|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,766 Year: 4,023/9,624 Month: 894/974 Week: 221/286 Day: 28/109 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Walt Brown's super-tectonics | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 760 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
You do realize, Whatever, that the amount of aluminum dissolved in the oceans compared to the amount entering each year from rivers PROOVES that the oceans are about 100 years old? That's using the identical logic that the YEC sites that are fibbing to you use. This means, now, that Columbus walked over to the New World and made up that stuff about the Nina, Pinta, and Santa Maria. And don't even get me started on Moby Dick....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5617 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
I thought aluminum salts were used to settle colloidals, etc...higher concentrations probably exists in the sediments, explaining present Oceans having low aluminum salt solute concentrations, etc...the problem with the dilution factors & mixing, with all the mineral salts that stay in solution, from the rivers, etc...its increases in the in the present is immeasurable, however, fresh water would of subducted under the saltier waters, it would take time for it to mix, for the oceans surface solute levels to change, likely it mixed from the bottom up, given fresh water settles in salty waters, etc...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Bill Birkeland Member (Idle past 2557 days) Posts: 165 From: Louisiana Joined: |
whatever wrote:
"JonF, I think the dilution factor makes it hardto cipher how long it would take to increase all the mineral salts in the ocean's,..." If a person would read a basic text on oceanography, they would find that the dilution factor is simply not a problem as Mr. whatever incorrectly claims. There is more than enough data available concerning the composition of the ocean, such that the variations in composition of seawater can be determined on a global basis and the total volume of salt and various elements can be calculated. Also, there is enough data available in the scientific literature about inputs and outputs that they can be calculated on an approximate basis. The so-called "dilution factor" is a non-existent problem to those people, who take the time to research this subject. Go look through: Holland, H. D., 1978. The Chemistry ofthe Atmophere and the Oceans, (New York: John Wiley and Sons). Holland, H.D., 1984. The Chemical Evolutionof the Atmosphere and the Oceans, (Princeton: Princeton University Press). Mr whatever also wrote: "however, were talking of volcanic mineralsalt additions, even the dust of the earth in the form of rain, don't see how salt is recycling back out of the oceans, they really can only get saltier, the hydrological cycle, etc...like they don't come out of solution unless they become super saturated, etc..." What Mr. whatever stated above is simply not true. There are various outputs, mechanisms by which salt leaves the ocean, as described in detail by Glen Morton in "Salt in the sea" at: http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199606/0051.html These outputs are: 1. Sea spray 6.7 x 10^10 kg/yr2. Cation Exchange 5.2 x 10^10 kg/yr 3. Burial of pore water 3.9 x 10^10 kg/yr 4. Halite deposition 4.0 x 10^10 kg/yr 5. Alteration of Basalt 14 x 10^10 kg/yr 6. Albite formation 0 kg/yr 7. Zeolite Formation .2 x 10^10 kg/yr 8. Biogenic output .5 x 10^10 kg/yr 9. Collective Small outputs 3.6 x 10^10 kg/yr Total amount of salt removed from oceans is 38.1 x 10^10 kg/yr. The total calculated by Glen Morton in this article is, within the error bars of the estimates and calculations, identical to the influx of sodium that one Young Earth creationist used, 35.6 x 10^10 kg/yr. The amount of salt going into the ocean is the same as the amount being removed from it. This renders any attempts to date the age of the oceans by the amount of salt in it an exercise in futility and self-delusion. Similar calculations and conclusions can be found in: Cook, M. A. 1966. Prehistory and Earth ModelsMax Parrish & Company, Ltd., London. 353 pages. Dalrymple, G. Brent. 1984. "How Old is the Earth?A Reply to Scientific Creationism" Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Pacific Division, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Volume 1, Part 3, edited by Frank Awbrey and William Thwaites, April 30, 1984, pages 66-131. Also, see: 1. Claim CD221:CD221: Amount of dissolved minerals in oceans 2. 4. Accumulation of metals into the oceansThe Age of the Earth 3. Salt, Meteors and the Global Floodhttp://home.entouch.net/dmd/saltandmeteors.htm Yours, Bill Birkeland
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 194 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Dalrymple, G. Brent. 1984. "How Old is the Earth? A Reply to Scientific Creationism" Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Pacific Division, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Volume 1, Part 3, edited by Frank Awbrey and William Thwaites, April 30, 1984, pages 66-131. Bill, do you know of a source for this? Been looking for it for years, and can't even find it in the MIT libraries ...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5706 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
His book "the Age of the Earth" contains a more detailed discussion of the evidence for an old earth. It's quite a readable book even for those with little training in geology and radiometric dating.
Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5706 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
I find it fascinating how people are drawn into Walt Brown's ideas on the basis of religious beliefs when Walt tries to claim that his ideas are independent of religion. This is patently false. If there was no global flood in Genesis, there would be no hydroplate 'theory'. Strictly speaking, Walt's idea is not a theory, it's closer to a hypothesis but the best description is 'wild speculation'. Suppose, for example, that the bible described destruction of the earth via a global fire. The 'hydroplate theory' would not exist and would be replaced by some conjecture regarding catastrophic volcanism. Walt has refused to publish his ideas in scientific journals (see Walt Brown ). He has also refused to honor his debate challenge (see same page). Walt's out to make money in the name of Jesus. Nothing more, nothing less.
Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 194 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
His book "the Age of the Earth" contains a more detailed discussion of the evidence for an old earth. Yes, I have that, and have read it thoroughly through. From the many references to the 1984 paper that I've seen, it appears that there's stuff in the paper that is not in the book.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5617 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
Its interesting that you all feel the earth is old, but then again what can I say, the bible itself testifies the heaven and the earth were created in the beginning, and that one thousand years is like a night watch to the Lord, etc...
P.S. The bible says the earth was void and without form kjv genesis 1:2, sounds a bit like Europa, a small frozen moon of Jupiter, void and without form, granted its much smaller than the earth, however, before God caused the sun to be a star, likely this is what the earth looked like, etc... Astronomy for Kids - The Moons of Jupiter, the bible infers that after God caused the sun to be a star on the first creation day, 13,000 years ago, the first thing he did after causing the sun to go nucleur, was to divide the waters above the firmament kjv genesis 1:7, {the open firmament that the bird flew kjv genesis 1:20}, and below the firmament(pre-flood seas, rivers, etc...), the waters that evaporated to form this water canopy would of left behind their mineral salts, explaining the massive salt deposits found, that were covered by the sediments of the world flood, under the mediterranean sea, and other parts of the world, salt domes, etc... [This message has been edited by whatever, 01-03-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lpetrich Inactive Member |
whatever:
Coragyps, However they reproduce, its interesting they are found all over the earth, thus their dispersement is related in some way to the waters, or they wouldn't beable to spread around the earth, etc... Coral animals reproduce by squirting eggs and sperm into the water around them. The sperm then finds the eggs, and the eggs hatch into swimming "planula" larvae that look like flattened blobs. These larvae then feed and search for some good place to become an adult coral animal. Such swimming larvae are common among marine invertebrates, check out this gallery of larvae. Note how different they look from their adults. A nauplius (crustacean larva) looks vaguely like a tiny shrimp, but the others... ... if this hydrologic water cycle existed for billions of years, even the sea spray washes back into the oceans, so why is the oceans only 3.6 % mineral salts, for it should be a whole lot more salt, as all salts dilute into the sea. There are processes that remove minerals froms seawater. (stratified oceans...) This does not seem like some raging flood. (a lot of stuff about adapting to different salinities...) Except that many sea animals are not nearly so adaptable. Fish are sometimes called "osmoregulators", because they actively regulate their bodies' osmotic pressure, meaning that some fish can go between fresh and salt water without trouble. But even then, many fish get "spoiled", becoming adapted to some osmotic pressure, such as that of typical freshwater or typical saltwater. Many marine invertebrates are even worse -- their bodies' osmotic pressure tracks that of the surrounding seawater, making them "osmoconformers". They are thus vulnerable to salinity changes. This may be why there are no freshwater echinoderms; it may be too difficult for them to cope with the lowered salinity. P.S. The bible says the earth was void and without form kjv genesis 1:2, sounds a bit like Europa, a small frozen moon of Jupiter, void and without form, granted its much smaller than the earth, Except that it looks like it has plenty of "form" to me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5617 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
God is explaining no life existed before God created life on this earth, it was void of life, its surface were desolate, etc...
