Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why not here (re: Joe's geomagnetism web page)
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 31 of 44 (63541)
10-30-2003 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Brad McFall
10-30-2003 6:43 PM


Re: not part of main thread drift
quote:
Loud, how does one "know" what is "ad hoc" if one accepts a dual model approach to science C or E.
Let me think, now... Maybe because the definition fits? Besides, who accepts a dual model?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Brad McFall, posted 10-30-2003 6:43 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Brad McFall, posted 10-31-2003 12:09 PM edge has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 44 (63546)
10-30-2003 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by edge
10-30-2003 10:03 PM


"And that is the entire reason that it is invoked. It is, therefore, ad hoc."
--You should have read the entire post.
"Exactly what does it tell us about the distribution of radioisotopes in the earth's crust?"
--Shouldn't this be obvious to a geologist like yourself? Theres an entire field dedicated to it, radiogenic isotope geology. The distribution of isotopic ratio's in the crust is indicative of its age.
"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."
--How sure are you about that statement?
"What is your point here?"
--Well I tried to make it clear, I guess I failed. If the trees were transported, radioisotopic data should show that this occured over a long span of time. However if we consider uniformitarian geology, the radioisotopic data should give a very short age between the top and bottom of the specimen ridge lithofacies.
"Are you saying that if something takes a long time then it really doesn't?"
--No, I'm saying that if something takes some time to form (eg, dessication cracks in coprolites, mud cracks, etc.) than there would be a big difference from that expected in the radioisotopic data between uniformitarian and catastrophic geology.
"The question is, do you?"
--I don't think that is the question....
Cheers,
-Chris Grose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by edge, posted 10-30-2003 10:03 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by edge, posted 10-31-2003 10:26 AM TrueCreation has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 44 (63548)
10-30-2003 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by edge
10-30-2003 10:26 PM


"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?"
--I don't know, ask God or something. Again I don't presume that accelerated decay was in any way a natural phenomena.
"How many times did it accelerate?"
--I don't know.
"And why did it leave no trace of its happening?"
--I think taht if accelerated decay occured, than catastrophic plate tectonics would have also.
"Why is the appearance of age necessary?"
--Because, the radioisotopic data suggest that if we apply the current decay constant, the geologic column is very old. But if accelerated decay happened, this absolute "age" inference is incorrect.
Cheers,
-Chris Grose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by edge, posted 10-30-2003 10:26 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by edge, posted 10-31-2003 10:38 AM TrueCreation has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 34 of 44 (63565)
10-31-2003 2:51 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by TrueCreation
10-30-2003 8:40 PM


So what you are saying is that accelerated decay is an ad hoc attempt to explain away the evidence against a young Earth, therefore it isn't ad hoc.
With regard to Yellowstone, why should the radiometric dates reflect the *lower* limit ? And with the evidence of in place trees, surely such a dating would be evidence AGAINST accelerated decay since a single catastrophe is not a viable explanation.
And sadly it seems that you can't see is that what you call "complexity" is the number of coincidences you need to invoke to explain why so much data supports an old Earth.
Either you have your "it's a catastrophe so of course it will look like the result of a long slow process" excuse or you have "well God just happened to do everything in way which created a false appearance of age". Which as I say is theologically much the same as the more common "appearance of age" argument which attributes false age to the creation rather than, as you have it, the Flood.
Even if you assume a Flood and assume that God used CPT to do it, it doesn't follow that God would initiate it by manipulating decay rates - the heat is what is needed and a miracle could do that. The difference is that manipulating decay rates creates a false appearance of age.
Even if you assume that God would manipulate decay rates it doesn't follow that all the decay rates used for dating rocks would change proportionally - the mechanisms of decay vary enough that changes in physical constants, say, would not produce that result. Indeed there seems to be no reason to do such a thing, except to create a false appearance of age.
And other processes - whether by coincidence or by design also have to speed up by the right rates to produce the false appearance of age.
So we have three alternatives:
1) God is out to deceive us
2) God just happened to create huge amounts of deceptive evidence for no reason any of us can think of
3) The Earth really is old.
Got any reason why 2 should be treated as a credible answer ?
[This message has been edited by PaulK, 10-31-2003]
[This message has been edited by PaulK, 10-31-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by TrueCreation, posted 10-30-2003 8:40 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 35 of 44 (63590)
10-31-2003 8:35 AM


