Non-marine sediments

The possible variations in the fine structure constant, Alpha, are not the panacea you seem to think they are. The variations in beta decay that the 1:1,000,000 change measured would produce fall a little short of the magnitude needed to save a young earth theory.Humphrey's theory still has a few hurdles to clear before even making it to the status of decent SF, never mind science.
One under-reported problem is with having a 2 light year diameter sphere of water as the starting condition.The current physical theories postulate a starting condition after the big Bang of almost pure hydrogen with some deuterium, tritium and helium. Stars formed from this, and generated the heavier elements. however, much of the hydrogen remains unused to this day, and hydrogen is by far the most common element in the universe, with the other elements being distributed roughtly as predicted.In Humphrey's model, the starting conditions are 2 parts hydrogen to 1 part oxygen. This would produce a drastically different set of early stars, and a radically different profile of elements. Additionally, there should still be massive quantities of oxygen in interstellar space, both as O(-) ions, O2 and O3 molecules, and water.Guess what - we don't see that.As for the Helium argument, helium is an end result of a lot of decay processes.Surely if decay were proceeding faster than predicted, we should see more in the air, rather than less.

Tranquility Base writes:

---

It's pretty close to science and by some definitions that include forensics, archeology etc it might just be science.

---

Science is based upon evidence. Since you have no evidence, and since your proposals violate known laws of physics, and since they're inconsistent with existing evidence, the resemblance to science somehow escapes me. I'm not aware that forensics and archeology are in any way similar.

---

The foundations of quantum mechanics are unscientifc. The postualtes come out of thin air.

---

The foundations of quantum mechanics are empirical, based upon evidence gathered through experiment. The foundations of your viewpoint are religious, based upon revelation. I see no resemblance here, either.

---

Same for us - there are strong hints of the flood in the data in our opinions but the 'God instigated a global flood' hypothesis is primarily from Scripture.

---

This reminds me of a question I asked earlier that I don't think was answered, but I'll put it another way. The Hindus also have their Creationists, and they, too, reject evolution, but they believe the earth and universe are of great antiquity, and that the human race goes back billions of years. They have their own way of interpreting the evidence that makes sense only to them. Naturally, an interpretation of scientific data apparent only to adherents of a particular religious group must have questionable scientific merit.Right?--Percy

Depth of sample    temperature    measured/theoretical
(meters)              (C)              helium
surface                20                 1
960                   105                .58
2170                  151                .27
2900                  197                .17
3501                  239                .012

...do not show a helium excess - they show depletion far in excess of what can be expected after only a few thousand years.Only in the double-speak of Creationism can this data be twisted into some grotesque parody of science to support a young Earth. The actual data shows a profound helium deficit - even in the few minerals able to retain helium - explainable only by billions of years of diffusion. They do not even mention the vast majority of minerals that have essentially no helium. The "helium excess" is pure Creationist fiction.Similarly, the deficit in the atmosphere can be explained by billions of years of helium escape into space and the ionosphere.A telling example of Creationist deception in this topic is the total absence of argon in their arguments. Since argon is produced by radio-decay, just like helium, its presence in the atmosphere at extremely high levels relative to helium is incontrovertible evidence of an ancient earth..."Because helium is very light, it's isotopes are not bound by the Earth's gravitational field. Therefore, the atmosphere is strongly depleted with respect to helium relative to the other noble gases." http://www-esd.lbl.gov/CIG/noblegas/georesources.htmlThe He4 to Ar40 ratio in the mantle is 6564 times the atmospheric ratio. If the helium can't get out in a few thousand years, then argon, with its far lower diffusion rate, should be even less plentiful relative to helium in the atmosphere (in the Creationist model). Instead, the reverse is true.Failing to mention this evidence is tantamount to scientific fraud.

In the interests of keeping the discussion focused and on an even keel, perhaps we could leave aside for now such potentially emotionally charged issues as the possibility of purposeful fraud.--------------------EvC Forum Administrator

Weyland, I only see the alpha change as a hint that something has happened. Who knows what combination of e, c, h achieved this change and to what extent anything else has changed.Same with Humphrey's stuff - I just see that as a hint that he is on to somehting. I'm not elevating his theory to equal to the Big Bang just yet!I think the helium in the air 'quickly' comes to an equilibrium driven by thermal escape.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-17-2002]

Percy, you say we have no evidence - we see the water laid rocks around the world as evidence of the flood!I would agree with you that mystical interpretations of data are highly suspect. I would hope over time that you would see the sense in which we don't do that. Most of us simply think that (i) evolution isn't documented in the rocks and (ii) the flood generated them anyway. Not that mystical.We expect at every point that every piece of sedimentary rock and bone followed Newtonian trajectories from their starting points to their ending points.I hope that clears up how we look at the data. If you want to keep pushing then at some point, yes, we will say (i) God created, (ii) God led the animals to Noah and (iii) God initiated the flood probably through a dynamical evolution of unioversal constants. If that causes our viewpoint to be impossible to you then so be it.I don't personally believe God created a single layer of sedimentary rock.

Wehappy, we'll just have to watch how this pans out. If I get time I'll get into it a bit more. Was it you who posted the stuff on zircons a while back - saying that they hold the helium in?

Tranquility Base writes:

---

Percy, you say we have no evidence - we see the water laid rocks around the world as evidence of the flood!