without form: From an unused root meaning to lie waste; a desolation (of surface), that is, desert; etc... void: From an unused root (meaning to be empty); a vacuity, that is, (superficially) an undistinguishable ruin: kjv Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form,8414 and void;922 and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. H8414 to^hu^to'-hoo From an unused root meaning to lie waste; a desolation (of surface), that is, desert; figuratively a worthless thing; adverbially in vain: - confusion, empty place, without form, nothing, (thing of) nought, vain, vanity, waste, wilderness. H922 bo^hu^bo'-hoo From an unused root (meaning to be empty); a vacuity, that is, (superficially) an undistinguishable ruin: - emptiness, void.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Bill Birkeland Member (Idle past 2557 days) Posts: 165 From: Louisiana Joined: |
whatever wrote:
"ts interesting that you all feel the earth is old,but then again what can I say, the bible itself testifies the heaven and the earth were created in the beginning, and that one thousand years is like a night watch to the Lord, etc..." It is not a matter of "feeling" anything. It is a matterof looking at facts and observations and using basic prionciples of physics, chemistry, etc to make solid interpretations about what they mean in terms of Earth History. It is the ultimate in "Crime Scene Investigations" and detective work in using one's brain to understanding what has happened in the past instead of mindlessly quoting words from the Bible to justify preconcieved beliefs that are based upon a very falliable, human interpretation of the Bible falsely presumed to be God's truth. If the best a person can come up with as arguments for their interpretation of Earth History are Bible quotes and Walt Brown's technobabble, then Young Earth creationism, as science is in a very sad state of disrepair. The fact of matter is that there is nothing in the Biblethat "testifies" to a Young Earth and Walt Brown's point of view. This so-called "testimony" is nothing more than a specific and narrow interpretation of what is written in the Bible by all too, falliable humans. At this point in time, I have yet to see Mr. whatever offer any credible support that the way he and Mr. Brown, both fallible humans capable of making mistakes in their interpretations of the Bible, interpret the Bible has any valdity and is even close to approaching God's truth in any fashion. Yours, Bill Birkeland
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5617 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
I wasn't aware that Walt debates theology, however, it is interesting how the hydroplate theory is based off science, not fantasy, etc...
P.S. The bible does testify that the fossils are young, and given 50 year old lava rocks sent by Dr. Andrew Snelling, dated millions of years old, infers that the argon potassium dating method which infers that no argon is in newly formed lava rocks is flawed, or that the argon potassium dating half life scale is rigged so all rocks will date millions of years old, meaning the paleontologists rely on your faith that you can date the rocks, and not the fossils remains, to determine fossil age, etc...Its like whats wrong with teaching our children Intelligent design, given toe has no evidence it answers origin, or that the fossils are old, etc...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 194 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
The hydroplate theory is fantasy. We have demonstrated that with evidence and references; you have done nothing but assert that it's science. It isn't.
You know nothing of potassium-argonm dating, or the far-more-widely-used isochron dating and concordia-discordia dating methods. If you wish to claim that all radioisotope dating is wrong, start a thread in the appropriate forum. Snelling does know, and he uses that knowledge to construct invalid tests that do not reflect the capabilities of the method. This is documented at many places, e.g. DR. SNELLING'S "RADIOACTIVE 'DATING' FAILURE". Just like Hovind, he lies and he knows it. Your accusation "the argon potassium dating half life scale is rigged so all rocks will date millions of years old" is a serious canard against thousands of honest and hard working men and women. Retract it (or provide evidence for it, which I know you can't). Sorry to say this, you're an ignorant fool who wants to wallow in ignorance. [This message has been edited by JonF, 01-04-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5617 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
The tectonic plate theory doesn't hold water for rock to subduct without fracturing, the hydroplate theory for the trench formation is a scientific principle, the trenches formed suddenly, as the lavas outflowed unto the floor when the mid-ocean ridges rose, the trenches wrinkled inward, the tectonic plates are floating on fractured rock and water is supported by the evidence of the hydrothermal venting that there is water under the tectonic plates, rock simply will not move against rock, it need a hydraulic agent, and the super deep wells drilled, the russian kola well, the german well, even the deep oil well's all testify that water exist deep in the earth, the tectonic plates say the plates move on liquid rock, however what they are finding in them super deep well's scientifically support's Walts hydroplate theory, in that under the mantle its fractured with water filling the voids, and water under pressure is a perfect hydraulic medium, but then again its only a theory, however, the tectonic plate theory, defy the natural laws of science that the plates are moving on liquid rock when the evidence in the natural testify that water exist deep in the earth, the hydro-plate theory agrees the plates are moving, as basalt fills in the fractures but disagree, that the trenches are still subducting, and it is interesting that all your evidence for plate spreading is not coming from the trenches, so your actually supporting Walts theory that the plates are floating, and nothing proving that the tectonic plates are subducting, you all talk about how it happens at as fast as your finger nail grows, and well Walt has no problem that the plates are moving toward the trenches, simply that they are not subducting any more, however this nail paced movement is responsible for the earth quakes in the trenches, etc...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 194 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
The bible does testify that the fossils are young Irrelevant in a scientific discussion. This thread is not about religious beliefs. If you want to discuss religious beliefs, start a new thread in an appropriate forum. This discussion has wandered pretty far from the topic. I'm surprised the moderators haven't intervened. It's turned into a Gish Gallop wherein whatever makes ludicrous claims without support, we point out the problems with those claims, and whatever ignores the problems and goes on to the next claim. whatever, please go back to Walt Brown's claims. In particular, you have not replied to this message or this message or this message about the magnetic stripes, or this message or this message or this message. And "The Bible says ..." is not appropriate anywhere in this thread.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024