We've had this conversation with TC before. I wonder if anyone is interested in analyzing why it is so difficult to make progress on this topic.
--Percy

  
JIM
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 44 (63619)
10-31-2003 10:08 AM


Percipeint writes:
We've had this conversation with TC before. I wonder if anyone is interested in analyzing why it is so difficult to make progress on this topic.
  1. Because no one listens to each other,
  2. No one cares to listen to each other,
    or
  3. People just want to see thier post counts.
[This message has been edited by JIM, 10-31-2003]

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by edge, posted 10-31-2003 10:44 AM JIM has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 37 of 44 (63620)
10-31-2003 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by TrueCreation
10-30-2003 10:47 PM


quote:
"And that is the entire reason that it is invoked. It is, therefore, ad hoc."
--You should have read the entire post.
I did. You have not given me a reason to come to any other conclusion. Accelerated decay's only purpose is to support the idea of short ages. There is no evidence that it ever happened. There is no other reason.
quote:
"Exactly what does it tell us about the distribution of radioisotopes in the earth's crust?"
--Shouldn't this be obvious to a geologist like yourself? Theres an entire field dedicated to it, radiogenic isotope geology. The distribution of isotopic ratio's in the crust is indicative of its age.
I guess it does not surprise me that you cannot answer my question, but perhaps you missed it. I repeat, 'what does it tell us about the distribution of radioisotopes in the earth's crust?' What exactly is the difference between that and the mainstream explanation?
quote:
"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."
--How sure are you about that statement?
I am confident that a process that is unsupported by data cannot tell us anything about another process that is unsupported by data.
quote:
"What is your point here?"
--Well I tried to make it clear, I guess I failed. If the trees were transported, radioisotopic data should show that this occured over a long span of time. However if we consider uniformitarian geology, the radioisotopic data should give a very short age between the top and bottom of the specimen ridge lithofacies.
Possibly, but what is the point?
quote:
"Are you saying that if something takes a long time then it really doesn't?"
--No, I'm saying that if something takes some time to form (eg, dessication cracks in coprolites, mud cracks, etc.) than there would be a big difference from that expected in the radioisotopic data between uniformitarian and catastrophic geology.
Okay, but it DOES take time for these things to form, especially over and over and over again (sort of like this discussion). So what does that tell you? That it took a long time! In some cases we have plenty of radiometric evidence that this has occurred.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by TrueCreation, posted 10-30-2003 10:47 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 38 of 44 (63622)
10-31-2003 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by TrueCreation
10-30-2003 10:53 PM


quote:
"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?"
--I don't know, ask God or something.
An artless attempt to weasle out of an explanation. Basically, you are saying that you cannot support your argument. I think God would say, "Use the brains I gave you."
quote:
Again I don't presume that accelerated decay was in any way a natural phenomena.
"How many times did it accelerate?"
--I don't know.
But you must have some guess, some evidence... This is the problem with ad hoc explanations, they lead you down a slippery slope of questions that have to be answered but can't be.
quote:
"And why did it leave no trace of its happening?"
--I think taht if accelerated decay occured, than catastrophic plate tectonics would have also.
Can I quote you on this the next time the old 'circular reasoning' argument comes up? This is the best example I've seen ages.
quote:
"Why is the appearance of age necessary?"
--Because, the radioisotopic data suggest that if we apply the current decay constant, the geologic column is very old. But if accelerated decay happened, this absolute "age" inference is incorrect.
In other words you need the 'appearance' of age because the world appears old. No other reason. This is an ad hoc explanation of the situation. Why not take the simpler explanation that has proven processes and results? In stead you take this concept that you do not understand, do not know the processes and have no evidence for! Now THAT is a miracle...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by TrueCreation, posted 10-30-2003 10:53 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 39 of 44 (63624)
10-31-2003 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by JIM
10-31-2003 10:08 AM


quote:
Because no one listens to each other,
Partly true. However, I have several migraine headaches from reading YEC posts that suggest you are generalizing.
quote:
No one cares to listen to each other,
I think not. Some of us care. Otherwise, there would be a lot more personal insults.
quote:
or
People just want to see thier post counts.
I almost never check my post count. It's too depressing.
[This message has been edited by edge, 10-31-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by JIM, posted 10-31-2003 10:08 AM JIM has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 40 of 44 (63644)
10-31-2003 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by edge
10-30-2003 10:28 PM