---

Sorry I wasn't more clear. The part about the Hindu viewpoint was supposed to cover this. When I said you have no evidence for your viewpoint I meant that only those inside your particular religious group draw your particular interpretations of the data. Science has no particular religious affiliation, and so what you're doing isn't science.The Hindu's look at the data and conclude it indicates a universe trillions of years old, while the very same data speaks to you of a universe only a few thousand years old. This difference should tell you something. Neither you nor the Hindus will be doing science until you let the evidence speak for itself, instead of letting religious books speak for it.--Percy

^ Percy, you can go with the majority if you want. I'll go where my conscience, mind and spirit tell me the truth is.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Percy, you say we have no evidence - we see the water laid rocks around the world as evidence of the flood!

---

If gross simplification is necessary for you to understand geological history, then please feel free to believe as you wish.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Wehappy, we'll just have to watch how this pans out. If I get time I'll get into it a bit more. Was it you who posted the stuff on zircons a while back - saying that they hold the helium in?

---

Yes. Its called closure temperature. It relates to the field of thermochronometry. Look it up. Your fellow Creationists clearly have not heard of it (or are deliberately avoiding data that easily and succintly falsifies their mythology).As far as I can tell, Gentry, Snelling, et al are using a gross distortion of the zircon data to create a plausible-sounding, but totally erroneous, propaganda point.

Tranquility Base writes:

---

Percy, you can go with the majority if you want. I'll go where my conscience, mind and spirit tell me the truth is.

---

I'm going with the evidence.And I'm also pointing to something we agree about, that the Hindu view of creation and the history of the universe is self-evidently wrong on a number of levels, most fundamentally because they interpret the evidence through the filter of a religious book. And what you're doing is no different than the Hindus.Aside from generalities, you don't really know where the Bible came from. You have no assurance that those who put word to scroll were inspired with the word of the Lord. But you know where the universe comes from - it comes from the hand of God. When you view the geologic layers at a roadcut or gaze up at the stars, God is speaking to you more directly and sincerely than he ever can through a book written, translated and published by men.--Percy

​

[This message has been edited by Percipient, 06-18-2002]

I look at the evidence too Percy. But one of the messages of Genesis is that if we look at it only through reason we can come up with the wrong answer. There were two trees in the Garden - one of reason, one of life. Did God never want man to have the tree of knowledge? Of course not, but he wanted man to have it via the tree of life. I stare at a geological cutting every morning while waiting for the train and I see the flood.The Bible is actually an incredible book. The themes that are weaved within its pages, written by numerous authors over a period of 1500 are incredible. The history of the earth, as of man, turns out to be birth out of waters (creation/birth), rebirth in water and fire (flood/baptism(s)) and refinement in fire (2nd coming/maturity). The history of the Jews pictures this via the Exodus, bapitism(s) in the Red sea and the triumphant taking of the promised land. The annually celebrated three feasts of the Jews picture this also in Passover, Pentecost and Tabernacles. The tent of Moses in the wilderness similarly pictures these 3 aspects via the outer court, the holy place and the most holy place. The church also has also gone through Passover (Christ our Passover lamb) and Pentecost (Acts 2) and awaits Tabernacles. We even draw a close analogy between the 40 years of wilderness wandering of the Jews and the potentially 40 jubilees (= 50 years) of wandering the church has gone through the last 2000 years. The principle of strength in weakness (humility) is a reoccurring theme demonstrated for example in Abraham taking his only son up the mountain just as Cghrist was given for us on the cross.I have a host of good resaons to believe the Bible is the most amazing book ever written. The themes of Genesis are incredibly finally sown up in the Book of Revelelation. The sixth day of creation ended with a bride and groom as does the close of the church age in the book of Revelaions - Christ and his bride the church. It may just be that the thing you call myth is actually the paradoxical humility and awesomeness of your creator God.

Tranquility Base writes:

---

The Bible is actually an incredible book...I have a host of good reasons to believe the Bible is the most amazing book ever written.

---

And I wouldn't argue. But it was written by errant men, not an infallible god. The OT contains the histories and mythologies of the Jewish people, no question an amazing story. That it's been preserved from antiquity is amazing in itself. But the geological evidence you see from your train platform every morning is God's direct testimony, and you are allowing a book by men to obscure your perception of it's truth, power and majesty.The creationist Hindus hold their holy books in just as great reverence as do you the Bible, but by giving them priority over God's direct testimony their perception of God's Word becomes as clouded as your own. God is not the great liar, seeding the Universe with erroneous evidence, nor is he the great puzzler, posing contradictions to test our faith. Wherever God's testimony is found it speaks pure and true, and the decision is always clear when the choice is between the Word of God and a book.--Percy

Percy, it's the incredible consistency of message across the multiple authors that is evience of the Bible's divine origin. The life of man, earth history, Jewish history, Jewish feasts, the tent of meeting, the Christian parallels, the tying up of Geneisis in Rev are remarkable. There is no evidence of conspiracy by men in this at all.The unique message of Christianity is the paradoxical mixing of God and man, typified by Christ himself, but demonstrated thoughout God's actions through people including the production of the scriptures. God acted through a marred Christ as he acts through marred man. And the sciptures are even marred. But the message comes through never the less. Satan produced a 'just so' story for Eve in the Garden and so has he today. The data doesn't lie but it can be viewed with two attitudes. The only 'setting up' that God did was allow us to deceive ourselves if we wanted to be.