|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why not here (re: Joe's geomagnetism web page) | |||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1705 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Let me think, now... Maybe because the definition fits? Besides, who accepts a dual model?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
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 |
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.
[This message has been edited by JIM, 10-31-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1705 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: 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: 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: I am confident that a process that is unsupported by data cannot tell us anything about another process that is unsupported by data.
quote: Possibly, but what is the point?
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1705 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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...
|
|||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1705 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Partly true. However, I have several migraine headaches from reading YEC posts that suggest you are generalizing.
quote: I think not. Some of us care. Otherwise, there would be a lot more personal insults.
quote: I almost never check my post count. It's too depressing. [This message has been edited by edge, 10-31-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5032 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
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: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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.
------------------
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024