Heat release from tectonic friction

You want to be scientific ? Try this.According to your model, how fast would the plates be moving 2,000 years ago ? How about 3000 years ago ?What effect would that have on major earthquakes ? Does the historical and archaeological data support it ?

If you were being scientific you'd already have done basic checks like this.But OK, your model seems to assume a linear decline.Therefore 2000 years ago the rate would be 4/9 of the maximum, about 21,120 inches per year.By herebedragons calculation that gives us a rate about 14,000 times greater than for the San Andreas fault.I think we can be sure that earthquake frequency was not so great only 2,000 years ago, so a model based on a linear decline must be rejected in favour of one that uses a much faster rate of decrease, and consequently a much higher starting rate.

Herebdragons numbers would give 36 magnitude 6 quakes PER DAY on a fault the length of the San Andreas. I think that we can say that even one per day per fault would be extremely implausible.Here's a description of a magnitude 6+ quake: It's not the sort of thing that goes unnoticed.

I don't know about the heat, although I'd say that the friction in the OP is distinct from the heat of the magma.(And then if you want accelerated radioactive decay in that period, there's heat from that, and probably the Siberian and Deccan Traps would be pretty hot, too...)

quote:

---

Nor do I. it's only rabid anti-creationists who think that.

---

Your words here provide evidence that you actually DO deny reality because of your faith.

quote:

---

They aren't. The true sciences are clearly in accord with the Bible, there is no conflict at all. What can truly be observed is not hard to affirm by the Bible. The sciences that are the problem are those that deal with the unobservable unmeasurable untestable past.

---

Well I'd love to see a scientific demonstration of how sheep's coats are affected by the presence of striped wooden poles where their parents mate (Genesis 30:37-42) but somehow I think you'll find that one rather difficult. I rather suspect that geneticists and developmental biologists would disagree with the Bible on that one.And of course, it is possible to test and measure the past in various ways - you just deny that reality because it contradicts your faith.

quote:

---

But this is an illusion HBD, you can not in fact OBSERVE anything that has to do with the unwitnessed past. You can only make inferences from what you see now

---

But of course what we observe now IS "something to do with the unwitnessed past" - that is WHY we can make inferences. And those inferences can be tested by looking at their implications for the present and checking those. The agreement between the various dating methods as discussed by RAZD is a very good example of testing those methods.

quote:

---

Hutton's analysis of Siccar Point convinced many of an old earth but all it was was his subjective untestable speculations. He assumed an angular unconformity occurred before the upper strata were built upon it. There's no reason to assume that, tectonic force most likely displaced the lower layers while a very deep stack of layers was in place overhead. Lyell even has an illustration that gave me the model I was looking for to demonstrate this likelihood although of course he doesn't draw this conclusion from it.

​

Anyway, Hutton assumed that the lower layers were tilted first and then the upper layers were laid over them, which suggested a lot more time than was usually given to the age of the earth in his day. He claimed some millions of years between the upper and lower portions of the Siccar Point formation, but speaking of observation, the two sections to my sight look identical as far as any imaginable aging processes could be involved, weathering, erosion, etc. IDENTICAL. Rather odd for their being millions of years apart in age.

---

Hutton's "assumption" seems eminently reasonable to me, and in fact I cannot see a reasonable alternative. Your scenario is fanciful in the extreme, and I see no reason to consider it even a remote possibility. How exactly could the lower layers tilt while the higher layers were on top WiTHOUT leaving signs that this has happened? What differences would you expect to see in the two sections you refer to, given that your observations are doubtless superficial ? And why? (And let us note that this is all about testing your inferences, proving that it can be done)

quote:

---

So the earth acquired its extreme age by what is really an indefensible bunch of arguments by Hutton. It just SOUNDED right to people and the idea got elaborated more and more as time went on. Now you have radiometric dating, but since the whole idea was so irrationally established in the first place why should I trust radiometric dating? In principle it's understandable, but in reality who knows? It too can't be verified because you have no way to replicate the past, all you can do is assume your measurements apply.

---

Well you've given no reason to think that Hutton we being irrational. And radiometric dating is not founded on the assumption that the Earth is old either. It's another example of how assumptions can be tested, because if the Earth was young the evidence provided by the various dating methods should not be that good. And let us not forget all the non-radiometric dating methods you have to deny, too, like dendrochronology and the counting of varves.And let me add this reply to your later post:

quote:

---

should be the other way around. You should be insisting that your "scientific evidence" conform to the Bible because the Bible IS God's word. Radiometric dating cannot show that the Bible is incorrect; the Bible shows that radiometric dating is incorrect.

---

Why do we have to accept your preferred interpretation of the Bible as absolute truth in spite of the evidence? Isn't it YOUR job to - at the least - convince us that God actually does claim that the Earth is young ? If you can'd do that then why can't we simply take the evidence at face value rather than inventing irrational excuses to protect your dogma?

quote:

---

*My* interpretation of the Bible is the historical interpretation of the Bible that was accepted in the formative years of Geology.

---

And one that was rejected when it turned out that the evidence did not fit. That's the reality.

quote:

---

There's nothing peculiar to *me* about my interpretation, it's quite standard. A lot of novel, corrupted and liberal ideas have sprung up over the last century but I'm representing the traditional historical interpretation.

---

So in your mind tradition MUST be believed ? Even if the evidence is strongly against the truth of that interpretation ?

quote:

---

I don't see that I should have any obligation to prove that God claims the Earth is young when that was the standard historical Christian understanding of Genesis for all orthodox believers back to the beginning (with the exception of Augustine and a few others who had an allegorical understanding of it). Surely you are aware of this history.

---

I'm aware that the traditional interpretation was for a young Earth. I am NOT aware that there was a tradition that God said so - and THAT is something that cannot be derived from a plain reading of the Bible.But even if it was a tradition, why should WE believe it ? Just because you hate the other interpretations ?

quote:

---

I'm on record here in a number of places including nonYEC's among "real Christians" so you are wrong about that. While I think Genesis is extremely important to the gospel itself, I've allowed that there are probably true believers who give in to science on that, although they shouldn't and I think it's sad that this has happened. I regard them as "real Christians" if they hold to the doctrines of salvation nevertheless

---

You're also on record as saying that they SHOULDN'T be Christians.... Message 198
If it's better to be a non-believer than a non-YEC Christian it's hard to see how you can count non-YECs as "real Christians". Certainly you can't accept that there is any possibility that they are saved. Which is odd really as there's nothing in the Bible to say that salvation depends on accepting YEC views. {Science topic people, not a Bible study topic. - AdminnemooseusEdited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner and big red text.