Re: not part of main thread drift
I didnt say you had to follow the double model of creation and evolution but I indicated that it may in fact be a result of the Dualism that Matchette noted results from a combined Newtonianism and Cartesianism. You do not need to follow that either on a fact by fact basis if you dont want. I would not recommend that however.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by edge, posted 10-30-2003 10:28 PM edge has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 44 (63652)
10-31-2003 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Brad McFall
10-30-2003 6:43 PM


Re: 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?
I'll post once in this vein and then maybe we could start a new thread, it would make a good topic perhaps.
I believe that something is ad hoc if there is no evidence to back it up. From the evo side, if evo's claimed that mutation was the driving force for evolution but were unable to demonstrate mutation currently, or at least a mechanism, then it would simply be ad hoc. The fact is, we can observe mutation (and natural selection for that matter) and so evo is on firm footing. Presuming a time line and then coming up with mechanisms that have never been observed, or go against observed phenomenon, to support it seems ad hoc to me.
If you are going to take a "dual theory" stance, by what criteria do you judge evidence by? For me, natural methodology seems to be the most appropriate. If this methodology is ignored, then anything that doesn't fit your theory can be explained as a supernatural phenomenon, what some people call "goddidit". How fair is it, in a scientific or evidenciary position, to handwave away unexplainable observations to supernatural forces? By what criteria do you narrow down the possible supernatural deity in the face of numerous creation accounts in different religions? Before the Germ Theory, disease was thought to be caused by evil spirits. Why doesn't this theory have its place in modern medicine? How do we know that infectious disease used to be caused by evil spirits but is now caused by microorganisms? The "dual theory" stance goes much further than C v E if religious documents (including the Christian Bible) are taken literally.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Brad McFall, posted 10-30-2003 6:43 PM Brad McFall has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 44 (63655)
10-31-2003 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by TrueCreation
10-30-2003 8:42 PM


There are ways to tell if you have turned back the odometer [of a car]. God may have 'fooled with isotopic decay' because it would result in what he wanted, a global catastrophe.
Why is it neccessary to speed up isotopic decay to cause a catastrophe? Completely covering the Earth with water wasn't enough?
Perhaps your model could be fleshed out by answering a few questions.
1. At what point in the flood were isotopes "sped up"?
2. Why do the ages of lunar rocks/meteorites agree with an Old Earth model? Was this effect universal?
3. How were the inhabitants on the Ark shielded from the rapid increase in radiation?
4. When did the flood occur and how do you fit this into the C14 calibration curve produced by varves and other formations?
And maybe you could also make a prediction of what rocks on other planets or moons will date to? Mars perhaps?
If you have any questions for me in return, I would gladly answer them. I am not trying to be one sided in this or trying to make you feel picked on. We have very few YEC's on this board as it is and we actually do like debating with you guys, honestly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by TrueCreation, posted 10-30-2003 8:42 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 43 of 44 (63760)
10-31-2003 11:48 PM


It seems to me, that this topic has been a big mess, from beginning to end. In vague concept, it had something to do with geomagnetism.
Here's the link that started the string:
Is the Earth's Magnetic Field Young?
Adminnemooseus
------------------
Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 44 of 44 (63783)
11-01-2003 7:48 AM


This thread drifted off topic almost as soon as it was opened. There seemed to be some interest in discussing accelerated decay, and so perhaps someone could open a thread for it in the Dates and Dating forum. I'm going to leave this topic open in case anyone wants to discuss geomagnetism's support for a young earth.
------------------
--Percy
EvC Forum Administrator

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024