat over the past 4,500 years is from more rapid plate motion."No. There should be some evidence in the form of massive volcanism confined to a short period of time."
--IC, India has had a lava flow that flowed through over 250,000 sq. miles of its land in the past."There should be unusual rock types and formations."
--There should? How so?"There should be extensive, even worldwide ash flows and hyaloclastites. Where are they?"
--There are, remember, the geologic column wasn't deposited over millions of years but within a year, this is alot of volcanism! Hyaloclastites are well in abundance in oceanic basalt."Well, maybe it wasn't you who said that the CPT model better explains the evidence."
--I didn't assert it as being 'better', but simply another explination for the observed geology."In other words not supported?"
--No, in other words, it being 'better' is an opinion, and isn't relevant to such science. I can say that I like the theory that dinosaurs were wiped out by a decrease in oxygen better, rather than a meteoric bombardment, but that doesn't give the theory on decreased oxygen any advantage in whichever is right over meteor impacts."Gladly, but you seem to only see parts of the pile."
--I would like to see the whole pile then."Right. You have answered all of the questions asked of you... I am concerned, TC that you do not understand the concept of evidence."
--There are different forms of evidence, direct, and indirect, not to mention the disadvantage in my theory that there is much that expects no evidence such as speeds and rates."Sure you can make up a story, but you have consistently avoided anything that looks like data. Your model fails in every case where it confronts the details of the geological record."
--Thats just it, the explination complies fully with the geologic record, but you are looking for evidence, in which it is not as abundant as you would wish it to be.------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--I see my mistake in my first notion. I said that 'many magnitudes slower than today'. More correctly 'many magnitudes slower than previously'. The problem with direct evidence for this is it is expected that this would be vague on the basis that what it seems you would be looking for is evidence from plarity stripping, or sea-floor age. These two properties are not constants but flow at the rate of sea-floor spreading, so it wouldn't matter whether it were going 5 inches a year or 1000 inches a year, there wouldn't be such a noticable difference. I see no problem in this reasoning as it is simply a reasonable explination within the picture.

---

JM: Then why don't you answer my questions under the other thread? You see, your assertion is incorrect because you don't understand the basics of magnetism, spreading geodynamics and reversal stratigraphy. You can make all the 'assertions' you want and 'hypothesize' until you are blue in the face, but your model doesn't fit the very simple and abundant observations!! So, let's see you answer the questions I posed to you earlier. By the way, it's spelled E-X-P-L-A-N-A-T-I-O-N. I know it's easy to make spelling errors when you post quickly, but spelling errors make an impression on the reader so you should take care when possible.CheersJoe Meert